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

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

---

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)
    • Further Comment I suggest something needs to be done very quickly. A look at the editing history of this template: [42] shows that an edit war was stopped by an adminsitrator initiated protection of the template, and when, a matter of 2 or so days ago, the protection was removed, edit warring resumed. Both Martinvl and another editor who has contributed to this thread are involved in this. Some uninvolved administrator needs to take action now to stop this disruption that, amazingly, is continuing whilst this topic on AN/I is still open! 15:06, 25 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 [43] 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[44]. 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 [45] 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)

Requesting Review by Uninvolved Admin

A week after a block for edit warring here [46], we see Martin edit warring again at Template:Systems of measurement, see [47]. He is still muttering that his block was counter to Natural justice and there is a quasi-legalistic threat in reference to California Law on his talk page see User talk:Martinvl. Really edit warring whilst there is a live thread here demonstrates clearly he can't drop the WP:STICK. Request review of consensus for a topic ban above and a possible block for continued edit warring by an uninvolved admin. Wee Curry Monster talk 17:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Ludwig von Mises Institute

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

---

The Ludwig von Mises Institute has been the subject of significant edit warring over the past several weeks. It has been fully protected twice within the past month (by myself and Orlady (talk · contribs)), but immediately after the expiry of each protection, edit warring has immediately resumed. After today's edit war, I considered issuing blocks, but only one party broke 3RR (MilesMoney (talk · contribs) by my math) and several stopped just before the line, so I hesitate to block one editor for crossing the line while others were arguably edit warring as well. Iselilja (talk · contribs), Srich32977 (talk · contribs), SPECIFICO (talk · contribs), and Binksternet (talk · contribs) have made multiple reverts today but stopped short of violating 3RR. Would it be possible to enact a community 1RR restriction on this article, as was recently placed on Ayn Rand? I think that type of measure may be needed. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I would recommend page protection and a rollback of the article to the expiry of the prior PP. It's clear in hindsight that the PP was removed prematurely so rollback and renewal of PP seems as if it would accomplish what was originally intended/hoped to work. 1RR seems to require a lot of work for Admins and no bright line for editors -- and has the possibility of degenerating into a game of musical chairs. SPECIFICO talk 20:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

BTW, Srich is at 4RR and counting. [48] [49] [50] [51] and seems to have been the one who inflamed the situation with a scattershot campaign of reverts during a short recent period. Although PP should solve the problem for now, Srich's disregard of warnings from various editors and admins over the past 4-6 weeks have made for an increasingly disruptive environment on these Mises-related articles. SPECIFICO talk 20:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Eh? The page protection is applied without implying any judgement on the content at that point. - Sitush (talk) 20:28, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Sitush. I have no idea what the article looked like at the expiry, but it's clear that the PP should not have been allowed to expire clear in hindsight that is -- so I'm suggesting we just get back to what was originally intended by the PP. I don't see Mark or anyone else commenting on the article as of any date. SPECIFICO talk 20:32, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

"Rolling back" the article to an earlier state will not help. After each of my Bold edits was Reverted I opened a talk page Discussion thread. I also readded SPS tags needed to facilitate discussion. Templates for OR and Off-Topic sections were added, along with discussion threads. Some of my edits resolved clear editing problems with duplicate info, citations, unsupported info. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC) Also, I see that 2 of the 4 complaints that Specifico posts are the additions of the SPS tags and OR/Off-topic template. Jeez! – S. Rich (talk) 20:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Spoken like a true edit-warrior, Srich. There's always some special reason or exception for you, right? If only we understood you better. We feel your pain. SPECIFICO talk 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm open to extending protection another week or month or whatever, but I have a strong suspicion that we'll be back in this exact situation when it expires. Perhaps I'm being too pessimistic though. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no objection to a 1RR rule or full page protection, but that does not address the underlying problem whose name is MilesMoney, a clear-cut troll that solely exists on Wikipedia to disrupt and has wasted tons of the community's time already. This is why I reverted him twice without much discussions. MM has already generated far, far too much needless debate with his often frivolous edits and talk page suggestions. I saw you (Arsten) refused to call him a Duck in the SPI case, but he has all the charactestics of that user and regardless of who he is he needs to be given the curb and he can be given that on his own merits now. I am going to propose a site ban of MilesMoney (which I was already considering before this happened, but I dread wasting more time on him). If the site ban suggestion fails, I will bring this for the ArbCom for consideration. We can not live with a situation where a user gets to troll and waste the community's time for months, while a serious editor like me get approached like an edit warrior because I did my duty as a conscientious Wikipedian to revert a troll twice. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 20:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I didn't mean to characterize you as an edit warrior in my post, I was just noting that many editors were making >1 revert to support my belief that 1RR should be enforced. As far as sanctions for MM are concerned, I think it would be better to consider a topic ban before jumping straight to a site ban discussion. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

For clarification of the latter part of my comment here, see User talk:Mark Arsten#Mises ANI. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for lasthing out a bit. I have great respect for what you are doing at Wikipedia. But something I am very concerned about is if we end up in a situation where those who fight a very disruptive user ends up being treated as just as bad as the disruptive user himself. MilesMoney has created disruption in virtually every article he has involved himself in. . Most of us don’t create disruption wherever we go but manage to edit constructively and collaborate with other users. When I have engaged myself a bit in the issues at hand here it’s because I seriously think that MilesMoney is not editing responsibly and other users need to counter him. Topic banning MilesMoney from Economics/American politics should probably help the situation more than anything else (save a full site ban, which I think is merited, but I can agree to not propose that at the moment). I am not too impressed with some of those who side with Money either, but MM seems to be the major initiator of much of the recent disputes. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. It has always been a problem here, that those who grapple with disruptive editors are likewise branded as disruptive. I hope objective viewers can accurately sort out the characters at play in this range of topics, to find those with a motive and a strong point of view. Binksternet (talk) 23:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Binksternet. I fully support your comment downthread. You know the situation and the other two named users better than me and you do a very important job in protecting the seriousness of Wikipedia which you should be commended for. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support some sort of community sanctions on this article as well as the related article(s) like Murray Rothbard which seem to be getting the same kind of aggressive editing by the same core group of editors (including Steeletrap (talk · contribs), who wasn't mentioned in the initial post). I've been watching these articles for a couple of weeks, as well as the talkpages of the involved editors, and something does need to be done, whether that be 1RR restrictions or long term protection (obviously an unattractive option) or topic bans. Like Mark Arsten, I'm not terribly optimistic about the situation, particularly since the battleground seems to move from article to article. ~Adjwilley (talk) 20:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

No community sanction is warranted. Please read Talk:Ayn Rand if you'd like to see who the sole cause of all this disruption across the project is. Search for the personal attacks on Frank O'Connor on that talk page to see it clear as day. The entire issue can be solved by sanctioning MilesMoney, the one editor who is indeed guilty of edit warring at the Von Mises Institute article. μηδείς (talk) 21:08, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I initially misunderstood your suggestion...I went to the talk page and did a search for the words "personal attack". There did seem to be a common thread. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:23, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I support at least a topic ban for MilesMoney, covering all economics, anarchism and libertarian topics, broadly construed. The reason is that MilesMoney is disruptive—he jumps in to play Eris, to increase the level of conflict and discord. He has no positive contribution to make relative to content.

However, I do not want MilesMoney's antics to distract from the obviously emotion-driven POV activism of Steeletrap, and the stealthy evisceration performed by Specifico who slowly but surely takes away content showing certain parties in a positive light, and just as slowly but surely highlights the negative.

Me, I have no love for Austrian School economists (I am in favor of government-instituted economic policies) and I am not at all an economist by training or practice, so I am as neutral on the general topic as can be achieved here on Wikipedia. When I was alerted to problems related to Austrian School topics I found Steeletrap and Specifico working their POV changes to put one faction in a bad light. It became clear that they were fans of a competing faction, and that their purpose on Wikipedia was to reduce the respectability of their ideological opponents. Whatever I do at those articles is intended to establish as neutral a tone as possible. Binksternet (talk) 21:50, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be convenient if the focus of the problem were also the cause. Sadly, life doesn't always work that way. MilesMoney (talk) 22:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Bink, you fundamentally misunderstand WP:NPOV. Your (by your own admission) knowing nothing about economics means you're unable to distinguish from WP:Fringe and WP:RS economists and schools of economics. (LvMI is *by their own admission* the former; independent RS associated with academic institutions are almost uniformly critical of its scholars, owing to their dogmatic rejection of the scientific method as applied to economics.) Your WP:Undue perspective is akin to someone who knows nothing about biology insisting on adding "equal space" for evolutionism and creationism. Steeletrap (talk) 23:46, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I fully support and trust the judgement of Binksternet here. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 00:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Comment Though I wasn't mentioned by OP, I am heavily involved in these articles. I can only speak for myself, but I think stepping back and taking a deep breath would be a good idea, and I certainly intend on doing that. (In any case, while bias is still a problem on the LvMI articles, it is much less so than when I arrived on WP, at which time they were almost entirely sourced to fellow Mises Institute friends/colleagues, which gave a grotesquely biased presentation of the reception of impact of these thinkers.) However, I am highly concerned by the combination of sensational allegations with no corroborating diffs characterizing the above discussion. Administrator User:Adjwilley in particular should recuse himself any discussion concerning Milesmoney, owing to the credibility hit he took in publicly accusing Miles of being a sock, bereft of any evidence, in charges that were dismissed as groundless. Steeletrap (talk) 23:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

To be precise, the SPI was closed with no action because the checkuser evidence was stale and there was insufficient evidence to block per WP:DUCK. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush - Sitush, isn't there by definition a behavioral problem whenever Page Protection is required? Let's keep this simple and take one step at a time. SPECIFICO talk 23:59, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
@Sitush - Shitush, the point of rollback is not to get to any particular version. The point is to make it as if the old protection never ended so we restore the protection and the article to T-1 one second before the protection ended. To me that's a neat and objective solution. 00:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Mark Arsten that the problem with this article (and others related to it) isn't going to be resolved by short-term full-protection, because the warriors simply bide their time until the protection expires, when they can get back to warring. The vitriol spilled on this page (among others) is an indication of one reason why a 1RR restriction also won't work. That is, this dispute is no longer just about strong opinions on the article topic -- it's become highly personalized.

Below I suggest that we full-protect the article for an indefinite duration to keep the warring away from the article page. If similar disputes occur on related articles, let's full-protect them, too -- until somebody comes up with a decent draft article that won't inflame new wars. --Orlady (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My understanding of ANI is that admins don't comment on content. But Orlady wants a better article before a freeze she suggests is removed. Meanwhile she has no problem with MilesMoney violating 4RR? This seems off to me. μηδείς (talk) 04:00, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for not clarifying that my comment did not address every aspect of the edit war. (Anyway, since MilesMoney has already accused me of meatpuppetry after I intervened on this article, it's probably best if I don't comment on him.) My point is that (1) there are multiple edit-warriors here and (2) short-term protection has not been effective in getting them to discuss their content disputes because they simply wait for the protection to expire, then resume warring; therefore, I propose indefinite protection until somebody somehow manages to work out the content issues. --Orlady (talk) 19:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support 1RR as minimal solution for this article, per below. User:Carolmooredc 12:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Binksternet - I don't think it's very important which version is the one protected. I stated my reason for rolling back to the old protected version above, namely that it undoes what in hindsight was the premature ending of the PP in effect earlier this month. The advantage of that approach is that it doesn't depend on content but rather would take the article back to before it became unstable. I believe that is an established WP principle. At any rate, whatever version is protected will presumably end up being revised as a result of consensus during the protection. I think that the important point is that 1RR is somewhat ambiguous and is going to be more work for Admins and more confusing for editors. Which version is protected or whether it's indefinite, as Orlady has proposed, I think are secondary questions which could be determined by whoever closes this thread. It appears that there's a consensus for some kind of PP in preference to 1RR. SPECIFICO talk 19:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Why don't we go farther back than that? We could return to its condition early on November 23, 2012, just prior to your first edit which included your removal of the word "academic" and any form of the word scholar from the lead section; a clear downgrade of the status of LvMI. Starting from there, with each proposed change requiring talk page consensus, might prove quite interesting. Binksternet (talk) 01:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

The article be rolled back to the version as of whenever the last PP expired, and then Full Protected until November 1. Please do not put threaded discussion here. Use space above. SPECIFICO talk 23:51, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• STATUS QUO I've changed my opinion. Constructive editing has resumed, with the warriors now using the talk page and I endorse leaving the article unprotected. The cycle of EW may have been broken by this discussion. Support as per my initial comment above. Let's drop the off topic rehash of resentments and accusations here. SPECIFICO talk 23:53, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: as I implied above, there is no need to roll it back. As others have said, a further period of protection is unlikely to achieve anything given how long this has been rumbling on for and the number of related articles. There is a behavioural issue here, not a mere content dispute. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support we could all use a deep breath. The above speculations about "topic bans" for user miles are highly inappropriate, not the least because they come from an administrator who falsely and publicly accused him of being a "sock." Several weeks of a WP imposed "vacation" from the LvMI article would do everyone some good. Steeletrap (talk) 23:58, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

• The purpose of full protection is not to provide a "vacation" from an article but to provide time for consensus regarding content to emerge. If you want a vacation from it then just use some self-control and stay away. - Sitush (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

"Please do not put threaded discussion here. Use space above."

I won't touch what you wrote, but it would be good if you moved your comment above, as requested. Please do so (and I'll then remove this request, of course). MilesMoney (talk) 00:24, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm quite happy with it being situated as it is, thanks. It is perfectly normal on ANI and Specifico has already been informed of this (as I am sure you know). - Sitush (talk) 00:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

@Steeletrap, I assume you are referring to me as the administrator who initiated the sockpuppet investigation, but you might be confusing/conflating me with someone else, since I didn't propose a topic ban for Miles. That was suggested first (I think) by Iselija and seconded by others, but I certainly didn't initiate it, nor did I make any move to support it. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:26, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – A "rollback" reverts the SPS tags pertaining to topics under discussion, the off-topic template (also under discussion), the OR template (under discussion), and the clearly appropriate edits that have been undertaken (of which I have a few). – S. Rich (talk) 00:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - We need full protection. Rolling back to the last stable version is reasonable, particularly given the rash of questionable recent changes. But the key is full protection, else Srich32977 will repeat their performance and spark a flurry of reverts. MilesMoney (talk) 00:21, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• The changes are "questionable" to you, obviously. That does not mean that they are to other people and is precisely why we do not protect a preferred version. - Sitush (talk) 00:32, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Can we really roll back to a preferred "version" by consensus? I have always been told the revert goes to the last stable version and is then locked. I will watch the discussion here with interest to see how this is concluded. Any explanation to anything I am missing is welcome.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• When there has been as much edit warring as here and over so long a period of time, there is no "stable" version. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

On the face of that, I can understand why you would think that...but even if we have to go back years...there has to be a stable version. If there really isn't, it may be AFD time.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

We could always stub it - just use the lead section and then rebuild after people agree on content. The lead looks to be pretty innocuous at present. - Sitush (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well...look at me all painted embarrassed!~ I did not see this suggestion from you when I responded below. Yes, Sitush, I agree and support the stubbing of the article!--Mark Miller (talk) 03:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• IMO, it's time to full-protect this article for an indefinite duration. Short-term protection has not achieved the desired goal of quelling the edit warring. I have been disappointed to see that, instead of discussing the article during the protection periods and developing decent draft language that everyone can acquiesce to (which is what would happen in an ideal situation), the combatants have quietly waited for the protection to expire so they could get back to their wars.

In its current and recent forms, the article has serious deficiencies in structure, sourcing, tone, etc. I believe that most of the issues in the wars could be made to go away if somebody produced a good quality encyclopedic article that is built around objective information (rather than points of view), is structured so as to make sense to someone who does not already have a strong POV about the article topic, and is sourced to the kinds of reliable sources we usually look for. I think it's time to full-protect the article until somebody can create a decent draft outside of article space. In the meantime, administrators can respond to requests to fix errors, update bad urls, etc. --Orlady (talk) 01:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• Full protect in the present version. [Adding to comment made earlier.] Looking at the diff from 13 Oct to the present [52], there is only one "controversial" edit outstanding – the inclusion or exclusion of "historical revisionism" in the infobox. The material on Ferrera was changed by me and did not seem to meet with objection. There are templates added and some minor edits regarding the number of scholars, a duplicate mention of the library, and the removal of unsourced material about the institute being housed in a shed for a short time. All of the other "major"changes made by me were restored and discussion threads were set up. The templates now in the article point to the discussions. Stubbing the article runs the risk of repeating the RSN debates about using blog material from Callahan and Murphy, and other debates. – S. Rich (talk) 04:06, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think Specifico's preferred version is the best possible one. I like the more recent Srich edits which have augmented the article. Binksternet (talk) 05:50, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Full protect the present version, but indefinitely because recent history indicates that temporary protection (whether to November 1 or any other date) isn't going to be effective in getting the parties to deal with the issues constructively. --Orlady (talk) 19:12, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Broader concerns

I saw this and immediately thought of this case from a few weeks back. At that time there was a feud over the BLP of the Austrian economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe and it saw similar issues of edit-warring along with tendentious editing from several parties, basically the same people involved in this latest dispute. This appears to be a problem that touches on articles about Austrian Economics in general. I am not sure if any one party is the sole source of the problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Austrian Economics has become a real battleground lately, true. In addition to HHH and LvMI, Murray Rothbard has had a lot of problems lately. I could see this conceivably going to Arbcom, much like the Tea Party dispute. Mark Arsten (talk) 00:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Arbcom can hand out sanctions, I'm sure, but isn't the real problem one of content? If so, maybe we should try to solve it from that direction. MilesMoney (talk) 01:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

DR/N has a backlog so I suggest going directly to Med Com with this one. But only if you want to deal with content only. Arb Com has shown the balls to hand out wide sanctions over behavior lately (Tea party sanctions, Manning sanctions etc.)and would be the best route for that. AN/I may be able to deal with this, I don't know for sure, but I still say...revert to the last stable version even if we have to stub the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 03:07, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

While I won't defend the behavior of the editors of this article (including, for the sake of argument, my own), I don't think the problem is centered on behavior. Even if Arbcon topic-banned everyone who's edited the article in the last year, we'd just be replaced by another round of mutually hostile editors who'll get into the same messes over the same topics all over again.

The problem is that it's hard to edit this article without a deep knowledge of the subject, but such a knowledge is gained only at the expense of forming opinions and taking sides. The LmVI is not just controversial inside Wikipedia, it's controversial in the world at large. The relationship between it and the Austrian school is complex and full of reliable sources that disagree. The figures, many of them no longer alive, are colorful and outspoken. There are credible allegations of many unacceptable views (racism, etc.) that we must report on fairly and accurately.

I could go on, but it's an innately hard problem that can't be solved by banging everyone's heads together. MilesMoney (talk) 03:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Extreme editor bias is the issue: In truth, Austrian Economics (especially as promulgated by the more hard core libertarians), as well as related BLPs of a dozen plus economists, has been a battle ground since September 2012 when User:SPECIFICO started editing and even more so since April 2013 when User:Steeletrap started editing. Steeletrap has labeled Austrians who associated with the Mises Institute as "disreputable" and compared them to Scientologists; User:SPECIFICO has compared the "Mises gang" to "Multi-level marketing/vitamin supplement schemes". (See this diff of full quotes and even more details at this May 2013 WP:NPOVN discussion.) Steeletrap has referred to SPECIFICO as a "colleague" and "collaborator". (Both state they have (SPECIFICO) or are working on (STEELETRAP) relevant academic degrees.) User:MilesMoney, who started editing July 2013, immediately jumped into many of the same articles and became an intense colleague/collaborator of SPECIFICO and Steeletrap.

These editors use the fact that many articles have been sourced with too many primary sources as an excuse to search out and add overwhelmingly negative and inflammatory secondary source material. However, they challenge neutral and positive information from other secondary sources with nonsense rationales which one must discuss and often bring to noticeboards, over and over again - a huge disincentive to constructive editing. (See related April to August discussions on the Jesus Huerta de Soto and Murray Rothbard talk pages). Also they misuse the article on links called WP:Walled garden, as well as off-Wikipedia interpretations of the concept, as a means of sabotaging perfectly good WP:RS information from academics who have even the loosest of affiliations with the Mises Institute. See this WP:RSN discussion.)

These editors' biased and disruptive edit warring has angered a number of editors who have either dropped out of Wikipedia or, like myself, stopped editing articles where those editors are active. Users:Srich and Binksternet, who like me have their own idiosyncratic libertarian-oriented viewpoints, have kept working to make the articles comply with Wikipedia policy and especially to end the biased trashing of BLPs. Until the last month or so the Wikipedia community has failed to deal with repeated complaints, even though it frequently has banned less biased editors for relatively minor infringements.

Users: Steeletrap and SPECIFICO have repeatedly inferred editors supporting NPOV articles are merely cultish apologists for these Austrians and libertarians. They take criticism of their editing bias as personal attacks, despite repeatedly being reminded of NPOV/FAQ - Dealing with biased contributors. Lately they, and MilesMoney, have repeated ad nauseam the charge of incompetence against me and other editors. They have engaged in harassing behaviors (see below). When brought to ANI they have responded overwhelmingly with unsupported allegations of others' bad behavior, while fiercely supporting each others' ad hominem attacks.

Below is a list of WP:ANI (including 3rr) reports just since April 2013 which illustrate the problems. (Those by Specifico or Steeletrap against other editors are illustrative of points made above.) Many relevant WP:BLPN, WP:RSN, WP:NPOVN, WP:ORN and other noticeboard entries can be found as well.

• User:Olathe vs. SPECIFICO on alleged disruptive editing habits, April 30, 2013.
• User:Sageo vs. Steeletrap and Specifico on alleged disruptive editing habits, May 24, 2013.
• Carolmooredc vs. Steeletrap on BLP violations, May 27, 2013.
• Carolmooredc vs. Steeletrap on personal talk page harassment, leading to a warning, May 29, 2013.
• Carolmooredc v. SPECIFICO on 3rr violation, leading to protection of the page, June 2, 2012.
• Carolmooredc vs SPECIFICO on disruptive personal talk page messages (which was getting a sympathetic response til unsupported counter charges started flying), June 29, 2013.
• Steeletrap vs. Carolmooredc on insults, leads admin to warn Steeletrap against allegations unsupported by evidence, and to warn Carolmooredc on losing her temper, which she admitted she had, July 27, 2013.
• WP:BLPN, Carolmooredc and others on laundry list of BLP problems with Steeletrap/SPECIFICO editing, August 1, 2013.
• SRich vs MilesMoney for 3rr, resulting in warning for MilesMoney, September 20, 2013.
• MilesMoney vs. Srich for 3rr, no violation found, September 20, 2013.
• Srich vs./debating SPECIFICO on a WP:RS closure, Sept 23, 2013.
• SRich vs./debating SPECIFICO on another WP:RS RfC closure, September 24, 2013.
• Specifico vs. Binksternet on alleged harassment of Steeletrap, citing no diffs, closed for lack of evidence and general chaos, September 29, 2013.
• User:SRich vs. SPECIFICO/Steeletrap/Miles Money on repeated tag-team removal of NPOV template, October 16, 2013.

At what point does Wikipedia start dealing with such disruptive POV editing? When does it start looking at evidence of tag-team editing in possible WP:Meatpuppet relationships? I believe Steeletrap, SPECIFICO and MilesMoney should be topic banned from all Austrian economics (and libertarianism-related) articles, especially Biographies of living or dead individuals. In the interim, 1rr should be applied to as many of these affected articles as possible. User:Carolmooredc 05:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[INSERT] - Hey @Carolmooredc: I just looked back at the details of your list. How are my AN comments on Srich's Requests for Closure called complaints by him about my behavior? Either you don't know what's in your own list, or you're deliberately trying to mislead readers here who don't know -- or have the time -- to check every word you write to see whether it happens to be true. Shame on you. And how foolish for you to expose yourself in such a way in view of the ANI community -- yet another time. You should show the community some honesty and strike through your false denigration of me (and Srich) and any other misstatements in your messages here. SPECIFICO talk 04:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC) [end insert]

Do not insert inside others postings! Moved yours down. Reading those one can see that there is a tenditious debate going on. So I added Debate to vs. to clarify that. User:Carolmooredc 05:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, I agree with your general characterizations except that I am not the holder of "idiosyncratic libertarian-oriented viewpoints" unless classic American liberal viewpoints (such as strong government involvement in social programs) are now considered libertarian (which is not the case.) The only reason I'm involved at these articles is that I was told there was POV-warring in action, and when I went to decide for myself I saw that the report was correct. I don't like POV warriors on Wikipedia; I think the NPOV policy is what makes the whole encyclopedia so valuable. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert]: Binksternet, Thanks for clarification. User:Carolmooredc 12:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] Carol, I am only "biased" against the Mises Institute in the same sense a biologist is biased against creationism. They reject the scientific method in their models yet purport to be social scientists. The Mises scholars openly and honestly concede their fringe status. Hans Hoppe concedes that LvMI is regarded as dogmatic and pseudo-scientific by mainstream economists. Writes Hoppe, "It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science ... which distinguishes Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view." (1)

We have to accurately represent the views of mainstream sources on Wikipedia, even if those paint a negative picture of Mises Institute thinkers. If you can find mainstream economics RS praising LvMI fellows, please add it to the article. However, I will continue to object to using primary sources and connected fringe secondary sources (i.e. other Mises fellows) to source the contributions of Mises scholars to economics. Steeletrap (talk) 14:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert response to Steeletrap]: One example makes it clear how false and dishonest this response is. See Rothbard archive section on No agreement to remove Seven refs on economist of the Austrian school about Steeletrap's removal of neutral sourced info because SPECIFICO and STEELETRAP were trying to downgrade Rothbard from even being notable as an economist of the Austrian School and to remove the economist info box.

When there is a massive fight over something that absurdly biased, it can be quite discouraging to try to add the other WP:RS info one has on Rothbard and that was about the time I gave up. I still have a mass of NPOV/WP:RS info on my harddrive, but why bother if getting into the article a couple sentences that don't trash Rothbard (or the other subjects of other articles) lead to a massive talk page discussion and often visit to noticeboard(s) that takes 3 to 5 hours of fruitless discussion?? (Something I'd already gone through in Jesus Huerta de Soto.) That's called disruptive POV editing and that's what Steeletrap especially, but SPECIFICO and MilesMoney as well, engage in. Others can read just how slimy the Murray Rothbard article is, much of the "dirt" inserted by Steeletrap, but supported by SPECIFICO/MilesMoney to see the editor doesn't care much about creating an NPOV encyclopedia. User:Carolmooredc 18:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[reply] Carol, those "seven references" were deleted accidentally when I was trying to remove the word "economist" from the lede. I restored them immediately when the error is pointed out to me, and they have for months remained in the current article without objection. However, all the sources do is call Rothbard an "economist"; they do not describe his substantive work as an economist. Again, instead of making erroneous accusations which you will later have to correct (as you have ended up doing several times in the last month), you should try to improve the article by adding mainstream refs describing rothbard's substantive contributions to econ. Steeletrap (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert reply to Steeletrap:] This is not true. In reply to my complaint about deletion of the seven refs you wrote at this diff: I disagree. Newt Gingrich is not characterized as a "historian", despite teaching history and having a Ph.D, because he is not notable for work as a historian. Rothbard is not notable as an "economist" and should not be described as such in the lede. he is notable as a (fringe) political theorist and activist. Like Newt (for some time) with respect to history, economics is how Murray made a living, and (again like newt) the Ph.D a credential Murray cited to boost his credibility. The compromise text indicates that Murray had a Ph.D in econ and taught in Brooklyn and Vegas. Mentioning him as an "economist" of the "Austrian school" seems superfluous and subjective. Sounds like you wanted those seven refs out, doesn't it? User:Carolmooredc 00:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

We have long had problems around Austrian economics. This is just a recent intensification. I wouldn't be surprised if it went to Arbcom. bobrayner (talk) 11:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed - see WP:Long-term_abuse/Karmaisking for some of the history around these articles. There have been strident POV pushers advocating the Austrian view and the Mises institute for a really long time. Ravensfire (talk) 13:52, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

The list of Karmaisking socks is very revealing, especially when one scrutinizes the various usernames involved. - MrX 14:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

{Insert] Pro-Austrian Karmaisking was very active 4 or 5 years ago, as was anarcho-capitalist User:Sarsaparilla (who I always thought was the same person, but certainly had same interests and modus operandi). Until an influx of socks recently in the Rothbard article, I haven't seen much evidence of him the last couple years. But that was one or two persons operating as obvious Socks. I'm sure these are three different editors working closely together because of their differing styles. User:Carolmooredc 17:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

While ARBCOM is the court of last resort, I agree with you, bobrayner. I've seen this particular feud spill over to a variety of noticeboards and when disputes are ideological in nature, compromise and consensus are not even goals for many participants. They seem to be all-of-nothing debates. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Complaints have been lodged by several editors at multiple noticeboards and WP:ANI multiple times. Admins do nothing. And now people are talking about taking the whole subject area to arbitration! Why do we even have an NPOV policy if admins can't even comment on obvious POV editing and only on behavior issues, which the offending editors always wiggle out of by making false and exaggerated claims against the complainants? I have a feeling ArbCom would not take this case and the problems would go on and on. I would be delighted if the whole area was put under 1RR, but Admins actually dealing with disruptive editors would save a lot of time and energy. User:Carolmooredc 18:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, if by some convolution you can get an Editor labeled as holding a "fringe" point of view, they are then treated as if they are a troll and are likely to receive an indefinite block. It takes a bit of legwork and it isn't ethical but it sure seems to be an effective and quick way to get rid of the opposition. You only need one Admin to agree with you and it's faster than waiting for ARBCOM to render a verdict. But I don't think it's fair or justifiable and it misuses WP policy statements to achieve a certain result. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:19, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

I apologize for my pointy remark. I'm very frustrated with the variable way that different Editors are treated on WP. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, assuming you were replying directly to my comment above, my complaint is editors who have such a strong negative POV against a topic and/or individuals related to it that they constantly search out and insert only the most negative information, put the most negative spin on it, and fight attempts to put in NPOV material from equal or better sources with absurd rationales for deletion. A few of us have come here and to various noticeboards over and over again and this issue has not been dealt with. The question from an uninvolved editor of how to deal with the ensuing edit warring started this thread. Those trying to remove or otherwise deal with this type of POV disruption are constantly reverted by the disruptors. I added a lot of diffs to illustrate the problem. By the way, WP:Mediation would be interesting as mentioned by Mark Miller, but I'm too burnt out on these editors to initiate it myself. Certainly better than going to arbitration right off the bat. User:Carolmooredc 16:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, Arbcom will almost always sanction the real disruptive users, but there's often a decent amount of "collateral damage" done to other parties, as well. Mark Arsten (talk) 18:28, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

The main problem with DR and mediation, as I understand it, is that they are non-binding. You can go through the whole process and if you disagree with the results, there is no penalty from disregarding the whole proceedings. I think these methods can definitely help if all parties are more interested in resolving a dispute than in being right. But on many contentious topics, there is usually a "my way or no way" attitude. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:02, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's tell the truth here, Carolmooredc. The only problem you illustrated with your diffs was that you chewed up a huge amount of WP resources with your long list of hostile ad hominem noticeboard complaints, none of which WP found to have any merit. A secondary problem is that you continue to cite these failed attacks as if they were vindication of your current round of ad hominem noisemaking. I greatly respected your voluntary withdrawal from the articles that have frustrated you recently, and I hope that you will resume your vacation if the environment here is too upsetting for you. While you've been hanging out on this ANI, good progress has been made with constructive edits at the vMI article. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

It's mind-boggling that you seem to think that an Editor who is burned out from constant arguing and so just quits the discussion is a good result. The goal is not to drive away those who believe differently from yourself or "wear them down". When Wikipedia content is determined by the "last Editor standing" mentality, it's really a sign that there is something wrong with the project. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear Liz. I didn't say it was good that she got so upset that she behaved destructively and therefore improved things by leaving. In fact I made it clear that IF she felt so frustrated it was good for her to take a breather. I consider your message to me uncivil, maybe a PA, and I ask you to do the right thing and retract it, so all the Admins watching this page can see you're a good egg. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Worn down is an apt descriptor for a long list of issues that easily can be reviewed at talk pages of Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jesus Huerta de Soto, Murray Rothbard, among others. Any experienced editors easily can see what was going on. Liz has nothing to apologize for - and WP:ANI is the kind of place such issues, generally and specifically, are allowed to be freely discussed. (Including noting that "fringe" can be just another way people who have different viewpoints held by one set of academics can try to dismiss those subjects of articles who challenge them and editors who try to keep articles NPOV.) User:Carolmooredc 23:39, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, Mises scholars acknowledge they are fringe; they proudly reject mainstream theory and the scientific method. So this isn't a mater of "some academics" going after others out of vindictiveness. Treating fringe sources differently than mainstream sources in non-negotiable. Fringe views can be "right" once in a blue moon, but we have to abide by policy whether or not you think Rothbard's views are sound. Steeletrap (talk) 00:57, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Please support such allegations with quotes. User:Carolmooredc 19:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Prominent contemporary Misesian and LvMI Distinguished Fellow Hans-Hermann Hoppe, who I have quoted a bazillion times in this regard, says "It is this assessment of economics as an a priori science ... which distinguishes Misesians, from all other current economic schools. All the others conceive of economics as an empirical science, as a science like physics, which develops hypotheses that require continual empirical testing. And they all regard as dogmatic and unscientific Mises's view." (1) Again, you can believe they're "right" and everyone else wrong, but we go off of mainstream sources on wikipedia, and are required to treat fringe sources differently. Steeletrap (talk) 20:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't see this one individual using the word "fringe" but I do see you making a huge leap from one person's statement to characterizing a lot of others as having the exact same position and labeling it a "fringe" one. Sounds like original research to me. User:Carolmooredc 01:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Good evening, @Carolmooredc:. While you're here, I left you a message below, would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposal, general sanctions

Given the above discussion, the observation arbcom cases often end up imposing WP:AC/DS sanctions on affected area, and the ability of the community to do functionally the same thing (with a lot less bureaucratic pixelwork). I propose:

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, the administrators' noticeboard, or the Arbitration Committee.

(Wording is lifted from the MMA sanctions at General sanctions). NE Ent 20:30, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support I think this is definitely merited. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:49, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support Iselilja (talk) 20:53, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

*Oppose The above complaints have been heavy on rhetoric but remarkably thin on evidence. Administrators are our peers; they, like us, are subject to contextual biases and incompetencies. This is a very dangerous power to invest them with, and much better evidence than the vague unspecific charges made by previous users is needed to support it. The fact that the admins above -- including one, User:adjwilley, who previously falsely declared User:MilesMoney a "sockpuppet" on the basis of no hard evidence (Adj's claim that was dismissed, but exacted a heavy tole on Miles' reputation) -- just "take his [OP's] word for it" above is indicative of the risks of arbitrary and capricious admin conduct. Steeletrap (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC). Support My remarks above notwithstanding, the conduct of problematic users on these pages -- specifically Binksternet and Carolmooredc -- has only gotten more vitriolic in the past several days, in terms of edit-warring (in Bink's case) and PAs (in Carol's case). Steeletrap (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Two thoughts: 1. If the SS SPI is as false and baseless as you say it is, people will see right through it and it won't hurt your friend's reputation. 2. If, on the other hand, it is damaging to MilesMoney's reputation, then might I suggest that continuing to bring it up in public venues like ANI isn't doing Miles any favors. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

But thanks to Steeletrap for bringing this SPI investigation up so editors can be aware for future reference. Editors should not be attacked for bringing up well documented suspicions of Sock puppetry, even if it does not sufficiently pass the Wikipedia:The duck test as the closing admin said. It's definitely a check on such behavior if it is in fact true. User:Carolmooredc 17:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I have little familiarity with this rubric, or why it appears to have been implemented in a short list of articles. Wouldn't it be better to open a separate thread about this and to notify at least the talk page of every article which would be affected. This seems like a big decision for us to make just on the occasion of having assembled here to discuss a much narrower issue of 1RR/Protection on a single article. I recommend opening a separate thread if you feel strongly about pursuing this idea. SPECIFICO talk 21:03, 19 October 2013 (UTC) Oppose added SPECIFICO talk 22:21, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment At first look, MMA Sanctions sounds like Martial Law. Frankly, I don't see more than one or two Admins who have shown any familiarity with these articles or the behavioral issues which might be identified. Let's see some more Admin involvement in a constructive mode (I am pleased to say that we've seen some very recently -- thanks.) If there's a problem here, the solution is not to grant more power to the Admins, it's to benefit from more attention and involvement from/by them. By the time 1RR or MMA are enforced, there's going to be a much larger use of scarce Admin time and effort than there would be from occasional oversight and guidance, in my opinion. SPECIFICO talk 22:26, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose I encountered this policy on Ayn Rand, where it did absolutely no good at all. It won't work here, either, and the harmful effects will only make things worse. Absolutely terrible idea. MilesMoney (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support Assuming it’s been done elsewhere before and worked. Otherwise maybe fast track to ArbCom. In either case, the issues and policy violations are often clear enough that once brought to the appropriate noticeboard any truly neutral admin who bothers to take ten minutes to review them will know what proper action to take. [Added Later: However since the real topic here is Austrian economists and institutes and the unrelenting attacks on them, BLP sanctions should be enforceable by any admin. More below.] User:Carolmooredc 00:05, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
• Observation In the context of these articles about libertarianism it is interesting to see which editors prefer to impose increased hierarchical authority and which editors prefer to bolster endogenous collaberation. SPECIFICO talk 00:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The pattern is easily explained: those who have failed to be convincing are the ones who want to bring in authorities to override their opponents. MilesMoney (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Support. Seems to be an entirely sensible proposal. Let's leave ArbCom as the last resort, which is where it is always supposed to be. - Sitush (talk) 01:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush - To oppose this proposal is not to favor arbcom. Opposing this is to reject the statist authoritarian solution of general sanctions. SPECIFICO talk 01:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. NE Ent, that is a great suggestion. I don't think anyone working neutrally on the encyclopedia will object to what is presented as a very fair but fairly quick form of behavior management. Who would object to an administrator warning an editor then blocking that editor if the disruptive behavior continues? It's a good proposal. Binksternet (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Was that intended to be a rhetorical question? I ask, because a few of us already object and for good reason. MilesMoney (talk) 02:15, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support The level of discourse recently in regard to myriad disagreements about the Ludwig von Mises Institute include responses like:

• "You'd have to shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and hum to ignore all this."
• "When someone literally doesn't know what they're talking about, we have no motivation to listen."
• "The best I can make out of it is that you intend to edit-war. That would be unfortunate, particularly for you."
• "I think it is petty politics you are playing—that you hate LvMI with a passion and that you do not want to be associated with them...Rather than arguing about who is more Austrian, you should start your own School to complete the intra-Austrian schism. "

Edit summaries refer to other edits as "idiotic", "nonsense" and promote a battleground mentality (e.g. "your opinion vs. reliable sources; guess who wins"). Edit-warring has been going on daily by many of the editors involved in this discussion. To their credit, the some recent discussions like this one and this one seem fairly productive. But given the quality of editing behavior, I have very little faith that the involved editors can work things out on most issues on this or other articles via consensus-building or even through RfCs, over which they still have disagreements. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:45, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

As a libertarian, @I JethroBT:, I distrust increasing the power and privilege of central authority at the expense of local autonomy. I have rarely seen WP Admins step into these flare-ups -- for example when Carolmooredc was doing her round-the-world-tour of Noticeboards she proudly cites above -- and administer discipline or even offer effective guidance. Otherwise we would not see her and Binksternet continue their personal attacks and equivocations here in the current thread. It's a sad commentary on due process here when they feel free to display such behavior with impunity right here in the most conspicuous place where Admins are watching. Why should we now believe that the same Admins who could have nipped this behavior in the bud are the ones to whom we should give this extraordinary governmental power, akin to Martial Law? Moreover, I'll repeat the following until I hear some responses on the point: If such sanctions were to be imposed on an entire category of related articles, the discussion of that decision must be announced to all the affected articles in the category. Otherwise we have the central authority taking this extraordinary prerogative without consulting the affected parties. That should concern not only us libertarians but all editors who care about open process and representative decision-making. SPECIFICO talk 03:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Contacting editors on the relevant articles doesn't sound unreasonable to me, given the broad nature of the sanctions, though putting a notice on all 49 articles is probably a bit much. Are there any objections if I or others post something like the following on the talk pages of some of the more highly-watched articles?:

You are invited to comment on discussion occurring on ANI over the implementation of discretionary sanctions across articles related to Austrian Economics.

I think your point about whether to defer to local autonomy in matters of consensus-building/article maintenance as opposed to granting it to an authority is a fair concern, and I think letting others look into this situation should be encouraged. However, I am personally less inclined to support that idea when it's clear the same pattern of interaction, accusations, and general pettiness has repeatedly emerged amongst the local autonomy across similar topics. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 04:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Even in arbitration cases like WP:ARBPIA, templates about the arbitration decision are placed on articles only by editors as they choose to do so, and some have gone for a couple years without them until a problem arises and someone thinks to put one on. I think that could be applied here as well in this more informal case, with people putting a to-be-created standard template on articles having or likely to have a problem, as they so choose. If it is not a 1rr situation, the standard template for the top of the talk page should be sufficient. There is no need to run around and tell editors, though if they come to the page and start creating problems they should be reminded to read the templates on the top of the page. User:Carolmooredc 05:37, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I reviewed how the Standard Discretionary Sanctions at Ayn Rand went and concluded that they were effective and beneficial. Several of the same players that were there are now in this area too and so there's good reason to expect the same benefit. (I did wonder, "Can we do this??", and of course the answer is, "Yes per WP:IAR/WP:NOTBUREAU we can do whatever we determine there is consensus to do.") My only quibble is whether "Sanctions may be appealed to ... the Arbitration Committee" should be in the wording—if ArbCom didn't actually enact the SDS at this article, how would an appeal to them be in their jurisdiction? I think we'd either need to make sure they'll agree to take these sorts of appeals, or remove them from the list of appeal routes. Otherwise I think this will be helpful. Zad68 03:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Zad68 - Unlike at Ayn Rand, the sanctions proposed here would affect roughly 50 articles. How do you justify proposing such a step without even notifying the talk pages or active editors on 49 of those articles. It's like taxation without representation. It is tyranny. SPECIFICO talk 03:40, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

You say "effective", I say "heavy-handed", "chilling" and "generally counterproductive". The article is effectively frozen. It took days, and admin intervention, just to remove some nonsense that was inserted. That's what happens when you point guns at everyone: nobody moves. Now magnify that by 50 and you have a complete disaster. MilesMoney (talk) 03:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

SPECIFICO and MilesMoney really are over-dramatizing of the "tyranny" of the proposal here, and by two editors highly involved in the various Austrian disputes. While obviously some of these articles will be looked at immediately because of current issues still on noticeboards, in general admins tend to wander over only if an issue is brought to a noticeboard or WP:ANI/3rr, or an editor asks one individually to take a look. We don't have bands of roving admins trolling for bad behavior to correct. User:Carolmooredc 05:44, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

With all due respect, these sanctions only get in the way of editors who are actively working to improve articles. This does not describe you, at least not in regard to the articles I edit, so I'm not surprised that you don't feel in any way encumbered.

I would appreciate it, though, if you recognized these differences in our circumstances and therefore didn't overgeneralize from your personal experiences or trivialize mine. Lots of things look better from the outside than the inside. MilesMoney (talk) 14:35, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's my understanding of arbitration policy that any sanctions on English Wikipedia is appealable to them, so the proposed general sanction statement is simply acknowledging that policy rathering than creating it. In other words, any sanctions would be appealable to the committee, regardless of whether the sanctions statement said that or not. NE Ent 11:11, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello @NE Ent:. I've just looked up the articles which are in the categories included in your proposal -- Paleo-libertarianism, Austrian Economics, Libertarian Organizations, Libertarian publications, etc. There are hundreds. That means there are at least 1000 involved editors, even allowing for duplication across articles. I'd like to hear why you think the decision to impose G.S. on so many articles should be made by this group on this board. Frankly I'd be surprised if this group actually has the authority to do so. Have you researched that? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

The number of affected articles is a red herring. If the subject area is problematic (which it is) then some sort of mechanism needs to be put into place, despite the squeals of opposition that not surprisingly all seem to be emanating from one "side" of this subject area. The general sanctions imposed on Indian castes affected far more articles and editors than this proposal will ever likely do. - Sitush (talk) 18:41, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, even if all those articles were the ones proposed (and I'm not sure if it's that broad), the to-be-created template only needs to be put on those where there really is a problem and admin attention needed and editors only warned if they start violating policy. User:Carolmooredc 19:23, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Carolmooredc:, please name the articles to which the GS would apply or the list of names which you endorse. I hope it goes without saying that they will only be in effect in articles on which there's a template. If you name which articles you propose to list, then we can notify the editors of those articles to get their input. Otherwise, this will be viewed as a power-grab by authoritarian central goverment without notice or recourse and will undermine the legitimacy of WP community governance. As a libertarian I find it alarming the willingness with which a small group here is willing to consider unilaterally abridging the activities of others. Please state which articles you endorse placing under GS. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 22:03, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Ask the originator what his/her thoughts are and others who've been involved in broad areas which have not been defined by ArbCom how that works. User:Carolmooredc 01:18, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hello Carolmooredc. I'm not understanding you. I have been asking those who support General Sanctions to specify which articles those sanctions would apply to. If it's more than just Mises.org, I also have asked whether they feel comfortable not inviting the involved editors on those articles to participate in this discussion. I know you have a lot of experience here and tend to have strong opinions, so I'd be interested to hear your thoughts, if you'd care to share them. SPECIFICO talk 01:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've said or inferred elsewhere, but some will badger others...Whatever articles in the topic area need it, as determined by editors. IMHO, more specifically, whatever ones you and Steeletrap have been working on in this area where people detect and protest biased, WP:Undue and even vitriolic editing meant only to discredit the individual/institution in question. User:Carolmooredc 05:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - This seems to be a very sane proposal to bring some stability to these articles, and it will not stand in the way of collegial editing which has been in short supply in this topic area. Article protection has not worked, so this would seem to be utile alternative. On a tangential note, the next editor that insinuates that another editor is incompetent should be roundly sanctioned. Competence is not the same as subject matter expertise, nor should it be used to shamefully disparage editors who have made substantial, quality contributions in a diverse range of topics. - MrX 19:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• REQUEST FOR INFORMATION This question is addressed to OP for this section and those who Support the proposed GS. Please state which WP articles your proposal would place under GS? They could be indicated either by a list of titles or a list of categories. To my mind, this proposal, as stated, is either incompletely defined or extraordinarily far-reaching. As a libertarian, I am reminded of the prior discussions of the Patriot act and the US invasion of Iraq in the last decade. Ill-defined discussion and partial or incorrect information led to a precipitous increase in governmental authority and action. Let's understand exactly what is on the table here. Could OP of this proposal or one if its supporters please define the scope of the GS -- explicitly and unambiguously. If it were only to apply to, say Mises Institute, Rothbard, and 4H, that is a much more tractable decision than if we are talking about the hundreds of articles directly related to Austrian economics, publications, scholars, institutions, and to paleo-libertarian, anarcho-capitalist and other right-libertarians. Thanks. I think that a specific proposal will help clarify this discussion. SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing unusual in sanctions covering a generally defined set of pages -- often sanctions are for "X and related pages", sometimes with "broadly construed" thrown in to show that the scope is not narrow. Category:Austrian School and all its sub-categories combined appear to have around 120 articles, so it isn't a very big slice of the wiki overall. If an editor engages in problematic behavior on one of the affected pages and is warned for it, they ought to take the hint and avoid that behavior in general. Edit warring, personal attacks, etc., are unacceptable regardless of the level of enforcement. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose "...any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process..." is a completely vague criteria for banning an Editor or Admin. It's what WP calls "weasel words". It could simply mean if someone raises objections and doesn't immediately back down, they could feasibly be blocked. I also these DS applied unfairly to users who challenge mainstream views. DS shouldn't be used to silence minority viewpoints, whether or not they are considered "fringe".

The best part of this statement is that "uninvolved administrators" should be taking action. If this statement is adopted, that should be highlighted. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:27, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Addressing some questions in the above: Yes, we can do this, see table of existing sanctions. Given this page has around six thousand watchers, this is hardly a dead of night covert operation. As to which articles constitute "Austrian Economics" -- I don't know and I don't care. (The usual ArbCom weasel words are "broadly construed." ) The simple matter is there are 114,409 active users on Wikipedia, and most of them show sufficient maturity and compromise to work things out. Frequently there will be individual editors who don't "get" the wiki way and have to be admin sanctioned, and occasionally things get heated among a group of editors sufficiently that community input / admin help is appropriate. But when the same area keeps hitting the dispute resolution boards over and over (as documented above), the standard response is some sort of discretionary sanctions, whether community or committee imposed. Admin / dispute resolution volunteer time is a limited resource, and this maximizes it's effectiveness.NE Ent 02:11, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
[edit conflict]:@NE Ent: -- I appreciate your taking the time to reply. I would differ with you on one point. The list of failed noticeboard complaints cited by User:Carolmooredc above only illustrates her own frustration and inability to accept the reasoned views of other editors she encounters on certain subjects. Those threads were all evaluated by the community and her complaints were rejected, even as her tone became more strident and her statements less documented. I respect your good faith effort to do the right thing here, but I would hope you'd agree with me that it's important that, as the one who made a far-reaching proposal, you also feel a responsibility to familiarize yourself with the facts and history of these specific articles and conflicts. It can't be good policy to apply a "standard response" to every situation without taking a closer look. Most importantly, despite the truly outrageous behavior of a very small number of editors on these articles over the years, they have continued to improve. Dramatically so in the past year, in fact. Frankly, as I've said before, I have see only a few fine Admins who have stepped in and offered constructive input or guidance in these articles. It's hard for me, as a libertarian, to infer that we should centralize more power in the hands of those who have not shown very much interest or commitment in this area to date. I hope you will take the time to review the history of the Mises Institute, Austrian School, or Rothbard articles over the past year or two. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
RE: Definite support for Request for Arbitration: .NE Ent, thanks for further comments. But it seems that now that Liz, an uninvolved editor, (and others?) have opposed the proposal, we must consider if WP:ANI taking over an ArbCom is unprecedented. The two specific examples mentioned herein are Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ayn_Rand and evidently an Arbitration regarding Indian castes. (I couldn’t find it myself.) However, all the support for some sort of oversight/sanctions here would encourage ArbCom to take seriously an Arbitration Request to deal with the issues in the articles in question, broadly construed. (Or narrowly to those which certain editors decree are so fringe NPOV doesn’t apply any more?) [Added later: My apologies for not reading Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community more carefully which has ample examples of ANI imposing general sanctions.] User:Carolmooredc 02:28, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

THANKS CAROL - Glad to see you now agree with my point that this ANI is not empowered to place General Sanctions. I am so sad that you couldn't hear it when I said it repeatedly above and wouldn't even think about it until you heard it from somebody else. I'm also bewildered that nobody else here -- longtime editors or Admins -- agreed with Liz and me until your awakening. This is an immediate example of the danger of giving excessive authority to well-meaning but sometimes-fallible governing entities. SPECIFICO talk 02:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm only stating problems, not changing my mind that some sort of general sanction might be one way to deal with the issue. However, as I stated in my listing above, the problem is that two/three editors constantly work to discredit the ones they don’t like through their edits and frustrate the efforts of other editors to counter their bias by removing the three two/three editors biased material or putting in neutral information. I think at least two of them should be topic banned by an editor now and there would be no need to go to ArbCom. User:Carolmooredc 05:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Specifico/Carolmooredc, Liz (talk · contribs) has opposed some of the wording but not, it seems, the underlying principle. And you are wrong to suggest that the community lacks the power to establish sanctions via ANI. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, I might have made a mistake here. I see a reference in the proposal to WP:AC/DS (Discretionary Sanctions) but then I see individuals refer to "General sanctions". I've read the ARBCOM page on community sanctions but its not clear to me whether Discretionary and General Sanctions differ in a) the scope of the topic area, b) the consequences of the sanction, c) who judges an individual to have violated a sanction and d) whether a single Admin or there is a community consensus to impose the sanctions.

My unease is with Discretionary Sanctions as I have seen them applied over the past few months. They don't seem equally applied to Editors on both sides of a dispute. I'm not sure if it is the way the sanctions are worded or how Admins use them but they seem biased against Editors who take a particular stance, not on disruptive behavior. For example, regarding the Pseudoscience DS, I see sanctions imposed on those who are sympathetic to alternative theories and not imposed on potentially disruptive behavior by those who are skeptics and I see questionable behavior by Editors on both sides of this dispute. Whether you think this bias is or is not justified, I think bias shouldn't be perpetuated in additional sanctions on other subjects.

I'd support sanctions if they were worded to focus on behavior and not on ideology, that is, if they took a neutral stance on the subject of the articles. Additionally, Admins who are involved in editing in the subject area should not be the ones who judge that sanctions need to be enforced or the ones who impose blocks. It should not be a hardship to find another Admin to take these actions. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:14, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

{[ec}} Liz, it says "uninvolved admins" and that should mean uninvolved admins. If you think that other sanctions are being abused then you should raise that specific issues in other threads. Anything can be abused, including good faith, and we'll get nowhere if we do nothing. How many more of these incredibly long reports must we endure? FWIW, WP:GS/Caste seems to work quite well and that is the one with which I am most familiar. I have no ideological stake in this Austrian economics thing: aside from a few maintenance edits to Atlas Shrugged over the last few hours (I have that book, never read it!), my only involvement has been a procedural (NPA) spat with MilesMoney that has also taken place over the last few hours. And since I have now joined the growing group of people who are banned from MM's talk page, the one-way "censorship" should go some way to limiting further such episodes. - Sitush (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sitush, you have not been "forced to endure" this discussion. Your participation has been voluntary. One reason it's so long is editors' tendency to add or substitute a lot of off-topic venting here. SPECIFICO talk 22:51, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

I know ANI can impose Sanctions on individuals. I just haven't seen it done on a broad swath of articles and was looking for examples. Again, why I have not dropped support, just emphasized ArbCom. MY APOLOGIES for not reading Wikipedia:General_sanctions#Sanctions_placed_by_the_Wikipedia_community more carefully. I see ANI imposed sanctions on a range of articles. So I agree it's time to close this with a determination of what to do...User:Carolmooredc 12:08, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See this for one example. This all falls under WP:CONSENSUS. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - because it would (in theory) enforce the WP:BRD cycle with which most editors involved in this topic area have generally managed to comply. Only those incapable of collegial discussion (who have instead resorted to ad-hom rants, personal attacks, misquoting and bullying) should have anything to fear from the promise to sanction those who "repeatedly or seriously fail[s] to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia" (being collegial, voluntary editing in good faith, free of personal attacks). Institute it and enforce it with an iron fist with regard to WP:NPA and WP:CIV and this topic area will soon be free of its biggest problem. Then get back to work providing independent sources for those sometimes entirely unsourced, fan-club-written (or autobiographical) hagiographies that some have tried to "protect". Stalwart111 03:41, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest that the biggest problem isn't behavior in the sense of rudeness, it's behavior in the form of obstinacy. There are clear examples where a question is asked and satisfactorily answered, but the answer is ignored and an edit war or shouting match ensues.

This is not something any amount of admin threats or beatings can fix, because admins could only detect this if they first had a working knowledge of economics and a familiarity with the specifics of these issues. It's a dispute about content, so a deep understanding of the content is absolutely necessary. Anything short would result in injustices. Treating this content dispute as a behavioral problem will only make it one. MilesMoney (talk) 04:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I know junior high school students who can identify bullying and harassment; that doesn't take an economics degree. I'm sure even our least experienced admins could handle it. Once those editors who don't understand the subject have been forced to discuss it (instead of attacking others) they'll either do so, refuse to do so or revert to attacking others and will be blocked. Then we can return to the broadly collegial effort and highly productive editing that saw a string of COI LvMI articles go from entirely unsourced or very-poorly-sourced to incredibly-well-sourced in a very short period of time before being "protected from attack" by clueless bullies. Stalwart111 04:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Let's face it, some some individuals of various political leanings are terrified that the Ron Paul/Rand Paul etc libertarian wing of the Republicans will take the election in 2016 and they are doing their best to trash the Mises-related people who influence/associate with them in any fashion. They focus on trashing the articles of some who have shown bad judgement in shooting off their mouths in an abrasive fashion ("libertarian macho flash") and then make sure all the other articles emphasize the close relationship of other individuals to the individuals and groups in the most trashed articles. It's a typical "I don't have an argument so I'll trash them with name calling" strategy. Those of us who are disgusted by it - and especially because it is against the spirit of Wikipedia - have and/or will continue to fight back and thus problems will continue as long as these editors are allowed to edit these articles. User:Carolmooredc 05:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Carol, that comment has nothing to do with mine so I've out-dented it, but the irony and hypocrisy are staggering. Your entire modus operadi in this subject area for the past six months has been focused on trashing editors with name calling (or deliberate misquoting) for lack of a cohesive argument. I came here to ANI months ago to defend you and argue that your actions were those of a frustrated/confused editor acting in good faith. Oh, how I paid for my defence of you - bullied, attacked, deliberately misquoted and deliberately misinterpreted by you and all for suggesting that unsourced hagiographies deserved some independent sources. Feel free to be disgusted. Stalwart111 06:36, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Carol, the articles SPECIFICO and I haven't "vandalized" are typically disgusting violations of WP:NPOV. Take the high quality (read: cult-approved) BLP for William H. Peterson article, which is sourced to nothing other than fringe LvMI co-workers, and claims on the basis of no evidence that this Mises fellow "served a crucial role as a leading public intellectual." (The lead paragraph alone is enough to make any remotely neutral editor vomit.)

As to your conspiracy theories about politics, it strikes me as quite unlikely that the electoral prospects of the Ron/Rand Paul movement will be affected by whether Wikipedia forthrightly presents the fringe nature of Rothbardian "punishment" (read: torture) or "monetary" (read: 100% PURE GOLD BULLION) theory. It is already known that Ron Paul is an evolution denialist and a climate change denialist, so the fringe economics likely wouldn't scare off supporters, or come as a surprise to detractors.

Also, among politicians, the Misesian economics is hardly new to the Pauls. Ronald Reagan subscribed to the "Freeman" and the Foundation For Economic Education, and even publicly fetishized the gold standard. He just didn't implement any of this stuff because his (right-wing) economists told him: "Listen up, bozo: This stuff you're obsessed with is stupid, cultish, and has no evidence behind it." The same, mark my words, will happen if Rand Paul becomes President. He'll throw rhetorical red meat to the cult now and then, but he'll never implement the "freedom philosophy" because everyone (Right and Left) who has studied economics will tell him doing so would drive the economy into "free" fall. Steeletrap (talk) 05:47, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

As I've said many times, it's one thing to clean up an article with issues you describe and add NPOV info, including critical info. It's something else to emphasize adding highly negative material in a WP:Undue fashion while frustrating others' attempts to add NPOV material. After fights on three articles where I tried to do so, I just gave up editing the ones the three editors in question work on. I can't help but speculate on reasons for this extreme animus, but I don't think it's related primarily to improving the encyclopedia. User:Carolmooredc 12:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Stuck: This is going around and around and around with absolutely no progress because of so many side-issues. Many comments are simply about the topic of Austrian economics and not about editing. Other comments are simply about editor behavior. I suggest this be closed without further action. -- – S. Rich (talk) 05:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Note: pseudo-admin stuck template removed. – S. Rich (talk) 15:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC) Some more useful commentary is popping up. Striking stuck remark. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't do this sort of pseudo-admin thing, Srich. I've left you a note on your talk. - Sitush (talk) 10:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A WP:ANRFC has been posted. – S. Rich (talk) 06:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC) I've asked that the ANRFC be closed as resolved. – S. Rich (talk) 18:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I disagree that this discussion is hopelessly un-close-able. In fact I think a careful reader can tell the difference between the outside commentators !voting on the appropriateness of the suggested sanctions, and the involved editors sidetracking the conversation here with the same sort of stuff happening at the article that the sanctions are intended to help fix. Zad68 12:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I suspect this may end up at ArbCom anyway because several of the editors involved seem to have developed highly negative on-wiki relationships, which they pursue on their user talk pages, other users' talk pages, at ANI, etc. Clamping down on this topic alone probably won't stop that. But it is a reasonable step that covers one of the most disputed areas among them. --RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support As RL0919 says, this may well end up at ArbCom, but whether or not it does we need something now. Dougweller (talk) 16:33, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I generally agree with Stalwart111 above (although I dislike the "iron fist" phrasing). This proposal should curb the worst of the behaviour in the topic area. I have the same doubts as Zad68 about the Arbcom review wording, however. As far as I am aware, Arbcom generally doesn't get involved with sanctions imposed by the community, so at the very least we shouldn't ask them to review sanctions made here without asking them about it first and getting their agreement. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Note for anyone who wants to contribute to the discussion or is reviewing for close: The discussion about general sanctions has continued below in the subsection titled #Let's wrap this up. --RL0919 (talk) 16:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sub-proposal: Require administrators who evaluate/sanction editors to be educated in economics

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

---

• Support If the main proposal does pass, I believe administrators scrutinizing the LvMI related pages should have to have substantial education/expertise in economics (specific self-description of one's educational/employment background in this regard would count as sufficient "proof" of this). Having an admin who doesn't know about economics evaluating the "neutrality" of these articles would be like me evaluating quantum mechanics related entries; said admin's judgments might as well be a product of "hunches" and tea leaf reading. Only an admin that can distinguish WP:Fringe from WP:RS economics can understand the meaning of, and therefore sanction users for violations of, policies like NPOV in the context of Mises-institutes articles, which relate to fringe economists/economics. Steeletrap (talk) 20:39, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

Not a good idea. See WP:EXPERT. And I've observed where some (self-proclaimed) experts have told other Wikipedia editors that all contributors are amongst peers. – S. Rich (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] We (editors) are all peers, and should all contribute to all articles we want to. But admins are not our peers, strictly speaking. They have far more powers and responsibilities. If we're going to dramatically heighten those powers, it makes sense to heighten the qualifications needed to wield them. Steeletrap (talk) 21:25, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a fine idea, so long as they're not Austrians. However, Wikipedia hates experts, hates expertise, hates academia. MilesMoney (talk) 20:54, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I will also note that the WP:FTN is available. Editors in general, not just admins and/or experts, can weigh in with their thoughts. But in reviewing the FTN I do not see many threads involving Austrian economics. – S. Rich (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

This proposal is more than a bit off the wall. Nothing on Wikipedia is constrained to experts, as a tertiary source we do not need to be experts, and the original proposal makes no mention of neutrality. The issue is accepted behaviours, period. That the proposer seems not to recognise how Wikipedia operates comes as a surprise to me: consensus rules and verifiability trumps truth. . - Sitush (talk) 23:18, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

@Sitush:, Could you tell us which articles constitute the set on which you are supporting General Sanctions and what you believe have been the factors or issues in those articles which require the GS remedy? Please be specific in your response, citing which issues were problematic and how those issues were related to content, behavior, and any other factors you feel are relevant. Above, you wrote, "The general sanctions imposed on Indian castes affected far more articles and editors than this proposal will ever likely do." Could you estimate the number of articles in the Indian caste sanction set and compare it with your estimate of the number that would come under the proposed sanctions here? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Admins do not determine content issues (like neutrality) so this proposal isn't needed. Admins carry out consensus and that's it. Every admin action should be able to be linked to a specific consensus. (Speedy deletions, for instance, are determined by predetermined consensus at WP:CSD). All an admin must do here is determine whether the consensus of editors is that a piece of content is neutral or not in the form of closing a discussion or protecting a page. No admin should be taking it amoungst themselves to claim an authority to determine neutrality. Admins are peers of editors whom only are trusted with an added responsibility of pushing buttons on behalf of the community.--v/r - TP 00:48, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per TParis above, and because the disputes about Mises & co aren't about economics anyway... AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:51, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose that's not how Wikipedia works. FWIW, I do have a minor in economics. --Rschen7754 00:55, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

While we have 3 fresh and thoughtful new participants here, may I ask you -- if you wish -- to review the recent history on the article and talk page and express your view on the question of 1RR, Protection, or Status Quo on this article? My current view is that the current discussion cleared the air and that progress improving the article has resumed. SPECIFICO talk 00:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

There've been so many proposals and variants, not to mention derailments, that I've lost track of what I'm for and against. In the meantime, while everyone is arguing here, the article is moving forward nicely. Maybe you're right and we're just overreacting here. They're not called drama pages because of all the clear thinking they encourage... MilesMoney (talk) 01:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is antithetical to the way Wikipedia has always worked. If an editor or administrator acts improperly because of a misunderstanding of a factual nature, this can be corrected by referring this or other editors to appropriate citations of fact. Gamaliel (talk) 01:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

You do make a good point with how WP works. But your other argument is frankly naive. Background knowledge is necessary to process and contextualize the facts presented in a given econ link. Steeletrap (talk) 01:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. For reasons mentioned above and because who knows if anon editors even have credentials they claim to have? User:Carolmooredc 01:22, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: blatantly not how Wikipedia works pbp 02:12, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Counter-proposal, close without action

While we've been anxiously arguing over what extreme measures will prove necessary to end the edit war, moving further away from consensus (or even the stated goal) with each response, the war inconveniently ended itself. The fire is no longer raging out of control. In fact, there is no fire to put out, so we should stop discussing the utility of water vs. explosives and just walk away. Drop the stick, bury the hatchet, move on. Insert the idiom of your choice, or just silently kill this dramatic monstrosity of a thread. The one thing we should all be ready to agree upon is that we're not going to agree to do anything helpful at this point. MilesMoney (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It amuses me that the vociferous and problematic contributors - the ones who seem to cause all this Austrian economics mess - are the ones who are suddenly backtracking and trying to find any way to prevent this becoming more than another long-winded thread about the subject. Of course, it is A Good Thing if the specific issue has now been addressed but the underlying issue, which is that which the sanctions proposal attempts to address, seems to remain. I think what we're seeing here is a reaction by the likes of MM and Specifico to a possible boomerang situation. Let's get the sanctions in place: if it turns out that the threat of them has actually been sufficient to bring some normality to behaviour etc then great, and if not then they'll be there to be used on the next occasion that this crap starts up. - Sitush (talk) 17:21, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Please strike your personal attack and comment with respect to the topic at hand. SPECIFICO talk 17:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Just going to note that Sitush could have just voted "Oppose" and moved on. The fact that this immediately degenerated into personal attacks is the strongest evidence that this entire thread has spoiled on the vine and needs to be culled. It's just a great big mass of bad blood waiting to burst. Kill it. Burn it with fire. MilesMoney (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support - As nominator. MilesMoney (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm withdrawing this, both because it hasn't gained much traction and because the behavior of editors on the relevant articles has once again declined, after we were actually making progress. This issue has been made worse by this festering thread, so I say we should come to some conclusion already and move on. If it's going to be sanctions, I don't agree, but I'm not going to fight against the idea of them any longer.

• Oppose purely on the basis that simply moving on has clearly not worked in the past. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for many reasons stated above. User:Carolmooredc 17:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - Doing nothing does not address the issue brought forth by Mark Arsten, and would likely result in even more hurt feelings and wasted time. If folks intend to edit according to the accepted practices of the project, then there should be little concern about sanctions. I have actually seen discretionary sanctions work very well in previous cases. They tend to quickly isolate problematic editors. If the NE Ent's proposal fails, then this will almost certainly land on ARBCOM's doorstep, thus wasting even more of the community's time for a similar result. - MrX 18:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support - We all want editing to proceed more smoothly, but I have been disappointed not to hear any specific discussion of how or why the various proposals here would accomplish that. Sometimes a hiatus such as has been occasioned by this ANI is restorative. Despite a lot of rumbling from various quarters, I only recall one ANI in any of the Austrian-related topics which led to any discipline against an abusive editor, and that was not in this Mises Institute article. It's a big leap from one discipline per year to ARBCOM, MrX. SPECIFICO talk 19:57, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose and every contribution from the core group of editors active at the relevant articles to these ANI threads makes me more and more sure SDS are needed and will be effective. Zad68 20:05, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

* Qualified Support I regrettably have to support Miles's proposal because this thread is an unmitigated disaster (people are being very extreme in their use of heated rhetoric and threats, but have failed to provide any diffs in support of their allegations). I do however think that heightened scrutiny on LvMI entries, both from admins and other users, would be acceptable and even desirable in light of the problems we've had with those pages. Some sanctions in this regard may be necessary down the line. But such sanctions have to be substantiated by diffs and citations of policy, both of which are utterly lacking in this appalling thread. Steeletrap (talk) 23:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC). Oppose While editor conduct on this thread was initially very poor, other users have made more specific and credible charges, and explained the sanctions process more effectively. This, paired with the truly lamentable conduct of users carolmooredc and binksternet on the LvMI pages, leads me to change my vote. Steeletrap (talk) 00:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm in favour of general sanctions per my comment above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Sanctions are needed at this group of topics. Binksternet (talk) 14:26, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I said as much on 21 Oct but did not actually write "oppose". - Sitush (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Procedural Note: Where's the diff?

The stridence and certitude behind the call for general sanctions made by many editors above, starting with a complaint by OP which featured exactly zero diffs, is astounding given the total absence of evidence in support of their allegations of problematic or biased editing. I don't recall anyone pointing to a single problematic addition or removal of content on one of those pages (as opposed to pointing to examples of users, especially Binksternet, making inappropriate personal remarks to other users). People appear to have lazily and erroneously inferred from the high number and intense nature of ANI postings that some or all of the editors who spend time there must be "bad." I demand that people begin to offer diffs of genuine, ongoing (i.e. from the last month or more frequently) violations of policy on articles. Bare conclusory assertions of "misconduct" and "bias" (bereft of any evidence) wouldn't cut it on the playground, and they shouldn't here either. Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Your restriction of submitted diffs to be "from the last month" is self-serving. If we go back to April 2013 there are revealing diffs showing you to be very much biased against LvMI and people associated with it. You wrote about LvMI: "I am utterly convinced that the organization is a racist one" and in the same diff "The bigotry of (at least some) Mises Institute people is pretty well sourced." You also said, "I have and will continue to be honest regarding my bias against the Mises Institute (I think they are cultish charlatans whose "economic" methodology is unscientific), but I don't think that this bias -- however strong -- necessarily precludes me from making substantive edits and improvements to LVMI-related pages..." You also told Stalwart111 that you were "biased against" the LvMI. All of these declarations are from six months ago. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

There is a list of past ANI reports above, for starters. - Sitush (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

[Insert] So one user's slanted interpretation of ANIs, most of which related to personal misconduct and none of which resulted in any sanctions whatsoever, is a substitute for diffs of inappropriate edit to Mises Institute related articles? Knowing that you (and presumably others here) think that way speaks volumes, Sitush. Steeletrap (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

None of which, @Sitush: -- as has been pointed out by me and by uninvolved editor @Stalwart111: and others -- support @Carolmooredc:'s claims, and at least two of which, as I've indicated above, are outright misrepresentations. You have just given a fresh example of what @Steeletrap: described, SPECIFICO talk 18:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

I would be very surprised if most of the people commenting on this issue did not at least review the relevant article history, article talk pages, user talk pages and noticeboards. Diffs can be useful for a simple case of edit warring or vandalism, but when an issue spans several articles in a single topic area, a handful of common editors, and a multi-week timeframe, it's makes a little more sense to use other tools to gain a larger view of the situation. - MrX 18:44, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

If they did, there's little evidence of such research in the comments on this thread. Your guess is not unreasonable, but I don't see anything in the comments here to confirm that it actually happened. At any rate, there are two separate issues. First, whether an uninvolved editor forms a personal judgment by researching the history more broadly than the examination of selected diffs. But second, how can one editor discuss or advocate such judgment if not through documentation in the form of diffs or specific references to discussions and issues. I see no sign in this whole glorious jumble that more than a few uninvolved editors did any such research and we've already been 'round the mulberry bush on Carolmooredc using what appear to be references and diffs to mislead and misrepresent the record. It seems unlikely to me that any uninvolved editors here devoted much attention to scrutinizing any of the undocumented claims that were bandied about here. When that kind of detailed scrutiny does in fact occur, discussion threads tend to be focused on separating fact from interpretation and the discussion converges to a consensus. Maybe that will happen here if the thread stays open for another week or two. SPECIFICO talk 19:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

The topic is potential sanctions for all editors on the articles, so fairly general links to past ANIs, etc. more acceptable. If it was a proposal to topic ban certain editors, more specific and telling diffs would be necessary. I think people can judge for themselves if I use "what appear to be references and diffs to mislead and misrepresent the record." Some description helps since people are less likely to click on links like [1], [2], [3] etc. If sanctions are applied, I personally would give it at least a month before even thinking about looking at certain covered articles again to see whether sanctions worked and it was safe to try to put in NPOV info. However, I'd be delighted to put the relevant templates on a few articles. User:Carolmooredc 21:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

A topic ban is exactly what you proposed (only this morning) - "I think at least two of them should be topic banned by an editor now and there would be no need to go to ArbCom". Failing that, you advocated a pseudo topic ban; applying sanctions to, "whatever ones [SPECIFICO] and Steeletrap have been working on in this area" and you want sanctions applied for "at least a month". Your motivation here is transparent. Stalwart111 06:22, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

There's a difference between the various posters' formal proposals and my opinion of what should happen based on my analysis of why there is a problem in the first place. If I was making a proposal I'd do it in the proper format. Pardon me for not making that clear so that you could understand it. User:Carolmooredc 18:24, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I think given your history we all understand perfectly well what it is you are trying to do and nobody is falling for your act any more. Stalwart111 02:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Let's wrap this up

There are several different proposals on the table here. To make it easier for whichever Admin does the close, let's each state our preference here:

• General Sanctions This seems like the only way to prevent the small number of disruptive editors from thwarting the excellent progress that's continued even as this ANI has dragged on. Let's give it a try. SPECIFICO talk 23:22, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Opening yet another subsection just muddies the waters further. Just change your !vote on the sanctions in the preceding section. An experienced admin is perfectly capable of working out what has gone on. Please hat this subsection. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

• General Sanctions Ongoing and intensifying disruptive conduct, both from "old timers" Binksternet Carolmooredc, and "new" editors such as Sitush, make such a measure sadly necessary. Steeletrap (talk) 00:06, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Anything No, really. Anything is better than dragging our feet. Let's act decisively and make some progress, as this thread is worse than pointless. MilesMoney (talk) 02:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• General Sanctions per the above proposal by NE Ent. That said, I think Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal.2C_general_sanctions is probably a sufficient section on its own for an uninvolved admin to close upon. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 14:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment With you three (Steeletrap, Specifico, MilesMoney) changing your mind, it seems we have a practical unanimous support for discretionary sanctions; the possible exception being user:Liz but I don't think she has been very involved in these articles. That's a welcome development which hopefully bodes well for the future. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 18:37, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
• Comment My concern was primarily with the fair implementation of sanctions. So, I won't support or oppose them. I will speak up in the future should the sanctions ever be implemented and I think they are being unfairly applied. Yeah, that'll make me popular. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:00, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

I can't guarantee your popularity, but you should know that I appreciate your input. MilesMoney (talk) 23:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

After today, I'll take it! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:03, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• General sanctions with NPOV emphasis since the problem remains editors who openly have expressed ridicule and hostility towards the subjects, making their biased edits even more annoying to more NPOV editors, leading to repeated trips to various noticeboards. (see this diff of listing above. User:Carolmooredc 13:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The General Sanctions will address personal attacks, harassment, and tendentious editing so that the content per se can be improved without disruption. Be careful what you wish for. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I think that depends on what the admins think necessary. User:Carolmooredc 15:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• General sanctions, although I'm not sure why we are repeating this down here when there is already a section about it above. --RL0919 (talk) 16:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Good point and closing admin surely will note that. User:Carolmooredc 16:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• This should be SNOW closed. It seems to have nearly unanimous consensus, as the only four opposes have either changed their minds or acquiesced, and many people have voted multiple times (Yes, something needs to happen, Yes let's do general sanctions, No, let's not close this without action, Yes, seriously, let's do the general sanctions.) For the close, I propose the following wording:

  Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working on a page within the topic of Austrian Economics, if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. Sanctions may be appealed to the administrator who placed them, or at the administrators' noticeboard.

  I made only one small modification to the original wording proposed by User:NE Ent, dropping the "Arbitration committee", per suggestions by User:Zad68 and User:Mr. Stradivarius. (If an appeal gets really stuck at AN, arbitration can be considered.) If somebody doesn't close this I'm willing to do so myself, provided there are no objections based on my involvement in the initial thread above (saying that Yes, something needs to be done). Any takers? ~Adjwilley (talk) 23:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  Best to let someone close it who hasn't opined above or engaged in the original brouhaha. alanyst 23:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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. [53]). 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 [54]). 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: [55]: "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 [56], 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" [57]). 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 [58]. 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,[59] 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,[60] 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 [61]) -- 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 [62]: "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 [63]. 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 [64]. 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 [65]. This is why its byline location is signed "United Nations", and how it managed to report on Bryden's dismissal as it was happening [66], [67]. 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 [68]. 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 [69]. 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[70] "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" [71]; "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" [72]). 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" [73]). 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)

Ha ha, I promised I wouldn't comment anymore in this discussion but this one really made me laugh out loud! I never realized that impartiality was a prerequisite to editing! --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:38, 25 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 [74], and one was ultimately deleted as well by an admin [75]. Middayexpress (talk) 16:19, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban for Middayexpress It can be a mild one (shorter and automatically expiring). Absolutely oppose even a voluntary topic ban of CorporateM. There is absolutely no reason to even consider that. North8000 (talk) 17:02, 25 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, User:North8000,
• Oppose: User:Obiwankenobi

Would an admin like to summarize and close this 11,570 word thread?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 17:35, 24 October 2013 (UTC) Added me. North8000 (talk) 17:04, 25 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)
        • I've never added any personal views/comments to the Bryden page, so you're reaching there. Everything I did actually add was sourced; the most you can do is thus complain about the cited sources (which apparently includes Bryden's own alma mater). That makes this a standard content dispute. Pass a Method's vote also indeed doesn't count as its a clear example of Wikihounding. He followed me to this post from the Captain Phillips (film) page, and within minutes of when I had replaced an image that he had added earlier there and voted along with two other editors to streamline the page's controversies section [76]. Time stamps readily show this (incidentally, I was also later thanked for those edits by User:Gareth Griffith-Jones). As for the actual number of votes opposing a topic ban, there are three. Besides myself, User:DrFleischman has not supported the proposal. In fact, he actually appeared to recommend that you be sanctioned for your own behavior (his remark above from 23:44, 18 October 2013 (UTC)). In his own post above from 20:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC) User:Obiwankenobi also clearly indicated that he would oppose a formal topic ban provided that I agreed to recuse myself from editing the article and focus instead on civil talk page discourse. I've agreed with those conditions. Despite this, you for some reason keep overlooking Obiwankenobi's position statement, even when he told you directly that "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". For my part, I agree not to revert wholesale back to whatever the previous page version was after the self-recusing period has ended. Middayexpress (talk) 14:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, now its a 12,320 word thread. Would an Admin like to summarize and close?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Patience please. The Horn of Africa Project members were only just contacted for the first time, and they should weigh in shortly. Middayexpress (talk) 13:29, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

So--you can 'contact' your editing friends at the Project, but when CorporateM does something like that it's conflict-of-interest generated 'ping'ing? Nice. And why should we wait? The Bryden thing has been going on for weeks, and this thread has been here for far too long. Drmies (talk) 13:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

CorporateM's friend contacts are a fait accompli, and are largely the reason why the discussion has gone the way it has. Although Bryden is a Horn of Africa specialist and the UN's former Coordinator for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group, the thread starter by contrast never bothered notifying the Horn of Africa projects of this discussion (which btw is allowed per appropriate notification: "an editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following[...] the talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion"). I therefore took the initiative and notified those projects and "the user talk pages of concerned editors [including] editors known for expertise in the field", but only after having received the go ahead from User:Obiwankenobi (comment above from 00:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC): "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"). That said, those project members/concerned editors should weigh in shortly for the first time. Closing the thread prematurely won't take into consideration their input, so it won't reflect the actual community consensus; just a selective portion of it. Middayexpress (talk) 14:33, 26 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)

Have there been attempts to communicate with the IP via their user talk page and/or the article talk pages? This is the first step. If this has been done, can someone provides some diffs please?-- — Keithbob • Talk • 15:58, 25 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 [77]) 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. [78], [79], [80], [81]. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 18:09, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

And again: [82]. --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 [83]). 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 ([84] and [85]). 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 [86]). 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. [87],
2. [88],
3. [89]),

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 [90], [91], and [92]). This needs to stop.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 18:53, 24 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)

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. [93]
2. [94]
3. [95]
4. [96]
5. [97]

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 ([98] [99] [100]), remove sourced material ([101]), delink pages in an apparent attempt to orphan them so they can be deleted ([102] [103] [104]), 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" [105]-- 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 [106] -- 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 [107] [108]. 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: [109]

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

1. [110] 8 August: Deletes important sentence without explainer (SEE COMMENTS BELOW FOR GENERAL BACKGROUND TO WELDNECK'S DAMAGING EDITS, REVERTS; 58 EDITS SINCE AUGUST)
2. [111] 8 August: Removes witness, illogical reason.
3. [112] 8 August: Removes "massacre" twice, though that's article's title.
4. [113] 9 August: Misrepresents analyst's call for integrity process, attributing it instead to South Koreans.
5. [114] 9 August: Removes key source, North Korean journalist.
6. [115] 19 August: Removes leading scholar from Further Reading because dislikes his views.
7. [116] 7 October: Reverts fixes to Aerial imagery section with dismissive few words.
8. [117] 7 October: Misleads on which investigators found 2nd Battalion responsible.
9. [118] 7 October: Removes entire Korean commission description of events, without discussion, explanation.
10. [119] 9 October: Falsifies description of Navy document re strafing civilians, adding nonexistent exculpatory clause (sugarcoating)
11. [120] 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. [121] 9 October: Deletes Pentagon statement that discredited witness wasn't essential to investigation; no explanation, as usual.
13. [122] 10 October: Reverts contributor's removal of extraneous material.
14. [123] 15 October: Again reverts contributor's fixes to his Aerial imagery edits.
15. [124] 15 October: Deletes sentences noting, with citation, AP refutation of attacks on its journalism, and NY Times article supportive of AP.
16. [125] 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)

Seems like a topic-ban would be the easiest and quickest solution here. Jtrainor (talk) 04:47, 26 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[126][127] badly referenced material to the Tea tree oil article.

For example[128] 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: [129] 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[130][131] 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 [132].Goodsdrew (talk) 20:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation here: [133]. 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

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

---

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 a 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)

Haddaway wi yiz, ner-wun caals wor mam a hooah! Oops, my account was briefly taken over by my Inner Geordie for a while there. Now, where were we? Oh yes:

* "boss cocky" - a person in charge, "head honcho"

* "stoush" - a fight

* chiaking" - teasing, name-calling

* "furphy" - a rumour, often an allegation with little or no substance

* "blue" - depending on context, either a mistake or a disagreement

* "flash cove" - C19 slang, broadly meaning a show-off. A C21 equivalent might be "cashed-up bogan" (Google it)

* "hard yakka" - strenuous work or effort

* "cop it sweet" - "roll with the punches", "take it on the chin"

All dinky-di though somewhat archaic Australian slang. Except for the stuff about wombats and jumbucks: I just made that up.

That said, I don't think there is anything further to be gained here - closing this thread. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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 [134]. 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 ([135]), 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”.[136] Then I changed the talk page section header to something neutral: “Discussion about whether the lead is proper”,[137] 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: [138] [139] [140] [141] [142]. 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. [143] 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 [144] 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 ([145]), 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 ([146] [147]), everyone who edits his userpage is an "overinflated and mean spirited ego" ([148]; "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: [149] [150]. 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 [151]. 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)

The minute you clicked "Save page" even once, you agreed to the rules of Wikipedia - the Terms of Use were right there every time. Why not step back and actually read them, and stop making a rather public nuisance of yourself - I actually feel rather embarassed on your behalf - you come across as reasonably intelligent and learnéd, but you're behaving like a bit of a boor ES&L 10:53, 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)
  • There is (was) also SSZvH7N5n8 (talk · contribs). 23dx5assd seems to be the account they created after stopping using that one. SmartSE (talk) 10:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'm late to this party, but I have worked with DrChrissy on a number of articles and find this editor to be a person who normally follows AGF very well, and if anything has a generally pro-animal viewpoint, so these hardcore animal-rights-toned IP attacks, and the character of their attacks, (the IP 124.168.50.211 talks like a sock (accusations of ownership and comments like "respect other editors", among other things) really are quite WP:FRINGE and the sorts of additions/arguments that should be promptly rejected out offhand without need for a huge talk page dramafest. (And thank you, Drmies, for your reverts on several pages on my watchlist) Frankly, whenever the fringe extremists (on either side) hit an animal welfare article, the crazy goes from zero to 60 in 2.5 seconds or less. I'm troubled that the attitude that a good, established editor doesn't "come with clean hands" and thus the trolls are given a free pass. This seems to be happening to several editors across all areas of wikipedia. Just saying that I respect DrChrissy and that DrChrissy's position is apt to be the accurate one. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for those comments, and thanks also to all the other editors and administrators who have been involved in this. I think an enormous amount of time has been spent on this, but WP is a better place for it. Keep up the good work.__DrChrissy (talk) 20:15, 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[152]. The email address for Johnson being the same as the name of the editor. Also check out this talk page thread[153]

An editor tried to CSD it was deemed inappropriate for speedy deletion. So an AFD[154] took place which ended in consensus for deletion. During that AFD however, two of the IPs above, 64[155] and 75[156], 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[157] 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[158] reverted by IP 24[159]

• 2 edit[160] reverted by IP 24[161]

• 3 edit[162] reverted by IP 24[163]

• 4 edit[164] reverted by IP 64[165]

• 5 edit[166] undid by IP 24[167] 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[168] and this edit[169] done by a editor with an exemplary history of working on a neighboring state's articles, are reverted here[170] and here[171]

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[172] the new article. When I attempted to fix[173] 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[174] 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

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

---

• 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. [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180]. He apparently denies that he was canvassing (or otherwise his comment is too cryptic).[181] 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[182] and again on 9 September[183] and Dan skeptic on 9 October[184] (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[185] (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,[186] 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"[187] (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: [188]: "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 [189], 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" [190]), 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 [191] 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. [192] And again[193]. Then Dan skeptic requested more help [194] 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)

That's highly conspiratorial. No editor of the Rupert Sheldrake page is in the Guerilla Skeptics (calling it a movement is amusing) and I am not either (although I do have a James Randi T-Shirt!). Sgerbic is quite open about which pages they have edited (it's their primary way of promoting wikipedia editing); it seems mostly to be a a small team that give advice on how to edit articles to comply with policy and guidelines; mostly the editors who use their help write about notable skeptics and related. Skeptics aren't nasty bogeymen who want to label everything as nonsense. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:33, 25 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)

I am so, so sorry that I ignored the rule that one can only visit AN/I once a day. I'll try to follow the sterling example of those with more experience than I, who know better than to psychoanalyze other Editors. And thank you so much for the advice to edit articles, 54.04% of my edits are to articles but I'll try to do better. I appreciate your thoughtful and caring words, Beyond My Ken, it's Editors like you that inspire others. Peace. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:36, 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)

Agh, have just come into WP today as a reader, saw the notice about a post, saw the notice from Lou (which I haven't had time to check yet) and also saw the notice about this discussion concerning "an issue with which you may have been involved". I'm posting now without being fully informed but can say this: I am not a fan of Sheldrake or a supporter of his work, nor do I have a bias towards him, nor do any of my posts present arguments that would show favour towards his views. I'm an independent editor, don't know Lou or what his/her views are, and don't really care because (as my posts show) I'm quite comfortable agreeing with any or all editors on the points that I agree with whilst disagreeing with them when I don't think their views are in line with my understanding of WP policies and aims. Tento2 (talk) 11:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

IP insists on double voting

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

---

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. [195], [196], [197] --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 [198] (revert of Koavf's edit), [199], [200] (last edit came after they were pointed to the guideline [201]). --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 [202], [203], [204]. Unheeded note to stop: [205] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What is the evidence of "harassment"? Telling you that "you're wasting my time" and that your "fact checking is weak" doesn't add up to your accusation. Maybe you could just take the advice and fact check your work better. Believe me it will help you in other areas of life. There needs to be some documentation of your behavior on your talk page besides what your doing here on the admin site. 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:20, 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)

Beyond My Ken, Aren't you the one you just said (above) "who cares whether it's written down or not, we're here telling you that it's how things are done around here"? I think you might need a block for uncivil communication. And by the way, I honored the request about the "IP insists on double voting" issue --- which wasn't a double vote anyway. The one-time issue was turned into a "comment" on the Millennial Generation talk page yesterday (instead of "support (again)"). 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• +1 (although there's sufficient evidence here that a milquetoast admin would be acceptable). NE Ent 10:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Beyond My Ken, but you need to have evidence before you suggest a complete block. The redact was just adding new constructive information to my own comments on the talk page -- NOT anyone elses -- which is completely within Wikipedia policy. What specific "discussions" are you referring to? What "grounds" are you referring to? You need more than "the grounds are quite clear" to even suggest it. And not "getting the point" is a ridiculous reason for a block. Could you please answer what you meant above by writing: "who cares whether it's written down or not, we're here telling you that it's how things are done around here"? 172.250.31.151 (talk) 16:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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: [206] [207]. 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: [208],[209], [210], [211],[212]. See also [213], [214], [215], [216], [217], [218][219]

[220] [221] [222] [223]. 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.

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

---

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)

• That's quite a pie graph. Leave the dude alone. Carrite (talk) 05:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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: [[224]]; 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 [225] 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 [226] 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 [227] 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)

@Bushranger are you saying to me or him? SpidErxD (talk) 16:45, 25 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

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

---

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[228] 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)
• Oppose - Not sure what the accusation even is here, let alone why the "death penalty" remedy is considered remotely appropriate. Let's all just breathe deeply and move along, shall we? Carrite (talk) 05:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Liz. Let him ride out the current block. If blocks are truly preventative then one block should be able to prevent multiple disruptions. There's no need to introduce additional block while a block is in place, such things being obviously punitive because there can't possibly be any disruption to prevent. Such things should therefore be sequential, not concurrent. If he returns and is disruptive, different story. Stalwart111 07:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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: [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234], [235]

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: [236][237][238] 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 seems to be what we call Single-purpose account. A careful look on his history log[239] and we'll notice that the only thing he does in here is add IPA. He has done that on countless articles.

Now the problem:

Wikipedia:Babel

pt-1Este usuário/utilizador pode contribuir com um nível básico de português.

Search user languages

• According to Xyzzyva himself he has a "basic" 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 IPA to several articles:
  • Luís da Cunha[240]
  • Engenho[241]
  • Antônio de Sousa Neto[242]
  • Catalão[243]
  • Bernardo Guimarães[244]
  • Pampulha[245]
  • A Escrava Isaura (novel)[246]
  • Espinhaço Mountains[247]
  • Ouro Preto[248]
  • Sinhá Moça[249]
  • Rafael Cavalcante[250]
  • Renan Barão[251]
  • Batalhão de Operações Policiais Especiais[252]
  • Paulo Thiago[253]
  • Francisco Trinaldo[254]
  • Fabrício Camões[255]
  • Jussier Formiga[256]
  • Rafael Natal[257]
  • Ronaldo Souza[258]
  • Pantanal[259]
  • Jacareí[260]
  • Roberto Azevêdo[261]
  • Bachianas Brasileiras[262]
  • Monte Santo, Bahia[263]
  • Chapada[264]
  • João Guimarães Rosa[265]
  • George Maciunas[266]
  • Leandro Damião[267]
  • Rômulo Borges Monteiro[268]
  • Hélio Castroneves[269]
  • Adenor Leonardo Bacchi[270]
  • Júlio César Santos Correa[271]
  • Raí[272]
  • Digão[273]
  • Kaká[274]
  • Fogo de Chão[275]
  • Neymar[276]
  • A Banda Mais Bonita da Cidade[277]
  • Milton Gonçalves[278]
  • Pixote[279]
  • Gonçalves Dias[280]
  • Canção do exílio[281]
  • Émerson Leão[282]
  • Santarém, Pará[283]
  • Esporte Clube Bahia[284]
  • Sport Club Corinthians Paulista[285]
  • Santos FC[286]
  • Leão do Mar[287]
  • Campeonato Brasileiro Série A[288]
  • Fordlândia[289]
  • Forró[290]
  • Torcida Jovem[291]
  • Valdemar Santana[292]
  • Manuel dos Reis Machado[293]

• I warned him over and over to stop doing that but he didn't care.[294]

It is unacceptable that an editor be allowed to add pronunciation guides in a language he does not know. 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)

There's now a third (and a fourth) opinion on the article's talkpage. Let's call the whole thing off. bobrayner (talk) 07:05, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The issue here is not an article, but countless. A person who cannot speak Portuguese shouldn't add pronunciation guides. --Lecen (talk) 10:48, 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)

Sigh. More one Tea Party lover whining on Wikipedia. Or more one of the Brazilian mainstream media lovers, they are legion. People who see reds under the bed. The fellow accuses me of doing propaganda and that's exactly what he does, to please his bosses at big media. I am tired of this guy... how so? This is, or this is not, the first time that he intervenes in the article? Maybe he has been acting undercover, disguised as a coward IP. This guy needs psychiatric care - his behaviour is not normal. He's sick. - Al Lemos (talk) 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, that's all this "reliable user" can do - personal attack. The article he created over 3 years is a Frankenstein, and have the style of a North Korean editing the USA page. but he is not very willing to discuss it. I take this as a full admission of guilt. This is the type of person that would block the internet of an entire country (as in China) if he can't control the information...Rauzaruku (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Fishface gurl - episode 2

This new (or returned?) user, already the subject of one ANI thread [295], 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: [296][297][298][299]. 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)

• Regrettably more pain is usually required before someone presses the WP:NOTHERE button, but asking (and edit warring to insist on asking) how the Third Reich would have handled a massive zombie outbreak is as a good predictor as any regarding whether a ten-day old account has any hope of helping the encyclopedia. Following that episode, we see comments at the chess project where an experienced editor is being grilled over an article they have just started in a sandbox. It looks like trolling to me. Johnuniq (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It also looks rather familiar (as Grump suggests), but I don't keep track of socks well enough to say which one it is. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • Or maybe the answer is in the section just below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)
    • (Non-administrator comment) Rather a case of slight depression ( that affair with chess.com ). She has been accused of single-purpose account, trying to escape that. --Askedonty (talk) 14:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Given the editor's responses here and here, I'm willing to assume good faith and believe that Fishface gurl actually wasn't aware that question would be considered silly.

That being said, the edit-warring is a problem. I've left another warning for that. m.o.p 14:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you make of the subject's seemingly all-too-aware comment in the section below? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The section below this one? I don't see anything concerning about their contribution to the below thread, unless you're talking about something else. m.o.p 15:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm talking about this:

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

"Obviously"? How does that brand-new user suddenly turn up commenting on obscure user that way. Unless they're not really a brand-new user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

The chess angle in particular sounds familiar. I've asked a chess guru about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

It's "obviously" since the guy below signed his name Anoop in his original post. What's your angle, with all the time and effort you are putting into this? What am I your project for the day? Fishface gurl (talk) 20:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"All the time and effort" I've spent amounts to maybe 10 or 15 minutes. And if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

My account has been blocked

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

---

Dear Sir/Madam

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

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

Can you please look into the matter.

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

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

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

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

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

This account isn't blocked but there exists a cat of blocked accounts suspected to belong to this user: ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Anoop4uall. —SpacemanSpiff 06:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"I had created this account so as to maintain the article ,AdvocateKhoj. when it was blacklisted, I had shot an email to the admin who blacklisted it asking the reason for blacklisting. However, I never received any response. Since there was no purpose, I haven't logged in since..."[300] - Anoop4uall, your userpage was tagged as a sockmaster 20 minutes after you emailed Ckatz. Are you seriously suggesting that having monitored Wikipedia for two entire years to "maintain the article" without making any edits at all, you suddenly notice an obscure blacklist entry mentioning it, email the admin concerned and then wait less than 20 minutes for an answer before logging out forever? If you had waited longer than that you would have noticed the sock template on your page in 2011 rather than in 2013 as you're now suggesting. Euryalus (talk) 12:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Disruptive editing by User:Virgosky

Virgosky has been engaging in disruptive editing against policy and consensus for some time on articles including Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge, Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge and Edward IV of England. Since 7 August 2013, Virgosky has repeatedly attempted to remove, qualify or discredit sourced content about Catherine's descent from Edward IV without citing a valid policy-based reason or having talk page consensus for their edits. It is not clear what their reasons are as the (invalid) reason they originally cited no longer applies (there are now multiple British reliable sources cited for the content).

Diffs:

• First disruptive edit on 7 August 2013 (edit summary: "Removed maternal info. More proof is needed than just the speculation of one American genealogist.")
• Latest disruptive edit on 25 October 2013 (no edit summary provided)

(Please let me know if you need me to post all the relevant diffs inbetween, there are many which can be seen by glancing at the history of Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge.)

I filed a dispute resolution case on 1 October 2013 which did not resolve the situation in the long term as Virgosky has since repeatedly (many times) removed sourced information added to the section that contradicts information that they have subsequently added which is known to be a published error.

I have tried to address the matter on various article talk pages to no avail:

• Talk:Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Discussion on ancestry (latest discussion)
• Talk:Family of Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Carole Elizabeth Middleton
• Talk:Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge#Anthony Adolf
• Talk:Edward IV of England#Unexplained removal of content

I have also tried to address the matter several times on the user's talk page (all my posts have been ignored and removed):

• 1 October 2013
• 17 October 2013
• 17 October 2013

This disruptive editing is extremely harmful to Wikipedia. Not only is Virgosky's refusal to work within Wikipedia policy frustrating for other editors, but the resulting unbalanced information in the article harms the neutrality and hence reliability of Wikipedia content. Please can you help resolve the matter. HelenOnline 12:38, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am more than willing to achieve a consensus but it has become personal now with HelenOnline and three other editors whom she had contacted on their Talk pages to assist her. When we began the consensus FactStraight continued the edit war. I believe we are all guilty practipating in an edit war, which I am more than willing to take the hit. But, how can a consensus ever be achieved?

• [Flat_Out]
• [FactStraight]
• [Martinvl]

My suggestions were called:

• Imaginary tangents.
• I had no solid argument.
• My suggestions were not going to fly.
• No editors were going to take me seriously.
• The originally dispute (where I did what was asked) is no longer relevant. My original edit on October 15th was suggested by a third party during another dispute created by HelenOnline.

My suggestions were as follows:

• That we remove the section from the article which Deb agreed was 'Effective, but a bit drastic'.
• I suggested that the section should stay in but leave out the claimed retraction. Until a new version of The Complete Peerage is published to reflect the retraction.
• Finally, I removed the quote from The Complete Peerage (which I originally added on October 15th) because I was told it fell under WP:NPOV. The Complete Peerage itself is a better source.

Again, I would be more than happy to achieve a consensus, but I do not believe that the rules for a consensus should be used as a stick to beat other editors with nor should that editor be spoken down too and attacked. This has become personal which it should not have been. I would feel much better if an Admin could resolve this issue. Virgosky (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Virgosky left out one user notification for the latest consensus discussion:

• Deb HelenOnline 14:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Deb was kind enough to assist us and suggested we do a consensus. She did not make it personal and asked that we discuss it on the Talk page before making any further edits, however, FactStraight continued the edit war. When Deb agreed that removing the section was 'Effective, but a bit drastic', HelenOnline went on the defensive and stated to do that would only satisfy myself (and Deb). Virgosky (talk) 14:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

When editors disagree (happens), it does not mean they are "making it personal" or that they are being defensive or unreasonable. The trick is to provide reasons for disagreement based on policy which I have done and you have not. HelenOnline 14:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that currently unregistered users have assisted in continuing the edit war. I have fixed their edits until a resolution can be found. I have no more to say at this time. Virgosky (talk) 14:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) If you revert the anons' edits, then technically you are edit warring. Changing material unrelated to the disputed edits is fine and not considered edit warring. Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 14:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Your second sentence is incorrect. The rule applies to any reverts.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, did I say that? sorry for the confusion, I meant non reversion edits (like helpful addition of material). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 21:50, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Alright. I believe that is why these unregistered users have recently shown up, they wish to make it look as though I am edit warring because they were not around before the consensus started. Thank you for the suggestion. I will step back and leave the decision to an Admin. Virgosky (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Virgosky and Helen: I appreciate that it can be difficult to find a compromise when you both have strong views. I propose protecting this page for the time being so that only admins can edit it. Are you both willing for me to do this and give you a cooling-off period? You might find at the end of it that your differences are not as great as they seem now in the heat of the moment.Deb (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Deb I have no problem with the page being protected, but please note I am quite cool and not editing in the heat of the moment. This has been going on for months and time off alone is not going to fix anything. HelenOnline 15:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is perfectly fine with me, Deb. I think it is a good idea. Thank you for your assistance. Virgosky (talk) 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

In the meantime, could an admin please restore the consensus version that Virgosky reverted four times today, either with no valid reason specified or no reason specified at all? (which is not the final version because I refrained from reverting in the heat of the moment) HelenOnline 15:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Except in limited circumstances, administrators don't pick a version when they lock an article over a content dispute.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is why I am asking for someone who can edit the article (any admin) to rectify it. Could an administrator please clarify the status of this incident for me? It is not just about a content dispute or a single edit warring incident, it is about a pattern of disruptive editing against consensus. Deb's locking in of Virgosky's preferred version against consensus, the final version because I did not revert in the heat of the moment, has only reassured them that their disruptive editing is acceptable as can be seen from this edit on their talk page. If that is the end of the story, I will have lost all faith in Wikipedia. HelenOnline 05:20, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Please don't to that. I'm afraid that it is reallhy rare for Admins to do that on a protected page - BLP violations being one of the rare occasions, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. I have given Virgosky a WP:3RR warning - the warning covers all of his future edits anywhere. This has happened to me before, a page being locked to a bad version, but as Admins we have to be careful not to misuse our tools. If he thinks that he can maintain any article against consensus I'm sure he will be shown to be wrong. I'd advise you also to be careful about 3RR violations. Dougweller (talk) 05:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Doug, unfortunately it appears Virgosky still doesn't get it. I would appreciate you letting me know if there is anything I could have done differently to resolve this situation. HelenOnline 11:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Throughout this dispute HelenOnline and other editors have been just as guilty in edit warring, as I have. Giving me a WP:3RR warning was a misuse of your tools, especially since during the consensus I showed evidence of other editors attacking remarks, unwillingness to discuss and edit warring themselves. So, they get the hand holding and I get the slap. I will give Deb her due, she played it fair and neutral. I was under the assumption that Admins were suppose too do that (guess I was wrong). Some of the information removed on the article is information I originally added myself. Besides, the article has only been locked for a very short time and when it unlocks HelenOnline can add what she views as the correct version and if I make one slip up you get the fun of showing me that I am wrong. I also have lost faith in Wikipedia. It is unfortunate that using consensus on this site is really just a stick to beat other editors with regardless if the information is right or wrong. Btw, I am 'she' not a 'he' and I am closely related to the Royal Family so I know what's what. I never realized that an American genealogist would be considered more knowledgable than someone like me who is actually related to them and has done the work. But, as you wish it. I am sorry, HelenOnline that the page was locked with my edits. :) You have a nice day now. Virgosky (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Discrimination , WP:BIAS and racist admins

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

---

I have tried to add up-to-date peer-reviewed scientific researches into the articles. Because I think public should have access those valuable information. But my good faith edits was under persistent attack and harassment because the author of a main source I use is a scientist from a 'minority group'. Wikipedia suffers from WP:BIAS because of the average demographics of the editors.

The attack was conducted by many editors. Most notable three admins users Drmies , SmartSE and SlimVirgin. The presence of highly racist admins worsens the WP:BIAS.

A entry point of the issue http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Animal_welfare#Meng.27s_thesis_.3D_hundreds_papers

I know more attack is coming for this. I am writing this for editors who care about justice and equal human rights. 124.149.35.242 (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I am minimally involved in this because I made a couple of comments at User Talk:Anthonyhcole about this. My impression is that multiple experienced editors have been challenging the source and reverting the edits on WP:RS grounds. I have not seen anything to support the allegation that the source is being challenged because it's written by someone in a 'minority group'. That's very serious charge. Please provide diffs to support this allegation. Zad68 13:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• You don't need edit diffs for this, you need a case diffs. See how other source with similar quality/merit was treated. There are plenty of bad source (not peer reviewed) on the website. The admins are fine with them.124.149.70.154 (talk) 14:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• • I don't think there is really any need to respond to the claims made by 124.149, but anyone reviewing this should look at #Repeated_personal_attacks_on_Talk:Animal_Welfare first. SmartSE (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks for provide the link. It add more support for my claim. Let's see what the admins have been up to. Sick.124.149.70.154 (talk) 14:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I think OP is asking about the use of Dr. Jenia Meng works in articles such as animal welfare, I assume as a reliable source rather than as an external links. -- Jreferee (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• yes you are right.124.149.70.154 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• We have a spammer here who is pushing an unpublished dissertation, claiming that it's worth more than a hundred, nay a thousand! journal articles (for shits and giggles, see Talk:Animal_welfare#Meng.27s_thesis_.3D_hundreds_papers)--a dissertation so incomparably brilliant that it should be cited in such diverse articles as Animals in sport, Professional ethics, Animal welfare, Zoo, Personal budget (seriously: An international survey conducted between 2007 to 2008 found that monthly expense of university students differ in 12 participate nations"), Poverty reduction, LGBT social movements, Genetic engineering, Environmental protection, Racial equality, Entire (animal), Biological classification, World view, Anthropocentrism, Sex differences in education, Wildlife conservation, Reverence for Life, Women and animal advocacy, China–Sweden relations, Serbia–Sweden relations ("An international survey of attitudes to world issues was conducted between 2007 to 2008. The initiator and principle investigator of the survey, Dr Jenia Meng, found that people from Serbia and Sweden have major difference on the perceived importance of capital punishment, genetic engineering, human cloning and Human Euthanasia"--no shit! stop the press!), Abolitionism (animal rights), Sentience, Animal consciousness, Social stratification, Iran–Sweden relations, Suffering, Five freedoms, Irreligion, and Autonomy. SmartSE can add a few titles from their edit history, in case you're not yet sufficiently blown away by the sheer awesomeness of it all. SmartSE is probably a racist too.

  There's some discussion about the general point of RSness of dissertations on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources, but the point here is that IP124 is simply a spammer who refuses to identify and conveniently changes IP for just about every edit: see my contributions (the 4im warnings) for a shortlist of IPs used to spam the Meng dissertation. And you can see the revolutionary JM index in all its glory (no leading questions or selective points of interest) at the author's website. Whether the IP is the author is irrelevant to me, though I have, ahem, my suspicions, but the Mengspam needs to stop; the easiest way is to set up an edit filter, as was suggested yesterday. And this IP needs to be rangeblocked if at all possible, for the personal attacks (on me and DrChrissy), the refusal to be accountable (this convenient IP hopping), the false accusations of racism--and the spamming of non-notable, unpublished, half-baked scholarship written up in the most atrocious English you've seen in a while. Highly racist--my ass. Drmies (talk) 14:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• And yeah, I'm pissed, if you couldn't tell. Pissed at the disruption caused by this editor, and being called a racist. I've spent hours, hundreds of edits, trying to clean up this mess--for someone who so obviously and childishly is trying to avoid scrutiny that it's laughable. We have, what, four different discussions in four different places because of this disruptor, this timesinker. Drmies (talk) 14:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Support edit filter - I don't know why I didn't think of that last night, an edit filter is exactly what's needed. Zad68 14:54, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• I have no background on this debate and no dog in the fight. The IP has leveled a serious charge against the admins but refuses to provide evidence of discrimination. Content disputes do not belong here. The burden of proof lies with this user to show actual wrongdoing—not the results of a content dispute. It is imperative that 124 assume the good faith of the admins involved unless s/he can point to specific evidence to support his/her claims of discrimination. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 14:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Just as a comment - a rangeblock is possible but not quite advisable at this time due to the massive scope. Drmies and co. - what would you like the edit filter to prevent? Mention of Meng's work? m.o.p 15:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes please. If you look at a diff like this you can hopefully work out what would be required. I don't want to be too specific here as it would rather defeat the object. SmartSE (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll work on an edit filter. I'll let you know when it's done. m.o.p 15:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• 'unpublished dissertation' UNTRUE, lying is very convenient right? The work is a published, peer reviewed (by international leading experts) PhD thesis from University of Queensland.
• I use mobile internet so I have dynamic IP, which changes often. There are many more false information in her statements. I don't have time to point them out one by one.
• A simple way to get a grasp of the issue is to asses the merit of the source I tried to add.
• In order to exclude my source. They even initiated a campaign to change wikipedia RS policy. But unsuccessful so far, because my source still satisfy all requirements of the amendment.

My source was RS, and it is still RS. 124.149.70.154 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Look at what I said above. Whether something is an RS is a content dispute, not something that involves judging whether certain admins are showing discrimination. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

From WP:Dispute resolution: "The Administrators' Noticeboards are not the place to raise disputes over content." The only mention of ANI is to bring "urgent violations of Wikipedia's policies on Personal Attacks." So far, I have seen no evidence of personal attacks, except by the IP. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for the alleged personal attack of IP. Which sentences? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.149.166.136 (talk) 15:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That bit where you accused us of being racist, biased and discriminatory maybe? SmartSE (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

To wit, "The presence of highly racist admins worsens the WP:BIAS." That directly impugns their motives and is not based on anything except the result of a content dispute. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:43, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

These racism claims are the last straw for me. The aspiration of this thesis is fascinating, and the author's supervisor stands behind it so it may one day find its way into this encyclopedia if it wins wider recognition, but it is too early now. I was hoping the IP might come to see this with patient explanation. Thanks for all the time and work you've put into this, Drmies. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Rights for blocked users

Hey guys, recently when visiting this page I saw more than 5 users are indefinitely blocked. My question is Shouldn't we remove the rights from indefinitely blocked account? --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 15:22, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN is probably a better venue for this kind of discussion, no? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:UAL states that the user rights of indeffed users should normally be kept unless the reasons leading to a user's block is directly related to the rights assigned, for example gross misuse of the reviewer tool to illustrate a point etc. There was a discussion on this here. hmssolent\^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 01:42, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Lead of Ten Lost Tribes article under assault by SPA IP's

Other parties:
Special:Contributions/24.17.226.165
Special:Contributions/24.75.154.232
User_talk:Bahooka
User:Dougweller

This article has continually been the subject of IP vandals and editors attempting to push a religious POV over the past year or two. Dougweller is an admin that is active in editing the series of contentious articles related to this topic and is therefore familiar with the issues. He has recently pointed out to user Bahooka that academic Tudor Parfitt's view is the mainstream view, i.e., not a biased "secular" view.

Because of the somewhat diffuse nature of the subject matter, it is highly useful to quote Parfitt directly in the lead with his most encompassing statements on the topic. He does address the specific circumstances surrounding the mythical lore of each respective region where such "descent" claims are found, and those have been included in the main article to a fairly extensive degree, and more so in the respective individual articles where they exist.

I recently filed a request for protection[301]

Semi-protection: IP editor repeatedly vandalizing page in order to delete material from the lead. First instance two weeks ago, repeated today in more egregious manner. I had to revert about 11 edits to reach the rollback target text in the lead. Some of the edits were one letter edits that rendered the spelling of a word incorrect. The IP is an SPA that has also been blanking relevant material from his Talk page[3].--Ubikwit 連絡 見学/迷惑 06:21, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

based on the repeated vandalism by one IP, but that was denied on the grounds that there was only on IP involved. Another IP deleted the same material today, albeit not with the same vandal modus operandi as the previous IP. Subsequent to that, user Bahooka has chimed in that he now wants to file and RfC. The IP numbers are relatively close to each other, and user Bahooka had not edited the article prior to the first round of edits by the IP account 24.75.154.232, but I don't think a checkuser request would be accepted, so I haven't filed one, though I did raise the issue with user Bahooka.

Would it be possible to block these IPs? Should I try requesting semi-protection again?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:22, 17:16 25 October 2013 (UTC)

FYI, as I noted earlier on the talk page, I have edited this article months ago before the IP editors. It is on my watchlist and so when someone edits, it sometimes motivates me to look at the article again. I think a look at my contribution list should allay any concerns about sockpuppetry. I mentioned I was going to set up an RfC for the content dispute (large block quotes in the lead section instead of a summary), so that should not be an issue here on ANI. Bahooka (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have added an RfC here. Bahooka (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)First of all, the blockquotes are short, and more efficient than summarizing the same meaning, in addition to the fact that they add credibility to the encyclopedia in relation to a controversial topic to religious adherents. But that is a content dispute, and you are welcome to start an RfC, of course.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:15, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I stand corrected, user Bahooka did make one edit prior to the commencement of the IP barrage, which he did point out on the Talk page [302].

His recent editing, including his reversion of a revision I made to a section title today[303], however, would seem to indicate that he has a religious bias in relation to this topic. He would basically appear to be attempting to lend credence to the false notion that there is a possibility this thoroughly refuted fictional religious tale is true and that the Ten Lost Tribes exist. That is a POV-pushing position with respect to the RS cited in the article, in particular, the material that he and the IPs have been attempting to remove from the lead. In short, he is editing in a manner such as to advocate a fringe religious POV.

He's started an RfC, and obviously I will respond there, but this would appear to be a useless time sink. I'm inclined to think that even the starting of the RfC can be seen as tendentious in this context, with the limited mitigating factor being the question of using blockquotes in the lead. The relevant policy states

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies.[2] The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article.

Parfitt is the cited 10 times in text, and is the leading authority on the subject. There is no question that the lead, including the quotes, is a summary of the material in the article. That fact has been pointed out in various forms, so this is not related to a content dispute, but problems with tendentious editing WP:TE and POV pushing.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Starting an RfC is not tendentious, it is the normal next step in dispute resolution. Bahooka (talk) 20:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've commented at the RfC with a policy based rationale. The changes you are demanding are not based on any policy, and there is a long standing consensus on the lead of that article. The edit summary of the following rervert of your attempt to relegate Parfitt as a skeptic and Talk page entry[304] make certain aspects of that clear, while bringing the lead into closer correlation with the text of the article[305]

(Parfitt is not a skeptic, his is the mainstream view, remove bit about based on religious writings and speculation as we mention archeology, anthropology and population genetics, and remove 'unabashed').

Parfitt is summarizing the mainstream view and should not be relegated to a 'skeptic' section. This isn't just 'one view' any more than the view that Atlantis never existed is just 'one view'. Yes, perhaps this should have more coverage in the body. My edit summary said nothing about quotes so I can't see how you can disagree with me. What do you suggest for the lead? Dougweller (talk) 22:49, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

While consensus can change, the nature of the wording of the RfC makes it seem that there is a policy based rationale for making the changes over and against consensus, which seems to run against the policy that I've quoted in the RfC. I will abide by the results of the RfC, but I see it as a form of forum shopping based on an attempt to alter content over and against the foregoing editor comments and interaction.

The very fact that you would want to categorize the leading academic authority as a "skeptic" in relation to a fringe religious theory that in turn serves as the basis for a number of related fringe religious theories (e.g., British Israelism) would seem to indicate that you are intent on advocating the fringe theory, or at least making it seem to be based in historical reality as opposed to fictional tale telling.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:28, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Whitewashing & PR Puff

• Jill Kelley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Andrewcapp1 (talk · contribs)

This article has seen a recent surge of white washing and PR puff. [306][307][308][309][310][311]. Most of it has been done by Andrewcapp1 but also by various IPs (all from the Tampa, Florida area). The edits have attempted to reconstruct the events as if Jill Kelley is a victim and that she is fighting 'big government.' They've included removing well (very well) sourced negative material that had a consensus for use (infact, a consensus for the specific wording).--v/r - TP 15:24, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Per the recent community ban of PR companies, surely Andrewcapp1 should be banned? GiantSnowman 15:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I've edited the article, so my hands are tied.--v/r - TP 15:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Err isn't that link WP:OUTING? SmartSE (talk) 15:48, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I don't believe so, but if I'm wrong then OS can sweep in and remove it.--v/r - TP 16:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like they have. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:12, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I asked one on IRC to weigh in.--v/r - TP 23:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Why the mass ref delete? Seriously... --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 01:12, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• I'd hate to be guilty of outing myself--but can I identify this edit as a steaming pile of dungfluff? But TParis, what are we here for? The IP did their work a month ago--you want Andrewcapp banned? I'm not (yet) going to indef them, but I left a warning. Next time it's a block. Snowman, what did we ban, exactly? Drmies (talk) 01:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

A report against two users for their violations

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

---

Hello. This is a very long case against English Wikipedia users Nishidani and Zero0000. These users have violated dozens of Wikipedia policies, some are very serious and others are less. When I first noticed their suspicious activity I decided to report it, and as I dug deeper I found some incredible finding which I'll elaborate on. This report is intended to whom it may concern, to administrators, and to everybody who cares about Wikipedia. I have a strong case against Nishidani, but I’ll also prove that Zero0000 is dangerous. I’ve done my research and thus saved others a lot of time, and have put efforts at organizing this piece.

• Nishidani's talk page says “RETIRED - This user is no longer active on Wikipedia”, even though he's actually very active. He has already been blocked 3 times in the past, but he was never issued an infinite ban, which he I'll prove he deserves without a shade of doubt. Nishinani, who has been nominated for deletion, has been editing tendentiously for years now. It’s very likely that the blocked User:Historylover4 was a sockpuppet of Nishidani. A quick investigation should be conducted to confirm it. Using the Editor Interaction Analyzer tool, I found that their accounts' activity and writings match in multiple places, see for yourself here. That, of course, should lead to an immediate ban of Nishidani, because sock puppetry is strictly forbidden. I suspect that User:Cityslicker4 was another sock puppet of him.
• These two users have been using Wikipedia policies and guidelines, to make a point, to further an edit war, or to enforce a specific non-neutral point of view. Nishdani is a professional at edit warring, as has broken the the three-revert rule many times. He has taken advantage of the lead section to promote what he wants viewers to see, as he did here for instance. In doing so he manipulated the lead rules, which explicitly says that the lead “serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects.“, but Nishidani was determined to write this even though that mention is discussed later and shouldn't be in the lead. He’s attempting to create hoaxes on Genetic studies on Jews, for example, POV pushing to show that Jews are descendant of the Khazarian people.
• Zero0000 has reverted every change I made on articles that he happens to watch. See how I checled him and added a simple source, without changing anything, but he reverted me again as can be seen here. Why? because he didn’t want that source to be used, or as he said it in the edit summary, “we can do much better”. He also did that here, where the factual statement I added apparently didn’t serve his interest. Zero0000 removes content he doesn’t like from Wikipedia articles occasionally: like the paragraphs he removed here without saying a word about it on the talk page, or here, where the main reasoning was because the information was “already in wikipedia countless times”. He systematically deletes things he doesn’t like, as he did (and was asked to discuss it) here. Oh, and if there’s a mention that Jews have any historical connection to Palestine, he doesn’t want it seen. Here, he deleted a few paragraphs that address criticism of the Talmud teachings, without discussing it on the talk page, as the user who reverted him said.
• I accuse these users of promoting their own interests. The couple, whether alone or together, have managed to monitor and in some cases manipulate dozens of articles relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Take for example Nishidani’s extreme POV pushing here and here. But what happens when someone disputes it and inserts a POV tag? Well, Nishidani quickly removes it. Something doesn't seem right to me.
• The two corporate very often and edit almost the same pages. In the “1929 Hebron massacre”, the two cited a book written by a person who died 223 years ago, Henry Laurens, to provide “evidence” for some of their writings here and theref. But Nishidani has gone much further to illustrate his beliefs, or what he wants other to believe: He’s in the process of extensively editing the article Khazars, clearly promoting the theory that Jews are basically fake, or Khazar converts. He doesn’t hesitate to write this controversial paragraph, but on other hand he deletes what stands in his way like he did here.
• Nishidani’s has committed countless Wikipedia:Civility violations for his use of language. Not only does he use the F word on his talk page but he also uses it on Wikipedia talk pages as can be found here (“Who gives a flying fuck”), here and in this link (quotes of him from there: “the fucking lead sums it up. Most of the jerks we mention in that section”..., “ fuck all..”, and “Oh for fuck's sake. The literature on the Khazars notes that it is used in antisemitic polemics by the lunatic fringe”). Take a look at his racist comments here. He also accused another user of “being bloody-minded and stupid”, and removed his own name from the text that another user wrote here, which is another violation. Coincidently or not, on the talk page of “Palestinian political violence”, aggressive and ugly talks are very common and easy to find. Nishidani took part in it when he shouted another call using the the word F*ign, here.
• Just look at Nishdani’s last 500 contributions and what he focuses his editing on. Then, look at his recent contribution (Khazars, Ashkenazi Jews, Genetic studies on Jews, and palestinian related topics, which, if done properly, is absolutely fine) and you’ll find the the user is and has been attempting, quite successfully thanks to the support he has, to pretty much shape reality in the way he’d like it to be: Jews are actually fake, they are Ashkenazi Khazar converts, and therefore they obviously have no claim to Palestine/Israel, and ultimately they’re responsible for the conflict and the blame is on them as he smartly puts it here and there. Regardless of the fact that Nishdani’s behavior, motives, and, after all, personality, truly disgusts me, he has crossed dozens of red lines but got away with the majority of them.

Finally, I would like to share my opinion on the subject. After reviewing so many edits of both users (as well as other ones), the two attempt to establish a picture and present Israel in a terrible manner for a lack of a better term, and to question and in some cases remove content that indicates of facts they don't like, for example that Jews have any legal, historical, or religious claim to the land of Israel. There’re plenty of other examples like the ones I listed that I just haven’t come across yet, but as I’m writing this report, I find more and more shocking edits made my the two, and I'm having a hard time deciding what to point out here and what to ignore. Besides some of two users’ productive work on Wikipedia, a lot of damage has been done, and even if one or two of my accusations against them isn’t sufficiently justified or a little exaggerated, it doesn’t change everything else. I’d like to believe that the users I’m talking about work indipendently and are not part of anything else, but nevertheless many of their actions violate Wikiedpia’s guidlines. I’m sorry if Nishidani and Zero0000 are (or related to) Palestinians badly affected by The conflict’s bloody history, but Wikipedia isn’t the place for revenge, because when millions of daily users come here they want to read neutral and factual articles. These two users’ personal views seem to compromise their editing, and that shouldn’t be happening. In contrast, I feel the need to say, I edit on Wikipedia 100% independently. I don’t know what the outcome of this report will be, but what I do know is that I’m going to let as many people as possible know about the biased articles and editings that are taking place on Wikipedia by them. Currently, in too many Israeli-Palestinian related articles, a few users with a certain opinion always outnumber their opposing sides in discussions and votings. So the least I can do, besides fighting over it, is inform people of the situation. Regardless of the result of this report, I’ll be paying close attention to Nishidani and Zero0000’s activity, and I kindly ask more people to do the same thing for the sake of Wikipedia’s future. The articles the two consistently edit, especially Nishidani, will also be better watched by me and hopefully others. More important than the sanctions that must be taken against them, is the need to keep all articles written in a neutral point of view.

Regards, - Yambaram (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

No need to reply to this. It is an excellent statement of the reasons why the reporter should be sanctioned under ARBPIA, per WP:Boomerang.Nishidani (talk) 17:53, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Before I dig exhaustively into this (which I will), I want to warn everyone above that the ArbCom has implemented a series of sanctions specific to the Arab–Israeli conflict, given its contentious nature. ARBPIA has a strict 1RR rule. Something to keep in mind. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Hilarious. I gave up after reading the words "It’s very likely that the blocked User:Historylover4 was a sockpuppet of Nishidani." An example of User:Historylover4's prose: [312]. Nishidani couldn't fake that. Paul B (talk) 18:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I got a great laugh particularly from:

In the “1929 Hebron massacre”, the two cited a book written by a person who died 223 years ago, Henry Laurens, to provide “evidence” for some of their writings

where Henry Laurens is confused with Henry Laurens and the latter, who died in 1792, is said to be used by me to document facts concerning a massacre that occurred in 1929. Nishidani (talk) 18:52, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I got as far as "The two corporate very often and edit almost the same pages." Tom Reedy (talk) 03:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with Yambaram in this aspects. (As I am indirectly mentioned here) I was reverted based on my counts at least 20 times jointly by Nishidani and Zeero000, usually receiving this kind of rhetoric [[313]] by Nishidani What is however the most astonishing is the findings related to blocked sockpuppet User:Historylover4 using Editor Interaction Analyzer tool I think this is a very serious allegations, especially as Nishidani practically reverted my removals of Historylover4s editions and his sockpuppets like Youngdro2 and similar on both articles I have edited extensively, namely Genetic studies on Jews and Khazars--Tritomex (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

First things first: I think it is irrelevant that Nashidani's page says he is retired. It is also barely relevant that he was blocked for 3RR violations, because those violations happened six years ago.

Second, Yambaram: Avoid commenting on editors' motives as much as possible (unless the user admits they are not here to edit constructively). Levying charges such as racism requires good evidence.

Third, some of the edits above are not problematic at all. The addition here doesn't advance an agenda of Ashkenazi origins with the Khazars; it merely helps establish that the Khazar conversion to Judaism has a basis in historical documents. The "deletion" you cited here is not a deletion; it moves the paragraph down on the page. His edit summary indicates there was a dispute over its placement. As for why he is using Laurens to cite events in 1929, I don't know. Perhaps Nishidani can explain that. Finally, I fail to see how the comment you cited showing "racism" is what you describe. (Full dislosure: I'm an Ashkenazi Jew.)

Fourth, Nishidani does seem to have a problem keeping a cool head sometimes. Insulting the intelligence of other users is unacceptable.

I have not had a chance to look thoroughly enough to determine whether the mentioned users are writing to advance a point of view. But those are my initial thoughts. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 18:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Henry Laurens is cited because he wrote a book about the topic [314]. This is, of course, not the 18th century Henry Laurens, but a contemporary author with the same name. It's just that the name has been wikilinked, so that it leads to the article on the 18th century writer. These misdirected links happen all the time. It's an artefact of the authorlink feature in the template used to add the book to the bibliography. It should go to Henry Laurens (scholar). I've corrected it. Paul B (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

So please check it, before claiming violations. As I have ongoing disputes with Nishidani on this issues on at at-least 5 articles and yes as he reverts my editions daily I do follow Nishidani actions. That is how I came here. Concerning Yambaram as we never had any conversations and as I guess that we are editing from different countries (I live in Serbia) this can be checked easily.--Tritomex (talk) 18:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

On my occasional use of the exasperative 'fuck', as it is known in some quarters, suffice it to look at its positioning on the relevant talk page. It comes at the end of repeated attempts to WP:AGF by replying minutely to other editors who, in my view, talk past one, and repeat their point or points endlessly, as though repetitiveness were a form of logic. That Yambaram is arguing I am some hostile almost antisemitic editor, while citing this stuff, is odd. One example. An editor repeatedly tried to remove the material on the antisemitic edge to some Khazar polemics, which I covered in my rewrite. The editor kept insisting on its removal.

There is a policy that forces the article to include an "antisemite" section? On what basis? This is either absurd or cynical.MVictorP (talk) 13:23, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I replied with exasperation.

Oh for fuck's sake. The literature on the Khazars notes that it is used in antisemitic polemics by the lunatic fringe,

I.e. the page must include a section dealing with the uses of that hypothesis in antisemitic literature, and people who subscribe to this are part of a lunatic fringe. It's deeply ironic that a defence of the right to document antisemites is taken as hostility to Jews and Israel, or even that the Khazar article as I wrote it is interpreted to signify I believe that hypothesis, when the whole page argues strongly against such an inference. I guess Yambaram, like Tritomex, has problems with reading the drift of English prose.Nishidani (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

"I guess Yambaram, like Tritomex, has problems with reading the drift of English prose" is exactly what I mean when I say "insulting editors' intelligence." --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That is not insulting their intelligence. I am a philologist, and know how hard it is (a) to master another language (b) how even very intelligent people completely miss the tenor of what a native speaker would regard as a straightforward comment. George Steiner memorably wrote:

One need only converse with Japanese colleagues and students, whose technical proficiency in English humbles one, to realize how profound are the effects of disloation. So much that is being said is correct, so little is right.' After Babel OUP 1975 p.470

Were I to take the screed above seriously, I'd take Yambaram to AE for consistent factual distortion of the record. If one doesn't have a sense of comedy, to assert what he asserts would be outrageous, and, yes, 'insulting'. Since both he and Tritomex are reading what I wrote, and twist it out of all recognition, it can't be their intelligence that's the problem. It is a total lack of intuitive Sprachgefühl for what an editor like myself is actually saying. I challenge anyone to find, in the extremely lengthy exchanges I have been forced to have with Tritomex, to make sense of what he is saying in the context of the technical objections made against his POV edits. I don't think it is malice, or stupidity. It's not trusting one's interlocutor's attentive care for the meaning of words, the consistency of logic, and the precision of source referral, and the only explanation is, that in these cases, the person just misses 90% of the 'drift'. As someone who's reasonably intelligent, and yet has spent most of his life speaking foreign languages, and still misunderstands the drift at times, this strikes me as obvious, and the gentlest explanation for the misprisions you will find in Yamabaram's hilariously inexact exposition above.Nishidani (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishhidani reverted the templete challenging the factual accuracy on Khazars despite the fact that he has ongoing content dispute there with two editors and I presented him with 50 claims that the overwrite of that text, (which was done by him without consensus) was not in line with WP:NPOV and WP:RS I dispute the factual accuracy of his edition but he continually behave like WP:OWN not allowing even neutrality templetes, although archives are full with evidence that the current text is not in line with Wikipedia standards. HIS neutrality is disputed and HE (based on his judgment) is removing neutrality and factual accuracy templetes. The same he has done on the article regarding Hajj Amin Al Husseini --Tritomex (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

All false, dear chap. 'I presented him with 50 claims', for example. Well, you alphabetized them, and the English alphabet has 26 letters. Your claims run from (a) to (z). Why do you keep doing this Tritomex. My job here is not to cater to your wild misuse of evidence, or to endlessly engage with an editor who talks past everything. I write articles, I correct POV articles, like the ones you invent with a fringe POV twist (Ophel inscription). A little attention to the rules, esp. of quality sourcing, and neutrality, would save many of us a lot of time spent in reverting POV pushers, or correcting bad evidence, or hunting sockpuppets (By the way, as to historylover, I'd welcome an investigation of that. I haven't examined the analyser provided, since I know it is wrong. But if a checkuser needs any data from me, they're welcome to it.) Generally, the simplest way of getting an idea of what is going on here, is to review the talk pages of the articles cited, and try to construe what Tritomex and a few others do in arguing their case, and how I respond. If anything, it's remarkable that I haven't blown my cool more often. Nishidani (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Nishidani, those 26 remarks are not the only problems with your editions. Look at least to additional 26 problems which I showed from previous talk pages.Here is what you are doing with Neutrality and accuracy templates which challenge you(as per talk page) [315] and here [316] even censoring talk page discussion by inserting editions in my text [317] and here [318] Regarding sock puppets allegations, as far as I see from evidence presented it has to go to official investigation.--Tritomex (talk) 19:46, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Actually, your objections are repetitive, or recursive, and the numbering is fictitious. The objections you raise are always the same one or two items on your fav.list, and your capacity to distort evidence is well-known. In any case, almost no one agrees with you. Your problem is not 'Nishidani', but the fact that neutral third parties almost invariably fail to agree with your proposals and you show not the slightest regard for the niceties of wiki policy. This kind of discussion is a content disagreement, and inappropriate for expansion here. It is not a behavioural problem, unless your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT approach is a behavioural problem.Nishidani (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

And here is another sockpuppet of Historylover4 caught, named this time User:Do not collect editing during his short stay in Wikipedia exactly the same pages with same opinion as you did. [319] How you explain this Nishidani?

And here is another sockpuppet of Historylover4 caught, named this time User:Do not collect editing during his short stay in Wikipedia exactly the same pages with same opinion as you did. [320] How you explain this Nishidani?(User:Tritomex)

And look also this sockpuppet User:Dalai lama ding dong [321]How you explain this Nishidani? (User:Tritomex)

SPI is over there. Ravensfire (talk) 20:37, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Historylover4, User:Dalai lama ding dong User:Do not collect are all socks of Nishidani. Fine. All we need to figure out now is whether Zero is my sock, or I am his sock, since both stink the same. In the meantime, this is boring. The intent is evident, dislike of the fact I read Haaretz instead of Arutz Sheva. Given that most of the complaints relate to pages under ARBPIA, this should be shifted to WP:AE. If there is any merit in this potemkin village of fudged evidence it is best dealt with there. And now to bed, and the intelligent converse of books.Nishidani (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Whether they are true or not, there are a whole lot of charges packed into this statement. If the most serious one is bias, then this is in the province of sanctions and this conversation should move to AE and off AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:47, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the helpful comments, Jprg1966. Tritomex, I see that you and Nishidani have had a long history of battling each other, and you seem to have a case here indeed. The more serious allegations here, as Liz said, is that Nishidani may have had sock puppets. If no one goes ahead and asks for an investigation at SPI of all the possible sockpuppets mentioned, then I’ll do so myself. Nishidani, English isn’t my first language though I know it at a nearly native level, and even if I misunderstood you or got confused on something I'm accusing you of, that won't refute the other allegations - you seem to focus on the other stuff because you can't quite address many of the charges I and even Tritomex mentioned. Nishidani, in your first comment here you said "No need to reply to this...the reporter should be sanctioned under ARBPIA", hoping no one else will pay attention to this report, but when people came, you quickly defended yourself. Your style of writing is impressively convincing but that won’t trick everyone all the time. Guys, whether Nishidani is really the owner a sock puppet or not, he'd obviously deny any sort of connection to this, until found guilty (or not), like everyone else would. He has already been blocked twice from the Israeli-Palestinian area at ARBPIA. Take a look there, and if you’re wondering what got him blocked in one of the times, then here is the reason you must see, but unfortunately he has gotten away with so many of these. I'm not afraid to confidently say that I think Nishidani is one of the greatest Palestinians revisionists and somewhat propagandist out there, in fact he's so good I am almost fooled some of the things he says, until I do a little research and the evidence usually shows otherwise. Yambaram (talk) 23:59, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I said that it appeared that the most serious allegations were of bias. I have no knowledge of sock puppets in this case. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Response of Zero0000. I heard that someone had charged me with abominable misdeeds, and all I find is some diffs that show me working on the improvement of articles. Then there is the shocking revelation that I cooperate with Nishidani sometimes. I cooperate with every editor who strives to get the facts right, and if there is anyone in that part of Wikipedia who works harder than Nishidani in checking and counter-checking every source out there with the aim of writing balanced, thorough, and correct, articles, I don't know who that is (other than myself, of course). So in summary: no response is required. Zero^talk 01:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will, of course, address any particular diff that an administrator here asks me to address. Zero^talk 02:01, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to enter the slanging match above, since this is not a case about Tritomex. Suffice it to summarise my opinion: Tritomex is one of the worst editors I've met in 11 years on Wikipedia. He is long overdue for a topic ban, and has no redeeming features. Zero^talk 02:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Tritomex is one of the worst editors I've met in 11 years on Wikipedia." It seems to me that all four of you have violated WP:CIVIL at various points with each other. Please cool off. Believe me, I understand how easy it is to get riled up by the Israeli–Palestinian issue. Still, none of you are helping your own causes. I am afraid of what would happen should this thread continue. A BOLD admin is needed here to figure something out. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

This page, like similar administrative noticeboards, is a place where editors can state honest opinions of each others' editing. It cannot function otherwise. I don't deny the right of other editors to state robust opinions of my editing here, provided they do so honestly, and I have the same right. I also have the right to compare Nishidani to Tritomex since the dispute between the two is a major content of Yambaram's complaint. Zero^talk 07:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

Is User:EzEdit a SPA with a disruptive intent?

Topic-banned means topic-banned. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:56, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. I believe that EzEdit is WP:SPA that is being used with the sole (or principal) purpose of disrupting the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems. The article The article Imperial and US customary measurement systems was written to fill a gap in the list of 1000 Vital Articles and to complement the other measurement article in that list - Metric system. When I started writing this article, the gap in the "Vital Article" list was filled by the article Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems. The new article, besides being a complete article in its own right, provides an umbrella for the following articles: English units Imperial units United States customary units Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems Use of Imperial and US Customary Units in engineering (no existing article). In the replacement discussion (closed 26 July 2013), everybody apart from an IP editor approved the replacement. Once the article had been accepted, I inserted it at various points in Wikipedia including: Incorporating it into the hat-note of articles which it referred to as “main” articles for example this version of ‘’United States customary units’’. Replacing occurrences of “Imperial units and United States customary units” with a single Wikilink to the new article as the new article not only covers both countries, but shows how they are interlinked. Including it in appropriate templates. EzEdit’s harassment EzEdit’s edits have been concentrated on a few articles: Gallon, Pint, Ounce, Mile, Yard where he concentrated on replacing the link to Imperial and US customary measurement systems with two links, one to each of Imperial units and United States customary units. English units, Imperial units, United States customary units, Comparison of the imperial and US customary measurement systems where he insisted on removing the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems from the hat-notes. Template:Systems of measurement where he has striven to keep a reference to the article out of the template. A complaint here that I was improperly pushing the new article. Once we remove these edits from EzEdit’s list of contributions, we have very little left. Conclusion EzEdit’s edits appear to have been directed towards discrediting the article Imperial and US customary measurement systems as he has done little other editing. While an SPA account is, in itself permitted, this one appears to be used solely for disruptive purposes. Will an administrator please investigate. Martinvl (talk) 17:30, 25 October 2013 (UTC) Martinvl, while I am certain someone will investigate your claim, were you not already topic-banned from discussion of measurements? You asked for leniency on the ban here to post this report and were told it would not be relaxed. 192.76.82.90 (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Repeated BLP and COI violations by User:Nlfestival

In particular, see his comments and the AFD here, where he is making repeated BLP violating statements against the subject of the article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/David_Bergstein. I would also make a case for WP:DE in his making of multiple giant wall of text posts with his rants. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:51, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I am surprised at this comment, I invite everyone to read my texts and see if I have handled objectively and not interested in raking up a million edits and then offering my services to PR firms so wiki can be used as a advertising platform by the likes of such editors, I am spending lots of hours debating and studying the subject and read any one of my comments and you will see I have not violated any WP:BLP or or WP:COI, the comments above without any basis or justification look highly motivated and also not to mention this same editor who found the article should be deleted now finds Hollywood reporter as a source to keep the article but this same editor fails to mention that all the articles in hollywood reporter on this subject are negative and show him as a bad person who has run a ponzi scheme, the above editor has now had a change of heart based on hollywood reporter articles but does not want the content of hollywood reporter article is really surprising and he is questioning my objectivity when he is the biased person here. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:06, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for providing an example of your behavior and BLP violations inline! Ill toss in WP:SOCK too with the account RedFeltPen, whos only two edits are to the AFD above, and an SPI on Nlfestival. The AFD comment in an almost identical style to the many posts by nlfestival. [322] Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea who RedFeltPen is and why he wrote the comment without any vote, I can state under any scrutiny that I am not RedFeltPen and I do not know anyone that is using that user name. I am sure this should be a very simple check of IP addresses. and other details provided to register. --Nlfestival (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Troll needs a block

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

---

Resolved

 – Indefed WP:VOA.--v/r - TP 18:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• GroundEagle180 (talk · contribs)

User has been vandalising Total War (series). Admiral Caius (talk) 18:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

For future reference, feel free to take reports like this to AIV. m.o.p 18:44, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

---

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

Rule of Law

Though the specific issue is effectively academic at this point (I've given up trying to have a productive conversation with the parties involved), I'm filing this incident in hopes that it prevents bad behavior in the future (i.e. a hand-slap now makes folks think twice in the future).

At the request of User:Anythingyouwant I started a section called "Need a proper lead" on Talk:Rule of law. Anythingyouwant subsequently changed the title of the discussion without my permission and also moved this section to be a subordinate discussion to another that had been started. The argument provided was that the section header I wrote was not sufficiently neutral. I reverted this, of course, since once a Talk discussion is started it is bad form to change existing content except under extreme circumstances (a slight concern about neutrality, of course, does not qualify). Anythingyouwant subsequently started a little edit war, filed a complaint (above on this page), and enlisted User:Drmies to support this little war (this, of course, on top of the fact that I haven't been able to get a straight answer to my original concerns about the article from Anythingyouwant).

I have asked the both of them to put back what I wrote and both have ignored my request. Despite the fact that the discussion on the article is dead at this point, I do think at least enforcing WP etiquette rules is worthwhile. I ask that my original edits on the Talk page be restored if for no other reason than to set a good example. Though I agree I could have made a better effort at neutrality that is hardly the point.

Thanks.

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.88.168.1 (talk) 19:09, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, a handslap might be useful. With a boomerang, possibly. Drmies (talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :If an existing section already was discussing that topic, it is within the bounds to move your post to that section, and to word section headers for neutrality. In any case, a single infraction of WP:TPO is not sufficient for bringing to this board, especially for such a minor re factoring. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

I changed the talk page header "Need a proper lead" to "Discussion about whether the lead is proper". I also changed the header level (== to ===), since I had already responded to this IP's article edits. I didn't move the IP's comment, or edit it.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Two quick things. First, this matter was already the subject of an open ANI thread above, titled "IP 192.88.168.1". Second, the editor User:Jreferee has criticized my actions at my talk page,[323] where I replied that his criticism seems to contradict the consensus here at ANI.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hakeem Noor-ud-Din vandalism

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

---

Someone is vandalizing the page, and I and flyer22 have both reverted twice. I am not reverting the third time(I admit I kind of looked at the contrib and found this) --Pretty les♀, Dark Mistress, talk, 20:19, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Hakeem Noor-ud-Din (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  That's just garden-variety vandalism by a single IP. If it persists, a report at WP:AIV might help (although they usually want extreme vandalism to act), or a better bet might be WP:RFPP to ask for semi protection for a week. Johnuniq (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• A very rank garden, John: all edits are abusive vandalism at BLP's (there's one other article). Oh, look, it's a static IP. Blocked for 72 hours. Thank you, Dark Mistress. Bishonen | talk 23:41, 25 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 routinely deleting RS he disagrees with as "fringe"

Recently, User:Darkness Shines was reported here by User:Student7 for his bullying behavior towards people who disagree with him. Darkness Shines used foul language ("for fucks sake"), personal attacks ("What the hell is your issue?"), and threats ("If I find you have been dicking about you are done") against several editors who supported the use of high-quality academic sources like Guenter Lewy and Bernard Lewis in Genocides in history. Student7, User:Stumink, and I can attest to this. How did Darkness Shines justify his behavior? Simple: All of these sources were "fringe". Although I never made a single edit to Genocides in history, Darkness Shines still threated admin action against me if I continued to "support the use of [fringe] sources" on the talk page. He repeatedly rejected my requests to bring the material to RSN or fringe theories noticeboard.

• Thankfully, Darkness Shines has gone to the appropriate noticeboard for comment on the latest source he was edit warring to purge as "fringe". The area of dispute is Sarmila Bose's work on the Bangladesh Liberation War. Things aren't exactly going his way at FTN, as User:Paul Barlow has done a very good job of exposing his M.O. (aptly summarized as "dogmatic and hyperbolic in your claims without regard to fairness or relevance....looking for any source to support what you want to say....[and] bullying"). It's clear that this controversy has some emotional significance to Darkness Shines, which may impede his ability to adhere to WP:NPOV. He's certainly not afraid to continue mass reverts in the relevant articles. Perhaps in part because of some personal animosity towards me, as this message ("As you have taken it upon yourself to follow me to the topic area I edit and, unsurprisingly insert fringe material....") may suggest, Darkness Shines has reverted four of my edits back-to-back. He has asserted that my sources, a widely-cited study in The British Medical Journal and two articles in The Guardian, are all "fringe". He blanked a paragraph's worth of content in Operation Searchlight and removed thousands of bytes worth of content from the article, because one of the sources cited Bose in a favorable light. There is no consensus that Bose is fringe, and Operation Searchlight currently still cites Bose as a source, so his revert is plainly unjustified. His most shocking revert is at Genocides in history, were he restores highly dubious sources such as R.J. Rummel (misquoted) and the Guinness Book of World Records in place of the "fringe" estimates provided by The British Medical Journal, Uppsala University, and the Peace Research Institute, Oslo. He reverts me yet again at Bangladesh Liberation War, and then he threatens me on my talk page. Since Darkness Shines has made it clear that he will continue to act as though he owns "the area[s] that I edit" (in his words), that others should be reverted merely for "following" him, and that "fringe" is just his codeword for whatever sources he disagrees with; I am certain that restoring my well-sourced text will only lead to an edit war (about which he has no qualms). Therefore, I have come here.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 23:55, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  Why did you come here with a content dispute? WP:DRN would be more appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 01:16, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User Darkness Shines continues to delete the tags of the page War of the Pacific [324], without a consesus in the talk page of the article. --Best regards, KS (wat?) 06:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

An IP edit-warring over copyright material

178.233.175.210 (talk · contribs) is edit-warring over copyrighted material. He has already been warned ([325]). On the Ambassador Morgenthau's Story article, the user is copying and pasting content from Armeniangenocidelies.com. Let alone the fact that the website completely unreliable and is nothing but a blog, the user continues to edit war over the subject material ([326][327][328][329]). Something must be done. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I left him the clearest possible warning about the copyrighted material, and will block him for a long time if he does it again. No comment on the other issues. I assume that there are arbcom sanctions somewhere he can be slapped with if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: Thank you. He hasn't been warned for ARBCOM sanctions yet. Would you want to just add that to the warning you've already given him? Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not too familiar with Arbcom sanctions, and wouldn't even know how to warn him. I try to avoid arbcom wherever possible. Sorry. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:18, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

@Someguy1221: That's fine thank you. I'll keep you updated if he reverts on that page. Proudbolsahye (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Requesting a permanent block of user AndyTheGrump

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

---

If at all possible, I respectfully ask for an unbiased admin who has had no dealings with AndyTheGrump whatsoever in the past, if that’s at all possible, and preferably who does not even know who he is, so that he or she can have a fresh look at this matter and JUSTLY adjudicate this matter without any conflict of interest.

I also seek protection as a “Wikipedia whistleblower”, if such protection is affordable, as one incident of subtle retaliation by an apparent "friend of Andy" has already occurred today, as well as a "restraining order" against AndyTheGrump and his future accounts, if such protection is afforded.

I sincerely thank Wikipedia in advance.

PREAMBLE

It is no secret that AndyTheGrump with his superior policy knowledge is the “darling” of many “well-meaning” admins in Wikipedia who may or may not know his dark side, and who genuinely try to remain unbiased, but their “soft spot for darling Andy” is unmistakable, and what may as well be called the “Blue wall of silence” couldn’t be any clearer after I saw the way my legitimate complaint was handled yesterday as no admin wants to be the one “incommodating Andy”…

I would genuinely like to think that Wikipedia is better than allow, and systematically “enable/give license” to super-editors like AndyTheGrump, who has been blocked more times than most (please refer to his block history), and has shown a systematic pattern of "selectively" using Wikipedia policy as a pretext to abuse and demoralize editors with a grumpy, trollish (instigating not vandalism), nasty, bad faith, uncivilized, antisocial, and passive-aggressive behavior, hinder their “good faith” progress with petty warring edits, badgering and nitpicking, frequently reverting edits seconds after they are made even when WP:BLP clearly allows the editor to insert an edit, and baiting them in a patronizing manner, knowing that they do not know policy well, and he has the edge, while knowing that he is the “darling” of many admins.

Such uncivilized, patronizing, indecent and abusive behavior is so extreme and outrageous as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency in a civilized society. It robs many well-meaning editors like me, acting in good faith, who just want to share their knowledge, edit in good faith and return to their normal lives, of any incentive to contribute to Wikipedia. Such conduct is also not in Wikepedia's best interest and is completely inconsistent with its CIVILZED culture of harmonious assumption of good faith.

I just want to edit in good faith. I come from a good, highly respected family and I deserve to ALWAYS be treated like an INTELLIGENT HUMAN BEING. I am not a street person to be called names, cursed and be the emotional dumping ground on Wikipedia for random super-editors to take their frustrations on me without even knowing me or my station in life. Most importantly, normal human beings have feelings and feelings are fragile. I can assure you that he would be completely different, probably act like a gentleman, had he being talking to me in person.

I must applaud the good admin Bbb23 (talk), who, albeit clearly having “a soft spot for Andy”, did the right thing by removing the personal attack by AndyTheGrump and “courageously” exposing the true nature of AndyTheGrump, acknowledging the futility of my patient and numerous attempts to reason with him on one particular edit dispute in a civilized debate and good faith:

• “I wouldn't continue the discussion with Andy on the talk page as it's not going to go anywhere. I've removed Andy's personal attack against you as it was truly nasty.” [330]

THIS NOTICE

A. Carefull scrutinizing AndyTheGrump’s dark record will reveal a mountain of evidence to justify the permanent block. However, for this particular notice, I will bring one strong and convincing evidentiary incident of flagrant abuse and complete disregard for the dignity of other human beings. He wrote this to me publicly when I pleaded with him to "treat me like an intelligent human being" after "patiently" trying to reason with him in a civilized manner:

I will treat you as I find you - as a clueless and obnoxious little shit, with all the psychological attributes of a two-year-old. Now go run to mummy and complain about what the big man called you... AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

[331] [332]

B. I will also disclose that even though I felt so strong about this matter that I brought it up to the attention of the good, well-meaning admin Mark Arsten who, in all fairness, has shown even-handedness previously, he did not block AndyTheGrump as not to “incommodate Andy”, and referred me to WP:ANI “if I'd like to seek sanctions against AndyTheGrump", and then “hid” my report that exposes AndyTheGrump. [333] [334]

C. For full disclosure, I will also expose AndyTheGrump's self-description that goes to shows where all such grumpiness and abusive behavior came from, and that is completely inconsistent with Wikipedia's harmonious and civilized culture and "try to educate" assumption of good faith, as widely displayed by well-meaning admins.

My Name is Andy, and I am a Grump. Well, you'll probably have figured that out from my username. I've not yet determined whether Grumpiness is an infliction or a Human Right, though I'm inclined to the latter view. As for further autobiographical details, I'll remain relatively anonymous for now, beyond stating that I'm male, old enough to know better (if not always wise enough), and educated sufficiently well to understand how little I can ever know. I'm also prone to writing over-long, unnecessarily convoluted sentences (with unnecessary parenthetical insertions and unnecessary repetition of the same words); often with dubious punctuation, which I'll leave for other editors to clarify, disambiguate, and otherwise improve on, while I concentrate on addressing the core of the topic in hand (if I can remember what it was by the time I've written this much...). I can sometimes write short pithy sentences, however. [335]

D. I just want to add that, in my opinion, uncivilized, indecent and abusive conduct by super-editors like AndyTheGrump are perhaps the main reason for the widespread Criticism of Wikipeda article and thousands of negative reviews all around the world at a time it is striving to establish credibility and make justifiable fundraising appeals to families like ours. [336] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldedixor (talk • contribs) 00:57, 26 October (UTC) 2013‎ Worldedixor (talk) 01:57, 26 October 2013 (UTC) Worldedixor (talk) 02:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

And yet you can't seem to be bothered signing your posts here or on Andy's page when you notified him.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:08, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Mark Miller for giving one more evidence of what I stated above. But you are 100% in the right. Please forgive me as it was an unintentional error, and thanks to you, I just fixed it. have a blessed day... Worldedixor (talk) 01:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh....this is gonna be a popcorn thread I see.......--Mark Miller (talk) 01:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I will deal with the substance of this later - if anyone shows any signs of taking it seriously after looking at Worldedixor's recent edit history (and not so recent - his/her edits at DHgate.com are as good an example of why Wikipedia doesn't need Worldedixor's 'expertise' as one could possibly find). Meanwhile, a couple of points for Worldedixor. Firstly there is no protection for 'whistleblowers' here - see WP:BOOMERANG. And secondly, if you are going to make allegations about "subtle retaliation" by others, you had damned well produce the evidence - I will freely admit that my behaviour wasn't at its best, but I see no reason why you should be permitted to make wild allegations about others without justification. Put up, or shut up. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Frankly, Worldedixor, Andy was being perfectly civil with you until your umpteenth freak attack. I look at the fact that you have been arguing on the wrong side of policy up and down Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk, seem to exhibit ownership behavior on that same talk page, and based on this conversation seem to view your disputes with Andy as some kind of battleground. You seem in general to be extremely quick to accuse people of being mean to you when they have done nothing of the sort, for instance at Talk:Aida_Nikolaychuk#YouTube_links. Frankly, Andy is being more than respectful to you in that exchange.

What you really need to do is take a step back and chill. You don't know all the rules yet. Attempts to educate you on the rules are not an attack on your work - they are meant to help your work. Being a collaborative encyclopedia means that there will be disagreements and you won't always get your way. If that's not something you're comfortable with, it's your problem, not Andy's. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding 'not knowing the rules yet', Worldedixor has been a contributor since 2006. [337] AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:21, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Someguy1221 for giving yet one more subtle evidence. I think my intial statement gave all the verifiable facts. I only contribute minimally here and there to Wikipedia. I do not edit full time. Have a good day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:25, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm a little more sympathetic to Worldedixor's plight than others. At the same time, I don't think the content dispute belongs here, and I don't think Andy will be sanctioned for his comments. My suggestion is that the content dispute be resolved through the usual dispute resolution mechanisms (if Worldedixor clings to naming the son - regardless of who's right I think it's a fairly insignificant thing to get into a snit about), Worldedixor forget about the unpleasant exchange with Andy, and move on, hopefully with a little less drama and verbosity.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Bbb23 (talk) for being fair and just. I highly value your opinion but I respectfully disagree. Have a pleasant day, my friend. Worldedixor (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

The 'content dispute', such as it is, was never really the primary issue as far as I'm concerned - it was more a matter of getting Worldedixor to acknowledge that the article had to be properly sourced and encyclopaedic. It is difficult to work alongside someone who objects to the removal of unsourced trivia about the name of Aida Nikolaychuk's dog, and the name of a friend (with no indication of why this friend was even of any significance). [338] And then there is the matter of Worldedixor contacting (or claiming to contact) the subject of the article. [339] (That particular diatribe was the result of me asking Worldedixor where s/he was getting information from [340]). I for one don't think Wikipedia contributors should be contacting article subjects - particularly contributors who seem entirely oblivious to the basics of how Wikipedia works. Right from the start, Worldedixor seemed to want to ignore policy and fill the article with unsourced fluff - apparently expecting hypothetical 'fans of Nikolaychuk' to do all the donkey-work. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:49, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Worldedixor, please see AndyTheGrump's recent edit history, then see WP:NOPUNISH. AndyTheGrump, please try to work things out here, or else one or more of the administrators here may block you. Best regards, Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you Epicgenius for giving such a threat and an evidence of all that I stated above. This notice is about much more than one edit dispute. It is about indecent conduct and much more. I refer you to my original statement to read carefully. Worldedixor (talk) 02:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Cut to the chase:

• Oppose - and suggest that the editor Worldedixor be blocked for disruptive editing for 48 hours, double the length of the block from the 24th that appears to not to have done the trick of preventing further disruptive behavior. I don't know if DR/N will accept this. Certainly not while this thread is open.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:33, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • I respect "your support of Andy". However, please respect my wish delineated in my original statement to eliminate conflict of interest. Thank you for your cooperation. Worldedixor (talk) 01:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

"Conflict of interest"????? AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Comment. Do we really have to vote on this (sigh)? I recommend closing this topic with no action against anyone.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Comment: Not something that the admins have to vote on (the one vote here is opposing the move (I mean the action (nobody seems to care anyway))). Epicgenius^{(give him tirade • check out damage)} 01:43, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, Bb23 we don't have to....if you feel there is no need and wish to close this thread now, I will not object.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yikes, Worldedixor has been editing since 2006, yet they feel that the OP is somehow helpful, and they think Talk:Aida Nikolaychuk#Voting on the inclusion of the name of Aida's son in the article is reasonable. Andy's initial comment (in full) was: 'See WP:NOTVOTE. Content issues are decided in reference to policy, and after discussion. And no, Wikipedia is not governed by "case law" or precedent.' As normal, let's again thank Andy while asking that he bang his head on the desk rather than publicly flame out. @Worldedixor: Wikipedia is a project to develop an enccyclopedia based on certain standard procedures—please listen to editors like Andy when they explain those procedures, and ignore them when they flame out. Johnuniq (talk) 01:52, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • Thank you Johnuniq for making an effort to "show non-bias to Andy". I listened carefully to your respectful advice and will assume it was made in good faith, but I will refer you to my original statement. Have a blessed day. Worldedixor (talk) 01:59, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, close this complaint. And maybe, despite his long tenure at WP, it's time for Worldedixor to get a mentor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• This seems to be one of those cases that requires an admin to either take action or simply close as no action needed. I feel there is enough evidence that Worldedixor has continued disruptive behavior to boomerang for their own disruptive behavior coming off a requested unblock. It might appear to some that the unblock, while seemingly the right move from the fair minded unblock request was, in fact, too soon. Perhaps Liz is correct and a mentorship requirement instead of another block will do.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

UPDATE: After admin Drmies closed the thread admin Mr. Stradivarius warned Andy that if he makes similar comments again he will be blocked.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:38, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

User:Lowercase sigmabot III

Lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is malfunctioning, see edits to User talk:Quadell for an example. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:46, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Hmph, you should ping the operator, not the bot. I have responded at my talk page. →Σσς. (Sigma) 03:07, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Can this be handled off-board? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:35, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Question

If I will be blocked for racism\vandalism\reason will my article be killed or they will stay in Wiki?--N94228 (talk) 13:27, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If the article contains racism or vandalism, it's possible it will be deleted if it can't be salvaged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:45, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you!--N94228 (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

If you are referring to Dina Rubina, the article will be deleted if it does not demonstrate that the subject meets Wikipedia's requirements for notability, which means having received significant coverage in published reliable sources independent of the subject. There is no point in you repeatedly deleting the maintenance templates without addressing the problems. - David Biddulph (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• No, the article will not be deleted. You revert my good edits just because she is a Russian writer who wrote tens of books. You must be blocked for vandalism--N94228 (talk) 15:09, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
  • It is not vandalism to add maintenance tags to an article—especially adding the {{Unreferenced}} tag to an article lacking independent reliable sources. —C.Fred (talk) 15:14, 26 October 2013 (UTC)
• So I am leaving Wikipedia. Thats not OK when me make new articles and some miserable nonames demand the notability of great people to be proven to them. Go, delete all articles.--N94228 (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

It would be much simpler to just add some reliable secondary sources to the article. The only secondary source currently cited is IMDB, and that's generally viewed as of limited reliability. Has she not been written about in any magazines or news articles? —C.Fred (talk) 15:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

• Then again, based on the personal attacks this edit summary, maybe it's better if User:N94228 walks away from Wikipedia voluntarily before getting shown the door by an admin. —C.Fred (talk) 15:26, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

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

---

The user TheRedPenOfDoom (talk · contribs) again and again removing the sources on Do Dil Bandhe Ek Dori Se TV show article, and Also the removed cast Table without any reason. See the diff, and history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chanderforyou (talk • contribs) 14:47, 26 October 2013‎ (UTC)

• Looks to me as though they were fixing unsourced information and poor spelling and grammer, removing bare URLs, and generally tidying up the article. Also, this is a noticeboard for reporting incidents that require the intervention of administrators, and is not for the discussion of content disputes. Closing. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

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

24.171.220.9 reverting, blanking on Calorie restriction

24.171.220.9 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) has been removing content from Calorie restriction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since October 20. They have only used edit summaries three times, and all of them have been fairly misleading. They have not attempted to discuss the issue on any talk page, despite a final warning about 8 hours ago. The editor has mostly removed content related to the implications of pregnant and young people, especially young people, undergoing calorie restriction. Many of their edits have also broken header formatting, and some have also introduced improper grammar and/or punctuation. Links to edits that they have done: [341], [342] (might just be downright vandalism), [343], [344], [345], [346], [347], [348], [349]. I decided to bring the issue here because the edits aren't clear-cut vandalism, and they haven't broken 3RR. — SamX‧☎‧✎‧S 14:55, 26 October 2013 (UTC)