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

Damiens.rf, incivility and Wikihounding

Hello, I find myself here after stumbling with this little jewel and examining the root of the problem with more depth. The conflict, as usual began as a simple matter of perspective between him and the creator of Tony Santiago, Mercy11. Apparently, Mercy closed their discussion despite being involved, something that was very sorely received by damiens.rf. The violation of WP:CIVIL is very straight forward, Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back. However, there seems to be more than meets the eye here. For those unfamiliar with Tony's work, he is known as long-standing sysop Marine 69-71 in this project. He is the "Marine" referenced in the diatribe (notice how he directly links Tony's user page, despite the fact that he was uninvolved in this particular argument). I am not sure from where all of this sudden aggressiveness is coming, but it appears to be unilaterally coming from damien.rf's side, since Tony was quite cordial during their last talk page interaction. When damiens.rf talks about "Marine-fan boys", he seems to be referring to the majority of WP:PUR, WP:MILHIST and several other users throughout Wikipedia. This is a rather thinly veiled attack, nothing compared to the one below it, but one that exposes the fact that his edits to this article may have a more personal motivation to them. To understand that, we need to go to the very genesis of their relationship.

I believe that the first encounter between damiens.rf and Tony was one of his infamous "deletion streaks", where he would frequently overwhelm users/WikiProjects by nominating several dozen images at once. That was actually the first time that I remember seeing his name, since he quickly became the topic among members of WP:PUR due to the fact that nominations were being done too quickly to really be attended or discussed. This notably exhausted Tony, who had uploaded images since the early 2000s, when the protocol to upload fair use images was more lax (not requiring detailed rationales, for example) and tried to talk one-on-one to solve the issue. I actually encountered him as well, since damiens'rf's super-strict definition of "copyright enforcement" could apparently overcome the consensus to keep a single image. Shortly afterwards, he was edit warring with the entirety of WP:PUR, which I noted. It was eventually moved to AN/I where I noted the issue, the speed and volume of nomination. WP:PUR was not alone, notice the other topic discussing exactly the same pattern above that one. Eventually, this lead to the creation of a subpage, where damiens.rf continued to nominate more of Tony's images. From the look of it, both of them were cooperating and reaching agreements without trouble. However, from his subsequent edits it is somewhat obvious that damiens.rf had taken an interest to anything related to the Marine. I was inactive during most of the following years, but a quick browsing tells me that at least one user felt that damiens.rf has some sort of ongoing "beef" with the Marine, desfite the fact that he was actively trying to cooperate. As a matter of fact, after an article was created for Tony, damiens.rf made emphasizing how "non-notable" he considers him a very recurring point. Which is also the reason that damiens.rf felt the need to weight in during the AfD despite his history of conflict with its subject (COI).

He very frequently edited the articles authored by Tony, to the point of even being suspected of anon sockpuppetry at least once. His frequent "concurrence" with Tony can be easily seen here, but there are several examples. (here are a few diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Apparently, damiens.rf just followed Tony around tagging or frequently modifying his edits. And from the looks of it, damiens.rf also felt a need to question what Tony did within his own userspace in a rather confrontational tone, once even claiming that keeping the "hard copy" of a deleted Wikipedia article constitutes copyright violation (???). Damiens.rf went as far as claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket, despite the fact the he personally knew the incumbent Secretary of State of Puerto Rico (i.e. The "man" when it come to copyright enforcement in PR). Even when the excuse were not copyrights, he removed a public domain image because Tony was in it, possibly because he considers that it had something to do with vanity (note that at the moment that this list was moved, Tony was featured in it). The fact that he has continued to "oversee" the Marine for several years, even when Tony has avoided direct contact with damien.rf is concerning. This is WP:HOUNDING and it is completely unwarranted. Furthermore, I am concerned that damiens.rf tried to pressure Tony into giving up his admin tools and even "warned" him despite the fact that he was nowhere near a "neutral" party. This seems like thinly veiled extortion to me. Also of note is that his animosity extended to other members of WP:PUR, there are quite a few examples of him discussing with Cerejota and this one where he completely fails to assume good faith and accuses another member of possessing double standards. An examination of his edits indicates that he also had a subsequent encounter, not with Tony, but rather with his son Antonio.

With matters becoming increasingly personal, I think that we should make sure that both stop encountering each other. The diffs above clearly show that despite the best efforts of Tony, Cerejota and Mercy, damiens.fr is not interested in dialogue when it comes to the Marine. Since Tony almost exclusively edits Puerto Rico-related articles, a topic ban for those seems appropiate to make sure that damiens.rf stops hounding him. That would do it for this particular case. However, I believe that a more profound analysis of damien.rf's edit history taking his block log under consideration should take place as well. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Support topic ban for Puerto Rico-related articles and images. This has been going on and off for years. Wikihounding and uncivility should not be allowed to fester as the offender will simply keep pushing the limits as it is ahappening here. Before this was posted (on 13:47, 3 January 2014), I had responded to Damiens HERE (on 22:40, 2 January 2014‎) and clearly he does not want to follow policy. Mercy11 (talk) 15:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:TLDR. GiantSnowman 13:53, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but since the case dates back five years, this is as short as I could post it while keeping it concise. Telling people to browse his edit history would take them a while, since he nominates at least 25+ items for deletion at once with regularity. - Caribbean~H.Q. 13:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

In a very abbreviated summary, the text above describes how a user that has been blocked for Wikihounding in the past is back on the prowl. - Caribbean~H.Q. 14:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. My "something isn't quite right here" detector is going off. Apart from the first diff presented above (which is between damiens.rf and Mercy11), every other one is more than a year old. What issue is happening now between Tony and damiens.rf that requires a topic ban? Black Kite (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Regarding your "detector", I'm afraid you're behind the times. According to this thread the intuitions of veteran editors that "Something is rotten in Denmark" are of no value. Apparently, only evidence suitable for a court of law is now considered worthy of consideration by the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 16:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The first diff shows him taking a potshot personal attack at Tony, besides the fact that the conflict is taking place in the talk page of Tony Santiago. The other diffs are there to prove that this has been happening for a while. That when combined with their history, makes it hard to dismiss it. Not only that, but he was tailing Tony just last week, coincidentally, a few hours before posting that. To what purpouse? Why has he been doing it for years? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with Black Kite. Old diffs. The complaint at the beginning of this section, about hatting of a conversation, seems well-warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The other diffs are there to display damiens'rf's personal "interest" in the subject, not as complaints. I can't say that someone is Wikihouning a user without going back and showing that he has been tailing him for a while. What about the fact that he was tailing Tony just last week? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

What was tendentious about those edits? Coretheapple (talk) 17:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he has been selectively following him around since they had their first conflict, apparently for the single purpose of annoying him (or at least that is what it looks like based on his attitude towards Tony and the constant dismissal of his work). Of course, if that is not damiens.rf's intention, then he can easily delegate the monitorization to someone uninvolved. Right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're talking about. Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

If damiens.rf is simply overseeing these articles (without personal interest) and encountering Tony "coincidentally" after the Marine edits them, then he can surely let someone else do it. That way no one can misinterpret that he is tailing another user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's not a peep out of the editor who was "tailed." I don't think it's right in something like this that a group of editors functions as a kind of "attorney" for another editor, speaking on his behalf, when he is perfectly capable of speaking for himself and hasn't. I don't think that's fair to Damiens. If he feels "hounded" then he should say so himself. If he doesn't then this is a waste of time and should be closed. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanctions for Damiens.rf, cleaning up fair-use violations is frequently a thankless task with fightback from the uploader & his friends/wikiproject buddies. It appears that they have not forgiven Damiens.rf for his part in the deletion of the first incarnation of Tony Santiago's hagiography, and are resisting further cleanup/verification work on the recreated version 194.150.177.10 (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I know Tony, but I never edited his biography or was involved in either AfD (the first took place before my arrival and the third during a period of inactivity) I only knew damiens.rf from the one time that he flooded the project with IfDs and just learned that he opposed the third AfD after he was already tailing Tony. This has little to do with the biography. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:51, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
    • With that said, I don't think that anyone in WP:PUR (including Tony himself), would oppose the cleanup of the article by a neutral party. - Caribbean~H.Q. 17:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

(←)"The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions."

If we ask Tony, do you think that he will say how "joyful" being tailed makes him feel? - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should ask him. I have notified him of this discussion, since you didn't. Black Kite (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • I notified damiens.rf out of etiquette since he is the one being discussed. The notification system should have notified Tony when his username was linked. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now, or at least until we hear from Damiens.rf. I think highly of Tony so I'm likely if anything to be biased in his favor. But I'm concerned we're not hearing the full story here. You present a lot of evidence here, so I picked one of the more serious sounding charges, that Daminens was "claiming that Tony forged an OTRS ticket". But when I went to look at the linked discussion, I saw no accusation of forgery, but instead a reasonable-sounding question regarding the status of the ticket and the appropriateness of the PD label for these images. So I wonder what else in this complaint is not represented accurately. Gamaliel (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Point granted. Perhaps it is difficult to asume that the 'question' was done in good faith knowing his stance regarding the contributions of Tony. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• • User:Gamaliel, I don't believe Damiens has any interest in presenting his side of this. It's been 5 days since he was notified of this discussion and he has been actively editing, yet has failed to comment here. Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Since he's had ample opportunity to respond, I see no problem proceeding without him. But I have to reiterate my oppose due to my concerns about the misrepresentation of evidence here. Misrepresenting a serious allegation is not an absence of good faith, it's something else entirely. Gamaliel (talk) 02:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
      • I agree with Gamaliel. My oppose also stands. Damiens seems to have dug a hole for himself by incivility that he has not retracted. He also seems to be following around another editor, though I don't see any actual tendentiousness. I sometimes watch what other editors do too, not to annoy them but because I'm interested to see what they're doing. But I am uneasy. The supposed victim of wikistalking has not uttered a word, which I think cancels out somewhat Damiens' nonappearance. The overriding issue here seems to be that this article is kind of a COI-squared situation. A Wikipedia article about a Wikipedia editor, written by his friends and, according to one edit summary on the talk page, with involvement by a relative. The problem is that this has festered in one article with no utilization of dispute resolution except for this seemingly overblown complaint. Coretheapple (talk) 21:35, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• Is this about the fair-use violations or Damiens.rf's wikihounding of Tony? Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Its about the fact that he continues to tail him even after the fair use issues were taken care of. - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Plus, as the title states, it is also about Damiens's lack of civility via the profanity he spitted out and found in the "little jewel" link the submitter provided above. I don't know what low-life corner of the world some of the editors participating in this thread come from that they have grown so used to uncivil behavior, but where I come from to tell someone else to "go fuck yourself with a chainsaw" is not considered civil - particularly if Mercy11 had not been abusive to Damiens first. Mercy11 (talk) 15:56, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I went to the "little jewel" cited at the very top of this section, and what I found was a sliver of this conversation in which Damiens.rf was upset about a user closing a discussion he was a part of. Carribean H.Q. says "Mercy tried to discuss with him (as seen in the diff) and he lashed back." But that is not an especially full or complete recounting of the conversation. If you look at the conversation in full, you can see that Damiens was initially quite civil and received a less than satisfactory response. While there was subsequent incivility, the concern itself seems well warranted and I have an uneasy feeling about this. Coretheapple (talk) 21:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So your Opposition is based on the fact that "Damiens was initially quite civil". However, being initially civil is no grounds to be uncivil later when, and if, someone continues to disagree with an outcome. Wikipedia has a well-defined appeal escalation process to deal with dissatisfaction - and it does not involve incivility by any of the parties as you are suggesting. Mercy11 (talk) 16:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not the reason. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Backtracking we find this from Mercy11. That an insult is couched in snark, attacking another contributor's intelligence and/or education ("dark ages") and motivation, instead of sexually referenced profanity doesn't make it less of an insult, and Mercy11 should not have closed a discussion she was a participant in. (I'd revert the close right now if it wasn't 5 days stale.) I urge both Mercy11 & Damiens.rf to refrain from commenting about the other. NE Ent 01:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Receiving a snarky, "less than satisfactory" response is now enough to randomly tell someone to "go fuck [himself] with a chainsaw"? - Caribbean~H.Q. 12:31, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
    • No, and I admit that I haven't gone through all your diffs. However, if anyone had hatted a discussion in, say Talk:BP or any actively edited article there would be an unholy row. Are you sure there aren't WP:OWN issues here as well as COI concerns? Coretheapple (talk) 18:52, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
      • There are likely COI concerns regarding the fact that users that know the subject are editing the article. At the very least, I don't edit it based on that. But that goes for both sides, I doubt that damiens.rf would even be interested in this particular biography if Tony was not a Wikipedia user (i.e. if they never encountered each other). - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:56, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

(I am interjecting this comment here to address CHQ's statement above.) User:Caribbean H.Q.: It depends on what you mean by "know the subject". From my Talk Page, see that Tony happened to be the admin that welcomed me when I started editing in Aug 2009. So, if you consider someone I met at Wikipedia to be equivalent to "knowing the subject", then -yes- I know him. But then you also have to say Damiens, who also edited the article, has a COI (as I admit you state above) because Damiens has also "known" Tony (that Damiens -unlike me- chose to interact whith Tony with anomosity, that was his prerogative). IAE, Wikipedia's COI doesn't go by such "know the subject" terminology; as such, "know the subject" is poor metric here. The policy states that COI "involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers.[1] When an external relationship undermines, or could reasonably be said to undermine, your role as a Wikipedian, you have a conflict of interest. This is often expressed as: 'when advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest'" None of that applies to me. Specifically, I don't always "Amen" Tony, simply because it's Tony, and he knows that. I've got my own brain and I use it at Wikipedia as my record shows. This is something that the editor making the ignorant "wikibuddy" comment here is clearly unaware of. The comment is an offense to my intelligence and that of anyone that respects Tony's work, as it implies blind approval for Tony's work - which is not the case. Mercy11 (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Would there be an article on this person if he was not a Wikipedia editor? Coretheapple (talk) 15:19, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• Is that really relevant? The article had several incarnations, yet damiens.rf only became interested in the subject after locking horns with its subject. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• It's the elephant in the room, right up there with the supposed victim not saying that he is in fact a victim. I think it's time to wrap this up and call it a day. Coretheapple (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
• I edit A LOT of biographies. It's my favorite subject, indeed. --damiens.rf 14:30, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:OTHERSTUFF. Mercy11 is not under scrutiny here - Damiens is. If you think Mercy11 has violated a behavioral rule you can go ahead and start a new thread. Equally important, using Mercy11's comments as a reason for a Support/Oppose determination is, IMO, poor use of judgement. Mercy11 (talk) 16:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Note that I have taken WP:BLP enforcement action on the article Tony Santiago, removing the poorly-sourced BLP statement against whose sourcing Damiens.rf was rightly objecting. The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst clearly shows that some people, including Mercy11, were evidently not understanding what "reliable sources" and "self-published sources" mean. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Good. This thread is about the user's conduct, not his enforcement of policy or perpetuating a particular revision of the article. - Caribbean~H.Q.

• Good for you, Future Perfect, to have taken enforcement action on something involving an ongoing discussion and then justifying it on WP:BLP. When the dust settled your rationale makes sense based on the lesser of two conflicting policies. However, your judgment there is overshadowed by your use in this same thread about Damiens' behavior by your use of phrases like "Damiens.rf was rightly objecting". In particular, your use of phrases such "The discussion that led to Damiens' outburst" can be interpreted as justifying his behavior. May I suggest, next time stay neutral and don't mix the two as it could be read as support for Damiens uncivility. Mercy11 (talk) 16:27, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

• Strong support. It doesn't matter if he is "right", his way of going about things is wrong. Contribution history shows Damiens.rf targets Puerto Rico articles in order to troll Tony. Furthermore, Damiens.rf is not here to build an encyclopedia. He is only here to rules-lawyer over the existence of articles and images and to upset content editors until they leave the site in frustration. Not only do I support the proposed topic ban, I also recommend that the community take a longer look at editors like Damiens.rf who seem to focus only on deleting the work of other editors, not in contributing work of their own to this project. Some might argue that contributing content and deleting are two equally valid aspects of the project, but I do not agree with that assessment. It takes far more energy and work to research, create, and contribute than to tear down and destroy. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment The removal/deletion of copyright/fair-use violating and/or non-notable content is an essential component of improving the wiki. 194.150.177.9 (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh yeah? At any cost - including uncivility? Look, I don't know if you are new in these circles or what, but we have been down this -entire- road before, and to be part of this community we have to abide by All the 5 Pillars - not just 4. We don't justify uncivil behavior on the basis of protecting anything - we have other volunteers who protect Fair Use, BLP, et. al., and do so while abiding by All the 5 Pillars. Mercy11 (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How 'new' I am as an editor is irrelevant. As FPaS notes above, your understanding of wikipolicies is incorrect..or perhaps you are willing to disregard policies when they get in the way of writing hagiographies for your wikibuddy. In any case, the proposal to sanction Damiens.rf is clearly failing (only attracting support from previous opponents & Santiago's wikibuddies).194.150.177.9 (talk) 15:37, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not irrelevant if you are making statements that are (no pun intended) irrelevant to the case. At best, two wrongs don't make a right. No one if saying your copyvio/FU statement above was false; it was more a "preaching to the choir". As for the "As FPaS notes above", please note that's included in WP:PERNOM. As for the "the proposal to sanction Damiens.rf is clearly failing", please note that's included in WP:MAJORITY. Mercy11 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, cleaning images is important (the manner in which it was done is debatable, but that is not the actual topic here). The problem is that damiens.rf is tailing Tony everywhere. Nowadays he is following his edits in biographies that are not remotely controversial. Why the persistent interest if not to troll him? - Caribbean~H.Q. 03:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment When an editor has a history of poor editing practices, it is absolutely fine to examine his edits on other articles. To do so cannot be remotely called harassment or trolling. BTW Mercy11, you are demonstrating a shaky understanding of policies/guideline by invoking wp:pernom as this is not a deletion discussion and FPaS (who's he?) is not the nominator. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: New anonynympus IP account that --from his summary comments-- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support I support the topic ban, I have seen it before with him. He did not even take a break from requesting deletion of Puerto Rico related article while this discussion is going on, in my humble opinion that should have been the prudent thing for him to do. El Johnson (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. It may be of interest to contributors here to know that, in what appears to be retaliation for Caribbean HQ reporting him here, yesterday Damiens started Targeting Puerto Rico-related articles, particularly Biographies about Puerto Ricans. Note that he had never been to the bulk of the articles in question before. Mercy11 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
• oppose. I do see some snark & incivility from damien.rf but it is in the face of obstruction from editors keen to be cheerleaders for a favoured colleague. BTW I find that invoking civility violations as a basis to ban an editor doing otherwise good work leaves a bad taste in my mouth, especially when the most vocal proponents are clearly aligned against him for personal reasons. 94.194.24.46 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: A New anonynympus IP account that --from his summary comments-- seems to know his way around WP extremely well. Dubious? Maybe even a disengenuous sockpuppet perhaps? Mercy11 (talk) 16:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• "some people ask me to tag insted of removing. some people ask me to find-the-sources-myself instea of tagging. I say Fuck you all." Unless you are non-people, that was meant for you too. Then check out the community's definition of Fuck and argue if it ain't a profanity. ...Or perhaps you disagree with the WP:Civility policy in that, "Even a single act of severe incivility can result in blocks; for example, a single episode of extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor," Mercy11 (talk) 14:37, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Perceived WP:OWN issue

I would appreciate third part opinion here. I'm having a hard time in trying to cooperate. Again. It may be my fault. I'm open to directions. --damiens.rf 14:50, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Interestingly, in Damiens' 5-year history with Wikipedia he has created ONE (1) article, just ONE, and only ONE [SEE HERE] (Assuming I am using the Wiki tool correctly). His love and joy appears to be his goal of interfering with other editors' enjoyment of the encyclopedia by disrupting their work, and do so under the disguise of improving things (such as tagging articles left and right). While I admire some of his work, there is a serious problem with someone who behaves as disruptively as he does. Mercy11 (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• As was explained to you by several other editors in the other and more recent section that you created toward the bottom of this page[1], "wikignomes" like Damiens do not create articles, but contribute to the project in numerous other ways that are essential to the project. If you think that such people are worthless, that says more about you than it does about Damiens. It is unfortunate that Damiens was incivil to you, and I agree that he should apologize, but the "wikihounding" charge is belied by the silence of the supposed victim, and does not seem to be supportable anyway. The most serious problem that I see here is not that anyone is "tailing" anybody, but that there is an article that is a veritable wasp's nest of COI, which quite frankly appears owned, lock, stock and barrel, by friends of the subject of the article. At a time when Wikipedia is under a microscope for paid editing, sometimes involving Foundation employees, it's really questionable that such an article exists. Coretheapple (talk) 23:21, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• The "As was explained to you by several other editors" leaves much to be desired. The several other editors = exactly 2. So please let's not exaggerate. And the the alleged "explanation" that you happened to read, did not yet have my response. (which is, in part, a weakness of Wikipedia forums). It is not generally good judgment to make up your mind until you have had a chance to see both sides. No offense; I am using "you" in a generic, not personal, form.

No one is saying Damines work is worthless, and in fact, as for me, I can give you proof I have applauded his work more than once before. It is not just "unfortunate" that Damines was uncivil, it was a violation of policy that doesn't seem to get thru to some editors here, and that you now appear to be perpetuating. Nothing personal. Mercy11 (talk) 00:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

It's now up to several. No offense, nothing personal, but I think it's time to move on. Coretheapple (talk) 13:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Mercy11's original point, I want to point out that many editors in the guild of copy editors, of which I am a member of, may take umbrage at your statement. Many editors in that group create no articles but dedicate their time to improving existing articles and as a result of their efforts many articles are promoted to the next class of articles. As an example, several articles I have copy edited have seen pass GAN and another I finished working on last year encouraged the requester to seek FA status for it, which it passed. I suggest you think before you speak. Blackmane (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Blackmane's message, none of that there has anything to do with the accusation of incivility and wikihounding. Everything there is WP:OTHERSTUFF. But it is good to know that WP:GOCE has other editors who can pick up any slack for improving Puerto Rico related articles becuase the proposal is not to ban all of of these 1,039 GOCE editors from Puerto Rico related articles. The proposal is to ban just the 1. Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I, too, reject that editors who primarily remove text are somehow unworthy Wikipedians. That's like saying Michelangelo wasn't very much of an artist because all he did was remove some rock from David. The internet has an estimated 5,000,000,000,000,000,000 bytes of data [2]; readers value Wikipedia because they have come to expect concise, balanced coverage of a topic. In the human body there's a name for unregulated growth: cancer. Please see fancruft and be concise. NE Ent 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

What a shock to find the usual hypocritical process wonkery here. If someone provides diffs going back awhile they get slammed for providing old diffs. If all they present are current diffs then they get a bunch of people saying "Well, this is just so current let's wait awhile and see what happens and then call these diffs old". Diffs are provided to show history and on-going patterns of behaviour, they're extremely relevant to actually solving issues, assuming one wants to do that.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 09:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not that the diffs were old, but that they were a trumped up case against an editor who, while in one instance incivil, was making perfectly proper edits. Coretheapple (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Trumped up implies that it's false. Were the older diffs provided somehow false? Did another user write them? The point of the old diffs was to show that this was not "one instance" which is of course how some would try and pass it off, but an issue that's been going on with an editor for years. It's showing that the behaviour existed in the past, it exists now, and so long as there are people sitting around willing to excuse it, it will exist in the future as well.--211.215.156.184 (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• What is telling here is not the user's behavior but the inability of this board of engaging and getting rid of troll behavior. As you guys have this conversation the user has kept his deletion/tag spree with a vengeance [3]. You can argue if his actions are in line with policy but the problem here is his trolling behavior; millions of pages and he/she is only tagging a small batch of Puerto Rican related articles plus engaging in uncivil [4] behavior without responding to the community concerns of this board and most of the editors active in the Puerto Rican project. What is going to take to somebody to ask Damiens to stop his actions and respond to the community's concerns? --Jmundo (talk) 12:36, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to go out on a limb here and say your two diffs blatantly say nothing. Your first diff links to his contribs list, what's the point of that? As for your second diff, it is precisely what you are talking about with regards to his "respond(ing) to the community's concerns". Two editors raised concerns about his commentary and he responded civilly with an acknowledgement of their concerns and that he will be careful in future. What extra did you want? Prostration in front of an altar begging forgiveness? This is ridiculous. What is telling is that you are unable to produce evidence to back up your claim. Blackmane (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to me everyone here knows that the a users's contributions list isn't static - specially if Damiens is going out "with a vengance". Just use your imagination a bit and click on the "Older 100/250/500" link. Mercy11 (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Duck Dynasty

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

---

Duck Dynasty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I am concerned that Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire, user Belchfire is again using another account to edit. I don't know the right steps to take but the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Belchfire investigation has sat for a few weeks with no action. It's fairly obvious that both LyricalCat, and Roccodrift, are acting in concert. I'm not sure what can be done, but it is odd the LyricalCat is now doing the edit that Perusteltu has been lobbying for. I'll notify these users now. Sportfan5000 (talk) 08:22, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

You tried appending LyricalCat to the Belchfire SPI which had already been checkusered. Make a new one -- but posting here and at SPI etc. looks like forumshopping, alas. Accusations of socks belong at SPI and not here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree that LyricalCat is Belchfire. You should pursue the disagreement at Duck Dynasty based on policy arguments. Binksternet (talk) 14:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes - while it has appeared to many that Roccodrift is an obvious Belchfire sock, there's not enough to go on with LyricalCat, however suspicious they look. Black Kite (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Sportfan5000, can you explain more specifically what you think the suspicious behavior is? I didn't start following the page until my first edit on it on January 7, so I'm not familiar with the history of Roccodrift's opinions on the article. I'm also wondering why you have twice reverted my edits, which I think are clearly in good faith, and are almost entirely grammatical improvements (for example here). Is it just because you incorrectly suspect me to be Roccodrift? LyricalCat (talk) 09:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

If you want an administrator to attend to SPI, post on WP:AN or the SPI talk page. CU at the SPI have said they are unable to compare accounts because they no longer have information about the older accounts. In those cases, behavioral evidence may be used. However, that is often hard to prove. Suggest you close this thread, as wrong forum. TFD (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Sportfan5000 should be careful about throwing stones in glass houses. His earliest contributions show him to be anything but a new user. In fact he pulled some chicanery via page moves in a possible attempt to evade scrutniy of his talk page. While we don't know who is is (possibly User:Lionhead99 or even more likely User:Benjiboi), one thing we can be sure of is his report here is certainly ironic.2401:1800:7800:101:8517:1279:FF1C:50E (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Template:Uninvolvededitor You know what else is ironic? The fact that this is your very first edit yet you seem very well-versed about sockpuppetry and even noticeboards. I don't have an opinion on this thread in itself, but, well, this is something for you to think about before you call someone a hypocrite. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Repeated spamming of utterly non-notable awards on porn star biographies

A large number of porn-star BLPs have lately been spammed by a number of IPs who have repeatedly added utterly non-notable purely promotional "awards", named for porn video producers and distributors (Juliland Award, AEBN VOD Award, TLA Raw Award, with the recipients being selected by those companies) and intended as promotion for the sponsors of the awards. All of the edits sourced only to the porn business magazine AVN Magazine, a trade journal that covers the adult film industry. As a result of the repeated spamming multiple IPs were warned, at least one IP was blocked and several porn star bios were semi-protected. Today a recently created now auto-confirmed single-purpose account, Hanswar32 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), resumed the spamming, with even more intensity than before, and refuses to stop in spite of being pointed to WP:Notability and WP:Notability (awards), instead edit-warring over the material. So since I have no desire to break the 3RR-barrier on any of the articles I would appreciate if one or more admins would look into the matter, and do whatever they feel is needed... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 12:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked for 24 hours for edit warring across articles. I'll talk to the user about appropriate means of dispute resolution. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User indicates a willingness to stop edit warring and engage in discussion. I've unblocked him so he can get on with it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:24, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

@Moonriddengirl: The core of the problem isn't the edit-warring as such but the user's total unwillingness to accept that the promotional "awards" that were spammed aren't notable, and thus shouldn't be added to the articles. But I see no acceptance by the user of being guilty of spamming (see ES&L's message on the users talk page, just above the block message, which clearly states that the awards aren't notable; which is also my opinion). What we will probably see now is repeated attempts to establish the notability of the "awards", possibly through sock/meat puppets achieving "consensus" on each article separately for adding the awards. Something that would be easy to achieve since the only ones who ever edit the articles are SPAs with obvious strong connections to the adult video industry. So IMHO the best way out of it would have been to give Hanswar32 a much longer block than the few hours they got. Also please note that Hanswar32 seems to be very familiar with how Wikipedia works, how to make edits/reverts, WP guidelines etc, which contradicts his/her claims of being a totally new user. So what we're seeing is most probably an experienced user who out of necessity, i.e. because of semi-protection of several articles, created a throw-away account for the spamming, instead of continuing to use IPs for it like before... Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:07, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Thomas.W, I understand your frustration. If you believe he is a sock, you can report him at WP:SPI. However, in the absence of evidence of that, giving him an opportunity to prove good faith is the proper thing to do. If he attempts dispute resolution and fails to gain consensus for any changes, future repeats of this behavior will be a clear signal that working in good faith isn't what he intends. What's important is that he has now agreed to stop warring in the articles, and we will see what he does towards resolving the issue properly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:39, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I've just become aware of this ANI and I would like to offer my observations and comments. First, there appears to be several issues at stake here. One is the inclusion of sourced content in articles for porn actors for awards they've received, and second, is the Notability of the awards. The title of this ANI is IMO an indication of the biased opinion that some Users have in this matter

With regard to the first issue, several times I have observed User Thomas and another User consistently removing sourced content for awards that have been won either without any Edit Summary or one that includes something to the extent that their opinion of the award that it's "spam" or "marketing" or that the award is such that its mere mention should not be allowed. This brings me to the next issue, the Notability of the awards themselves. I have seen several sourced "wins" deleted such as the AEBN VOD Award and Raw Award. In the former's case, its been around since 2006 and regardless of who its sponsored by, its still factual information thats its been won by one or more actors. With regard to the latter, its brand new and started in 2013. Unless the Users making the complaint can predict the future, no one knows if the award will become Notable by WP standards, but the fact remains, a win is a win and if there's a source for it it should be allowed in the article. Other Adult awards have come and gone, such as the Venus Award, and those wins are allowed to remain in articles.

Lastly, unless the complaining Users are somehow experts in the Adult industry or actually working in it (and have sources to cite), I fail to see how they can make these accusations about the intention of the respective award programs, or, expect anyone to respect their edits when they refuse to substantiate the claims they are making about the award programs they are trying to systematically delete from the site. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I am not guilty of spamming and it’s painfully obvious that I’m not the only editor who views these awards as notable (both Scalhotrod and Rebecca1990 agree with me). I’ve replied to both you and ES&L's message on my talk page and neither of you have been able to successfully defend your “opinion” on the matter. I never claimed to be a “totally new” user but clearly stated to be “relatively new”. Yes, I have some experience on Wikipedia as an IP user but I’m still learning about the policies and compared to the rest of you, have considerably less experience. Why would I continue as an IP user when Wikipedia offers several benefits to encourage a user to create an account? Again, I’m not spamming and at least 2 other editors agree with me. It’s sad seeing you try to distort reality over a dispute instead of engaging in a meaningful discussion in order to resolve it. What’s sadder is your repeated assumption of bad faith, clearly against Wikipedia guidelines. Thankfully, we have level-minded and reasonable administrators that make just decisions and prevent biased editors from silencing those who disagree with them. Hanswar32 (talk) 04:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I haven't been back to your talkpage since I fully, completely, and successfully defended my position - I was very polite, non-threatening (if I remember correctly), and a sincere attempt to be helpful towards someone who I believe is also sincerely trying to be helpful. There most certainly was no attempt to "silence", and I'm certainly not "biased" - indeed, I don't believe I've ever edited nor read an article in the porn world (unless it's something that came up here at ANI as urgent). The overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS (one of the pillars of this project) appears to be that non-notable awards do not belong on anybody's page - whether it's porn awards, minor book awards for an author, local gallery awards for an artist of photography, etc. Yes, it's nice to win an award of some variety - I once won a really nice award about an article I contributed to in Afghanistan, but it's not a notable enough award to include someday on a biography both on-Wikipedia or anywhere else but my résumé and on the wall in my den. ES&L 10:28, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• First, I can't condone edit warring for any reason. Second, if an award ceremony is truly "notable", then it would have its own Wikipedia article about it. However, I don't know what citing something like Wikipedia:Notability (awards) does for anyone's argument, since it appears to have been labelled as irrelevant to the entire Wikipedia project as of around 2007. If the concern on the part of some in this dispute is that certain pornography-related articles will be "kept" at AfD because of someone winning a non-notable award...well, I've yet to see that actually happen at AfD (maybe someone else has though). Lastly, I don't personally have a problem with award content being added to any Wikipedia article...as long as it has a reliable citation attached to it. Guy1890 (talk) 08:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• GUY, please do not fall victim to the kind of WP bias that you just exhibited. Any subject's significance or importance in the real world is not determined by the presence of a Wikipedia article. That logic is flawed and backwards. I like and appreciate WP just as much as anyone here, but I have never based my impression of a subject on whether or not it has an article. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:42, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Any subject's significance or importance in the real world is not determined by the presence of a Wikipedia article." No kidding, but, here on Wikipedia, we have this thing called notablility, and things that are truly notable (for whatever reason) will eventually end up with their own Wikipedia article at some point. Does that mean that subjects that don't have their own Wikipedia article aren't important in the real world? No, it just means that, for the purposes of Wikipedia only, that they aren't notable. Again, I'm not opposed to including non-notable infomation in Wikipedia articles, as long as a reliable citation exists for that same information. For instance, being married doesn't make one notable, but including the reliably-sourced information that someone is, in fact, maried in a Wikipedia article isn't a problem with me.

I'd personally like to see where the "overwhelming consensus" exists "that non-notable awards do not belong on anybody's page" on Wikipedia. I'm not saying that that consensus doesn't exist, but I haven't come across it yet. Was this decided somewhere else at another time? Guy1890 (talk) 22:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

We tend to put things differently, but I agree on both counts and would like to see evidence of the "overwhelming consensus" as well. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I think that any award an individual has won should be allowed to remain on their page. I definitely wouldn't use an award that isn't notable enough for a WP article to try to establish an individual's notability and keep their article at AfD, but I don't see why it shouldn't be mentioned in the article. I don't see whats promotional about the awards. Do you really think that someone who's reading a porn stars WP article is suddenly going to go out to purchase their films just because they looked at their awards section and saw these awards? Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

@ES&L: I recognize your sincerity and for the record I wasn’t referring to you at all with regards to “silencing” other editors or being “biased”. Congratulations on your award and I fully understand the viewpoint on the inappropriateness of including non-notable awards on a person’s biography. The dispute here however differs due to the nature of these awards and the issue is summarized quite nicely by Scalhotrod.

I agree with everything Guy1890 said except I’d like to point to his attention that on my talk page I mentioned 3 types of awards and know of at least 2 others that don’t have Wikipedia articles of their own, yet are allowed to be included on all Wikipedia articles for which there is a recipient. To touch on what Guy1890 said about reliably-sourced information, I’d like to reinforce that all of the awards being disputed have reliable citations.

I’m also joining Scalhotrod and Guy1890 in their request to see evidence of this so-called “overwhelming consensus” which has so far proven to be a myth. The only thing I’ve seen thus far is consensus shifting towards the side of including these awards as I agree with both editors, along with Rebecca1990. The only talkpage that I know of which exists about this issue Talk:Tanya Tate shows consensus of including the award.

@Moonriddengirl: This issue affects over 40 articles that I’m aware of, am I supposed to open the same discussion on every one of their talk pages? Or is it sufficient in light of the above support, to go ahead and return the removed content in the absence of any consensus against such a move? Hanswar32 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Hanswar32. I wouldn't actually recommend opening the discussion on every talk page, but instead finding some central and appropriate point to resolve the discussion. This is not the place to establish that consensus, though, as WP:ANI is not intended for ironing out content questions. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pornography might be a good place to start a discussion, perhaps an WP:RFC if the scope is wide enough, since that may attract more contributors to the discussion. Personally, this is the approach I would take before adding or removing any content related to this award from any articles, so that consensus is clear. Once edit warring has started, things can blow up rather quickly. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest opening this up at an appropriate policy noticeboard, most likely BLPN. The pornography project is pretty much moribund. This wasn't a controversial matter until very recently, when a few accounts that do little or nothing beyon adding borderline-promotional and promotional content to porn-related bios began bulking out bios with well-below notability-threshold awards. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

A charge of wikihounding**

Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) feels they're being hounded by Jaggee (talk · contribs). This all started with an ANI thread, now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive824, "URGENT: potential serious copyright policy violation". Jaggee is a new editor who noted a possible problem in an article Luke had been working on; a somewhat lengthy thread with some animosities was closed without action toward either editor. As a result, Jaggee made various comments on their user page (now changed, but see this version). It is noteworthy that they took the supposed copyvio to ANI, claiming that's what WP:DCV suggested they do--but read Jaggee's talk page, "A second welcome to Wikipedia", where I remarked that this is the last thing it suggests, not the first. The only article edits Jaggee has made were to that particular article, Allard J2X-C-- Luke's work, and passed as a GA by Resolute. They they went on to comment on that article's talk page and on a related thread at WP:RSN ("Car racing websites"), pertaining to a DYK nomination by Luke. They made no other edits besides on my talk page and a few others, nothing in article space.

Further unpleasantries are found on my talk page, where you may find Luke being a bit brusque, accusing Jaggee of being a sock (that evidence does not yet need to be hashed out here, in my opinion). But essentially, it seems to me that Jaggee indeed has no other interest as of yet besides Luke's work, and that fits our definition of hounding, a type of harassment:

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.

Both LadyofShalott and I suggested that each find their separate corners in which to edit, so to speak, advice that Jaggee did not follow given their edits to RSN, for instance, and what I am asking for here is confirmation that this means that Jaggee should find another corner, not one where Luke is already editing. This shouldn't be a difficult thing to do given the large number of corners available. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:19, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm perfectly happy to have myself and Jaggee kept separate, as I've said publicly a few times. Maybe that way I'll be able to return to editing in peace (or be able to take a break in peace, equally) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• (ec) I affirm my prior advice, which as Drmies points out has not been heeded. Luke seems to want to stay away from Jaggee, but the reverse is not true. Perhaps a formal interaction ban is what is needed. LadyofShalott 18:27, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• I had previously given Jaggee similar advice, likewise not taken. Perhaps indeed it needs to be set up as an editing restriction. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke feels they're the one being hounded?!

Luke on Jaggee at Talk:Allard_J2X-C yesterday: "Wrong, and since you're only here to disrupt this article, you've yet again failed to look into anything. " (and more of the same in the past).

I don't know Jaggee from a hole in the road. But I do know that we have AGF. They're also a new editor. Even if they have acted entirely wrongly and excessively over the very minor off-wiki copyvio issue in this article, they have acted reasonably over that issue. Their actions could be mistaken, over-reactions and mis-placed, but while there is the slightest belief that they are a new editor trying to find their way through the impenetrable forest of WP:ALLCAPS, then we have to give them leeway to get it right or wrong, as best they can. We DO NOT leap on them and accuse them of being bad faith socks, troll and Luke-taunters. Even if they are, we have a strong policy that we act to editors as being genuine, until it's demonstrated beyond doubt that they aren't. Yes, this lets us be exploited by the real trolls from time to time. It's also overall a key means for us to improve access for genuine new editors (which I still do believe Jaggee to be).

Jaggee: please find some motor-racing articles to work on that are some distance from Luke. I'm sure this will improve the editing experience for both of you.

Luke: please lay off Jaggee and act as if they're genuine. I can't ask you to believe this, but please act towards them as you would towards any GF editor. If they're not, lots of other people will spot it as well, so don't worry about it.

Andy Dingley (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• I refuse to act like I'm blind, deaf and dumb; which is how I would have to act to assume Jaggee was new. Everything they have done screams of a returning editor, and things well beyond your own involvement have furthered that case. Don't forget that other users have expressed their own doubts, or, in the case of User:Beyond My Ken, completely agreeing with my analysis of the situation. If Jaggee is a new editor, then I'm Bill Clinton. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, yes, I am the one being hounded. Everywhere they've visited has been either somewhere I've already contributed in, or something directly related to something I've been involved in. I haven't followed them anywhere. To claim otherwise is ludicrous. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:26, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Andy, you are essentially asking for the same thing I'm proposing here. That initial ANI thread, pshaw, not the biggest deal. It's the rest of it, the recent edits, that brought me here. If it hadn't been for those Luke wouldn't have had any reason to say anything but as it is, I think they are right to feel as if someone is breathing down their neck. Drmies (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

This is a very one-sided account of my, so far, short career as a registered Wikipedia editor.

On my first day, I spotted a potential copyright policy violation in Allard J2X-C. My first edit, a nervous and hesitant attempt, to alert those responsible to what I thought was a serious problem in that article, was totally reverted - as "Unconstructive and unhelpful."! Determined to right the wrong, and after reading through numerous paragraphs of dense policy text, I stumbled across the suggestion that, if the "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted", as was clearly the case here, the contributor should be "reported for administrator attention to the administrators' incidents noticeboard" - which was exactly what I therefore did - with my second edit.

One well informed administrator, ignoring the pleas from those ignorant of copyright principles and without even a working knowledge of the applicable Wikipedia policy, did take the initiative - and swiftly purged the article of the dodgy material, thus vindicating my action. Note that Lukeno94 continued his fight to keep it though.

What followed was an astonishing series of personal attacks against me, including a tirade of irreverent bile peppered with puerile profanities from Lukeno94. I won't quote them here, but here are links to a few of them: [5], [6], [7], [8].

Upon viewing further results of a search of links to mulsannescorner.com, I came across discussions about another articles (Template:Did you know nominations/Lavaggi LS1 and [9]) which also involved Lukeno94. Having seen the comments about the ureliability of the website, I added it to this discussion. That addition was swiftly pounced on and bad-mindely removed by Lukeno94. I added it back the next day, convinced I was right, but was again [10] swiftly reverted by Lukeno94 (note the inflammatory summary). Another editor restored my point, vindicating my action.

Lukeno94 seems to be paranoid that I am "hounding" him. I AM NOT, I don't know (or care to know) him from Adam. What I am doing is highlighting poor use of poor references, nothing more. And I am beginning to regret signing up now. But this storm in a tea cup has aroused suspicions of cover-ups and back-scratching too, and I am not going to be intimidated it. Lukeno94 seems to be here to boost his ego, not to create great, policy compliant, articles, and I think he needs a serious slap on the wrist for reacting so badly when his infallibility is challenged. Jaggee (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

If you stay away from each other, and agree to report any issues like the previous copyright issue to an uninvolved administrator, we can put this to bed pretty quickly. Nick (talk) 20:30, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

My only interest, so far, is the use of the mulsannescorner.com website as a reference, whether Lukeno is involved with it, or not. Jaggee (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Plus, I'll happily contribute via an intermediary - if you can name one or tell me where to find one. Jaggee (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• Jaggee, if I have to put together a comprehensive report of how you are clearly a returning user here just to abuse me, then I will do so. Until then, you can drop the lies like the one about how you came across the DYK nomination; you didn't edit for four days, and yet magically cropped up again to appear there. Just like you've lied to several admins; claiming you want no further part in this and would disengage. If you want me to take you apart piece by piece, then I can put together a case that will make it obvious that you are not legitimate. I have an idea of a couple of people who you could be, but that doesn't actually matter. I never claimed to be infallible; in fact, at the very beginning, I stated that had you actually come to talk to me with the issue, then there would've been no problem. Instead, you didn't, and you've made it ever more apparent that your claim to be a new user is a flat-out lie. And I'm not even the one who initially used the term "hounding". "contributor has been previously clearly warned of copyright infringement but persisted" is a flat out lie as well; I received no warning, and in no way can a template in an article count as a warning; but then you know that already. Just one more example of your lies. I've made thousands of good contributions here; you can justifiably claim one, so who is the egotistical one, acting as if they know better than everyone else? Is it myself, who has admitted to mistakes, or is it the "new" user who acts like they know policy inside-out and has only ever edited in things involving me? I wonder.
• And claiming that to be your only interest is a lie. Claiming that I have some involvement in the website is beyond a joke. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:41, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

That is nothing more than additional unnecessary, and to be ignored, intimidation. And no, you can't convince us that I am accusing you of being involved with that website, just of being involved with some of the articles that have used it. Calm down - stand back and look at look at my modest contributions again - then review your (over)reactions. Perhaps you do need a break from this. Jaggee (talk) 20:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

I think both of you need to stay away from each other as much as possible. While Luke is obviously frustrated by the fact that Jaggee, currently a single-purpose account, is stalking him (which can be verified by a quick look at the latter's contribs), Luke has also been rough towards Jaggee as evidenced by his comments regarding the latter. Epicgenius (talk) 04:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'd be perfectly happy for that to happen (particularly when I'm not dangerously overtired, like I was yesterday). I have no problem with genuine editors bringing up issues in things I've done; but I strongly object to this SPA. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jaggee: - either disengage and edit in other areas, or you will be blocked as a disruptive single purpose account. Your smug, patronising tone towards Luke is not welcome here and is unnecessary. I'd suggest giving you a week to demonstrate you're happy to edit constructively without following Luke around or editing the same content (although I'm going to stop short of a full topic ban since we don't really know your editing interests). If we don't see any evidence you're capable of normal editing, I'd propose we indefinitely block your account.

The issue you raised has been dealt with and resolved, administrators are aware of what has happened and Luke will undoubtedly take more care in future not to link to a potential copyright violating content, so there's no need for further action. If you do have any other issues you wish to report in connection with Luke, I'm happy to handle them as an uninvolved administrator. Nick (talk) 12:25, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds like nothing more than gratuitous victim blaming. This is not a "single purpose account", in your sense anyway. This is an account that, after spotting, and reporting, a violation, has been blamed, victimised, vilified and dragged through the streets. And for those reasons alone, I have not had a chance to spread my wings, yet, and now you seem to be seriously suggesting they be clipped, and an artificial restriction applied, because another editor cannot control his own temper and behave civilly towards someone who has criticised his work here.

Btw, thanks for the offer to handle the issues with Lukeno - perhaps you will look at the other unresolved issues that I have already raised. Jaggee (talk) 22:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• We've had plenty of people contribute here saying that Jaggee should disengage from me; can someone wrap this up with some kind of binding solution? I really don't care if the ban is one way or two way; I just want to be able to contribute effectively in peace, or actually take a break. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:30, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
  • It's probable that Nick's warning above is about the best you're going to get at the moment - but you've now got an uninvolved admin keeping an eye on his editing, which should help. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

Propose interaction ban between Jaggee (talk · contribs) and Lukeno94 (talk · contribs) (listed alphabetically) to expire 30 days three months after imposition.

The purpose of an interaction ban is to stop a conflict between two or more editors that cannot be otherwise resolved from getting out of hand and disrupting the work of others. Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to:

• edit editor Y's user and user talk space;
• reply to editor Y in discussions;
• make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;
• undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means).

• Support as proposer. As a general rule, I don't think ibans are the best tool in the wiki toolbox -- hence the suggested expiration date -- but I think one might be useful in this situation. NE Ent 21:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC) (amended 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC))
• Support interaction ban, but make it longer (probably three months initially, I wouldn't entirely be adverse to an indefinite one), and obviously clarify that this means Jaggee needs to not snoop around my edits and attempt to create more drama, not that it just means they cannot contact me, or directly edit an article/article's talk page that I have already edited, or have written. Obviously, the same would happen in reverse. Anything to remove potential loopholes that they could use to carry on the abuse that has genuinely been making my life a misery for the last few days, and has taken out all of the enjoyment I had editing. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Time period adjusted. Oppose any modification of standard iban terms. NE Ent 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• A few more have voted since the 3-fold increase, so "adjusted" time again to the next order of magnitude - as there is very clearly an appetite for revenge here. Jaggee (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not proposing any modification, I'm proposing a clarification. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as that would be pandering to the wish of the bullies. I found fault, and am being vilified as a direct result. The main aggressor here would, in effect, be protected against further similar, vindicated, scrutiny. Jaggee (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• You found one thing that was a grey area, and have hounded me ever since, trying to make out as if I am the biggest sinner on the planet/project. And that's disregarding anything regarding the true nature of your identity. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

That's bollocks, and you know it. Shame on you for behaving so sanctimoniously and playing to the gallery the way that you are. Jaggee (talk) 22:46, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, what else have you done? Pointed out that someone else was unsure about the reliability of a source, which was something I was already aware of, and that source is on a list of reliable sources for the Motorsport WikiProject? Those are literally the only two things you have done, that aren't purely hounding me. That's not "playing to the gallery", that's the facts, sunshine. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 22:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not what else I have done - it's that I have not done most of what you claim I've done. Yet many here seen prepared to swallow your apparently intentionally misleading account without question. And it is the clear clamour for blood here that you are playing to, with your ever more deceitful contributions. Jaggee (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Supprt - speaking as someone who a few days ago told them to find separate corners of this very large website in which to edit. LadyofShalott 22:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - @Luke: I believe the standard interpretation of an interactive ban will cover your concerns. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Jaggee is clearly the aggressor in this case; Luke's frustration and occasional bluntness is understandable. Jaggee's combative refusal to accept any fault at all - his recent changes to his user page make clear that he thinks he is being baited and bullied by the community - are a bit much even for a new user. The community ought to think about penalties should the interaction ban be violated, as a deterrent. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I still see this as just as much about bullying by Luke as I do about any hounding by Jaggee. If such an interaction ban were introduced, then it would first of all exclude Jaggee from motorsport, an area that's obviously of great interest to both of them. That's an excessive restriction on such a flimsy accusation. Secondly, I just don't trust Luke to act with a reasonable collegiate approach to Jaggee under such a restriction. It's all too easy for such a ban to be used as a very one-sided future excuse to drag Jaggee back to ANI on the slightest pretext, blowing that up into "Already banned user disrespected the state of WP by abusing his ban conditions", the crime of lèse majesté that is one of the few things WP ever does act upon. Such an action is unlikely to work against an established editor like Luke, but it's a very common way for new editors to be driven off the project. Just look at Spmdr (talk · contribs) who was hounded off for disagreeing with Luke over the Sunbeam Tiger article. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn, change the record. No-one was hounded off at the Sunbeam Tiger article, and I wasn't the only one being highly sceptical of the claims made by this user. In fact, I wasn't even doing any hounding at all, so you can cut that bullshit claim out right now; most of my comments were made to you, and I reverted a grand total of once. Thanks for reminding me exactly why you're holding a grudge against me, though! Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• And I am so guilty of hounding Spmdr that my name appears a grand total of 0 times on their talk page, whilst the other editor disputing their sources, and who was rather more active in reverting their edits, has 10 mentions (including one comment by Eric). So you're as bad as telling the truth as Jaggee is... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• It would not exclude Jaggee from any topic area. As there seems to be a misunderstanding of the terms of a iban, I've copy-pasted the applicable text from the policy to the top of the thread. NE Ent 14:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is, as the wording stands, it would still allow Jaggee to come and manipulate articles I have written, and I would then be unable to remove the changes if they were detrimental (like adding in maintenance tags that have been resolved - I couldn't remove those, and would have to get a third-party involved), and this would worsen the existing situation, in some ways. This is why the user should be restricted from editing any article (but be free to edit the talk page) which I've had a heavy involvement in, and the reverse would be true as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 14:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• As is often the case, the "letter of the law" hasn't quite caught up to actual practice. There have been several instances where an editor has followed another editor's contributions to various articles where the first editor had never worked before, and, without actually deleting or changing the second editor's contributions, has edited the article. This behavior has then been found to be a violation of the IBAN, as an indirect form of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. It's like having a 150-foot order of protection, and the person shows up and stands exactly 151 feet away over and over again. It's not a violation of the order, and it may not be something that the law can deal with easily, but we're not a legal system and we can make - and have made - the determination that such behavior is a violation of the purpose of the ban. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I guess that'll do then. I would also like Andy to stop spreading lies, but that's his prerogative for now - at least I've stated the truth in public about that situation (it's a long-term grudge that he seems to hold). Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Luke, please back off. I don't think your continued comments are helping any of this either. LadyofShalott 22:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He has reverted to type. Anyone who takes the trouble to look-up the history to this case against me will see that his belligerent response to my naive first edit was the root cause of all this. He came over all indignant since, but it was all a front I'm sure. He is not able to handle criticism civilly and is thus not cut-out for this type of work where close cooperation is necessary. Jaggee (talk) 22:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Jaggee. Seriously, you thought that was an invitation to get in another dig? Both. Of. You. Need. To. Stop. Acting. Like. Children. LadyofShalott 22:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is less than I proposed, I guess, but I will support this at a minimum. Drmies (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Looks like there's consensus for this, can we have this wrapped up please? (at the very least, this post will stop it from archiving) Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• I absolutely disagree. The vote for a 30-day/3-month penalty might have achieved majority support, but there is no consensus at all that the offence itself had actually been committed. I explained the course of events that led to me visiting the pages in question, and haven't seen any evidence or argument, let alone consensus to support the alternative (paranoid) interpretation of Wikihounding. Without an offence having been committed it is absurd to suggest that any penalty, even if it have 100% support, should be applied. Jaggee (talk) 19:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• ^^ A response like that is a fairly good sign of why these sanctions are called for. A textbook example of WP:NOTGETTINGIT if I ever did see one. I second the motion for a swift close and imposition of the community sanctions. MezzoMezzo (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• So where is all this "hounding"? Rather than "not getting it", this still looks more like paranoia by Luke. We should not go this far, on this little evidence, for so new an editor. All I've seen so far is some clumsy handling of what was actually a valid IP rights issue, and not even one directed particularly at Luke. That's square in the middle of AGF.

The worst I've seen from Jaggee so far was his comment just above, as noted by LadyofShalott (and I agree completely with her comment). However even that is still a long way short of iBan-worthy hounding. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Which is why you !voted against the proposal. However, the clear consensus among the entirety of the !voters was to put the IBAN into effect. Jaggee (and you) can certainly argue that that consensus is not justified, but what Jaggee did was to deny there was a consensus at all, and that is simply patently false. There is a clear consensus, and an uninvolved admin should really close the thread and put the IBAN into effect, since there's been no additional !voting for a while now, just repeat commentary from the same people. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 22:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• I see a majority call for the iBan, but I still don't see consensus that Jaggee committed substantial hounding to justify it. Where is it? His edit history is still tiny overall. Overall, this looks unedifying like a bandwagon of "Just block 'em all, let Jimbo sort 'em out" and we're supposed to be better than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:23, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• The only "consensus" to be found is about whether to impose on IBAN or not. That clearly exists. I'm not sure why you're looking for a consensus about underlying issues when the discussion (in this section) wasn't focused on that. This is not an ArbCom case, where every action needs to have a finding behind it, this is a community discussion, a much less rigid process, on whether an IBAN will benefit the project. Clearly they found that. The reasons for people !voting the way they did may well be varied (Bill may think it's because Jaggee has misbehaved, Hattie because Luke has misbehaved, and Xander because both have misbehaved), but there is no requirement that there be a consensus on the reason for the IBAN, just consensus that the IBAN would be helpful. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 13:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF - WP:NPA

Ronreisman

Huldra has been attacked by User:Ronreisman (with some clues about a potential export or tag team) on his talk page: after she warned him to take care with WP:1RR. Ronreisman :

• "given the infamous reputation y'all have on the internet."
• "I'll take this as confirmation that y'all do, in fact, work together to suppress and distort facts in the service of propagandistic POV."
• "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap. Thanks for the invitation."

I add he had already been informed very kindly about WP:1RR : here and that I was myself attacked the same way by him 4 weeks ago:

• [11] "@Pluto2012 : You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals."

I complained of this to him (next edit :) "And you insulted me strongly, violating WP:AGF." but he considered himself as acting right:

• (edit summary) : "Dishonorable and dishonest action breeds disrespect.")

He went on (with Ykantor [12]) so I just left it and removed the article from my Watchlist.

There are other examples of misconduct in his edit summaries (in interactions with Hudra, Nishidani and I):

• [13] Please stop POV-pushing, OR, propaganda on Wikipedia,
• [14] Nish is also misrepresenting the refs;
• [15] so that he is not misrepresented by misleading wording by a Wikipedia editor;
• [16] Untrue info was introduced;
• [17] Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article;
• [18] Request to Pluto2012 to stop violating WP:AGF and WP:RS, and to cease pov-Pushing that is detrimental to the articles veracity and quality.;
• [19] (...) propaganda when it actually praised the book's veracity;
• [20] Reply to Huldra's misrepresentation of a referenced source (...) and discusses politically-motivated *untrue* accusations against this source;
• ...

Ronreisman doens't seem to understand that his behaviour is not acceptable and he doesn't mind about WP:AGF and WP:NPA and if he is not strongly warned to stop, there is no reason why he would do so as proven in his recent interaction with Huldra.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:40, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Notification to Ronreisman. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

While [21] is somewhat confrontational, I don't see problems in all those diffs you provide alleging misconduct in edit summaries. I suggest you try WP:AGF yourself. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

You mean he is "Good Faith" when he performs these "Personal Attacks" and you claim that "Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article" or "you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia" or "You sound like a spider, daring a fly to enter a trap" to someone after he made WP:1RR is in compliance with the 4st pillar of wikipedia.

Could you argue how I should "try WP:AGF myself" ? Pluto2012 (talk) 14:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I read through a bunch of the cited edits, and Ron's edits look reasonable to me. Greg (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

In general the controversy seems to be about one side that wants information deleted, and another side that wants information added. Since the added information is reliably sourced, and nobody has demonstrated that it is a tiny minority's viewpoint by citing a plethora of other sources, there seems to be no good reason to delete it or to threaten to delete it.

I have read all of the edits listed above. The article edits themselves look fine to me.

I did not understand why User:Pluto2012 and User:Huldra claim that User:Ronreisman has to follow WP:1RR. WP:3RR is the default rule throughout Wikipedia. WP:1RR only applies in particular circumstances that seem to be absent here. They offer no justification, neither here, nor on Ronreisman's talk page, of why Ronreisman should have to follow WP:1RR. However, it turns out that WP:1RR DOES apply to all pages concerning the Arab-Israeli conflict. This is not obvious from the simple link to WP:1RR posted on Ronreisman's talk page. Instead you have to follow that link, then click on the fourth link in that paragraph (to Wikipedia:General sanctions) and then search that long, long page. You won't find anything about Fawzi al-Qawuqji or Haj Amin al-Husseini there, but if you search there for "Arab", "Palestine" or "Israel" you will eventually find a summary (that does NOT mention 1RR). But! If you then click on the "full text" link there, it leads you to a paragraph of text in strikeout font, which seems to be some 2008 sanctions that are no longer in effect. That text is followed by a link to alternate sanctions that still doesn't mention any 1RR rule for pages like this. But if one scrolls down three more sections in that page, finally, under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Palestine-Israel_articles#Further_remedies "Further remedies / General 1RR restriction" there is, finally, a mention of a 1RR rule:

All articles related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to the Arab-Israeli conflict falls under 1RR. When in doubt, assume it is related.

It is not clear that that rule is actually in effect, because that paragraph ends with "Suppressed on 18:44, March 10 2012 (UTC)". It appears that the suppression only refers to PART of the 1RR rules, but even that is not clear. I hope that some editor or administrator who knows how to clean up that page can revise it to make it 100% clear what the current rules are.

Given all of the above, it can hardly be said that User:Ronreisman was warned of the WP:1RR rule about these two pages. It took me most of an hour of research to even believe that 1RR applied! To clarify for him and others, I have today added the Arab-Israeli Arbitration Enforcement template to the talk pages of both of the relevant articles. This template directly states that 1RR applies, and links to the policy discussion in which that policy was decided upon.

There also seems to be a "sudden death" rule in effect throughout Arab-Israeli articles. It allows any "uninvolved" administrator to sanction any editor who violates any rule of Wikipedia, or even the purpose of Wikipedia, after the editor has been warned and counseled. This applies to the editors on both sides of this issue:

The Arbitration Committee has permitted administrators to impose discretionary sanctions (information on which is at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions) on any editor who is active on pages broadly related to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Discretionary sanctions can be used against an editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, satisfy any standard of behavior, or follow any normal editorial process. If you inappropriately edit pages relating to this topic, you may be placed under sanctions, which can include blocks, a revert limitation, or an article ban. The Committee's full decision can be read at the "Final decision" section of the decision page.

Please familiarise yourself with the information page at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions, with the appropriate sections of Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Procedures, and with the case decision page before making any further edits to the pages in question. This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision, pursuant to the conditions of the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions system.

Regarding WP:NPA, I do see that in some of the listed edit summaries, Ronreisman wrote about people rather than content or actions. For example [22] Request to Pluto2012 to stop violating WP:AGF and WP:RS, and to cease pov-Pushing that is detrimental to the articles veracity and quality. But in other summaries, he correctly referred to content or actions, such as [23] Untrue info was introduced or [24] Now, please stop the anti-Zionist POV-pushing, and please stop vandalizing the article. Saying that an edit is "POV-pushing" criticizes the action, not the person, and is not WP:NPA. However, it would be kinder if Ronreisman had said, for example, Improve misleading wording about XXX or Try for NPOV on topic YYY by including material about side ZZZ.

In summary, the listed edits by User:Ronreisman in Haj Amin al-Husseini and Fawzi al-Qawuqji are largely reasonable and well-sourced contributions to controversial topics. He tended to provide new information on the topic in talk page discussions. Ronreisman should pay careful attention to describe his edits in a constructive way, even when frustrated.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

If 1RR was the issue, he would have been reported at WP:AE and not here. Zero^talk 11:03, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Pluto2012

User:Pluto2012, on the other hand, wrote things in talk pages like [25] Until we can find confirmation that what L&C states, I will remove this from the article, and either deleted well-sourced statements, or threatened to delete them. It is not appropriate to delete someone else's contributed text from an article "until we can find confirmation", unless it is negative material in a biography of a living person. The people that these pages describe died in the 1970s.

Pluto2012 also claimed that

This is primary source and it cannot be used if not supported by a secondary reliable source. That's well known and basic rule. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC) Pluto2012 (talk) 06:41, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

to Pluto: This is misleading. wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred.". Ykantor (talk) 09:31, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

I will delete this if I don't find any secondary source or if none is provided. Pluto2012 (talk) 11:18, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Pluto2012 is wrong and Ykantor is right. Pluto2012 should not be deleting, or threatening to delete, other editors' contributions that come from primary sources "if I don't find a secondary source or if none is provided". What WP:RS actually says is:

Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.

Pluto2012 also claimed that another policy applied when it clearly did not: this claim that when inserted information doesn't describe every point of view on a topic, the right answer is to delete it under WP:UNDUE rather than to insert additional well-sourced information to put the original information into better context: [26]:

Another point is that dropping a quote without contextualizing this is not acceptable because it doesn't comply with the first pillar : we write an encyclopaedia. Pure quotes are for "wikiquote". In an encyclopaedia, the context is what is around this quote and why historians think it's worth mentionning it. And of course, the contributor who would add this has to add all the points of views from all wp:rs here regarding this context

It is completely legitimate to add a single quote to an article, if that is all that one has at hand or all that one has time to add today. Others who have other quotes with other points of view should add those too, rather than deleting the first quote. Wikipedia is not written by historians or encyclopedists; it is written by ordinary people who are individual editors in a collaborative process. Pluto2012 also made several false and tendentious statements about Ronreisman. For example, immediately above this edit, cited above by Pluto2012 as the sixth "other examples of misconduct", Pluto2012 said

You put back the "Nazi allegence" tag whereas you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so.

Ronreisman had never promised to do so, nor was he required to do so. The whole issue was made-up by Pluto2012 inventing another illegitimate rule claiming that an infobox can't include a flag indicating military service under a country unless the proponent can state what battles the subject fought in. Many people who served in the military never fought in any battles; battles are irrelevant to military service. Ronreisman's alleged misconduct in this citation was that he defended himself in the talk page against Pluto2012's false statements about nonexistent rules.

User:Pluto2012 should pay careful attention to the purpose of Wikipedia, seeking to add article text to describe areas of conflicts more fully, rather than inventing fanciful rules and applying them to other editors. Pluto2012 should not delete article text that he sees as one-sided or primary source material.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong. It is perfectly reasonable to expect good sources for contentious claims. In an area like I/P not doing so would be disastrous. You also missed the point. It was never about whether he fought in any battles but whether he served in the military at all. He didn't. (And congratulations for finding a way to shout in 24pt type.) - Zero^talk 11:13, 13 January 2014 (UTC

Zero0000 : This is not a reference to our recent discussion about Haj Amin al-Husseini's WWII military affiliation with the Waffen SS. Gnuish is referring to Pluto2012's claim that "you faild to provide the battles to which al-Qawuqji participated for Germany. You had promised to do so." This refers to Fawzi al-Qawuqji's military service, including his commission as a colonel in the Wehrmacht (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawzi_al-Qawuqji#German_Military_Service ). Pluto2012 and Huldra repeatedly objected to mentioning Qawuqji's allegiance to Nazi Germany in the article. They objected to a series of high quality RS, apparently in an continuing attempt to keep relevant information out of the article. The nit that attracted gnuish's attention was Pluto2012's contention that the definition of 'military allegiance' required a list of battles cited from certain secondary sources (and *not* in memoirs, nor in US Government Historical Documents, etc.). Gnuish (and I) take objection to Pluto2012 falsely claiming I agreed with his contention, despite several responses that made it clear that 'battles' were not a requirement for honorable military service. Pluto rejected a series of RS that substantiated Qawuqji's services to Germany, in some cases using false claims that these RS had been castigated by other RS. In each case these claims turned out to be either untrue or Original Research (eg an Israeli historian told Pluto2012 that a well-regarded volume was unreliable; Pluto then used this hearsay as justification for rejecting all references to the volume). At one point Pluto2012 added a good scholarly reference (one of the few constructive edits he's contributed to this article) that was thoughtfully sympathetic to Qawuqji. The author explicitly stated that she would not comment on Qawuqji's WWII record, and cited a Journal article by German historian Gerhard Höpp as a good source on this subject. Pluto2012, however, argued that even Dr. Höpp's peer-reviewed article was not acceptable RS, since he characterized it as a 'primary source.' When the weight of multiple RS made it clear that Qawuqji's German military affiliations were undeniable, Pluto2012 made impolite statements and then tarred the entire article with a drive-by 'Disputed' banner, apparently in an effort to cast doubt on the the well-documented facts in the article.Ronreisman (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

You are correct that I misread Gnuish's words; apologies for that. I won't comment on the content since I didn't examine the sources and anyway content disputes are not supposed to be discussed on this page. Zero^talk 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

There are no sources "sympathic" and "unsympathic" to anybody.

Each topic has a list of WP:RS sources and wikipedia editors have to report all of them fairly in providing the due weight to each of them.

Ronreisman and Ykantor just decided to report only some of them and that's the only problem.

Now, as proven by the intervention of Gnuish who had not edited wikipedia for 1 month there is a collaboration to act as a team and they just insult and attack those who disagree.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Zero: yours:"It is perfectly reasonable to expect good sources for contentious claims. In an area like I/P not doing so would be disastrous.". Do you mean that Wikipedia rules should be ignored? the wp:rs states: wp:rs:"While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred." . So is Pluto right to ignore this rule? Ykantor (talk) 06:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I stand by what I said and have no idea why you think you have replied to it. Zero^talk 08:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Is it sustainable to ignore Wikipedia rules and to adapt other other unwritten (to my knowledge) rules? Is it acceptable that editors are required to behave according to unpublished rules? Ykantor (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Defame. Defame. There will always remain something."

When you write "behave according to unpublished rules?", you mean that you disagree that each of us has to report all (reliable) points of view on a matter but instead you claim that you can just chose those you want to report. Well, no Ykantor, to comply with WP:NPoV, you have to report all of these, even those you disagree with: both those who are pro- and contra- any thesis or analysis. On Adolf Hitler, on the 1948 War, on Amin al-Husseini, on all articles. But this is particularly true in articles that are controversial and delicate. Pluto2012 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Huldra

User:Huldra also cites a Wikipedia rule that does not apply, [27]

In: "Morris; 1948", al-Qawuqji is mentioned on pages 61, 68-69, 89, 92, 133-138, 157, 278, 280-283, 338-342, 348. Of all those pages, "someone" has seen fit to quote (in extenso) p. 61, and only p. 61. Why? ... There is one word for this, and that is "cherry-picking". (Or WP:UNDUE, do be more wikipedia formalistic).

In order to insert a quote from a reputable source, an editor does not need to justify why they did not insert every other possible quote from that source, under penalty of having the quote deleted. If there are a majority of reputable sources that disagree with a quote, then someone who thinks it is "cherry-picked" like Huldra should insert balancing material (from the same or additional cited sources), rather than arguing for the deletion of material inserted by others.

Huldra also deleted 1800 bytes of relevant, reliably sourced material in this edit, with the summary saying only "undo propaganda; see talk". Calling someone else's edits "propaganda" is not showing WP:AGF, nor is reverting them appropriate. Even if someone, somewhere called a cited source "propaganda", and even if you personally think it is propaganda, it does not mean that it IS propaganda. And even if it was "propaganda", edits that cite that source are not a category of information that is subject to immediate deletion from Wikipedia. Propaganda reveals one side of an issue; instead of deleting, add other sides to the discussion. In addition, it came out later in the discussion in the talk page that the single blog source that referred to the Mallman book as being called propaganda went on to defend it against that charge, arguing that it only seemed that way because the publisher had changed the title to make the book more provocative-looking. Ronreisman dug up the context and posted the whole paragraph. It turned out that Huldra herself had "cherry-picked" the propaganda accusation out of context and in a way that tended to mislead any reader who didn't follow the link to the actual source.

User:Huldra should pay careful attention to the purpose of Wikipedia, seeking to add article text to describe areas of conflict more fully, rather than deleting text that she sees as one-sided.

Gnuish (talk) 09:51, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice how you elided the part of Huldra's comment where she explained it in detail. Zero^talk 11:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Ykantor

This description:"You disruptively reverted my edit because you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles by improperly suppressing relevant and well-sourced information in order to promote your own partisan goals" is accurate but, in my opinion it is too mild. As presented in a previous wp:ae, user:Pluto2012 is cheating and lying too, in order to delete other editors contributions and to force his view. Ykantor (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

If again no action is taken against Ykantor for this provocation and attack, he will feel free to go on again and again. So what ?

Anyway, the case of Ykantor is different. He is a particularly problematic contributor who refuses to make his behaviour evoluate and who has no collaborative spirit. He is just "right" and the remaining of the world is "wrong":

• see the "famous" WP:A/E that he launched and where it would be presented that "I am cheating and lying" too.
• his behaviour at the end of a km-long discussion he launched at the article Adolf Hitler. And still today he refuses the consensus (he is alone against the 5 contributors who have been editing this article for years) and despite this go on to edit the talk-page again and again.

Pluto2012 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You do not understand what is a personal attack. Saying e.g. "Pluto is a lair" is a personal attack, but stating that you are cheating and lying is a fact, backed by a list of such events.

* You mention the Hitler talk page. Looking at the opposing parties there , you may learn how to behave yourself. None of them is lying or cheating or attack personally.

*Concerning Arab Israeli conflict articles, you repeatedly delete a well supported text and images, because it is not to your anti Israeli taste, although the NPOV rule states that you should not delete it but rather add a supported opposing view (provided there is one) Ykantor (talk) 11:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

See also this Dilbert cartoon, which expands on the importance of criticising the behaviour, not the person (comment on content, not on contributors). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Demiurge: there is of course a difference between criticising the behaviour and the person but in the current case, these are the persons who are criticized and not (alleged) behaviours.

When Huldra warns Ronreisman of 1RR and when you see what Ronreisman answers, there is a problem. When you see that a Ykantor dares to writes "you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing WIkipedia articles". If this is not personal attacks then there is no more personnal attacks.

A personal attack is not just a childish insult.

@Ykantor: you go on with personal attacks. That is not acceptable. And yourself should see that all contributors critisized your behaviour, asked you to stop and some even invited you to read some of my comments.

Pluto2012 (talk) 14:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I wish I would be able to write such a nice and accurate English:"you are a politically-motivated propagandist who is corrupting and vandalizing Wikipedia articles", but unfortunately it is a quote only. I wonder if you can guess who is the source? Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Dilbert is great, as always. However there is a difference. The chief there says:"You are terrific, but..." while I am not saying that. Moreover thanks God, I am not his chief.

* In your user page, you refer to the "Pcount" excellent tool . How does it count? are minor or major edits considered the same? Is there a tool that count article text deletions only ? (i.e. negative contribution? I would like to use such a tool to check Pluto's contributions. He is unique since it seems that his main article space activity is deleting other editors contributions.

Your user page states: " ...occasionally venture into more contentious areas.". I will appreciate it if you have a look at 1948 Arab–Israeli War. I have listed some problems here- Talk:1948 Arab–Israeli War#the article has POV and .22dubious.22 problems, and the major problems cannot be dealt with, because of Pluto's repeated deletions of a well supported text. Ykantor (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If your accusations were true, your proposals about the article about the '48 war would have received positive answers from other contributors. On the contrary, you received negative answers and more on your side, you didn't consider worth participating to any of these discussions.

The problem is that you are WP:NOTHERE to contribute in respect of wikipedia rules as proven by the fact you just refuse to agree complying to WP:NPoV in reporting all Pov's on the difficult issues of the I-P conflict : [28].

Pluto2012 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto's incivility (again, sigh). Why must you show your incivility by dragging my reply to another location?

I followed the rule: If you are responding to someone else's remarks, put your comment below theirs and placed my reply to Demiurge1000 in the proper place. I will appreciate it if you drag it back to the initial and right location. Ykantor (talk) 21:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto re-use his smoke screen tactics, writing all sort of vague accusations, in order to cover his proven and repeated cheating, lying , deleting of a well sourced text because it is not to his anti Israeli taste. Ykantor (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

More evidence of Pluto2012 refusing to engage in discussion and that he instead attempts to exploit rules and force his view on others without debate can be found on this talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dieudonn%C3%A9_M%27bala_M%27bala#Sketch_of_2003_which_launched_much_of_the_controversy

Note his incredibly patronizing demands of me which he uses to revert all of my corrections and additions without discussion. Wikieditorpro (talk) 06:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Ykantor who writes : "Pluto re-use his smoke screen tactics, writing all sort of vague accusations, in order to cover his proven and repeated cheating, lying , deleting of a well sourced text because it is not to his anti Israeli taste. Ykantor"

What smoke ? What cover ?

You complained this article was pov-ed. And you simply didn't participate to the talk page but anyway: your (numerous) comments were rejected by user:Zero0000, user:Nishidani, User:ZScarpia or I. Nobody supported you except me once. 1 constructive comment out of 20...

This was the case on 1948 Arab-Israeli War (on which I am very active) because I know the topic (File:1948 Library.jpg) and on Adolf Hitler (on which I am not really active and on which you was asked by all (5) contributors (who know the topic) to WP:DROPTHESTICK... But just reject the idea.)

This discussion is useless. Admnistrators decided not to intervene, which I deeply regret.

Pluto2012 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Russavia threatening to block evade

Following on from last week's discussion of whether Russavia's talk page access should be revoked, he's now threatening to evade his block to do something about some copyright issue. This is absolutely unacceptable, and it's now time to shut off his talk page access. I would do it myself, but I have a history of disagreements with him that I'm pretty sure would rate as involvement, so I'm requesting any other admin to. — Scott • talk 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Done. Jehochman ^Talk 18:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Regarding the comment you left there, he is indefinitely blocked, not banned, so you may wish to make a correction. — Scott • talk 18:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He is de facto banned, not welcome to participate. If he wants to use his talk page to appeal his block I will be happy to restore access. He can email me. If he wants to use the page to stir up disruption, as he was doing, he does not need access. Jehochman ^Talk 00:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect NE Ent 00:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

How exactly does suggesting he would sock to fix issues that need fixing warrant removal of talk page access? Jehochman's revocation seems based off him asking others to handle issues on his talk page, which has repeatedly failed to gain approval as a basis for removing talk page access. For what it is worth, I just dealt with the copyright issues Russavia noted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:53, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

The consensus of the prior ANI discussion was that Russavia could maintain talk page access. Unless there's evidence the requests he's made on his talk page are specious, the facts that he has a) made the request b) waited a week for someone to take care of them indicate a willingness to abide by the block. It's most illogical in this context to remove talk page access and the most likely result is not that he won't ip edit, but rather that he'll ip edit sooner. NE Ent 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

This must be some kind of a joke, all he was suggesting to edit as IP to fix copyvio stuff nobody seemed interested to fix. This could be hardly seen as block evasion, especially if the report is made by a user having a dispute history with Russavia. --Denniss (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that would most certainly be block evasion. We don't just pretend it isn't because one thinks the potential edit might be useful any more than we permit edit warring because one thinks they are right. Resolute 20:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that Russavia showed any concern over copyright issues prior to being blocked? Frankly, this sudden interest in the topic, combined with threats to evade the block to fix these issues looks very much like attention-seeking to me. And we all know how Russavia craves attention... AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:52, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

He is an admin on Commons so it makes sense for him to have such concerns and I don't believe such concern over copyright issues is something that merely arose following his block here. Presumably, he would have just dealt with them himself with little fanfare prior to being blocked.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation of talk page privilege for indef-blocked editor abusing it. As discussed previously, R. was on the knife's edge, and threatening to sock for whatever reason is sufficient to cut him off. No amount of Wikilawyering will change that. BMK, Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:32, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: this is a classic example of us cutting off our nose to spite our face. If there's genuinely a problem (and reporting copyright issues sure as hell ain't it) then short temporary page protection until the issue resolves itself is the way to go, rather than permanent talk page and e-mail disabling. Hell, it's an ineffective and stupid thing anyway, given all Russavia needs to do is ping, say, me or another editor via Commons, but at least this gets more eyes and is more transparent. Nick (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

  I suspect Russavia's desire for attention is a more likely motivator than transparency. Resolute 01:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  I couldn't care less why he's doing it, but if he's reporting copyvios that's a good thing. Legoktm (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Wait, why is he even blocked if what he's doing is good? Epicgenius (talk) 16:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – if Russavia's talk page privs are kept, then we may be able to be informed of some potential copyvios, as he is still a net good to the project (however small), even when blocked. If his privileges are revoked, we will receive nothing of benefit. Epicgenius (talk) 01:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I do not think we should have in between statuses. If he can do beneficial work, he should be unblocked. If he's going to be disruptive, then he should not participate at all. When blocked the talk page is used to request unblocking, to discuss the reason for the block and that sort of thing. It is not used to edit by proxy, to grandstand, to bait other editors (such as by threatening sock puppetry), or to incited repeated ANI threads. I am not opposed to discussing conditions for Russavia to be unblocked. Jehochman ^Talk 01:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do we have WP:TBANs then? Someone not using his real name (talk) 02:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know. They tend to be humiliating. The same objective can be achieved by directing an editor to avoid a conflict and let them know they will be blocked if they cause further trouble there. If RussAvia wants to be unblocked and restricted to working on copybook issues only, I wouldn't object, but he has to indicate a willingness to follow the rules, and avoid past trouble. He can also use his Commons talk page and any editors who want to help can go there and read that page. We have no power to restrict his activity there. Jehochman ^Talk 02:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment, maybe find a go-between email just for copyvio issues on a trial basis? It's such a hassle to work on an article and then realize some or all of it is a copyvio and can't be used. Or find a subpage just for copyvio issues for a few months to see if these concerns can be posted, and transferred to those who specialize in copyvio issues. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Per DD2K's comment below, this does smack of putting the cart before the horse. Sportfan5000 (talk) 06:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, in this particular case agree with comment by Nick, above, the rationale is logical and sound when applied in this instance. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 02:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The indef knife has already been stuck in to the hilt, no need to twist it. Pointing out copyvios is a positive action that helps the project. Why make it harder or more complicated to do so? There are plenty of people watching his talk, so anything like disruption would be quickly caught, and all other posts will be closely monitored too. He should have talk priviledges. INeverCry 04:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support Pushing at the edge of his block is a drama inducing tactic and blocked users shouldn't be encouraging anyone to proxy of them. If they are worried about copyvios they can sort out the cesspit that is commons without worrying about our problems. Russavia is no longer a member of the en community and should butt out. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• WP:BLOCKBANDIFF clearly states indefinitely blocked users are "Still a member of the community" NE Ent 12:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose revocation We are shooting ourselves in the foot here. Finding and reporting copyvios is always good for the encyclopedia, whether coming from a blocked editor or not. KonveyorBelt 06:18, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• This isn't a vote. Russavia is indeff blocked. Which was reaffirmed twice(ANI/AN). It's absurd to claim he needs Talk page access to rescue Wikipedia from Copy right violations. Come on now. There are several venues to report such violations, and Russavia is not the only person in the fricken world that can do it. So Support revocation, or whatever. If Russavia wants to appeal his block, there are ways to do that. This vote here is a waste of time. Dave Dial (talk) 06:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  And yet....no one else reported those copyvios until Russavia did. I don't think you're aware of how bad of a copyvio problem we have. Maybe you should take a look (and hopefully start helping ;)) Legoktm (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation. Russavia's playing games with the limits on the very limited set of things indeffed users may do here, and announcing the intent to sock/IP edit unless his requests are promptly complied with crosses the line. There's also rather curious off-wiki incident where someone who has been alleged to edit as Russavia made comments to a publication not quite admitting the allegation to be accurate in a way which seems to me designed to increase the chances of another WP:OUTING dramafest. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation. OTRS is a perfectly acceptable alternative for addressing for copyvios if Russavia cannot be bothered to address the reasons surrounding their block. As such, Russavia is in no position to request improvements to the project, even those as serious as copyvios, until the reasons for their block are acknowledged and an explanation is provided on how the problematic behavior will be avoided in the future. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 07:09, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  No it's not. OTRS is already backlogged, and on-wiki communication is always preferred to off-wiki ones if possible.Legoktm (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The number of requests we get and the ability of OTRS agents to address those requests are not really relevant here. What is relevant is an editor who is making demands on other editors when their rights to edit have been revoked, and evidence that the editor has threatened to skirt around their indefinite block. I don't really care how high-and-mighty the cause is; the editor has an obligation to address the terms of their block before they continue to contribute as an editor. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 08:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The copyvio queue doesn't generally have much in the way of backlog issues.©Geni (talk) 17:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation Deny attention. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• This is stupid. Revoking a user's talk page when they're pointing out copyvios is a terrible idea, and is just going to make our backlog of unaddressed copyvios even worse. Legoktm (talk) 07:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Russavia has several other methods available to report copyvios. Let him use them. People's concerns about his record of disruptive behavior is not "stupid". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:49, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Like what? That's not what I was calling stupid, I was saying that restricting a user's ability to report copyvios is stupid. We need all the help we can get in resolving copyvios. Legoktm (talk) 07:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • OTRS. His Commons talk page. Emailing his friends. Starting a blog called "Wikipedia Copyright Violations Report". Paper, a pen, a stamp and an envelope. A Western Union telegram. Fax. Telex. Sadly, the Pony Express has gone out of business. Anything but English Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 08:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation Anybody interested can watch his COM talk page. No need to encourage this funny game. (There was a user User:Pieter Kuiper who was very expert in reporting copyvios but blocked for other reasons. But I didn't see Commons allow to use his skills for that particular matter under the block. The same should be applicable here. If one person is blocked; he is blocked. Period. It pains, but slowly, someone will fill the gap.) Jee 08:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation, essentially per Cullen. From his behaviour, Russavia clearly has difficulty letting the project(s) go - this is a pretty big blocker on getting perspective on the problems that led to his block. Deny attention, give him some space, and if he wants to solve for copyvios he can work out why his behaviour was a problem and mature so that an actual unblock is possible. Ironholds (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation The good nature of those wanting open season at the talk page is noted, but the user went to a lot of trouble to produce an article that trolls his adversary Jimbo, and is now going to a lot of trouble to find something to post guaranteed to raise more trouble. There are other ways to assist the project which avoid WP:DENY violations. Johnuniq (talk) 09:03, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support revocation per Cullen, et al. - although, as Dave Dial correctly points out, this isn't a vote - admin action was requested, admin action was provided. Not sure why we're still here, given that... close this and just WP:DENY seems more sensible - maybe that doesn't have enough dramaz though....Begoon ^talk 10:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment In his comment linked above, Russavia admits to already having block evaded is block, "as an "IP editor" as I did on the LAN Colombia article many months ago". IMO this needs to be dealt with first, and secondly blocks and bans are meant to protect wikipedia, removing his tp access isnt going to protect while letting copyvios go. Its a balancing act, his tp access is meant only to appeal his sanctions. Murry1975 (talk) 12:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I've been far too involved in things in the past regarding this user, so a vote would be a bit unseemly. There are things for both sides of the battleground here to consider, though. On one hand, if the project is hosting copyvios, then it is in the best interests of all that they are corrected, regardless of the how's & why's of how it is done. On the other, the project is not dependent on one person to correct problems, and these will be found and corrected eventually without this user's input. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Heh - the last part of your comment makes sense. Of course the project is hosting copyvios - thousands of them. The other part implies we should allow unrestricted TP access for <<insert your least favourite blocked user here>> when they want to post about them, regardless of other considerations. Complete the sentence yourself. Maybe it's right. I don't think it is though. It would certainly make for some interesting appeals, and some award-winning gamesmanship. Fascinating thoughts though, and drama potential unlimited. :) Cullen gave a comprehensive list of communication channels if the need is there. Begoon ^talk 15:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Access should be removed for:

• abuse of {{Unblock}}
• abuse of notifications
• personal attacks on other editors

• Editors who don't find blocked users comments of benefit can simply unwatch the page. Russavia's comments about copyvios were so "disruptive" that no one noticed for a week, it seems. NE Ent 15:23, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Didn't say they were disruptive. This section might say that, though. Lots of ways of looking at it. Mine is it's deliberate gaming for attention from an indef blocked user and undesirable for that reason. You obviously disagree. Happens. Succesful though, I'll give him that - got himself another 5 minutes of "fame". I'm done here now - per DENY. Begoon ^talk 15:27, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that Russavia is a vandal. People generally tend to spit in the faces of indef blocked users. Maybe it's not "five minutes of 'fame'", but rather, legitimate concerns. Epicgenius (talk) 16:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Ah, ok. In that case all I can recommend is some research. The search function should be enough - failing that Google. Sorry if I can't be any more help than that. Begoon ^talk 16:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Talkpage access should be removed for abuse of talkpage privileges, not constructive use of them. Do we really want to be accused of closing our ears to someone for reporting copyvio? ϢereSpielChequers 16:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Dose of reality here people, revoking his talk page access is not only going to fail at addressing his threat to sock, it is actually going to encourage him to sock and it is unlikely that there would be much of a way to stop him from socking successfully given past experiences. The most practical option is to just let him use his talk page to point out issues. At least then it is one of us non-ebil editors doing the work and not an ebil sock.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Let's revoke access if and when he does sock – this may be an empty threat. As WereSpielChequers says, talk page access should be removed for the abuse of the talk page, and Russavia is not abusing his talk page access, at least not yet. There's no reason to revoke that access unless abuse actually does happen. Epicgenius (talk) 18:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • He already has socked. He admitted this in the very comment which triggered this ANI report. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

break

In the above section it is incorrectly asserted that I disagree with the assessment that "it's deliberate gaming for attention from an indef blocked user." In fact, I neither agree nor disagree with that assessment; I actually just don't care. All that really matters is mainspace. All this "stuff" behind the Wikipedia:: prefix is supposed to be about keeping that going smoothly. Editors who chose to focus their time here -- especially folks with sysop bits -- really ought to have some idea of the lay of the land before taking action.
More than being a single collective community, Wikipedia is a collection of overlapping communities. One subcommunity cares more that disruptive editors be prevented from continuing to disrupt; another cares more about mainspace quality issues, specifically copyright. Both bring value to Wikipedia and should be respected. So the question becomes: when an indef blocked editor flags a copyvio, what's the best way to deal with it?
From the motivation of the blocked editor standpoint, the likely possibilities are:

• legitimate concern over copyright violation
• attention seeking behavior.

The best course action is one that doesn't require speculation to what the motivation is; there are actually two good choices. One is to fix the copyright with a neutral message: i.e. "rm copyvio" not "remove copyright violation that indef blocked editor flagged..." The second is to ignore it. The former is win-win in that the content is improved and the flagging editor gets minimal attention. The second doesn't benefit mainspace but provides total denial.
Staring another ANI thread when it was already hashed through five months ago is not the way to "deny" attention; it's more like, as David Bowie sang years ago, "putting out a fire with gas-o-line".
There's a non-archived discussion at blocking policy on this very issue; three months old and not many comments. We're much better at participating when we have a specific individual to attack/defend than an abstract principle. In WIkipedia-as-it-should-be, we'd all comment on the blocking policy talk page and come to a consensus on talk page unblock only yes or talk page unblock only no. In Wikipedia-as-it-is, I honestly and regretfully expect that that discussion will end in the usual "no-consensus" muddle and we'll just keep doing this again and again ... NE Ent 17:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's a lovely, long answer, and much of what you say is true. Read my answer above to Tarc though - if you don't want ongoing drama, which you say you don't, this is a hell of an odd path to choose. Begoon ^talk 17:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

He's not blocked exclusively for reporting copyvios. The deciding factor is that he's grandstanding and baiting by saying that he's going to evade the block if people don't hop to it and do what he wants them to do. This is manipulative, and it's an abuse of the talk page. Removing talk page access prevents the grandstanding, baiting and manipulation. It also shows Russavia that he has to grow up and act responsibly if he wants to get unblocked. If he doesn't want to be unblocked, he should completely leave the project. If he wants to report copyvios, he can do so via alternative channels that have already been enumerated. Jehochman ^Talk 17:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. I concur with all of that. And in case anyone missed any of the channels Cullen enumerated, here they are:

OTRS. His Commons talk page. Emailing his friends. Starting a blog called "Wikipedia Copyright Violations Report". Paper, a pen, a stamp and an envelope. A Western Union telegram. Fax. Telex. Sadly, the Pony Express has gone out of business. Anything but English Wikipedia. Begoon ^talk 17:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

But yet en-wiki is where these copyvio problems exist, and where they should be handled. Not a whole lot of people will take notice if he starts broadcasting copyvios on an external site, especially if he can't tell us on en-wiki about it now that his talk is removed. People will take notice if he posts them on en-wiki precisely because the issues are on en-wiki. KonveyorBelt 18:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• The stupidity of this is painful. Removing copy-vios from Wikipedia is a good thing. Full stop. I'm glad to see some reasonable editors amongst the usual torches-and-pitchforks. The fact that some editors view a removal of copy-vios by a blocked editor no differently that a blocked editor adding copy-vios is simply mind-numbing. Joefromrandb (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Socking or threatening to sock is a very bad thing. Full stop. Fixing copyvios without socking or threatening to sock? Priceless. And if R. and just continued to do that, he'd still have talk page access. Instead.... BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 20:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Evading a block to vandalize is socking. Evading a block to continue an argument is socking. Fixing copy-vios is not socking. Vowing to fix copy-vios on one's talk-page is not "threatening to sock". Wikilaywering with the argument: "well it's technically still socking" is far more disruptive than anything with which Russ has "threatened" us. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
    • How about an indef blocked user grandstanding and baiting on his talk page? Do you think that's good? If Russ were to quietly sock and do good edits I would 100 percent ignore him. It's the grandstanding and baiting that's the problem. Jehochman ^Talk 21:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
      • @Jfr&b: Wikilawyering? The only "wikilawyering" going on is from an editor trying to carve out a loophole that exists neither in policy nor practice. Editing with an IP while blocked is evading a block, period, full stop. (No "nudge nudge, wink wink", just "say no more".) BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 01:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • Joefromrandb, for the benefit of everyone reading this, could you please quote those parts of Wikipedia:Blocking policy and Wikipedia:Sock puppetry which support your claim that evading a block to fix a copyvio is permitted? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support restoration I am not aware of any disruptive edits that this user may have made on his talk page while blocked. Notifying the project about copyright violations certainly isn't disruptive, but is something which is very much needed. Also, some of the comments above do not make sense. Some users seem to have the opinion that he is free to report copyright violations and that people are free to act when the copyright violations have been discovered, but the user should not report the violations to his talk page but somewhere else. What would this achieve? What is the difference between reporting copyright violations on a talk page on this project or on a page on Commons, if the outcome still is that the content will be deleted? --Stefan2 (talk) 21:56, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Do you think his threat to sock unless somebody did his bidding were appropriate, collegial, and helpful to Wikipedia? Jehochman ^Talk 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support revocation. Russavia's use of his talk page to report copyright violations was both useful and tolerable, up to the point where he started issuing threats. Now that he's making a nuisance of himself by openly flouting community decisions, the benefits of talk page access no longer outweigh the drawbacks. Identifying copyright violations isn't so specialized a skill that we can't do without the trickle of reports he provides; anyone active at Wikipedia:Copyright problems can see that spotting copyvios on Wikipedia is like shooting fish in a barrel. More help there from editors in good standing is always welcome. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It often seems that certain Wikipedians have an unhealthy obsession with Russavia. He may have some faults (who doesn't?), but he also has a lot of good points, and from what I can see, he's quite often been wronged against - that's not to say he's a living saint either. If people don't like his talk page, then they have the option of taking it off their watch list and ignoring it. Regarding socking/block evasion, I wonder if that's really a wise path to tread for him and for those who are so concerned about it. When there is a will and an inclination it's just as easy to check user, as it is to sock - so I fail to see why some here are becoming quite so hysterical on the subject.  Giano  09:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I have restored talk page access on condition that he won't use the page to rile other editors. For instance, he shouldn't announce plans to sock, nor insult people nor anything else that would annoy. If he wants to politely list copyright violations, that's acceptable. Jehochman ^Talk 10:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Jehochman, that's the most sensible solution.  Giano  11:00, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I agree, a sensible step to take at this time, as long as we all remember the attached conditions if anything happens in the future. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 21:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Without going into this convoluted case itself, may I suggest to the (talk page) unblocking admin that a brief notice be placed on the now-unblocked talk page summing up the situation, so that the user in question and others posting there are under no illusions as to consequences. Jusdafax 13:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• He did [29] NE Ent 13:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Admin help needed: one redirect, one move request

I reverted the db-g6 on this page, because it seems to be a controversial, non-admin closure on a move request.[30] (I didn't participate in that move discussion, and am not sure what happens in cases of controversial, non-admin closures.)

Separately, related to several AFDs involving off-Wiki recruiting (see for example AN discussion), this seems like an unhelpful, even pointy redirect; "not getting any" was referenced in one of the AFDs.

I don't really know what to do with either of these, but they were raised on my talk.[31] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Redirect

This one has been all over the place: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

And now this; anybody home? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the link from the template per WP:BLP. I'm not going to go as far as to say that any mention of the blog is a BLP violation, but I do think putting it at the top of a controversial AFD is a bad idea and brings unneeded attention to the blogger.--v/r - TP 01:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

TParis, thanks for the help on both of these messy messes. Because I (unwisely) posted a two-fer, the main issue may have been missed: is this a reasonable redirect (part of that messy AFD situation)? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I see you got that too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Move request

Re: the Cannabis (drug) → Marijuana WP:Requested move debate, you cited "non-admin close, best have that reviewed" in your edit summary reverting Red Slash's edit. As I suggested on your talk page, since you appear to be the one who's not satisfied with the WP:RM discussion outcome and thinks a review should be done, it makes sense that you should initiate the process by requesting a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 21:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if you had mentioned WP:Move review on my talk, I would have gone there. But since I've never heard of the place, and you didn't mention it, here we are. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are here now but this is the wrong place. There's no help for you here except just the advice that if you want your concern heard, you should request a WP:Move review. Msnicki (talk) 22:44, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I closed the move request. Most of those who opposed the move stated their opposition in terms of it being less common or an Americanism, both of which are demonstrably untrue (as far as the sources show). Unless I am badly misreading WP:NATURAL, we choose even less ideal titles if they disambiguate naturally from other possible topics. Unless I am badly misreading WP:COMMONNAME, we choose the demonstrably more common title over, as one editor later commented, a title asserted by some editors to be preferred in certain technical fields. There is no policy or guideline to suggest keeping the article at Cannabis (drug) and two very good ones to move it. Regardless, we don't re-fight move requests at this venue in most cases, and only the most flagrantly misguided closes would be outright reverted. Red Slash 21:58, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Slash: and you don't consider it fragrantly misguided to close a move discussion when you can't perform the move yourself? You're a non-admin, which means you can't move it, it's discouraged that you close the discussion at all if the result is to move (or where any administrative action is needed), and any administrator is free to revert your closure. Considering there was actually more opposition to a move than support at the time, your close certainly is misguided. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 04:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

"fragrantly misguided" ← you mean something smelled fishy about it? Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 15:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I don't, Moe Epsilon. Happens all the time at WP:RM. (See the backlog at the bottom of the page? Imagine what it'd be like if we left all of the requests to the administrators! Often, the regulars can't close them anyway because they're involved.) As the closing instructions for RMs state, at Wikipedia, we judge consensus by weighing the strength of the arguments--in other words, it's WP:NOTAVOTE. I don't get the idea that there was "more opposition than support"--how is the number of !votes relevant? There were two policies in favor and a bunch of "it's an Americanism" arguments against, which were untrue (demonstrably so) as well as irrelevant (WP:ARTCON). Second, I've never witnessed any admin reverting a closure by a non-admin closer. (Is that different at WP:AFD?) I've closed probably thirty or so move requests and had two taken to move review (one stood, and I self-reverted my close on the other) but never had one reverted. I've been at Wikipedia for nine years and have in fact never even heard of a move closure being summarily reverted by an admin, ever. Red Slash 05:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

...and you'll notice that no one has reversed you here :) My comment below reflects the fact that articles are to be considered on their own merits, including titles, in move discussions. I disagree with your assessment that the weight of COMMONNAME outdoes user reservations, but disagreement is a fact of life. I don't think you did anything wrong, I just disagree with the reading. Keegan (talk) 06:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Keegan. I appreciate that. I filed a move review at WP:MRV (and also slightly rewrote my comment here) and will probably take a bit of a wikibreak--man, this was exhausting. Red Slash 06:43, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been recently, but I've closed my share of controversial requested moves over the years. Thanks for filing the MRV, take some time gnoming, but really it's all water under a very large bridge. Keegan (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Moe Epsilon, may I request that if you wish to question the close, that you do so by requesting a WP:Move review, stating your guidelines-based reasons (which, so far, you have failed to provide). That is the process we have for registering an objection and it allows a full debate. This is not the appropriate forum. We cannot suspend the rules because you're an admin and Red Slash is not. Admins are not God. They are expected to follow the guidelines, the same as the rest of us. Msnicki (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Msnicki, it's not so cut-and-dry as policy, guidelines, and process. The article has not been moved, so is move review the appropriate forum? It seems to me that it's more reasonable that an admin review a closure that, since it involves admin buttons to make happen, should have been closed by an admin.

A further thought on the closure: Guidelines are guidelines, they are not binding and when there is clear and equal division on a discussion over such a guideline the guideline does not trump how the community feels about a particular article. Please don't let bureaucracy interfere with community consensus or lack thereof.

That being said, I recommend rebooting the move discussion if the proponents feel that they have compelling evidence and can provide consensus. Short of that, I decline the move. Keegan (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Red Slate should have participated and not deemed him or herself as closer as they clearly support the move request. More people opposed than support this move but Red Slate has taken it on him or herself to discount the arguments of long term editors who have been editing the cannabis articles for years for reasons that arent clear or affirmed in any policies or guidelines. This is a completely unsatisfactory close, I do fully agree that the RM should be re-opened for at least 1 more week and a serious effort made to involve more people in the naming process as this is one of wikipedia's most popular articles and we havent even had 20 ppl participating. Given that the Americanization of this article is a core argument against the RM (and one unbelievably discounted by the closer) that all US editors should recuse themselves from closing. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 15:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Telling every American editor (including myself) to recuse is silly, SqueakBox. That is assuming that every American editor is unable to read and evaluate consensus or give an opinion that is not international (and it's pretty insulting at that). All that would be left is anti-American editors left shouting "Americanism!" and shutting the discussion down, which is no better. I also find it funny no other countries get called out on Wikipedia, never a cry of "Britishism!" or "Canadianism!" is uttered, it's the dirty Americans, apparently.. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 06:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not because it's "funny"; it's because Wikipedia doesn't have the problems with Britishism or Canadianism that it does with Americanism. That said, the call for all American editors to recuse is too foolish to rate a comment. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I base my request on Red Slate's behaviour and the behaviour of the original RM requester, by asking others to recuse I am not saying every American editor is the same. But more to the point you are totally wrong that I wouldnt say exactly the same if somebody was trying to impose a British name on an internationally themed article as I would without hesitation. The reason I called out "Americanism" is absolutely not because I am anti America but simply because in this case editors are trying to Americanize an international article and your claim that because of this people are picking on Americans is pathetic and not requiring of a serious response♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 14:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

editors are trying to Americanize an international article -- excellent job of assuming good faith. Keep calm and get back to work.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

SqueakBox: I hope you know I came to this discussion because I firmly against the way the move discussion was closed (by an American) and !voted to re-open to the discussion at the move review. By seriously suggesting that all Americans recuse is painting us all with the same brush that Americans couldn't close the RM. I know you don't intend to do that; I know you have the best of intentions when you suggested it though. I think you should probably give us benefit of the doubt that most editors who contribute here are going to write their variation of English based on whichever country they live in, and that is how things get Americanized (or -ized by whichever country visits a particular article the most), not because we are trying to force it on other variations. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 16:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Yambaram:Incivility, slurs and accusations of antisemitism

In this presentation for the deletion of an article, User:Yambaram has made a very serious attack on my work, and bona fides by presenting a slur. I notified him and the page that he was mistaken in these assertions, and had engaged in a WP:AGF violation. He has not changed his text, (though from his subsequent edit to the page, he has read my protest) or provided evidence for these absurd claims, so I presume he sticks by the smear.

I have notified him of my complaint here, on his talk page.

The slur runs that I am 'spread(ing) this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews"). In addition Yambaram insinuates that I am promoting on wikipedia a theory,' a theory 'often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes.'

He provided no diff for the first generalization.

The second point makes no bones about suggesting I am promoting antisemitism on wikipedia.

I would like an administrator to intervene and ask him either to prove his assertions (in which case he should take me to AE) or strike them out.Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I wouldn't call this the damning evidence that Yambaram claims it is. It can be interpreted the way Yambaram has, but it certainly doesn't look too terrible to the uneducated eye. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

It's not evidence for anything except the fact that demographics is a notable issue in arguments about origins in the I/P area, and cannot be interpreted as Yambaram does except with malice. I've been on wikipedia for 8 years, and have generally ignored the frequent attempts to get me off one area of it by people who play the 'antisemitic' card as if that trumped all argument. It is as vile a practice as antisemitism itself, poisoning the well by smearing editors simply from dislike of their inability to share a POV (which they take to be a failure to observe WP:NPOV). It should not be tolerated anymore than we should tolerate the usual racist zanies round here. Nishidani (talk) 15:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

You complained about accusations of racism, then accused others of being racist. Howunusual (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Previous topic ban: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123#Nishidani --Guy Macon (talk) 17:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Correction: two previous topic bans.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive114#Nishidani

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive123#Nishidani

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• I fail to see the point, except as an implication of the type de te fabula narratur'. My occasional errors for 1R infractionsa year or so ago surely have no bearing on my complaint about Yambaram. One AE case does. I was accused, precisely, of antisemitism not too long ago, and the plaintiff, after close scrutinty, had his complain boomerang and was sanctioned severely. The last time this antisemitic slur was thrown my way was here Nishidani (talk) 21:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, Anon(Howunusual) please learn to construe English correctly. I didn't accuse 'others' of being racist (meaning my interlocutor). I compared intolerance for misusing labels like 'antisemitic' of editors to our healthy contempt for the many 'brief candles' who flicker into wikipedia with the usual racist cant, and are reflexively and justly banned. than is quite disjunctive, while correlative. Sigh.Nishidani (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Yambaram's comment: Amazing, Nishdani, what you're doing is called hypocrisy - should I remind you of this edit where you blatantly accused me of being some paid Israeli Zionist Wikipedian?

First off, I have never accused anyone on Wikipedia of being an anti-Semite, for I naturally respect one's opinion and because I know what the consequences of such words would be. And thankfully, I haven't been accused of anything similar so far either, hopefully rightly so. You're clearly exploiting things I wrote.

To answer the points you raised (quote: "He [Yambaram] provided no diff for the first generalization. The second point makes no bones about suggesting I am promoting antisemitism on wikipedia") -

It's true that the theory is often regarded as antisemitic, as is the fact that you're constantly working to expand it on various article on Wikipedia. However, I did not say that you're doing it intentionally for antisemitic purposes, and that's a huge difference. I'm concerned about the actual theory, not about what you think of it.

Secondly, no specific diffs are needed to prove my point, let me please quote what User:Tritomex said on in the deletion discussion of The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory article: "Nishidani is censoring all scientific and reliable sources which he believes could question the "Khazarian theory" (which btw do not have even a scientifically established name.) He also added (or participated in addition) of this theory in at least fore other articles: Genetic studies on Jews, Shlomo Sand, The Invention of the Jewish People and Ashkenazi Jews".

Even Einstein was wrong a few times during his life, but every time a user criticizes you, he/she is always the one to blame... What an interesting phenomenon. -Yambaram (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Again, now you cite this diff for the assertion that I 'blatantly accused (you) of being some paid Israeli Zionist Wikipedian.' Well, the diff does not even mention you. It provides ample evidence that a government actively promotes editing wikipedia in conformity with its idea of what the truth is. I'm not surprised at this. Most governments manipulate or try to manipulate free media like wikipedia, suffice it to look at the Chinese wikipedia. I commented that this may account for why I have been the subject of so many attempts to have me permabanned in the I/P area. You have once more misused diffs which do not substantiate what you argue from them.

To return to the substance of my complaint. You wrote of an article I 'created' (actually half of it is what you composed):-

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it, as he did in "Talk:Palestinian people" here for example

I was raised on grammar, and am old(-fashioned) but I think the art of construing the obvious meaning of English sentences is not quite dead. I would appreciate any administrator commenting directly on this particular remark, in terms of its consonance with WP:AGF. To me it is not only defamatory, but much worse, false and undocumented, and requires attention. I don't mind the abuse. I do mind having my intentions misconstrued to create an impression I work with malice against one of the 5 pillars. Nishidani (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

As I was asked by Nishidani to show the list of his bias revisions regarding his removals of every source that challenge the so called Khazarian theory. He removed an academic article from the journal of Donetsk National university dealing with the biggest archeological excavation of Khazar sites. The article written by the director of the project, who details the findings of archeological excavations and challenge the base of Khazar theory. [32] and [33] The link of the article is here: [34]despite the fact that other editors supported its inclusion [35], [36] and no one beside him at that time gave any objection on talk page. He claimed that the view of Dr. Flyorov were fringe. Similarly, Nishidani removed an entire section dealing with the criticism of Khazar theory [37] and again [38] and when it was reinstalled he deleted it again, [39] by moving to sub-page which he created, named and written unilaterally. This has been done contrary to opinion of 3 editors. He copied there both the text of Khazarian theory (created by himself) and the criticism, while he removed only the criticism from the article, keeping his text in both the article and the sub page. [40], This was all done without any consensus and as I showed by reverting 3 editors. Previously he removed an academic article written by famous Israeli historian Moshe Gil, which claims invalidity of Khazar theory. Among reasons for removal he stated that Prof. Gil was too old and that his views are fringe.[41] Nishidani removed and replaced the entire genetic section, placing one study, the only study which gave some support to Khazar theory in at least 3 places of the Khazar article. Other studies (more than 20) which directly or indirectly are dealing with this question, and do oppose this theory, he summarized in 2 sentence. All but one genetic study were wiped out or summarized in 2 sentence with his own wording. He removed all criticism of Elhaik study which was widespread and came from scientific sources although it directly questioned the sources of his edits .[42] The controversial book "The invention of Jewish people" by S.Sand was used as source for numerous historic claims, while he removed criticism of Sand, even those directly related to this question. Sand is being criticized by numerous historians for denying Jewish nationhood and origin. I removed a hexagonal star image from the article, as the capitation bellow did not match any source, and the image itself came from disputed source. Also the majority of editors on talk page, at that time, asked for the removal of this dubious image with the problematic capitation. Nishidani reverted me, leaving the source he added (K. A. Brook) and his own wording on capitation. I asked for direct quote for the capitation, as the source he gave claims that the hexagonal star was likely unrelated to Judaism and represent a pagan sun disc, however I was again reverted and the capitation written now by Nishadani tells now that the meaning of the symbol is uncertain.(sourced by Brook who claims that the symbol likely represents a Pagan sun disc. This creates an impression that this hexagonal star represents Jewsih symbol although the only source found regarding this image tells otherwise. [43] and [44],

He continually edited the Khazar theory, day by day and removed in same way all sources challenging it. Recently have revriten the entire article, removing all/most sources which challenge the historicity of so called Khazar Theory. [45].[46] Nishidani removed the template challenging the accuracy and neutrality of his edits, [47] while the discussion was ongoing, the same he use to do in other articles when the neutrality of his edits is questioned [48]. He interrupts and censor my texts on talk pages [49] [50] and violates WP:CIVIL by replying me with "blah, blah, blah" [51] use profane words including the F word in conversation with editors who do not share his opinion. He also has special opinion about "Jewish genes" and "Jewish markers" [52] and openly promote his political views on talk page, namely that the State of Israel carries out apartheid in West Bank and Gaza or as he said "(Apartheid) tends to begin to work as the intrinsic tendency of policy, settlement and development in colonization of the West Bank".[53]. He edited the Khazarian theory or as he called it (The Ashkenazi Jews/Khazarian origins theory) (as this theory does not even have scientifically established name and definition) in many other articles beyond the Khazars and the sub page he cretaed. This articles are Genetic Studies on Jews, Ashkenazi Jews, Shlomo Sand, Invention of the Jewish people etc.--Tritomex (talk) 03:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The above spray shows a breathtaking unwillingness to read what Nishidani actually wrote, or is it an inability to read it? The claim He also has special opinion about "Jewish genes" and "Jewish markers" is extreme as it uses code words to suggest that a racist and anti-semitic line is being pushed. However, reading the diff shows nothing of the kind. Likewise, the comments on apartheid are much more nuanced than Tritomex seems able to discern, and are not a promotion of a political view. I checked some of the other links and while they will probably achieve their aim of smearing mud because others have little incentive to investigate, the links show a completely different picture from that imagined by Tritomex. Johnuniq (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Nishidani wrote, In my family, we also have a genes that are Jewish markers, which however, since we have a fair understanding of logic, does not mean we 'originated in the Middle East',

There are no such thing as Jewish marker and Jewish genes.--Tritomex (talk) 04:50, 13 January 2014 (UTC) Nishidani than wrote: "What these geneticists keep doing to define the Jewish type is excluding the logical deduction one could equally make from the other 30-55/60% of the genome which hails from other lands."

Nowhere geneticist ever defined the "Jewish type" .--Tritomex (talk) 05:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds as if you agree with Nishidani who wrote "That is why I am completely indifferent to whatever geneticists say about history, unless they are practiced historians as well who observe the methods of professional research in that discipline" (in this diff which you included above). Let me translate—Nishidani believes that the views of a geneticist (who is not also a historian) should be ignored in matters relating to history. Johnuniq (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No I do not agree, while there is no such thing as Jewish types, marks and genes, and no geneticist ever claimed such thing, population genetics is a legitimate science and individual editors are not entitled to ignore or disrespect it as a science. Also, as Nishidani edited the Elhaik study about Khazar origin of Jews in many articles, I guess he have changed his mind on this issue.--Tritomex (talk) 09:45, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Good grief! Can I get someone to look at my complaint. What is happening here, derailing a legitimate request for supervision by shifting the goalposts and ignoring my evidence, is extraordinary. I registered a complaint, and there has been zero attention given it. Instead, a pseudo-AE list of factitious diffs, by several people, has been mugged up to argue I'm a lousy editor. Perhaps I am, but what has that got to do with the price of fish? All you are doing, Tritomex, is listing your grievances against me for insisting that wiki policies be scrupulously applied, esp. in controversial areas, so I won't reply to them.

To return to the substance of my complaint. Yambaram wrote:-

The article was created recently and is solely is an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes. The creator of the article, Nishidani, spreads this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it, as he did in "Talk:Palestinian people" here for example

These are serious accusations,-I am said to be using wikipedia to spread ideas, associated with antisemitism, that the majority of Jews are 'fake'. Yambaram himself should be called to account to justify them by evidence, translate them into a complaint about my behaviour at AE or to strike them out. Or is it now permitted to make outageous accusations and insinuations with impunity, under the benign eyes of administrative oversight?Nishidani (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• agree with Johnuniq, basically. This old giezer Nishidani tries to maintain an article that is clearly notable in terms of WP:NOTABLITY, and whence he has the occasion to make a rare recourse to the drama boards, he gets double-reverse hoodwinked on a non-level playing field. One can only cringe an object to such highly partial and non-policy compliant moves to censure a proven editor. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:06, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I didn't read all the responses above because I don't have the time for it at the moment (I will, though), but I still want to leave a comment now.

I'm shocked by the amount of evidence Tritomex just brought, and will look deeper into these diffs later. I really ask myself why there are a few editors here that completely ignore it, and I wonder why Nishidani never bothers to give detailed explanations for such edits. Nishidani, you and others from that old discussion know what you were implying in that edit of yours.

Also, you keep taking out of context that sentence I wrote which you repeatedly quote. Even though I'm not a native English speaker, I clearly see no direct accusation of antisemitism there. I'll say this again: The fact that you "promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic " and "spread this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews")", is not calling you an an antisemite, but saying that your edits are somewhat problematic. I don't care what your personal views are about anything, I care about views and edits found on Wikipedia that aren't neutral or are pov-pushing. And I'm not stupid, I know very well what Wikipedia doesn't allow saying, so please don't put words I never said into my mouth. -Yambaram (talk) 22:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Tritomex brought no evidence of anything disruptive. I can take that to pieces, bit by bit, easily, but would only repeat the extensive arguments on the talk page sections regarding each of his complaints. Click on any link and see how I examined in detail every item of his arguments on the talk page. He has yet to have written anything in Wikipedia that reaches even minimum standards for articles. I write them from top to bottom.Nishidani (talk) 08:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not being a native English speaker is about the only excuse you have, weak as it is, since the vast majority of native English speakers would take your words as an accusation of antisemitism. Now you try to rewrite the facts: you didn't just say that Nishidani promotes something incidentally, you said that he writes what he does "solely in an attempt" to promote it. It was an obvious and blatant attack on his motivation. Nobody is putting words in your mouth except yourself. Zero^talk 23:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

@ Nishidani: you mention that the Israeli government is manipulating Wikipedia. I will appreciate it if you help me finding this task force. It may assist me in finding images and articles at I,D.f archive and other archives. It was rather difficult and lengthy process to receive the Kaukji armored vehicle with the famous emblem. Once I will have this task force address, Iguess it will cut short the beurocratic problem that I confront now. thanks. Ykantor (talk) 23:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As Zero notes, this is yet another attempt to derail my request for administrative review by distracting attention from Yambaram's remarks. Yambaram gave this link. Click on it. Then open the page and read the articles from the Israeli press. It is all calmly documented on my talk page.Nishidani (talk) 08:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I would like to add here that I have just noticed (on that notification thingamijig on my alk page which alerts one whenever one is mentioned somewhere) that above, several cases (Ronreisman, Ykantor, Pluto and Huldra) were being discussed when I raised this point. I know many think suspiciously, and in context, my complaint here might be taken as part of some tactical warfare in a long series. My record shows I have rarely, if ever, in 8 years, complained here or elsewhere. I don't know what credibility I have here, but I had to bookmark the A/I page which I don't follow, on making this complaint, and had no knowledge of the cases from that area immediately prior to my own.Nishidani (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

And here we see another attempt to add noise so as to defect attention from the complaint. Zero^talk 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Even if there were so many editors who would complain countless of times against Nishidani (which is not true), that would not make it acceptable that you claim he is an "antisemite". And for this, you should be sanctionned.

Pluto2012 (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani continues with his violations of WP:CIVIL even here on this page by claiming about me "He has yet to have written anything in Wikipedia that reaches even minimum standards for articles." I ask for administrators to respond accordingly.--Tritomex (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Administrators, please respond to this complaint. In my opinion, it is serious and deserves attention. Zero^talk 00:10, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, Administrators, please respond to our and dozens of other complaints made by so many editors countless times against the users Nishidani and Zero0000. In my opinion, it is serious and deserves attention. -Yambaram (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

After 3 days, there is now perfect unanimity between plaintiff and accused, Yambaram, that the substance of his statement be examined. Yambaram has had 3 days to corroborate his charge with evidence. He has yet to provide one diff. The relevant historical background directly bearing on the charge was covered here, where the petitioner, User:No More Mr Nice Guy was banned from WP:ARBPIA-related AE discussions and here, where Yamabaram petitioned against me and stated I make racist comments. Respectively awaiting administrative review, or at least an administrative request that the first item on the agenda, Yambaram's accusations I am a racist and promote antisemitic views on wikipedia, be substantiated by highly specific diff evidence (not the spurious 'evidence' dismissed as vexatious baiting by reviewing admins), or struck out with an apology.Nishidani (talk) 20:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Since you bring me up, allow me to set the record straight. My AE complaint was dismissed out of hand by a single administrator who said he didn't bother looking into it. It hardly cleared you of wrongdoing. He assumed I was acting in bad faith (without evidence or a prior history of such actions, but that's another issue). And it's not a coincidence that you are the only editor who has been attracting these sort of complaints over and over for years. Perhaps an admin with some balls would take this opportunity to look into your behavior, but I doubt it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You appealed and that verdict that you made 'unfounded allegations or insinuations of antisemitism' which ha(ve) the effect of harassment or gaming the system' was confirmed by 6 independent admins who turned your appeal down. You weren't acting in bad faith. But good faith, profound sincerity, is no guarantee of good or discriminating judgement: and unless Yambaram has better evidence than you produced, since he is making the same accusation in the wake of that precedent, he should apologize for what is a vile smear. I don't want a sanction. I wish to clear my name from this trolling habit of making repeatedly an association of my editing with antisemitism. If my attitude is 'antisemitic', then wikipedia should pass a rule disallowing any editor from using material written by any Israeli journalist, philosopher or social critic employed by Haaretz, which is roughly the Israeli version of the New York Times. I know how liberals in the US feel when the cant of polemical refusals to discriminate one's terms has led to hypnotic effects so that 'liberalism' is widely understood to be an alias for communism, just as sensitivity to one people's plight in a complex narrative is frequently slammed as 'antisemitic' by supporters of the historic victor. Nishidani (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—at WP:TPYES I find: "Be concise: Long, rambling messages are difficult to understand, and are frequently either ignored or misunderstood." I don't think the following is atypical of your posts: "I like confusion, blurred borders, complexity. Myths also, but I know that they are lullabies for children, unless deconstructed to draw out their deeper truths, which are not ethnic, but existential. Think about it."[54] In your above post you say "I know how liberals in the US feel when the cant of polemical refusals to discriminate one's terms has led to hypnotic effects so that 'liberalism' is widely understood to be an alias for communism, just as sensitivity to one people's plight in a complex narrative is frequently slammed as 'antisemitic' by supporters of the historic victor." I am saying that I think you might try being more concise, in accordance with our Talk page guidelines. Bus stop (talk) 12:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

You got the wrong editor. My first, second, and third formulations of my complaint were concise. They elicited Tritomex's noisy screed of indictment above.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Nishidani—you aren't being clear in Talk page posts and then you are upset that you are misunderstood: "Antisemites define themselves by their hatred of Jews: Jews are not obliged to define themselves collectively by that hatred, as a collectivity defined by racial antipathy. To do so is to yield victory to the arseholes of history by ceding them a pivotal role in defining oneself"[55].. Bus stop (talk) 14:20, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Pluto2012, I'm afraid you lack basic reading abilities, because nowhere on Wikipedia did I call a user an "antisemite", as you claimed I did. Nishdani, so far every time a user has said something that's not supportive of your argument here, you quickly claimed they changed the topic (and a few other users as well. Reminds me of what you said here: "I like confusion, blurred borders, complexity"), making everything much harder to deal with.

I can apologize if you think that I directed a racist accusation against you, because that's how you interpreted it for yourself and I have no control over that. It's understandable. I find it important to note that Nishidani is not denying the fact that he has written extensively about this theory on Wikipedia, weather it's an antisemitic theory or not, and as Tritomex showed with all these diffs, in the process of doing that he clearly broke some of Wikipedia's policies. Anyway, if for some reason I'm found quilty of bad faith, then you(Nishidani) will obviously be sanctioned as well, but I'll still change the wording of that article's deletion proposal as you asked. -Yambaram (talk) 11:00, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

'Can' is a potential auxiliary, meaning it lies within your ability to apologize. While I appreciate the recognition that you might apologize, I would prefer that you actually go ahead and do so by retracting that insinuation, and this noisome, but necessary thread can be closed.

I am known for being a 'stickler for language'. The reparative edit you have now made simply drops my name and converts the text to the passive voice which, however, leaves the implication there that articles are being messed with by POV-pushing that is favourable to a fringe or antisemitic perspective. In rewriting,

The article which was created recently and is about a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes . . This belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") has been spread in other places, even in articles that have absolutely no connection to it.

you have retained the gravamen of a charge that is false on several counts.

• often is untrue. As I documented, the theory was, and still is, widely entertained by scholars of high notability who, for obvious reasons (Jewish/Israelis), cannot be dismissed as antisemitic.
• it isn't a widely spreading theory. In academic terms, it has almost been disowned, though some support of a version of it reemerges from time to time. It thrives if you like in the fringe lunatic world of web-raving anisemites, who, I expect are only read by other candidates for the loony bun. I have documented all of this on the relevant pages: most people who promote it yield red links if you try to wikify the references.
• I.e. in formulating this, the premise is that any form of denial, diffidence or scepticism concerning the claim Ashkenazi Jews all have a direct line of descent from Israelitic tribes effectively amounts to a kind of negationism, that the majority of Jews are Jews. I.e. your own view, since you wrote this terrible pastiche, is that Judaism is defined exclusively in ethnic terms. It isn't, as any source, take the Jewish Virtual Library for example, will tell you (Is Judaism an ethnicity? In short, not any more.) It's news to me that the Khazar-Ashkenazi theory promotes the view that 'Ashkenazi Jews' are 'false Jews'. Arthur Koestler, who popularized the inframural studies of scholars on the topic, advanced it in order to combat antisemitism, for, by denying one descent story, he thought he would take the wind out of the sails of antisemitic racists.Nishidani (talk) 13:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Yambaram, why don't you just say that you were wrong, that Nishidani is not creating articles solely [a]s an attempt to promote a widely spreading theory often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes or spreading this belief (that Ashkenazi Jews are "fake Jews") if that is what you believe ? If you don't believe Nishidani is doing that, say so. If you do believe that he is doing that you are accusing him of promoting anti-semitism. To a native English speaker what you wrote is about intent, the intent to promote and spread something "often regarded as anti-Semitic and used for anti-Semitic purposes". If I complained about someone writing Holocaust denial articles solely as an attempt to promote and spread this belief there is no ambiguity in the accusation. It's as clear as calling them a Holocaust denier. If other editors understood it that way it's not an assumption of bad faith or because they lack basic reading abilities, it's because that is what it means. Sean.hoyland - talk 13:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans Adler and Circumcision

Hans Adler has clearly stated his personal disgust with circumcision, and unfortunately his personal feelings interfere so much that his editing has become disruptive both at the article and in other areas regarding the topic. Hans has made his personal views on the subject will known, for example in his use of the article Talk page here plus other places. Hans has also used the article Talk page to engage in general commentary/soapboxing about the topic here. I am disappointed that an editor as established and as experienced as Hans would disregard WP:TPG like this.

A few days ago brand new Norwegian IP editor 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) made some pretty disgusting remarks at Talk:Circumcision, airing their personal views on the subject and included comments like "I am sure lots of children will agree to doing blow jobs if they are offered lots of candies" and "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs." I left the IP a welcome message and explained my concerns at their User Talk. I then also started this ANI thread about the edits. As an outside administrator, Drmies handled the ANI, reviewed the edits and quickly blocked the IP for 31 hours, and later hatted the comments as "soapboxing/trolling" with an edit summary indicating he wouldn't even mind if someone deleted the comments altogether. Hans then undid the hat, edit summary "Totally inappropriate censorship of valid criticism of a biased article", restoring visibility of the offensive comments. Drmies redid the hat, Hans again undid the hat. Drmies approach Hans about this on his User Talk, expressing his disappointment, see the second half of the section here.

Hans was also involved in a series of back-and-forth reverts over the placement of an article-wide NPOV tag [56], which resulted in the article being full-protected for three days by John Reaves after my request at RFPP. There was a lot of discussion at the article Talk page and this WP:AN discussion over the placement of the tag, with no clear consensus in support of it. 20 hours after the full protection expired Hans re-added the tag, which then was removed, Hans added it back (edit summary "your blindness to your own bias is no justification to remove" is interesting), it was removed again and then Drmies ended up having to full-protect the article for a week to stop the disruption.

In that WP:AN discussion I mentioned Hans spent a lot of effort questioning my integrity: [57] [58]. I asked him on his User Talk if we could just stick to the article sources and content; in his response Hans appeared to decline, indicating to me that he would continue to attack me personally in his resopnses.

I've got to say even the Norwegian IP editor I mentioned above has done a much better job of keeping their own feelings in check and respecting Wikipedia's guidelines than Hans. While blocked, that IP editor made some interesting comments on their User Talk clearly expressing strongly-held personal feelings, see for example these comments they added in between my notes, and the status of the User Talk page here (quite visually striking actually!!). Yet even that editor has started to figure out Wikipedia's rules, deleting their soapbox-y commentary here after Yobol pointed out it wasn't appropriate. If this IP can do it, why can't Hans?

Hans' involvement has interfered with the discussion, which is often tense to start with, by using the Talk page inappropriately, casting personal aspersions against other editors, edit-warring with an admin to retain trolling comments and causing the article to get full-protected for a week, and disregarding WP:TPG with soapboxing, which sets a bad example.

I'm proposing an indefinite topic ban of Hans from the subject of circumcision until it can be demonstrated that Hans can edit in areas he feels strongly about without his feelings causing disruption. Zad68 21:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The Norwegian IP's comments were targeted towards improvement of the article, if not in form then certainly in content. It is totally normal for a European to be outraged by the article in its current state. Circumcision is virtually non-existent in Scandinavia because it's considered weird and even for most medical indications there are better alternative treatments. Yet the circumcision article currently presents it as a rational practice that incidentally can also be performed for ritual or fashion reasons. And not a word about children's rights (or religious rights, for that matter). Let alone a big section, as exists in the German Wikipedia, for example. Of course people become angry when they realise this. The solution is not to block the angry editors, it's to fix the article. (But of course it can't be fixed because there is nothing on human rights in Pubmed.) Hans Adler 23:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban Diffs seem to support some serious soapboxing.--v/r - TP 21:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Support topic ban, but I don't know about indefinite. And frankly, Zad, I'm surprised you didn't mention any of the problems Hans caused on the article itself: [59] [60] [61]. (Incidentally, I'm not too crazy about circumcision myself, but Hans' contributions appear to be a combination of WP:SOAP and WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Erpert, good point about the missing diffs... I just don't like putting these ANI threads together, they take a long time. Sorry I missed those. As for whether it should be indef, I don't know how to come up with a specific time-frame in which it'd be reasonable to expect the issues would be resolved. Hans' editing has been very sporadic. I'd rather go by evidence of behavior. Zad68 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I guess Zad68 knows better than to present my adding a perfectly valid POV tag to the article as me causing problems "on the article itself". Such statements tend to undermine one's credibility. Hans Adler 23:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Hans calls the ip out for their inappropriate statement "it was unwise in that it can be read as antisemitic", Zad copy pastes it here -- who's actually creating the drama? This whole mess has been pooched up from the get go -- an admin going 3rr on the NPOV tag in the first place, all sorts of ad homimem at Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Circumcision and elsewhere. Obviously the tag should have remained in place since there was an ongoing discussion going on but the wrong version got protected with some awkwardly phrased statements. Now I guess we can't discuss this like mature adults because it involves peckers. No one seem to have a problem with calling female circumcision mutilation, but merely raising the term on the talk page is a cause for a ruckus?? As Mike Godwin said, The best answer for bad speech is more speech" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NE Ent (talk • contribs) 22:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

What we need is productive speech. There are plenty of editors at the article who share Hans' views. We need discussion like mature adults, just like you say, but the issue here is behavior, not the views themselves. Zad68 22:39, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Productive speech; edit warring, page protection, ad hominem, hats, et. al. are not. NE Ent 23:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article so that the fiercely protected current over-emphasis of technical medical matters and American medical sources can be fixed, is disruptive. Whereas the definition of productive speech is that which does not endanger the status quo. Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing, because mature adults are shouted down with appeals to earlier consensus and nobody notices their protest.

It's unfortunate, but that's just how Wikipedia works. Another aspect of Wikipedia is that this kind of discussion usually starts when Europeans are about to go to bed and Americans are beginning to get fully active. (It's past midnight where I am.) Hans Adler 23:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans states: Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article ... is disruptive. ... Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing -- I'm reading this as a plain statement of intent to continue disruptive behavior. I don't think this is sarcasm. Does anybody else read this differently? Zad68 00:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans is more mature than that. He is just making an observation about what it takes to push through a change in a difficult environment. The meek don't get heard. Binksternet (talk) 00:43, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An observation or a self-fulfilling prophecy? Not having any prior engagement with the dispute, when I attempted to get an answer out of ScienceApe about what reliable sources showed the POV issue, I got instead from Hans Adler the kind of response described by him above. Was he attempting to be heard, by not being meek? If so, all he did was convince me that the behavior on that article talk would be so contentious and difficult that engaging any further to try to understand what was happening in that article would not be productive. So, at minimum, the approach by ScienceApe and Hans Adler resulted in chasing off one medical editor who didn't whack her sons' willies at birth and was more than willing to hear what sources might need to be represented. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

"Not having any prior engagement with the dispute". I am not trying to contradict you, but it seems worthwhile to point out that you checked, and praised, the article's lopsided sourcing when Jmh649, the editor signing as "Doc James", was planning to pass it as a GA. And your response to my proposal to read three sources that would make it clear how biased the article is was amazing. You said that one source was in Dutch (which it isn't), and that the others are too long to read. Are you really so proud of your reaction that you feel you must draw attention to it by bringing up my response to your response? Hans Adler 10:45, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As I said, "not having any prior engagement with the dispute". My very limited review pre-GA was to confirm that the sources met MEDRS, and to say that there were some prose issues. At that time, I was aware of no dispute (in fact, I don't believe there was one). Subsequently, when the dispute showed up at the NPOV noticeboard, my attempts to get an answer on reliable sources at the noticeboard discussion were met with the attitude mentioned above. ScienceApe provided no sources, only charges of misconduct. You provided three sources that had all already been addressed or accounted for, none which explained the problem, and all were presented in a misleading fashion (perhaps not intentionally, but nonetheless). It was not a matter of "too long to read"; when you present sources about legislative proposals, the logical response is, "and what happened to those proposals", and the answers to that question were revealing.

In summary, as in many POV disputes, this one might be much easier dealt with by all with a) focus on sources, b) AGF, c) less attitude being thrown around that chases off anyone who might help. And although I've not engaged talk, in these discussions, I've only seen evidence of that attitude coming from about three people. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly, in only my second interaction with Hans Adler on the talk page, it produced what I would consider assumptions of bad faith and battleground mentality as well as a bizarre analogy asserting decapitation is a medical procedure. This editor may not have the objectivity to neutrally edit this topic area. This topic area needs editors who will stick to sourcing and Wikipedia policy, not editors who soapbox or enable the trolling/soapboxing of others. Yobol (talk) 22:08, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  Serious misrepresentation. Could you please stop it with the hyperbole and simplifications? Of course decapitation is not a medical procedure and I made it perfectly clear how my argument runs. ("I dispute that WP:MEDMOS fully applies to this article. In particular, circumcision is not just any surgical procedure but one that started as a ritual and still is performed most often as a ritual. The article decapitation is not structured according to MEDMOS, and neither should this one be, as the generic MEDMOS structure for surgical procedures marginalises some of the most important aspects. MEDMOS was not written with such a special case in mind." Later clarification: "Decapitation was just the first thing that came to my mind as a surgical procedure that one could but very obviously should not treat according to MEDMOS.")
  There was a problem on the talk page caused by your sloppy argumentation. You confused sources about economy that mention circumcision and sources on circumcision that mention economic aspects – two very different things for a weight discussion, which that was. And when the Norwegian IP reacted to what you said rather than what would have been reasonable to say, you went ballistic. Now you are doing a very similar simplification with the applicability of MEDMOS to the circumcision article. I am arguing that circumcision is a rich topic which one can't do justice with an overall article structure based on WP:MEDMOS#Surgeries and procedures. Instead of simply saying you disagree with that specific point and arguing for your position, you claim that I want MEDMOS not to apply to the article at all and that this breaks prior consensus. Very bad form.
  Your assessment of my actions seems to be clouded by your uneasiness at that interaction, for which I am not more to blame than you are. Hans Adler 23:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll let neutral editors read our interaction on the article talk page and come to their own conclusions. Your battleground mentality is unfortunately rather obvious. That you think I went "ballistic" anywhere in my interaction with the IP is, again, bizarre. Yobol (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Not bizarre, just wrong. I misremembered and at this time of night I didn't check before posting. There was, however, a miscommunication between you and the IP which I had to clear up. You said, whether you meant it or not, that economics deserves weight in the circumcision article merely because there are many publications discussing the economics of circumcision. This is what the IP questioned, and you lectured the IP ("No, that is precisely how we determine how much WP:WEIGHT to give a topic") instead of conceding his valid point and adjusting your argument.

After that event, I frankly consider it bizarre to be attacked here in this way. Hans Adler 23:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

References

• I oppose a topic ban. I see nothing in Hans's rhetoric that should disqualify him from the debate. Obviously the neutrality of the article was being disputed, so the tag should have remained for the duration of the discussion. Circumcision is just as much a matter for philosophy, religion and the social sciences as it is for medicine, so please make plenty of room for notable perspectives from those domains. Hans could be more polite but there is bad form on all sides here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Tony the issue isn't the content but the behavior. I've dealt with lots of impolite behavior at the article, and usually a reminder or two of "please don't do that" gets things back on track. What Hans is doing is disruptive and he's promising more of it. He's actually making it harder to have a polite, rational, policy- and source-based discussion about the kinds of changes he'd like to see. Zad68 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, I hatted those comments and blocked the IP; if I'm not mistaken they've come back with better manners. I did indeed "express disappointment" with Hans's behavior in relation to those disgusting, off-topic comments and the personal insults in them; Zad gave a nice and accurate plot summary. I'm fairly disgusted with being accused of "censorship" and of "hiding comments"--surely I don't have to explain here that such is utter bullshit and a rather low blow, or an attempt at a low blow.

  Having said all that, I don't see why Hans should be topic-banned here (with apologies to Zad); I do not believe that his behavior is so disruptive as to warrant a topic ban. For the record, I have an opinion here, and I'm probably aligned with Hans and the IP; when I protected the article, I protected what I consider to be the wrong version, since I believe the tag to be valid--not just because of possible bias, but also because I believe there are valid comments on the talk page about this bias (well said, Anthony, and I agree that there are bad manners on the other side as well). Drmies (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

  • Drmies so what do you suggest as the alterntive? Hans has been pointed to WP:TPG and the like and simply doesn't care. I've made an appeal to him to knock off the personal comments and he told me to expect more of the same. You, an outside admin sympathetic to Hans' views, intervened to remove some disgusting comments and he put them back. You removed them again and he put them back again. Right now the disgusting comments you described as "soapboxing/trolling" are still visible on the article Talk page. You had a personal conversation with Hans on his User Talk and basically gave up. If removing Hans from the topic area isn't what we should do, what should we do? Zad68 02:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
    • I don't know, Zad. Maybe some other admin is willing to hat the comments, for instance; I'm not going to do it again since I tried twice and I don't care to listen to more abuse from an adult who should know better. I have little interest in policing that talk page or the article--I'm sorry, but I'm of no use here. Still, I think it way too early for topic ban hammers. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have worked with Hans Adler on difficult and complex topics and I find him quite reasonable. His stance on this topic is strong but he is not deaf to high quality arguments. Binksternet (talk) 00:46, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Like, "hatting is not censorhip"? :) Drmies (talk) 00:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Drmies. The spat doesn't rise to the level of a ban. Someone not using his real name (talk) 03:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose. Hans Adler is a welcome breath of fresh air on Wikipedia. While I do not always agree with him, I find his open minded approach and ability to look at both sides of a problem a valuable skill that most editors don't possess. Circumcision is a contentious and controversial topic area, and this dispute exists independently of Hans Adler's participation. Although I greatly respect the work that WikiProject Medicine has performed as volunteers, they have a tendency to don riot gear and wield truncheons whenever their "authoritay" is questioned. They also engage in tag team revert wars to silence their opponents. For this reason, I don't see Hans Adler as the problem, I see him as the victim. I have previously commented on the NPOV dispute touched upon in this thread, and I discovered that members of WikiProject Medicine were to blame for inflaming it. This transparent attempt to silence Hans is more of the same. Although I may not agree with the content of Hans' argument, I will stand beside him and protect his right to speak his mind. Because of militant groups like WikiProject Medicine, Wikipedia is entering a dangerous phase in its existence. We should all be concerned when editors espousing minority positions are facing blocks and bans for disagreeing with the majority. It's time to speak up. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per User:Viriditas.Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per well documented soapboxing, battlegrounding, and general disruption in circumcision-related discussions. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Mark Arsten. BMK: Grouchy Realist (talk) 04:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I do not see a pattern of disruption, merely a contnt dispute. Hans Adler has not been blocked for edit-warring, and editors on the other side of the issue have not taken the case to dispute resolution noticeboards. TFD (talk) 04:28, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I believe that the recent issues started less than a week ago, and while I have extreme sympathy for those who try to maintain circumcision-related articles which anyone can and does edit, I nevertheless think that the standard responses should be adjusted when dealing with a highly experienced and rational editor such as Hans. Engaging with his arguments might be tedious, but a better article would follow. It easy for researchers to find evidence that supports their cultural norms, so I doubt that the article can be modified in a manner that suits Hans, but he should have every opportunity to express his concerns. Johnuniq (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support The disruption by Hans Adler on the Talk page and his edit warring in the article go back much farther in time than the recent examples presented by Zad68. This disruption did not start just yesterday. Adler consistently misrepresents sources, twists what editors say to put the worst imaginable spin on it, blatantly ignores Wikipedia rules (especially on Talk page discourse), barks orders at fellow editors, and is apparently unable to distinguish between his personal opinion and the picture presented by the preponderance of sources. He is a culture warrior. He burns with the conviction that circumcision is a moral outrage, a human rights violation, a horrible mutilation inflicted on defenseless babies. He is hell-bent on turning the en WP article into a counterpart of the German WP article on circumcision, which has long been an anti-circ propaganda piece and a horror show, complete with gruesome color photographs of (extremely rare) botched circumcisions out of all proportion to actual reality as well as cherry-picked primary sources and references to web pages from so-called intactivist sites. He needs to be excused from participation in this topic.89.204.155.132 (talk) 06:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

And you are? Have you ever been banned from that topic here or on de.Wikipedia? I've just read every Hans Adler post in that article's archive and, on balance, you are full of shit. Hans can be blunt. Get over it. He demonstrated in that archive that he can be persuaded by good argument. In the couple of threads I read in full (all sides) his reasoning was sound and he made more sense than his interlocutors. This is argument on a controversial, emotive topic. It is robust but, so far, not unhealthy. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, never been banned from either article. I did manage, though, to get the German WP editors to remove one of the most bogus claims from their article, that of an estimated 117 deaths annually from circumcision in the United States alone. The rest of my well-founded criticism was ignored so I gave up. Adler claims to speak for all Europeans yet in his own country (Germany) the parliament passed a law a year ago explicitly legalizing non-therapeutic circumcision if the interests of the child are safeguarded (it had been implicitly legal for religiously based cases before) by a vote of 436 to 100.89.204.155.132 (talk) 08:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

An IP-hopping non-geolocatable Telefonica Germany customer with a pro-circumcision viewpoint that is so over the top, that he makes himself ridiculous. Just like the one who commented on my talk page yesterday. To quote him: "For some reason the circumcision topic attracts some deeply troubled individuals". There may be some truth in that. His reaction to this was to propose on my talk page that the Norwegian IP needs "marital counseling and perhaps a visit to a divorce lawyer". I thought this was a common troll, but apparently he is for real. Hans Adler 13:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans you describe the German IP as having "a pro-circumcision viewpoint that is so over the top, that he makes himself ridiculous" and "a common troll". And you have no such comments for the Norwegian IP, and actually revert to restore the visibility of their comments on the article Talk page? Doesn't this say something about your ability to maintain objectivity in this area? Zad68 14:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it does. But if you really think that the Norwegian IP is as bad as the German IP, then this also says something about your ability to maintain objectivity in this area. The German IP's comment on my past behaviour at Talk:Circumcision was way over the top, as anyone can verify by reading all my contributions there. I just did so, and I found nothing that is disruptive or of which I am ashamed. In fact, I would be pretty proud of my comments in those threads if they hadn't proved completely ineffective.

I also stand by this edit. As proved by the Norwegian IP's later behaviour, this was not trolling but genuine concern about the article's quality. It is normal for an unexperienced editor to innocently start criticism of an article in such a way. Hatting such comments, and even blocking the editor, tends to alienate a possible new co-worker and drive him away before he even had a chance to learn how the community works. The result is a systemic bias against those who disagree with the article. Hans Adler 15:19, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes the diff you are proud of makes the comments "I have heard that there is lots of zinc in sperm. Maybe male Jewish doctors should start publishing more to their kids about the nutritional benefits of doing blow jobs." visible. It also adds a comment from you that includes "I actually agree that inflicting circumcision on a baby is not better than inducing a child to do a blowjob."

The change in the Norwegian IP's behavior was in spite of, and not because of, your actions. I told the IP on their User Talk that Wikipedia is not an Internet chat forum and the kinds of comments they were making weren't acceptable. The short block by Drmies indicated that we're serious. Subsequently when Yobol told the IP not to use the article Talk page for general comments, the IP complied. Your actions only encouraged the bad behavior: by validating it when you restored visibility of the comments (twice) and then by providing a bad role model by using the article Talk page to make the same kind out-of-scope (per WP:TPG) comments. Zad68 15:39, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me. "stand by" ≠ "proud of". I am not proud of that diff, and I certainly wouldn't have done it just for the first paragraph. However, Drmies hatted the entire ensuing discussion as well. Hans Adler 06:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course: it's a package deal. I considered redacting, but that was a lot of comments to redact--and it's not just the Jewish doctor blowjob thing I'd redact, but some of the other stuff as well. So I chose to hat (or "censor", as you called it), yes, and there is no way to do a "partial" hatting in such a discussion without breaking up things. We are to keep talk page threads intact as much as possible. Drmies (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course it seems much more selfish to induce a child to do a blowjob, but people might feel almost equally violated from having been mutilated as a child. Many genital mutilated women certainly feel extremely violated from the mutilation done to them, and of course this is much more serious than losing some foreskin. But I am also quite certain that many people feel quite violated from having lost their foreskin during childhood.84.210.13.40 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I do believe that this, when done for no valid reason, is worse than inducing a child to do a blowjob. (I don't like this formulation, but I guess as a non-native speaker I have no chance of coming up with one that is more appropriate in a child abuse context.) That's because I measure abuse primarily by its effect and only second by malicious intent. To have an idea of the effect, one needs to know how sensitive that region is, especially before sexual maturity. Just sliding back the foreskin already hurts like hell. And that's just the regular case which does not involve medical complications. The research that found occasional serious trauma lasting up to a year is perfectly plausible. Hans Adler 21:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans, with my knowledge of the deep and long-lasting effects of child sexual abuse, I can't agree with your take on that as compared to circumcision. An adult who was sexually abused as a child (an adult who remembers that he or she was) is subject to all kinds of psychological problems; usually suffers from several or many of them. An adult male who had circumcision performed on him as a child usually accepts that he was circumcised and is usually not pained by the circumcision (physically or emotionally), especially considering that circumcision is generally a cultural way of life in such cases. Quite different than child sexual abuse; comparing these two topics is like comparing apples and oranges. Flyer22 (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

That could be the start of a reasonable argument if the specific kind of sexual abuse with which we are comparing circumcision here left similar verifiable marks on the child. It does not. Consequently, we cannot compare all children who were subjected to one of the two. We can only compare all children who were subjected to circumcision to those children who were subjected to this particular ("blowjob") form of sexual abuse (not all forms; you seem to be mixing that up as well, probably for practical reasons as it seems impossible to get separate numbers) [added later, but this is what I meant: and it came out somehow. "Blowjobs" with little effect, if they occur, would rarely be counted.] Add to this the fact that parents who inflict circumcision on their children usually do so innocently, love their children and will be good parents, whereas other forms of child abuse are signs of deep personal troubles that will fuck up their children's lives in manifold ways, and you just can't compare the two in the way you propose.

Indeed, comparing apples and oranges if one tries to do it that way. However, I at least can follow the link I gave, listen to the child, and additionally think: "How would I have felt if someone had done that to me at age fourteen or so (the furthest I can think back)." It's about empathy with the victim. Then it is clear what the child's cries mean after the point where their quality changes: Utter horror at the torture he is being subjected to. Hans Adler 06:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree to disagree on comparing these two topics; my reply to the IP below sums up the rest. Flyer22 (talk) 06:42, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

That depends. In a country where most men are circumcised it is probably easier to accept it than in a country where most men aren't circumcised. Not all teenagers find it easy to have a dick that looks different. Later in life some people might also start wondering how it would be to have a foreskin, with little possibility of getting it back.84.210.13.40 (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be devolving into a debate of personal opinion which is unhelpful and inappropriate. Please focus on the article, not your personal views on the subject. -- John Reaves 23:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, IP; it generally does not depend, which is exactly why you will not find any WP:Reliable sources reporting that males are generally pained by circumcision. By contrast, you will find an abundance of WP:Reliable sources reporting that adults who were sexually abused as children (ones who remember that they were, or even ones who've discovered that they were but don't remember it) are pained by it in one way or another. Notice that I used the words usually and generally with regard my post about the effects of male circumcision. I never stated that an adult male cannot be pained by knowledge that he was circumcised as a child. But either way, any psychological effects on that matter are far different and nowhere close to as vast as the psychological effects from child sexual abuse. I won't be debating this matter much further, if at all, seeing that there is hardly anything to debate on this apples-and-oranges comparison. Flyer22 (talk) 23:57, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

GAH! It's exactly this use of Wikipedia to air and debate our personal views regarding article topics that I started this ANI discussion in the first place. And look what part of the conversation is springing from: an airing of personal views by the Norwegian IP, followed by encouragement/enablement from Hans. Is this allowed now? Can I go to Talk:Jesus or Talk:Global warming or Talk:Abortion or even Talk:Beyoncé Knowles, start making comments like "<Article topic> is worse than forcing children to do blow jobs", and expect those comments to remain untouched? Zad68 00:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support Hans Adler's comment: Of course, any behaviour that has a chance of getting some motion into the article ... is disruptive. ... Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing encapsulates the problem, here. He has, as shown by the diffs, turned to soapboxing, edit warring, and battlegrounding in what he apparently views as a deeply moral issue to right great wrongs. Sorry, but that approach is directly contrary to purpose and process on this project, and Hans Adler is apparently blind to even the idea that reasonable people can reason together over the representation of reliable sources for this article -- no one is here to discuss Hans Adler's morals, but that is the unrelenting distraction and, yes, disruption, he apparently wishes to engage in. This is just not the place for that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:26, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as per Viriditas and others. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I am not taking a vote, but aren't Hans Adler's comments and the IP editor's comments equally offensive? Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  Epicgenius, you may want to clarify your comment, as there is a strongly anti-circumcision Norwegian IP and a strongly pro-circumcision German IP. Without guessing your position on the dispute, it's not clear which of the two you are referring to. Hans Adler 15:23, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

  It's 84.210.13.40 (talk · contribs · 84.210.13.40 WHOIS), the Norwegian one. Epicgenius (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose　--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
  • Care to explain why? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:56, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose If anything contributes to making wikipedia articles better it is negative feedback. Hans Adler has given the best negative feedback I have seen on the circumcision talk page. If wikipedia starts to ban all people giving negative feedback to their articles wikipedia will stagnate. It would serve wikipedia better to ban people like Doc James, because he always repeats the status quo and never says anything I find even remotely intelligent. Such people don't contribute to anything. 84.210.13.40 (talk) 18:09, 13 January 2014 (UTC) — 84.210.13.40 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Note: This is the Norwegian IP editor discussed before. Zad68 18:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC) ...adding: And thank you for removing at least the most offensive of the comments from the article Talk page. Zad68 18:12, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Drmies and Viriditas. petrarchan47tc 20:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support if the WP:Soapboxing continues. I have seen Hans Adler make valid and/or good arguments on Wikipedia; the same goes for Zad68. Soapboxing, however, is not needed to make good or great arguments. And the type of soapboxing that Hans Adler was engaging in at the Circumcision article, or that Tumadoireacht still engages in at that article, detracts from any valid problem there may be with the article and contributes to animosity among the editors involved. Circumcision is a controversial topic enough as it is; all that loaded rhetoric doesn't make it any more controversial, but it does make participating in topics pertaining to it far more unpleasant. Our editors need a healthy working environment. Flyer22 (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I'm open to the idea that this is a user with some rough edges fighting against entrenched article ownership, if evidence is presented to that effect. But edit warring over hatting offensive trollish comments and calling it "censorship"? That's a neon sign that indicates to me a dedicated single-issue edit warrior. This edit summary and the comment "Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing" do not disabuse me of that impression. Gamaliel (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Update The most inflammatory comments have been voluntarily removed by 84.210.13.40 from a page with a couple hundred watchers. The same comments, posted twice by Zad68, remain on this page with its six thousand watchers. While Post hoc ergo propter hoc is a common logical fallacy, the removal followed a polite request on the talk page of the IP. Perhaps the greater Wikipedia community could try that first next time, before hatting and blocking and edit warring over the hat and long ANI threads? NE Ent 23:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Makes lots of comments such as "The more politically correct term male genital mutilation is never used or mentioned even once in the article" without references.[62] And is unable to provide references [63] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Hans providing references. (Oh and here's one with "nih.gov" in the url [64] which I found by reading one the ones Hans provided.)NE Ent 03:51, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Holey moley, NE Ent, please read for context. The first link Doc provided is showing that Hans made a specific claim that "male genital mutilation" is "the more politically correct term" without providing a reference. The second link Doc provided is showing that after Hans was pressed on the matter he admitted he didn't have a reference to provide. The first link you're providing is entirely unrelated to Doc's point, and didn't end up being useful to support what he was saying anyway. For your second link, I have no idea why you'd think a link to some letters to the editor would be useful here, even if it does appear "with 'nih.gov' in the url". Zad68 04:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Moving the goalposts + goose/gander issues. From a very long list of problems with the article, most of which were never fixed though Jmh649 (the editor signing as "Doc James") claimed otherwise to justify his passing the article as GA, he picked out one in which I used my personal assessment to express a verifiable problem.

• Personal assessment: [In my opinion,] MGM is the more politically correct term.
• Verifiable problem: MGM is a closely related issue, often mentioned in the context of male circumcision. Conversely, to the extent that people discuss MGM at all, circumcision is generally discussed as the by far most prominent, though controversial, example. Yet the term is not even mentioned in the article. (Of course this is only verifiable if you are open to the possibility that for non-medical claims such as this, non-medical sources are permissible and in fact are usually better. Jmh649/Doc James has been trying to prevent the use of non-medical sources while generally not saying what he must know the be an indefensible principle. An unethical but unfortunately quite successful technique.)

Now, about a year after that long post, for the crime of quoting the list completely (as points brought up long ago but never addressed), Jmh649/Doc James and you attack me for a bit of opinion in a very long post that you don't want to address, by acting as if I had proposed my personal comment for direct inclusion in the article. And again, by not claiming that I proposed it for inclusion (easily falsifiable) yet incessantly commenting as if I had done so, you make it very hard for me to defend myself against this unfounded attack. (Essentially the same unethical technique that I mentioned in the previous paragraph wrt sourcing.)

Example: "The first link Doc provided is showing that Hans made a specific claim that 'male genital mutilation' is 'the more politically correct term' without providing a reference." Zad68, you object when I ascribe you motivations. If you don't like that, then please act in such a way that I have a chance to assume good faith. This is not how to do it. Most readers of your comment will assume that "Hans made a specific claim" means I proposed it for inclusion in the article and will not follow the link, where they would see that I did not. Of course you are profiting from plausible deniability. It might be that you just misspoke. However, as these little 'mistakes' pile up and you don't even correct them, let alone apologise for them, quantity slowly turns into quality and it gets harder to resist the interpretation that you are being intentionally manipulative.

It has gone so far that we even have editors looking for sources for what I supposedly proposed for inclusion, to defend me. So the technique even works on those editors who are on my side and are prepared to do some research.

This misrepresenting and attacking what you consider the weakest point in my long list came after simply claiming it had been addressed didn't fly. The one thing that is missing is actual communication in the proper sense. You know, the thing that leads to compromise and an article that everyone is proud of.

Anyone who thinks I am full of shit, just search for my name in the archives of Talk:Circumcision. There you will see how I was trying for a long time to argue with a row of police in riot gear and with lowered eyepieces. That's the background for my current frustration and for my statements about the editing atmosphere at the article, and about what works and what doesn't work. Hans Adler 10:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly then this means the problem is worse than I thought. You made a rather contentious statement that male genital mutilation is a more politically-correct term. Assuming good faith, Doc James and I both read your comment as a genuine proposal to add content to the article, and you were asked for sources to support it. In the conversation on your User Talk you discussed looking for sources for it, and stated you didn't have any--to me this sounded like you were indeed serious. Now here you're saying you never intended that claim to be an article content change suggestion in the first place. So what actually happened is that you used a Wikipedia article content discussion page to air your contentious personal views regarding the article topic, and it interfered with discussion. This is another example of exactly the point I am bringing forward in this ANI discussion. Zad68 14:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sadly also, the name differences represent biases in the medical community that write articles about this. Surly male circumcision is genital mutialtion. Not of the same character as female genital mutilation, but it is still mutilation. Cutting off the hand of a baby is of course worse than cutting off the little finger, but nobody can claim that cutting off the little finger (or the foreskin) is not also mutilation. The name differences in the medical community probably arises from where the medical community that publishes about these things comes from. I doubt that the medical community in countries practicing female genital mutilation calls it female genital mutilation. They probably call it female circumcision. But the medical community publishing about these things doesn't come from Africa. It comes from USA and Europe where nobody practices female circumcision. USA and Europe does however practice male genital mutilation, and therefore it is called male circumcision in the literature.84.210.13.40 (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

You're new to Wikipedia so a bit of background: For content discussions, especially about controversial topics, it's really important that, instead of making general comments based on our own opinions, we cite reliable sources and represent them accurately. We have a secondary source, the book Surgical Guide to Circumcision by Bolnick, Koyle and Yosha, that reviews the positions of the world's major medical organizations (Chapter 1, "Current Circumcision Trends and Guidelines," pp. 3-8). They call out the Royal Dutch Medical Association (the KNMG) as the major medical organization having the most negative view of circumcision. In the KNMG's own Viewpoint document on the subject, "Non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors (2010)", the KNMG uses "circumcision" and does not refer to it as "male genital mutilation", although they list a small activism organization that does. However once again this is a separate topic for the article Talk page. Zad68 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

(posted after two edit conflicts and a real-life interruption) Congratulations, Zad68. Your response is so weird that I hardly know what to respond to that nonsense. But I will try anyway.

• The passage from me that you are referring to starts with "This question [i.e. for sources for MGM being the politically correct term for circumcision] is not constructive." Do you take me for so stupid that I consider asking for sources for proposed article content unconstructive?
• My second sentence: "The claim that 'male genital mutilation' is a more politically correct term than 'circumcision' is a political claim and as such cannot be proved or stated as fact in the article." So that's me saying explicitly that the article can't say it. No need to look for sources. "No doubt there are reliable sources making this claim (I am pretty sure I saw some when I last researched the non-medical literature on circumcision), but as these won't help us [...]." They won't help us because (a) nobody ever made the change proposal that you and Jmh649/Doc James are trying hard to foist on me, and (b) sources of that kind would be insufficient for that strawman change proposal.
• Then in my third paragraph I continued with a much weaker proposal, which incidentally is also something I was asking for from the start and that I am still asking for: "But such reliable sources [added for clarity: i.e. sources which claim MGM is the politically correct term or even just making the connection] are not even required for saying in the article: 'The analogous surgical procedure for females, clitoral hood reduction, is known as type Ia female genital mutilation.' [Added for clarity: This is just an example formulation. The real problem is that FGM isn't even mentioned.] This could easily be supported with references to the political debate, the extensive section 'Female genital mutilation vs. NTC' in the KNMG paper, legal opinion in Germany, Scandinavian laws and ombudsman positions etc., all of which would show that this modest sentence is by no means making an original connection."

Back to MGM. When I originally asked for the term to be discussed in the circumcision article a year ago, male genital mutilation still redirected to the article. As I have since become aware, that is no longer the case. It now redirects elsewhere. Turns out that when that was proposed, I agreed immediately [65], removing the foundation for this particular complaint of mine. (Obviously I did so because I'm a reckless POV warrior trying to score a point.) If I had still been aware of that when I copied my old list, I would have dropped the item from my list. Then you and Jmh649/Doc James would have had to look for another strawman. Hans Adler 17:23, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Your choice to include your assertion that it's a "more politically correct term" appeared to be given as justification in support of the proposal, otherwise why did you include it? Why couldn't you have just said "The term male genital mutilation is never used"? This brings us back to my point that airing contentious personal views about article topics interferes with communication, which is the reason why we're having this ANI conversation.

(Is this one item possibly just a language barrier thing? You've stated you're a non-native speaker of English, and I don't think any native English speaker would use the phrase "more politically correct" in this way, no matter what their personal views... "politically correct" is generally meant to indicate phrasing designed to give offense to the fewest people.) Zad68 18:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It was an unfortunate choice of words: a political statement more than a subjective claim of fact. And no, it's not a false friend issue.

"Your choice to include your assertion that it's a "more politically correct term" appeared to be given as justification in support of the proposal, otherwise why did you include it?" Don't you think your choice to refer to my words a year ago with the words "your choice" is a bit silly? I don't know about you, but even in my peer-reviewed publications only a tiny percentage of words has been carefully chosen, rather than spontaneously written to get across a specific, carefully chosen point. Were you so impressed with my long list that you thought I had carefully crafted it over the period of a week, maybe with input of a committee? In that case I am afraid I will have to disabuse you. I am only an amateur Wikipedia editor, neither willing nor able to expend that kind of effort.

I am not a professional editor, and Wikipedia is an extremely unprofessional environment. That includes the current state of the circumcision article, your behaviour, Jmh649's behaviour (not just his signing habit) and of course mine. As an aside, Wikipedia's unprofessionalism is why I was so furious when during an Arbitration case (related to a situation in which I tried hard to prevent the continued trampling of the feelings of adherents of the religion that circumcises its older boys) I was called out by arbitrators for supposedly being unprofessional. You may be happy to hear that they even "reminded me" to use "an appropriate degree of civility" when dealing with insane incivility.

The two of you have obsessed over a single sentence of a long post that you have otherwise ignored. You have done so in a way that I would consider rude, hostile and unprofessional, not to mention uncollegial, even if done to a sentence picked from a high-profile scientific publication. I think this proved my point that constructive discussions of the article's scope and biases are not, in practice, permitted by you, the current owners. Hans Adler 19:19, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

As it's now understood it was an unfortunate choice of words, no worries and I won't bring it up again. I very much welcome constructive discussions, but I feel very strongly that we can't have constructive discussions if they're littered with contentious personal views and/or original research. My views here are in line with WP:TPG. Hans, if you'll agree to do your very best to avoid airing your personal views/original research (and retract it when called on it), adhere to Wikipedia's content policies and guidelines—especially the requirement to provide reliable sourcing to support suggested changes, and allow outside admins/experienced neutral editors to make course corrections when our conversation goes off track, I'd be happy to drop this ANI. What are your requirements of me? Zad68 19:38, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid I am not going to give you any formal promises that I can be hung up from if I don't follow them. I can't predict future details of my approach. I am usually pretty consistent though in following my conscience and my instincts of what is appropriate. (These may differ from Americans' due to my different socialisation.) I do not necessarily follow the words of policies and guidelines; I follow their intent, and if words and intent differ I may well make sure that the words are corrected. I do not cave in to hollow authority, though I am aware I must try not to overdo it. (I still think Drmies' hatting was a bit overzealous, but in retrospect so was my full revert. I was primarily not thinking of the first paragraph.) As an aside, in case you have drawn conclusions from the fact that I am not an admin: That's by choice, as I feel I have enough tools at my disposal and can act more freely.

Circumcision is one of the few topics where in practice there are no neutral editors because the pool of enthusiastic non-neutral editors is too big to allow neutral editors to make any impact. But the easiest way to make me correct a course is to actually communicate with me and where appropriate convince me I am wrong about something. Seriously. I have years of professional training on noticing when I am wrong.

With so little on offer, I have only one wish: That we will finally discuss the article – both details and overall effect on the reader – in a constructive atmosphere. It would be really great if you could help with that. And then you will see that I am actually not as extreme as I appear at first when I am trying to change a bias. While I wouldn't personally mind the article expressing my personal opinions, that's definitely not what I am going to push for. I am still a Wikipedian first. Hans Adler 21:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I want a constructive atmosphere too, that's my whole point. For us to have one we need to stick to sources and content policy and avoid using the article Talk page to air personal opinions. Hans can I ask you directly: With this response are you indicating an intention to change your behavior at all? If the answer is Yes, we can be done here. Zad68 01:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Hans, you said above that "there are no neutral editors" in circumcision, and although I only became aware of this comment today, you said a year ago that "SandyGeorgia is an American editor and often edits medical topics, so it is not surprising that she missed the extreme American and medicalisation bias of this article. Hans Adler 20:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)". There we have another indication of where more AGF and less combativeness might yield better results. You know little or nothing of my cultural background in general, or my personal views on circumcision, specifically. When you make assumptions about other editors based on nationality, or anything else for that matter, the tendency seems to be then for you to react to requests for sources with a battleground mentality. It's not. Yes, I support both RS and MEDRS above all, no matter my personal preferences or biases, but I would have been able to understand your concerns if you had simply engaged in good faith without the hyperbole. Please try to not make assumptions about other editors' beliefs or perceived biases based on nationality, and if you'll leave the battleground out of discussions, it will save everyone a lot of time and agida.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to "Assuming good faith" (up there somewhere): Interpreting an editors opinion as intent to insert unsourced material into an article, and then using that interpretation as grounds for topic banning the editor is not assuming good faith. NE Ent 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

@Zad Apparently you are unaware of the differentiation made between the fields of prescriptive linguistics and descriptive linguistics with regard to the naming versus the describing of phenomena.

In short, there is absolutely nothing innacurate with describing the cutting off of the foreskin of the sex organ of male infants as "genital mutilation", the same manner as is used to describe the practice of disfiguring the sexual organs of female infants.
The religious and/or historical (i.e., pre-modern hygienic practices) are not relevant to the present discussion. They may have originated on the basis of intentions that are at variance, but that is, I repeat, irrelevant to the present discussion. Moreover, the question is not related exclusively to the field of medicine.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:25, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ban. The way to deal with this dispute is to work through it not to remove one strong, intelligent, experienced party from the discussion giving others a free reign. I've been watching this discussion and many like it for along time. MEDRS is a means to protect the health of the readers, but let me be perfectly blunt. It has been used in multiple circumstances to shield content and sources from fair scrutiny and to disallow some good RS content. Hans Adler is raising some good points in regards to this article but as with many articles where MEDRS is involved he was met with derision and attack. Did he seem to become frustrated with that, yes. Is that blockable? In my mind, no, not unless there are more blocks handed out, but there is a prevailing wind right now on Wikipedia that uses MEDRS to control and cover other issues. I for one, and I suspect some nasty little comment will again be lobbed at me, intend to comment when I see this happening. I have very good reasons that I believe will impact this encyclopedia in the long run so please do not discount my comments in anyway to oppose a sanction here. (Littleolive oil (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC))

• Tally By my count two days, 9 support, 13 oppose -> time to close. NE Ent 00:33, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

  NE Ent for as active as you are at ANI it's surprising you don't seem to be applying the principle that consensus isn't determined by a vote count; rather it's based on the strength of the arguments. In my view it looks like many of the oppose !votes aren't based on the behavior documented here and instead are based on interactions people have had with Hans in other areas of the project, general dislike of WP:MEDICINE, and in at least one case, based on no reason at all. If you wouldn't mind I have one last question for Hans, could we keep this thread open until that's answered? Zad68 00:58, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Mark Arsten. It's a rare Talk page comment by Hans Adler on this topic that doesn't include some sort of irrelevant dig at other editors, or that does include a suggested change in article content based on reliable and relevant secondary sources. Plot Spoiler (talk) 02:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Per how to use article pages, the use of talk pages goes far beyond "a suggested change in article content based on reliable and relevant secondary sources." -- in fact, it explicitly says "The talk page can be used to "park" material removed from the article due to verification or other concerns, while references are sought or concerns discussed. " (emphasis mine). Some examples of Hans's contribution include [66],[67],[68],[69],[70]. NE Ent 02:44, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It does not "go far beyond that" and your quote does not suggest otherwise. And unsourced personal opinion sexual abuse claims are just disruptive and inflammatory on that talk page, so the discussion drowns under the weight of such as that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose ban. oppose ban per editor little olive rationale. Also @ Flyer -proposing missing content inclusion is not soapboxing, despite your somewhat diminishing suggestion that this might be so above. This is,in fact one of the primary and politest functions of an article talk page.If you dislike any proposed content you are free to continue to say so, as you do, often, and at length. -please re-read policy more carefully.There is a particular carelessness on the Circumcision talk page by many editors who really should know better than so carelessly citing policies - for instance weight is what it says on the tin - more about emphasis that about inclusion or non inclusion and so information about some considering cutting bits off any child's genitals modification at best or mutilation SHOULD be mentioned in a balanced article. Hans Adler has had the energy and courage to continue to speak out on this prematurely awarded "Good" article and should be supported not castigated. Perhaps other editors who by their silence on it and positions taken should declare ethnic, religious or other pro or con circumcision positions which may influence their edits, revert pattern, posturing and collusions within and without WP concerning this article. --— ⦿⨦⨀Tumadoireacht ^Talk/_Stalk 10:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht the littleolive !vote that this oppose is citing is one of the general anti-WP:MEDICINE !votes that doesn't actually address the behavior in the diffs given. You are a self-declared tendentious editor at this topic (see whole conversation here), and have developed into a single-purpose account regarding circumcision, I calculate about 98% of your edits over the past year have been related to it. Your attitude toward and understanding of Wikipedia content policy can be understood from this RFC you started that closed like 20 to 2 against your position, the exchange starting with when I asked you "What Wikipedia policy supports these proposed edits?" illustrate it best. You appear to believe your personal moral assessments should trump WP:DUEWEIGHT, see [71] for an example. I'm hoping whoever closes this thread will take this into account in determining how much weight should be given to this !vote. Zad68 15:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Tumadoireacht, you do indeed WP:Soapbox at the Circumcision talk page, over and over again...with the same or similar comments. I barely comment at that talk page, so there is no "often, and at length" with regard to me on that front. I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines; so I don't need to read any of them more carefully. You do, however. Flyer22 (talk) 09:07, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Zad. I respect that you are dealing with diffs. Many wouldn't bother. However, you don't have the right to dismiss my or any editor's vote based on assumptions about personal positions, in this case that my vote is anti-medicine. I wonder where you are getting your information, Please note my vote and comments on the medical disclaimer discussion which supports a disclaimer because it will protect our readers. Even if I was an anti- medicine vote that does not give anyone permission to discount my or any editor's position and opinion. That's as bias I would hate to see propagated. Further, In my comment I address Hans Adler's behaviour in general, which is perfectly acceptable position, and as someone would who had been watching this editor for years. I note in my comment that he is frustrated, a clear but oblique reference to the diffs and the discussion which I have been watching closely. I also imply that his behaviour is a reaction. But since my comment wasn't clear enough: I am suggesting there was considerable baiting going on, and that I watched a very standard procedure among some editors to remove those who stand in their way. Hans Adler to be more straight forward, is intelligent, experienced and in my opinion, for the most part neutral, and fights for that neutrality. He has integrity and is honest although he can also be abrasive. Wikipedia needs him and this article which is owned needs his viewpoint and abilities too. I note the tone and snarkiness and arrogance of some of those who dealt with HA, and while one should not bite when baited, one should not bait either. My position and vote is worth what anyone else's is here. I respect your sense of neutrality and fairness, and I hope you will with draw your ill advised comment or at the least consider more carefully, in the future, judgments that cast a shadow both on editors and their motives.(Littleolive oil (talk) 19:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC))

• Support. Reluctantly as I believe Hans has an important perspective to offer. However, I'm struck by an overweening sense of entitlement in the contribution of this editor to the talk page; that is, that their opinion and perspective, without significant reference to sources, is of direct relevance and validity to whatever topic arrives on that talk page - to the point where advice on proper genital hygiene appears to be offered [72]. And this is to say nothing of the entirely inane, unreflective - and unresearched - supposition prosecuted above that would equate child sexual abuse with male circumcision. Regardless, I wouldn't favour an indef topic ban - 1 month would be fine for an editor in otherwise good standing. FiachraByrne (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm an outsider to the general debate, and have not interacted with Hans or with the circumcision article. Reading through this thread, it's clear to me that Hans Adler has been acting disruptively, per WP:BATTLE, in an unapologetically biased manner. His defense and protection of manifestly inappropriate behavior by an anon makes collaborating on Wikipedia harder for everyone, and he has been unwilling to entertain the possibility that his edits were inappropriate. He defends that is it "normal for a European to be outraged", and when it was suggested that everyone should behave like mature adults, he counters "Behaving like a mature adult changes nothing, because mature adults are shouted down with appeals to earlier consensus and nobody notices their protest." This defense of anger and immaturity is totally antithetical to the spirit of collaboration on Wikipedia. What's more distressing is that it appears to me that the !vote comments by some here (not all) are primarily motivated by their stance on circumcision itself, not by the analysis of Hans's behavior, which is clearly out of line. I think a topic ban would be appropriate, and if that is not done, I think something must be done to show that it such behavior is unacceptible on Wikipedia. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• In fact, the IP comments in question were removed, and Hans in no way interfered with that process. What he pushed back against was failure to follow policy, which suggests "If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you should leave a polite message on the other user's talk page.". NE Ent 14:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a demonstrably untrue characterization as can be seen from the actual diffs [73] [74] and his own comments like [75] and [76] that show he never had a concern that the IP's comments were in any way inappropriate. Zad68 14:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• For all this rhetoric, what we haven't achieved yet is a neutral article. I've just read around the topic area, and if I was uninformed about the subject, I would have emerged with the view that circumcision is a perfectly normal and relatively uncontroversial practice, like cutting a child's hair, that only a few people really object to, and has real health benefits in AIDS-rich areas (an idea which seriously strains my credulity). We do need to present a more truthful picture of this subject area by putting the medical and ethical debate much higher up the agenda in the article.—S Marshall T/C 06:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

"Latvian mythology" vs. Latvian folklore and Baltic mythology

This article could really use some more eyes and hands, especially from administrators that have the appropriate background. Attempts I've tried to make in improving the article have met with reversion and system-gaming, apparently motivated by either explicit or latent nationalism. The following is my take on the situation.

Some time ago this article was supposedly rewritten to solve its then-numerous issues. Now that I've had a little time to sit down and take a look at where this article is again, I'm afraid that I don't see any improvement, even after the rewrite and attempt at referencing everything out. For example, I’ve just gone through and removed a bunch of unrelated, deleted, and/or nonacademic links in the external links section. Referenced throughout was a website that has been dead for over a year, a website that shouldn’t have been cited in the first place. Xil (talk · contribs), however, has blanket-reverted these changes, only stopping when he reached his third revert. This user seems rather dead-set on presenting an article with the appearance of being fully referenced, regardless of the quality of the references at hand (in other words, websites like “latvianstuff.com” are being linked to).

On top of this, it’s very poorly constructed. Preferred theories are presented as fact, then slight criticism is applied when necessary. Weasel words are peppered throughout. Neutrality is totally thrown to the wind.

However, the main issue is the topic of the article itself: Reading this article, one would think that there was some definitive text about the beliefs and values of the pre-Christianized descendants of the modern Latvian-speaking peoples, or that some body of text describing it in any depth survives. Unfortunately this isn’t the case; it’s all reconstructed either by way of linguistics, the archaeological record, ancient sources, or by way of more modern folklore. Sources are not treated for what they are or outlined in an objective sense—frequently they’re not even mentioned. Instead we get a narrative stitched together from disparate secondary sources on Latvian folklore, and somehow called Latvian mythology is derived from it. This is misleading: Academia, fortunately, no longer entertains extra-scientific racial ideas of people as ethnic products of modern nation-state borders; this material is handled by, for example, Indo-Europeanists as part of a larger cultural continuum, which also includes modern Lithuanian-speakers and once included the now-extinct Prussian-speakers.

What seems to be going on here is a form of nationalism, latent or not; the idea of a modern nation-state of Latvia is obscuring the broader picture of the pre-Christian beliefs of the Baltic peoples (no matter how many isoglosses we’re talking among them). As a result, this article really needs to be rewritten, logically—as elsewhere—with the result of the following:

• A separate article called Latvian folklore that covers the folklore of modern Latvian speakers
• A section covering what can be reconstructed from Latvian sources regarding an earlier sphere of belief at Baltic mythology

In the mean time, this article only promotes the idea of a ‘’Latvian mythology’’; basically the same idea as promoting a Swedish mythology or Dutch mythology instead having an article presenting the pre-Christian history of the land where these modern nation-states exist as a part of the broader picture of North Germanic mythology and West Germanic mythology, respectively. :bloodofox: (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Few years ago I came across this article Latvian mythology, which was merged from several articles and not in the best shape. I tagged it as needing expert attention. Last summer another user decided this needed fixing and got several users involved. As there were now more resources I rewrote the article. User:Bloodofox mainly participated in discussion arguing that such article should not exist, refusing to accept that this might be a topic researched independently of Baltic mythology and in the end promised to return and rewrite article. I invited him to study the subject matter closer before doing so, because his comparisons to Scandinavian mythology make me believe he is biased towards situation with that subject matter as he appears to be expert in it and it didn't really appear he is listening although his concerns about this being folklore or belonging directly under Baltic mythology were discussed ad nauseum. Instead he returned today tagged the article as POV and needing a rewrite without much explanation, removed references to a site which is currently off-line and which in the past he has been claiming as unreliable source due to it being online publication, all external links (mostly working) and announced that whole topic has been invented by me (presumably this is were he sees POV). In my opinion Bloodofox is being disruptive and assuming bad faith on my part, I believe the notability of subject is sufficiently proven, if it is not he should take this to AfD instead of trying to destroy the article this way. I did revert him (but he reverted me too), but I tried to initiate discussion on talk page, however he still has not explained why he tagged the article, just that he dislikes those references and want them removed. Also I believe this noticeboard is not appropriate place for content discussion? ~~Xil (talk) 08:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I saw this article yesterday, and some of the exchanges. It's primarily a content matter, of course, but the problem with such articles is often the lack of participation on talk pages from other editors outside of the main interested parties. I agree with bloodofox that the sourcing is very, very problematic: if I remember correctly Xil claims there's academic material to be found on that now-dead website, but that begs the question of what that material was if it's not published elsewhere (if it's not a copyvio)--primary research? non-peer reviewed material? I hope this thread will make some more editors with knowledge of the subject matter look at it but, bloodofox, there's not much for admins to do, at least not that I can see. Drmies (talk) 15:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I think bloodofox also has a good point about the nationalist problem - trying to reshape history (and prehistory) so that it fits national boundaries and national identities which were made very recently. But that's a content problem, of course. bobrayner (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• Well, that's the thing. Content disputes can turn into "behavioral" problems. I'm not sure if we reached that stage yet, and it's hard to judge given the paucity of English-language literature on the issues--paucity as far as I can judge, of course (the article doesn't offer much). Drmies (talk) 18:01, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• At the root of every conduct dispute is a content dispute. And at the root of every content dispute is a conduct dispute. Wait, what? bobrayner (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being put down and called nationalist just because I am Latvian, when all I did was fix an article with long standing issues by reflecting what was said in sources best I could. Baltic nations are friendly to each other and usually seek to reinforce notion of common past, rather than to destroy it. What bloodofox fails to realize is that in fact what is reported as common Baltic mythology is often a nationalist construct - there is extremely scant evidence on it and while there are things in common there are also many different issues and attempts to reconstruct common Baltic mythology have mostly failed. Latvian ethnicity existed long before Latvia became an independent country. The Baltic lands were the last in Europe to convert to Christianity and unofficially paganism continued exist long after when original tribes had already started to merge into the modern peoples of the region. This is not true for many of cultures bloodofox is comparing this to, which both adopted Christianity earlier and have more evidence on mythology prior to them emerging as the modern ethnicity. The validity of the topic was already discussed last year when there were several users taking part in discussion, most eventually accepted the current article. Meanwhile bloodofox waits when everyone else has long left discussion (to be fair he did indeed said he would return, but he said that would be to rewrite the article to GA standards) and then tags the article claiming the whole subject matter has been invented by me and deletes every external link in the article, including references. Even assuming it was unreliable source (he has not even asked what it is and apparently believes it is self published because it is an online source) deleting references makes origin untraceable and is advised against in the guidelines (which also do not say that online sources should not be used). The dead site, which was not the main source for the article BTW, is a project of Latvian ministry of education, which published study materials for schools and was supposedly closed down due to lack of funds, but it has tendency to come back online from time to time. The particular materials all were referenced and quoted books of well known scientists, which are not available online. Also it currently appears bloodofox is not willing to talk to me or prove that subject matter is bogus (probably because we went trough his concerns several times last summer),apparently happy with state of matters as long as his edits remain in place. I find his actions disruptive - the issues have already been discussed, he has not brought up any new issues and just seems to aim to delete more content. ~~Xil (talk) 13:16, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what Xil is getting at here. Academic sources that handle the material that this article does (or at least attempts to), such as Jaan Puhvel's Comparative Mythology and the iconic Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture know better than to toy with nation-state terms such as Latvian mythology, and we should too. When the term is used, it's in connection with Latvian national romanticism, or, it would seem, refers to a paradigm of motifs found in Latvian folklore (all the more reason to build a Latvian folklore article—as in folklore recorded in Latvian).

For what it's worth, there's no tinge of nationalism/modern nation-state borders to Baltic mythology; this refers to the linguistic group, a grouping that is not only objective but also verifiable by just about any scholarly work on Proto-Indo-European religion (Mallory's famous In Search of the Indo-Europeans comes to mind).

The discussion that occurred on the Latvian mythology talk page, if one wishes to read it, includes a lot of doubt about the article, which led to the rewrite (or source-tacking, I can't quite recall). The result is what one sees now; a non-objective narrative that skirts around discussing sources in favor of 'possibilities'. Conversation basically ended with the poor rewrite and my requirements elsewhere.

Xil complains that I am not responding quickly enough. There's not much I can do about that. However, this is why I brought this topic to the board; it needs more able eyes and hands. Sure, if needed, in time I'll sit down and put together a GA-worthy article on the topic that will replace the mess that is here now, but I can't say exactly when that will be. Meanwhile, it does no one a service to let this article remain covered in dead links and unrelated external links to websites like latvianstuff.com. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between not understanding and not wanting to understand. Latvian folklore covers broad range of subjects, such as traditions, song, dance, fairy tales etc. The article is not sourced by one dead website, there are other sources - don't cherry pick sources that supposedly support your opinion. Also it appears that currently it is thought that Baltoslavic languages split directly into West Baltic (Prussian), East Baltic (Latvian, Lithuanian) and Slavic, plus as far as I remember East Baltic stared splitting sometime around 7th century, so your claim that linguistics support such grouping is not really valid. Of course attempts to reconstruct a common mythology are scientifically valid, but this does not mean later mythologies could not have evolved (just as research on common Indoeuropean mythology does not suggest that groups that developed later had no beliefs of their own) The article was an absolute unsourced mess that had taken entirely different shape from what it is now, mixing modern paganism, fairytales and even some literary characters in one long bullet list. It currently does not "skirt around discussing sources in favor of 'possibilities'" there is an entire section discussing history of research and its sources and every fact in entire article is referenced. Claim that "article remain covered in dead links and unrelated external links" is over exaggerated - there were four dead links and all to one site and a few very much alive external links on related subjects (external links are not references as you previously claimed). You may claim that article does not satisfy your scrutiny, however you have not invested any work in it or in the articles you claim would be better for covering the topic, which makes me think you in fact haven't really researched the topic and seem so biased to see nationalist sentiments everywhere (except apparently where they actually are present) that you refuse to accept any argument or source that tells you that the stuff is actual subject of scientific research ~~Xil (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also it is worth to note that what little research you did to confirm with your preferred sources that the topic is not valid, actually confirmed that the topic was not invented by me, despite you claiming that your sources somehow invalidated the topic by discussing "Latvian national romanticism" and "paradigm of motifs found in Latvian folklore" (mythology is body of myths (or study of myths) and as such can be considered part of folklore). Further more I must note that you still are not talking - a content dispute is not really a matter to discuss on ANI, yet you haven't taken this back to talk page. It appears that you have taken this here first because you were trying to provoke me into breaking 3RR (which I didn't) and secondly because you are hoping to involve more editors in the debate, which is Wikipedia:Canvassing ~~Xil (talk) 07:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do we give IPs discretionary sanction warnings?

Looking at the removals and additions of "Zionist terrorism" and "Palestinian terrorism" categories by 85.166.53.217 (talk · contribs), if this were an account I'd probably warn them, not sure what to do as it's an IP. Dougweller (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Warning an IP seems reasonable to me, assuming that the IP isn't very dynamic: Can we be confident that the intended person will read the warning? Looking at the edit history, it seems to be the same person for the last couple of weeks. bobrayner (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you considered normal admin action? The existence of DS doesn't preclude normal admin actions. It just would not enjoy the special protections afforded by DS. If you don't need to use it, you can ignore those rules. 204.101.237.139 (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This IP's edits popped up on my watchlist and I discovered they had a thread here. I agree that the user has been making a lot of questionable category edits to various articles. And I do mean "questionable" in a very literal sense—I question whether the categories they are adding or removing are appropriate, but lack the subject-matter expertise to know for sure. For example, they are adding the category Category:Persecution of Muslims to articles about certain acts of violence against ethnic groups which are Muslim-majority, though the articles don't single out religious intolerance as the motive for the violence. Perhaps the categorization is inappropriate and should be reverted, or perhaps the categorization is appropriate and the articles need expansion. It would be great if some editors more familiar with conflicts involving Muslims, or ethnic groups which are Muslim-majority, to double-check the edits. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP issues and subject editing own article

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

---

In the Robert Spitzer (political scientist) article. Here is the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Spitzer_%28political_scientist%29&diff=590581011&oldid=590579055 --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:14, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue with the edit that you are concerned about? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

No, am actually a fan of the gentleman. I thought it was a COI violation to edit one's own article. If I am mistaken about this, please close the discussion. I just didn't want to revert the guy, because I think what he wrote was helpful to be honest. I thought an admin should look at it to make sure it's kosher. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:24, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see much of a problem with that edit. I think the article as a whole is too resume-y, but this particular edit doesn't make it any worse. Perhaps Professor Spitzer can shine his light on Talk:Gun control? :) (Where, no doubt, he'd find his "point of view" cast in a dungeon, even with a world of scholarship to support it.) Drmies (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I proposed that his edits be kept, because I think he made them in good faith. I just wanted an admin to look at it. I don't see any problems at this point. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:54, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

As an active editor on the page in question, I have no problem with it. WP:BLPEDIT is easy enough to follow. (And I only wish we could get his insight on our Gun control and Gun politics dispute, but that seems like asking for the moon and the stars.) Lightbreather (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

A Quest For Knowledge's "uninvolved administrator" warning should probably be removed from the case decision.

Sorry to bother about this, but I think something still has to be fixed regarding User:A Quest For Knowledge (notified on talk page) and the formal warning of someone as "an uninvolved administrator".

This (non-Administrator) editor used an Administrator warning. It contains the phrasing This notice is given by an uninvolved administrator and will be logged on the case decision). It looks like it did just that and logged User:Nomoskedasticity onto the case decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change. Here's the diff.

If I hadn't noticed that it formally and erroneously added that user to the list of individuals "warned" by administrators, I wouldn't have brought it up. I don't think the user meant to go so far as to add it to the case decision, but maybe you agree it should be removed from the case decision as an error. Thanks. __ E L A Q U E A T E 05:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template is quite poorly worded, but WP:General sanctions specifically allows anyone to issue warnings, and for such warnings to appropriately logged. It is a good example why using templates for warnings is often problematic, but not indicative of improper logging of such notifications. There has been recent discussion about this, but this is the current state. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Does anyone have the patience to sort what is behind the "warning/notification"? My quick look suggests that two editors !voted in opposite directions at Talk:James Delingpole#Edit protect (and reached different conclusions at WP:BLPN#James Delingpole), and one of them dropped that irritating blurb on the other's talk, and rather triumphantly made an officious log (diff). That's a pretty outrageous loophole that gives one player a way to irritate and poke an opposing player. I know it's being thrashed out at WT:AC/DSR, but the myth that it's merely a "notice" and not a CIVIL way to say get fucked should not be encouraged. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:General sanctions differentiates between community sanctions, and sanctions resulting from an Arbcom case. Arbcom sanctions, which this would fall under, are supposed to be logged by an uninvolved admin. The proposal at WT:AC/DSR is for ArbCom sanctions to be logged by anyone, but so far this has not yet been adopted. —Neotarf (talk) 07:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

These warnings/loggings are being used too often to gain the upper hand in disputes. I agree with Johnuniq's and Neotarf's interpretation. Let's let admins take care of these types of warnings. - MrX 12:41, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Removed warning from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change and notified clerks Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee/Clerks#non_admin_logging_DS NE Ent 13:01, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• At first look, and as someone completely uninvolved, it appears this "administrator warning" is being used as a chilling effect tactic. When I see that the defenders are hardly neutral on this overall subject, I suggest remedies and possible sanctions should be discussed at this time. This should not be tolerated. As for a page that lists "warnings" I confess to astonishment that such exists, much less appears to be being gamed. Jusdafax 13:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
• The warning should probably be removed. It isn't enforceable anyway, except by administrators. Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Point being that Nomoskedasticity understands the situation and has pushed back, whereas other less experienced editors could well be intimidated by it. Which raises the question whether this type of incident has occurred previously. Jusdafax 21:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The template was actually changed to no longer be a warning some time back and is now simply a notification. Unfortunately, the template was also changed some time back to include the term "uninvolved administrator" by default, which was previously absent from the boilerplate warning. Now a non-admin has to add a specific parameter to present it as a regular warning from a non-admin. Many non-admins issue notifications and this is useful since it means editors new to the process or to Wikipedia in general can be made aware more quickly and, if they are disruptive, makes it simpler when there is a need for restrictions since those require an editor to be aware of the discretionary sanctions regime in the topic area beforehand. I think the problem here is that the boilerplate warning says "uninvolved administrator" by default when that should be the optional parameter. That would be as absurd as a vandalism or 3RR warning template including that term by default. AQFK simply used a template without realizing it had been changed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:42, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems a fair summation. Collect (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Whether the template was changed to "no longer be a warning" or not, AQFN explicitly stated it was meant to be both notification and warning. Having read a bit more of the case file, it is interesting that AQFN is attempting to warn people into proper behavior on a Climate Change related topic using a case where he was topic-banned from Climate Change articles for disruptive battle-grounding. And I still think it's arguably an inappropriate way to end a noticeboard discussion by a deeply involved editor. If it's supposed to be "just a notice" then it should only be allowed to be formally logged where it's "just a notice" and not something possibly point-making. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:47, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

All this amounts to is keeping a record of who is aware of the discretionary sanctions in a topic area. There is no official finding of misconduct, but just one editor informing another of certain special rules regarding a topic and making sure others are aware said editor has been so informed. Non-admins warn other non-admins all the time about alleged misconduct. In this case such things get logged.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:56, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

It's obvious what happened in this case—one editor used the notice/log to be as obnoxious as possible to another editor during a discussion where the two editors disagreed. There was not the slightest reason to issue the notice other than it is possible to do so. The case reported here demonstrates very bad behavior, and is not similar to the standard procedure whereby an editor should be warned if they may be wandering into trouble by aggressive editing or vigorous commenting. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Death threat

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

---

This edit contains a threat to murder. I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours, and my feeling is that the whole thing is just some silly ranting, and that there is no need to take it any more seriously. However, I am mentioning it here in case anyone thinks any other steps should be taken. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It's this again (still bad mind you). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I had never come across it before. Well, that makes it even more clear that this is just childish trolling. If anyone is interested, this relates to trolling at Talk:Oy vey by an editor using the IP addresses 174.20.87.111 and 71.220.13.23. The page Talk:Oy vey has been semiprotected by Mark_Arsten, who managed to beat me to doing the protection by about half a minute. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor using epithets such as "Antisemitic traitorous racists" - topic ban proposal

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

---

This is Bloomingdedalus (talk · contribs). After I warned him for edit-warring, his response to me included "Parasitic terrorist apologists you scum - you should be hunted and thrown in Gitmo." His talk page if full of attacks on Islam and Muslims as is at least one other talk page.[77]. User: Georgewilliamherbert placed him on notice of the decided Arbitration Committee case on Palestine-Israeli issues and then warned him about the talk page edit above, which resulted in "Please stop your insane bigotry against the Jews you parasite. Antisemitic traitorous racists such as yourself should not be editing Wikipedia. Anyone who equates criticism of a religious ideology with racism ought not be permitted to administrate anything."

There are two issues here. One is the continued insults, but the more serious one is his apparent incompetence to edit articles dealing with Jewish-Muslim issues with anything resembling NPOV, and I am calling for a topic ban in this area. Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal of topic ban relating to Jewish-Muslim issues

I propose that User:Bloomingdedalus be banned from any edits related to Jewish-Muslim issues in all areas of Wikipedia. This should also deal with these personal attacks.Dougweller (talk) 10:07, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not necessary. He's NOTHERE to contribute to the encyclopedia and indeff'ed. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

The editor Ryulong is causing trouble again

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

---

Ladies and gentlemen, Ryulong (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is not only edit warring AGAIN but is resorting to verbal attacks (as seen when he reverted here). take a good look at his recent edits and kno that this is true. 166.205.55.48 (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The individual behind this IP has been trolling me since November and he's complaining that I'm reverting his edits to attack me across the project on multiple IP addresses and now registered accounts which are being investigated at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Zarbon.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, at the very least this is a WP:BOOMERANG situation here, as the IP's recent 3 edits contain "asshole" and "maniac" in the edit summaries. Pretty clear "verbal attacks" on their own part. Sergecross73 msg me 17:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

 Sounds like a duck quacking into a megaphone to me. Admiral Caius (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Problem with User:Incnis_Mrsi

Collapsing as per desire of OP ES&L 00:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Formally requesting censor of User:Incnis_Mrsi privileges to revert pages. I am notifying User:Incnis_Mrsi and the wikiproject page of this request. With respect to me, I contend that this person is stalking me. He has no other goal with respect to my work on wikipedia than to find fault and threaten me and be abusive. I also contend that he has a history of this with others which can be seen in his User_talk:Incnis_Mrsi and in this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Incnis_Mrsi. I fully realize that my request will probably not be granted, but I believe that this person's past and present actions of abuse towards me and other fellow wikipedians will continue into the future and so I have decided that to make this request a part of the permanent wikipedian record. I will not go further with this action than this formal complaint/request. My name is Linda Fahlberg-Stojanovska. I work extensively and without compensation in providing FOSS online mathematics education resources particularly in mathematics engineering education. I a professor of mathematics and informatics in FYR Macedonia (35 years). I have a Ph.D. in theoretical mathematics (1989), but concentrate on improving engineering mathematics. I run several wikis in english and macedonian. I have youtube channels in english and macedonian,... I am active in mathforums across the globe. History of problem with Incnis Mrsi In May-June 2013, when I saw that the Macedonian mk.wikipedia has started to actively function, I re-registered to help with the "translation project". (I was registered in 2008 under LFS, but only contributed a single article since I saw that the site was not active, forgot that email,...) At this time I had absolutely no plans of working on the en.wikipedia. I assumed it had many, many competent volunteers doing this job. So I picked a subject and went to get the en.wikipedia article to translate it into Macedonian. The subject I picked was: Linear functions. The article I found on the en.wikipedia page had absolutely nothing to do with the standard definition of a Linear function. (It was entirely focused on the 3rd year university mathematics abstract algebra concept of Linear mappings.) I searched all over en.wikipedia for a page on linear functions. There was nothing and this is an absolutely standard topic in algebra. (a) I did NOT touch or change any page and I mention that I have NEVER deleted or changed anyone else's material EVER. (b) I simply created a new page called: Linear function (mathematics). It was immediately marked for Speedy Deletion and only the intervention of several members of the math community saved it by mentioning that this material was useful and not covered elsewhere. Result 1: User:Incnis_Mrsi deleted the new page I created. He then created a new page himself called Linear function (calculus) and copied my material into it (images and all) and this article is still online. I mention here - as I mentioned then to this person - that Linear functions have nothing to do with calculus, but to absolutely no avail. He knew, I did not. No discussion was permitted. I was going to stop working on en wikipedia, but (a) several persons encouraged me not to give up and (b) this is important work to me. Result 2: I continued to work on mk.wikipedia articles (and have made over 100 contributions in the last 6-8 months). I made every effort to improve my "wikipedian" skills particularly with respect to consulting with fellow wikipedians and to creating articles with the structure, content, citations, references, sharing, linking, images, ... wikipedia requires. I totally believe in the value of this OER as a incredible asset to free global education. Result 3: In addition to working on mk.wikipedia articles, I believe I have also positively influenced en.wikipedia articles working together in the community on e.g. Congruence (geometry) and Slope and having my images and examples included on several other pages all in an incredible spirit of goodwill and cooperation. 1. In August 2013, I noted on the talk:Constant function page that as with Linear function page, the content had absolutely nothing to do with the standard definition of a constant function in the literature and suggested that someone add this definition. ABSOLUTELY no one responded to this talk. However, now knowing the process a bit better, I carefully researched and found material from both textbook and online materials in order to be able to include 7 wikipedia standard citations for correcting this omission. 2. Last month, I noticed that on the Linear equation page, a notice was posted that the page contained no inline citations. Having created a page for linear equations on the mk.wikipedia, I wrote in the talk page that I had three valid english citations for this material. Again, I changed NOTHING. Here is that talk: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Linear_equation#no_citations. Please notice that User:Incnis_Mrsi responded by attacking my mk page, writing insults and abuse. He was not concerned with citations - simply with attacking me. I did not respond to this abuse, but simply requested that the citations be checked for quality. 3. Meanwhile I had been revising my earliest mk.wikipedia pages (in consultation with the mk.wikipedia board - it's a small country and we are working hard on this project), including the page on constant function. Four days ago I edited the en.wikipedia constant function adding the definition in the introduction and all of section 1 and my own image. This is the ABSOLUTELY standard definition of a constant function in all the literature. Period. I included the material that was already in the article, even though it had no citations. At the same time in the talk page of this article, I restated what I did and why and again specifically asked for help in making this article more complete. I did add 3 specific generalized examples and images (consistent with the main article page function (mathematics)) hoping to head off complaints that the "standard" definition was too restrictive. Please recall that I waited over six months after my request on the talk page for editors to do this and absolutely nothing happened. I ask you to examine the content of this page and the talk page before this edit and originally after my edit. 4. Immediately User:Incnis_Mrsi edited my edit and I contend that THE ENTIRE PURPOSE WAS TO FIND MISTAKES. This is my complaint. He was abusive and threatened me with instant reversion should I possibly attempt another edit in which he found the slightest еrror. I do not think this attitude acceptable in a wikipedian editor. I certainly may have made some minor wikipedian editing errors. But (a) they certainly were not intentional and (b) I deliberately deleted nothing that was in the article since in good faith I assumed it all to be valid (with or without citations or references). This person searched for errors. He added templates not present before, he deleted links, he searched for cyrillic glyphs (characters) since he knows how difficult they are to see. (I have deliberately left one in the paragraph above. See if you can find it.) The search for errors was deliberate, intensive, abusive and done in spite. Further I contend that this person himself makes wikipedian errors and the bots visit his talk page and leave him messages about such errors. He simply deletes these messages off his page - multiple times. I did not want to go as far as a formal complaint, but I did not know what to do. So I mentioned the problem on the wikiproject page (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Problems_with_user:_Incnis_Mrsi). I was told about this resource and that this is the proper place for a formal complaint. So here I am. P.S. I have absolutely no idea what User:Incnis_Mrsi is referring to in his response in this discussion. Again I reiterate that I have NEVER deleted or revised anyone's work or been cynical or abusive (or indeed copied someone's work and passed it off as my own). As I said at the beginning of this seemingly interminable discourse, I am interested only in having my complaint as part of the record on the person User:Incnis_Mrsi. Lfahlberg (talk) 20:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Regarding this: "User:Incnis_Mrsi deleted the new page I created. He then created a new page himself called Linear function (calculus) and copied my material into it (images and all) and this article is still online." That is incorrect. In June 2013 Incnis Mrsi moved the page Linear function (mathematics) to Linear function (calculus), although he did not leave a redirect from the old title. The page history still indicates you as its original author. There was a discussion at the WikiProject (now archived) regarding the article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics/Archive/2013/Jun#Linear function. I make no other comment on any of your other comments. — Scott • talk 21:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Re this: (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#Problems_with_user:_Incnis_Mrsi). I "saw", and what I saw worries me, especially the advice: "Oh, and if Incnis is a little bit rude on occasion - just be a little bit rude yourself in return". Can some admin give a gentle advice there? Staszek Lem (talk) 21:52, 14 January 2014 (UTC) User:Lfahlberg, if you had to sum up your request in just a few sentences, what would that be? What specific result are you looking for here? I plan to review your material later, but know that someone will ask for a tl;dr version. Thanks. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 21:57, 14 January 2014 (UTC) My request (as I stated in the wikipedia project page and where I was reprimanded for making such a request) is simply that User:Incnis_Mrsi be asked to work with me as if I am a colleague with some credentials and that when I edit a page, he (and others) assume good faith. I am absolutely willing to discuss and compromise. He threatened me on my talk page when I edited constant function). This is not acceptable. His attitude of "simply delete" was then adopted by others without discussion because I complained. This is not right. I KNOW that his patrolling services are incredibly useful and I KNOW what it is like to work in a foreign language and how easy it is to say the wrong thing unintentionally so I put up with it (and tried really hard to avoid him), but this was crazy and I felt boxed in by all. I REALLY enjoy working on wikipedia and think I can make valuable contributions. I hereby formally withdraw my request that User:Incnis_Mrsi editor privileges be revoked. However, again I repeat my request that when I am following wiki protocol by discussing possible changes in the talk page, waiting, working with the community that a degree of respect be granted me. Thank-you. Lfahlberg (talk) 22:32, 14 January 2014 (UTC) As someone who has worked with Lfahlberg and Incnis Mrsi (for a few months at least), a comment may be in order. I don't want to get too tied up in this for lack of time, but as far as I can make out there is nothing really "disastrous". Normally, when Incnis says something which appears to "disparage" or "dismiss" the efforts of others in an "incivil" way, usually he just means "this is wrong: it needs to be fixed." Not always in the right wording, but that's my experience. So Lfahlberg, please refrain from being so sensitive. Incnis doesn't "stalk" editors, and is not "out to threaten" them, or what else. And of course, being rude back (no matter how much) is not really helpful either. That's all I want to say. M∧Ŝc2ħεИτlk 23:04, 14 January 2014 (UTC) I agree with this assessment and if others agree, I allow this section to be blanked (or scratched or whatever one does to minimize collateral damage). Lfahlberg (talk) 23:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not good at proxies and such

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

---

…but I think 95.141.27.41 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is most likely an open proxy or something else disagreeable. The comments about Nigerian scammers and "an attempt to maliciously gain access to our website" caught my eye. Bishonen | talk 21:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC).

I blocked the IP for six months. I'm not able to determine whether they are using an open proxy server, although the server clearly is suspicious. I looked back at the IP's history here, and I was hard-pressed to find one constructive edit. Generally, they receive warnings, and then they leave for a while before coming back. They have been busy on other wikis as well, at least in some cases vandalizing them (I can't tell on the ones where I know nothing about the language). In at least one case, they repeated the same vandalism there they did here.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Bishonen | talk 00:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC).

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

Requesting another year's block for this vandal.

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

---

This IP has been blocked previously for a year. Disruptive editing has broken out again. See User_talk:131.109.147.105 I believe it is a shared IP address from Rhode Island tech. The same article has been attacked multiple times in 30 days from this same IP; so it is worth blocking this address for another year, or more. I have left an ANI-notice on the talk page, Others have given warnings over the past 3 months, so all prior warning policies have been kept. Please help. Thanks ♥ VisitingPhilosopher ♥ ^{talk ◊ contribs} 22:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I see no productive editing from that address, just a long list of vandalism edits and subsequent blocks. Blocked again. Gamaliel (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Huey2323 and bad faith accusations.

A week ago, I nominated StableCoin for deletion (along with many other altcoins, as you can see from my edits) and quickly declared neutrality in it due to Stablecoin having a massive following on 4chan's /g/, and me being a /g/ regular. The article creator, which I'm assuming is either another /g/ regular or a Reddit user, has been throwing constant accusations towards established editors like Benboy00 and Lagrange613. I didn't want to go this far, but Huey2323 has given me no other option but to intervene more deeply. Citation Needed | Talk 23:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

So his actions are going to lead to the deletion of an article, which I assume is the opposite of their intent. I see no violations of WP:NPA, just someone spouting off. Their comments show more about them than anyone else ES&L 23:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment A lot of cryptocurrencies have been proposed for deletion lately, and both Reddit and 4chan have been on both sides of the deletion discussions. Dogecoin was nominated for deletion and that was riddled with socks, but the person who nominated it had ties to an anti-cryptocurrency group on Reddit. This disagreement has been going on for months and only recently spilled over into Wikipedia. The subject field ought to have a dedicated Wikiproject or some other way to keep track on all these articles. KonveyorBelt 23:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I take responsibility for nominating most of the coins (and a couple subjects related to it), but those nominations were based on violation of article standards, not for my own personal or financial gain (how could you really with a a dog coin and a now defunct coin based on a rapper?). As with Huey, he has been accusing me as well, but of being a paid editor (fundraising, idk) in addition to "already violating my neutrality". I've ingored his rants for the most part until he started making accusations towards other editors. Citation Needed | Talk 23:30, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Not accusing you of doing that. And yes, Huey needs to be blocked. KonveyorBelt 23:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

If this area has been harmed by a sudden influx of partisans from outside (not that bringing in outside editors is inherently bad, of course, but bringing in crusaders is definitely bad) and tribal editing, then setting up a new wikiproject is the last thing we need. Use existing rules & tools, discuss the issue in existing fora. Those are my principles. (If you don't like them, I have others). bobrayner (talk) 13:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It was not my intent to create an article, have it so poorly written, and then try to defend the article. For that, I take full blame and responsibility for being new to the community. It was also not my intention to throw accusation without providing information that I see from my point of view. When I first created the article I was attempting to create it in a way that provided sources to where I was getting information. That is why the timeline looks so sporadic. After 1 hour, the AfD was created. 1 hour seems like a very small time frame to me in order to make changes and get the article edited in the correct direction. Like I said earlier, I was still learning at that time. I understood, the sources were bad and the overall look of it was pitiful. I made a note that on multiple occasions that I was continuing to update the article and it seemed like every time I tried to explain and make a comment about what I was doing, a specific user was shooting everything I did down and pushing SO hard to have the article removed. It seemed as if it was his sole mission to have it removed. If it is removed due to WP policy then that is fine, but no one deserves to be talked down to and that is what it felt like. So I decided to defend what I had said, maybe snark, but did so anyway. On to the potential COI... The nominator for AfD mentions his "neutrality" to the matter and then proceeds to link to a picture that states otherwise by people that seem to have seen this in the past. Then, come to find out, the nominator is the same user that created an article on another cryptocurrency that is based on a Meme. We all know what happens when there is a cult following on a specific topic. Putting those two things together, the time it took to start the AfD, and the fact that the nominator states that he has a potential WP:COI based on this section #2 made me come to the conclusion. I started commenting on the AfD with WP:AGF but after putting those together, I could no longer. As far as the article is concerned, if it gets deleted because of notability, I understand. Although, it no longer sound like a WP:PROMO. Huey2323 (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

76.120.175.135 "fixing" links to redirects that are not broken

76.120.175.135 has been making a large number of edits[78][79][80] that "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. User has been warned but ignored the warning.[81] (I doubt that he reads his talk page) So, what to do? Post three or four more warnings and see if he responds? Request a short block to get his attention? Please advise. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, not all his edits are bad. E.g. I would have done the same if I knew what was that. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Why bother the IP? It's not doing any harm, and as Staszek says, not all the edits are useless. This one was fine, although I wouldn't have bothered. I cleaned up a little after this one, but not to change what the IP did, only to fix something that the edit made me notice. It seems harmless.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And WP:NOTBROKEN is just a guideline, anyway.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

And you didn't notify the IP. I'll do it now.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Section blanking

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

---

User talk:Jacksonthegreat continues to blank a section of the Brian Setencich article, despite 2 warnings. Eg. [82]. Thank you. Magnolia677 (talk) 05:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked. They have done nothing but blank sections, on and off, since 2011 --Guerillero | My Talk 06:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Incivility by User:Kwamikagami

I try to follow WP:BRD as I have no interest in edit warring. When I asked Kwamikagami to stop edit warring on Bushmen on their user page, they removed my post and called me an "asshole" in their edit summary. When I asked them to stop their personal attacks, they removed my post and insulted me again on my talk page. HelenOnline 08:03, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't call you an asshole, I asked you not to be an asshole (or a WP:DICK, same thing), because of your ridiculous templating. Oh, and I removed your post – terrible of me, I know. — kwami (talk) 08:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a linguist like you, but the obvious implication of statement like that is that the target of the "advice" is presently an asshole, or at least behaving like one. Is there any point otherwise in telling someone not to be an asshole [in the future] if they aren't one [now, according to the advice dispenser]? Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

WP:DTTR - Kwami was insulting you. But many editors consider those templates to themselves be insults. Best to just move on with dispute resolution. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the validation. Regulars should also know better than to edit without edit summaries and skip the D in BRD. HelenOnline 08:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It is funny, but I was just on Google searching how to file the same thing. And this time I am happy someone else has reported it. I have interacted with the user for a very long time and have on numerous occasions brought up his battleground editing habits and unpleasant disposition towards me and other editors. So much so that I have STOPPED edited articles (where I have rare and special qualifications on) to avoid his conduct. So it is in a nutshell affecting Wikipedia quality. Today, my objections were called silly, I was accused on "wasting time" silly time waster now I am the one of the main contributors to the discussion and now I am "wasting time". It has to be addressed with some kind of warning and I see this attitude of incivilities across his entire history of editing on Wikipedia. --Inayity (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Calling someone who knows the topic and idiot
• Calling edits crappy
• calling scholars nonsense
• Again Stupid
• Everyone is crappy and stupid while he is not well acquainted with the topic--Inayity (talk) 09:09, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

A few observations:

1. some regulars don't like being templated. Tough shit - we all need the reminder every so often to follow the rules
2. yes, kwami called someone an "asshole". Wholly inappropriate, and definitely a violation of WP:NPA
3. kwami is entitled to remove the warning(s) from their talkpage - it's acknowledgement that it's been read
4. the sole question now is: is kwami's NPA behaviour eiehter right now, or over time significant enough to block at the moment

ES&L 09:12, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Kwami's history of disruption is various, including using admin privileges in a dispute and edit warring. As far as I'm aware, Kwami has not been sanctioned in the past for personal attacks, though looking at the diffs I'm surprised at that. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If once I would say, a slap on the hand, but this is years of abuse, (not to mention the separate issue of bully edit warring). I dont know how a block will help either, the user must agree to cease and desist and reform his ways. Because it is spoiling it for contributors. And I have told him --Inayity (talk) 09:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You're also being somewhat hypocritical, given this and this. Are you suggesting that you should be blocked as well, or is it only incivility when others engage in that type of behavior? - Aoidh (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Do you seriously consider those = to a trend of name calling? My activity is use the talk page and discuss things. So why not use this space properly and discuss the subject at hand. also did i suggest a block, or suggested the user end his habits? I am worried that you could raise those issues which diverts from something that needs fixing.added your inability to read a sentence. If you have a problem with me, file a complaint.--Inayity (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You complaining about activity that you are also engaged in is relevant; anyone who participates in the discussion might find their actions under scrutiny. It's not "diverting from something that needs fixing" when your behavior apparently needs fixing as well, if anything is to be "fixed". What exactly do you have in mind, keeping in mind that "my inability to read a sentence" is far from civil in a discussion where you're complaining about incivility. - Aoidh (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You called me a hypocrite. What is that? Is that not incivility. Can I ask you to use this space for the purpose it was intended. if you have a sincere problem with me File a complaint! or stop while you are behind.--Inayity (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not quite, I said you're being somewhat hypocritical, and you are. Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence would indeed be a personal attack; I provided evidence that you are doing the same thing you're complaining about. Given that you're repeating yourself despite what you've said already being addressed I'll assume you missed it; please read WP:PETARD, as you saying "file a complaint" is not a magic "don't look at my contribs, only the person I've had issues with" button. Your recent edit summaries are continuing to be less than civil, so again what are you proposing we do about incivility, given your own incivility? - Aoidh (talk) 09:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Someone else's incivility can explain your own, but it never excuses it. Yes, on ANI, if a filing party is as much at fault, or indeed can be shown to have baited the other editor, they can indeed be blocked. The behaviour of the filing party is under the same microscope as the person being reported, and as such there is no need for a separate report. This is, of course, why WP:BOOMERANG is so frequently quoted. ES&L 12:17, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Insulting other editors is rarely helpful, and in this case I think it's definitely a problem, but calling edits crappy is necessary. There are a lot of crappy edits out there, and that is one of the encyclopædia's biggest problems; we need to be able to face up to it. bobrayner (talk) 13:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: WP:BOOMERANG has been referenced three times in this small thread. Guess what? It's not a virtue, nor is it even logical. What that essay is, is, an often-used abuse club consisting of dysfunctional dumbed-down thinking that is easy to wield in substitution for thought. It also seems to fill the wielder with feelings of self-satisfaction and superiority (smugness) which are easy and seductive but shallow and false gold. Another popular often-used dumbed down mantra used on this boad is "two wrongs don't make a right". Sorry boys ... if this were the proper venue for it, I could write walls of text that rip new anuses in both expressions. But it isn't, so you get this summary instead. The essay should be removed from WP space, as it has become an out-of-control handy, shallow abuse club to make life easier and more fulfilling for those too lazy to think on their own. (Afterall, thinking hurts one's brain, doesn't it? We don't want that in AnimalFarmLand.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BOOMERANG simply states that a reporting party does not get immunity from sanction or scrutiny simply because they reported someone else's conduct. That's it. In what way is that problematic? I agree that it can be overused, as with many shortcuts 'round here, but I think your response to that is.... well, more than a bit disturbing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

What's disturbing is the abusive use and misuse of that essay. The essay originally specified same wrongdoing in the same incident, but it's been widened for more general application because that's what's wanted by those who would wield it. And look at the wide application at ANI! Life is not that simple. Here's another dumbed-down mantra that excuses abusing people because it is convenient: "No justice; only solutions" (the favorite of a popular admin with initials DB). I'm sorry if you don't like it and want to attack me by calling me "disturbing", that's expected, the culture at WP is so rife with abuse and dysfunctional/illogical mantras used in wielding power, it is like shooting fish in a barrel to point them out. But somebody should. (I did.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 13:56, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In what way is your little tirade relevant to this thread? It seems like you spotted the word boomerang and decided to go off on a tangent.--Atlan (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Not little, and not irrelevant. (I'll let you figure it out.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Let me repeat that I have specifically noted that kwami's response/NPA is wholly unacceptable. I have also tried to gently correct the OP an editor in the belief that someone needed a new thread/report related to their own behaviour, but I have not fully investigated that behaviour, nor do I intend to ATM. I'm of the belief that neither party has been angelic, but leaving it to those-wearing-their-admin-overalls to actually move forward one way or another. So far, kwami seems to be in the belief that either his NPA was acceptable, or wasn't an NPA. ES&L 14:24, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of having my behaviour scrutinised under a microscope, please note that Inayity is not the OP or filing party (I am). HelenOnline 14:36, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Corrected - sorry for the possible minor panic ES&L 16:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Calling edits crappy is a problem because it does not build and environment of mutual respect. If this was some ip editor or crazy POV editor (and they can really be too much to handle and you can lose your cool). But I do not feel encouraged when I am raising serious issues to be told "Stop wasting time" (esp If I am 1 of 2 advocates for the debate in the 1st place). As to my own conduct.You cannot be serious!!, read the context, it was a plea to help protect the page If you want to spend time focusing on 2 tiny frustrated outburst against a problem editor, go ahead. It might just take up enough time so the core issue gets forgot! See the above time invested in going off topic. I got a note on my page for "conduct" but Kwami got skipped (wiki justice). As for the issue with Kwami, we are really here discussing more than an ODD temper flare, this is the person's behavior for Years. That is the issue. Not once, not one editor, but without apology. My only reason for talking against a block is b/c I value his contributions to linguistics, But I do not value his battleground editing style, and failure to use talk page. --Inayity (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You got a "note" because kwami was quite obviously already aware that his edits were being discussed and that others found them incivil so any kind of further notification would have served no purpose; your edits however have and continue to be problematic and you seemed to be unaware of this. Why should your incivility be excused by "context" but not others? Incivility is problematic and should be addressed, but do not hold other editors do a standard that you are not willing to meet yourself, because that makes your concerns about incivility appear disingenuous at best, and gives the appearance of an attempt to game the system to engage in battleground behavior with an editor you have argued with before; if you truly were concerned about incivility you wouldn't be engaging in the same exact behavior. - Aoidh (talk) 20:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I would argue that I was commenting on Helen's behavior in templating me when we're both trying to improve the article, and it was on my talk page, not the article, but regardless, I do agree it was much too harsh for a good editor who's been operating in good faith and trying to resolve a tricky problem. For that I'm sorry.

As for my temper, yes, I do tend to go off on people who don't deserve it, as I did Helen, especially when I'm sleep-deprived. (It was midnight and I've been woken up in the middle of the night the past several nights.) It's a problem, I know.

(As for Inayity's complaints, I think it's entirely appropriate to give the reason for deleting material from some crappy blog (and how could that possibly be taken as incivil, since I presume the author of the blog is not editing here?), or when reverting ridiculous wording like opening an article with "African traditional religion is the traditional religion of Africa". It's frustrating to have someone repeatedly restore such silliness, in this case with the argument that the opening needs to define the topic, but with similar logic elsewhere. As for the wording not being sufficient for understanding the problem, it's an edit summary: Explanations go on the talk page, where I explained over and over again that a tautology is not a definition, and that in any case we need to define the topic, not the word, as we're not Wiktionary.)

— kwami (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please can we all move on now. Kwami has apologised and I accept their apology. Yes I am quick to template and report, because I have had protracted unpleasant experiences here in the past. Nobody signs up for that. I don't care for it and prefer to nip such things in the bud. I believe all the parties involved have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart, and hopefully we will all be more careful in the future regardless of whom we are dealing with. HelenOnline 20:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, if everyone templated immediately, as you do, so that we were all used to it from when we first started editing, we might have fewer behavioral problems. It's jarring though when hardly anyone does it. — kwami (talk) 01:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Copyright violations - User:Purrum

Hi. I am hoping someone with knowledge in the area can assist me in dealing with User:Purrum and what I understand to be copyright/plagiarism issues. Since December I have had to remove material added by this user to three articles, which were copy and pasted from other websites.[83][84][85] I recently posted a message on Purrum's talkpage, after the third removal, informing them that you can't cut and paste material from other sites if they don't display the appropriate license, a message that had also been conveyed by another user back in 2012. The only response has been reverting my edit to Kevin Heath, with no edit summary.

On a review of this user's contributions from this January 2014 alone, there appear to be further issues.

14 January: The history section in AFL Mackay, minus the bullet points, has been taken word for word from here.

9 January: "which was being carved into lucrative real estate by Mirvac. Under the terms of the deal, the oval and immediate surrounds were to remain for sporting purposes. Mirvac needed a club to occupy the oval" is a word for word copy from this article from The Age newspaper. Other parts are very similar.

Jevansen (talk) 13:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Certainly in terms of the Kevin Heath addition the licensing of the source is fine - GFDL is also a valid licence for Wikipedia reuse. Haven't checked the others yet. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:15, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean. Is there a reason you think the text at the source is released under a free license? – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm that these are copyright violations. It's especially troubling that he reverted the removal of copyrighted material from the article. I added a {{uw-copyright}} to his talk page, but stronger action may be needed. – Quadell ^(talk) 13:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Jevansen, for being conscious of the issue. :) I know the edit summary says "undo", but he didn't actually undo the edit to Kevin Heath - he rewrote the content. If you compare, the text is different. So he listened. I hope this is a sign of good faith desire to comply with policy. Yunshui, I don't see that license, but it wouldn't matter - GFDL by itself is not an acceptable license for importing material to Wikipedia, and even if it were proper attribution must be given to comply with the license in accordance with Wikipedia:Plagiarism. But see WP:COMPLIC. GFDL is only acceptable if it is also offered alongside a Creative Commons compatible license. Unfortunately, GFDL alone is the same as no license at all for our purposes since our license migration.

The "further issues" are a serious concern. I agree with Quadell's thoughts here. I just found and removed a blatant copy-paste from October, to a 1993 article that clearly predates. This looks like a situation where a WP:CCI is necessary to ensure that prior content is not problematic and that any issues that have not yet been cleaned up will be. I'll go ahead and open that. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, I didn't realise that GFDL also required CC. Thanks, MRG. Yunshui 雲‍水 13:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Purrum is now open. We have such a huge backlog at CCI; please help. :) Jevansen, if this is an area in which you happen to work, your assistance there could be invaluable to keep copyrighted content from hanging around for longer than necessary. If you or anyone else wants to assist and isn't sure how, please feel free to stop by my talk page with questions. I'm off to speak to Purrum to explain the CCI and just see if there's any more coaching necessary regarding copyright. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Name calling

Mrm7171 called me a troll four separate times over two days on the health psychology talk when disputing my edits. He also lodged that epithet at me when commenting on his additions to the health psychology page. I want him to stop. Iss246 (talk) 15:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Below are quotes from the health psychology talk page.

You have REVERTED 6 timers now within a 24 hour period. Stop edit warring. I am going to report you. Provide rock solid reiable sources next time and stop personalizing. You seem to me to be a troll, who pretendes to be a professor of everything. I doubt you actually have qualifications in any field of p-sychology based on your poor editing. Leave professional articles that you obviously have little knowledge of alone and concentrate on your OHP club instead! Or provide RELIABLE SOURCES please. Thanks.Mrm7171 (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

All iss246 does on Wikipedia is try to insert falsely this unregulated small club called OHP and try to align witgh proper regulated professions in psychology. You are nothing but a 'troll' iss246.

Unwarranted accusation. I am bringing you up on charges. Iss246 (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Iss246 I doubt if you are actually an academic iss246. hat we know about you is that you are an internet troll. You post 'OHP' wherever you can in any legitimate area of the psychology profession you can. I do hold a Doctorate in psychology for your information. But that is irrelevant. Who cares! Its irrelevant. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. No, I think iss246, you are an untrained 'OHP practitioner" who wanted a career change and did not want to train in the many years it would take to train to be a professional Health Psychologist or professional Occupational Psychologist.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear iss246. If you were a scholar of any sort you would realise that topics in science like the 2 areas you claim are only ohp research are actually researched and applied by many different fields and published in many different journals. Stop trolling. Lifecoaching may be more your cup of tea. That, like an 'OHP practitioner' also allows any career changer like yourself to become, without any actual training.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2014 (UTC) [end of Iss246's opening statement, ed.]

I have not reviewed the edits in article-space but did review the Talk page. iss246 appears to show appropriate conduct, while Mrm's behavior is essentially harassment and personal attacks. Saying that iss refuses to discuss the issue, then pouncing on him with personal attacks when he does, is a sign of baiting. Mrm shows a strong habit of focusing on the editor, rather than the article, in a generally disparaging manner.

In my view, we should have a zero tolerance policy for this kind of behavior, which is not only disruptive to Wikipedia, but negatively effects retention. If Mrm's accusation of stalking is true however, he should provide examples of other articles where iss246 has allegedly followed him.

BTW - whether an editor is an expert in a topic does not effect their credibility as a contributor, though it sometimes helps, and sometimes inhibits, good editing. CorporateM (Talk) 15:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• With all due respect the history between iss246 and myself goes back almost a year. You looked at a tiny, final snippet where iss246 had just reported this, and then tailored his responses for a moment. I have been subjected to masses of verbal abuse by iss246 over many months and can provide 100,200 examples. Instead I hope we can refrain from personal abuse, and focus solely on editing from here on. Stop personalizing and just focus on making Wikipedia's articles better for the general community, that is readers. Please don't judge me on a tiny fragment. I for one think we can all move on, and cease completely any further childish name calling, rather than me go back over almost a years worth of records and provide over 100 hard core examples of iss246's personal abuse toward me. Apologies to administrator for the placement of my replies on this page.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) I agree with CorporateM. Mrm7171 seems to think s/he knows more about psychology than anyone else and thus behaves as though no one else is qualified to make changes to psychology-related articles (check out some of his/her earliest edit summaries...in all caps, mind you). S/he also shows egregious ownership issues of psychology articles, and s/he has even been blocked for this kind of behavior before. Maybe a topic ban is in order?

BTW, Iss246, you never informed Mrm7171 of this discussion (as is required), so I did just that. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:55, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about not informing Mrm7171. I should have asked a third party. I don't like going on his talk page. And I don't like him going on mine. Iss246 (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

My responses to iss246 yesterday were after months and months of long term abuse by iss246. I can collect at least 100 examples. For months iss246 has posted on his tall page, filthy, baseless lies and defamation, calling me a troll, thinking he knows best about everything, he is a professor. Therefore his opinion was all that mattered. I had enough. I am human. No-one can tolerate that type of long term abuse. Below is the section of filth still boldly pasted on his talk page, and left there for months.

On iss246's talk page he has this filth still posted. Nice guy!Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

"Here is what we know about you Mrm7171. You are an internet troll. You have a bachelor's degree. If you earned a degree, I don't think the degree came with much distinction. You don't have a Ph.D. You didn't complete a post-doc in anything. You like i/o psychology perhaps because you took a course in it. You think you are smart but you lack understanding. I write that you lack understanding because you selectively ignore what I write. For example, I write that Tom earned a Ph.D. in behavioral pharma yet you ignore that fact although the fact is in Tom's page on LinkedIn. Or you assert I don't like Tom because I objected to your using a reference found in a blog. That does not translate to dislike. But you did the translating (better to call it mistranslating; intentional mistranslating). Good thing you don't work as a translate or at the U.N., then you would really ball things up. You are not that smart." courtesy of iss246

Wow, thank you so much iss246, for your kind words. For the record. No, I am not a troll. I also do hold a Doctorate in Psychology and almost 30 years experience. But really, who cares! Seriously I don't care. Nor is that relevant. In fact, unlike many others I have known I don't even use my Dr title anytime. The only reason I mention this now, on my own talk page, is that iss246 refuses to delete his defamatory, baseless, childish comments about me above still posted on your talk page. So, self defence I guess.Mrm7171 (talk) 01:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In response, I know no more, or no less, than other editors. I have made excellent edits on Wikipedia. In many articles. I have been subjected to masses of abuse from iss246 over months and can provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward me such as the section posted on his talk page. Countless times iss246 talks on and on and on about how he is a professor, he knows best, etc etc etc...I can provide 100 examples. I had enough. I also hold a Doctorate in psychology but who cares!. Holding Doctorate or being an expert is irrelevant on Wikipedia. Mrm7171 (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I could not care less about my doctorate. Never have. Never will. Who care's! It is irrelevant to Wikipedia. Everyone's opinion is equal. Don't use it in my title, where most others do. I know no more, no less than anyone else on the psychology topics. No individual's opinion matters any more or any less.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

No, that is not true. I was blocked because when I first joined Wikipedia, I broke the 3 revert rule, once. I then learnt from that block. Being blocked once should not be brought up again and again to abuse an editor? Surely?

On the Occupational health psychology page here is what was written in October 2013 and only recently revisited the article. Admittedly, after re-reading iss246's posting of his filthy, abusive defamation which remained on his talk page, my reaction to him personally came out a couple of days ago, and called him some names too. I realised straight away and apologised for my childish replies in self defence to iss246's long term abuse! We are all human. We all have a limit. No-oner stepped in and stopped iss246 from his abuse. Everyone saw his abuse. It has remained on his talk page for months.Mrm7171 (talk) 23:19, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to any administrator. I have stepped right back here. I have not reverted anyone's edits today and would not 'blindly revert' anyway, without discussing first. Iss246 is a very experienced editor, who clearly knows what three-revert rule (3RR) violations are. In fact, I posted a clear warning directly above, so there was absolutely no doubt. Further no experienced editors like Bilby have a thing to say about it, despite me asking for advice where to post this. Today, within a 12 hour period iss246 has engaged in continual blatant edit warring. Iss246 has reverted at least 7 of my good faith edits without a care for Wikipedia's strict policy applying to all editors not to cross the (3RR) line. I will not engage in edit warring, or be dragged into a continual edit war. I realize my own editing will also be assessed by an administrator. So be it. I accept whatever an administrator of Wikipedia decides to do here.Mrm7171 (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Why in the world did you post all this in the middle of my comment? That really confuses things. And if you can really "provide literally 100 examples of abuse toward [you]", well, let's see some examples. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, what a mess. I can certainly provide a lot of references. Just added one from today at the base of the page. If administrator wants examples give a day or two and I will collate them in a coherent manner. Thank you.Mrm7171 (talk) 04:01, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure what to do. Frankly, after looking over various talk pages I'm inclined to throw a block in the direction of MRM if only out of irritation over the caps, the bold, the odd insertions of comments, the aggressiveness, and that there's supposed to be a Ph.D. attached to all that yelling in somewhat sub-par language. Would an IBAN be helpful? I'd warn MRM for personal attacks and all that, but Iss has also called the other party a troll. I can't judge whether MRM's edit history warrants such an appellation, but the comments pertaining to Iss are certainly trollish. Drmies (talk) 03:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies for bolding. And using capitals the other day. Won't do that again. Just read this message.Did not know the policy on bolding either. Sincere apologies.Mrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I am at my wits end after being abused and attacked and accused by iss246 of everything under the sun. As a human, after a year of abuse, I got angry the other day. I am only human. An example just today is iss246 accusing me of not reading an article, that isi am lying. It has been endless. Here is his comments from only today.....

""Mrm7171 claimed to have read the article but never used the quote until I introduced the quote. This makes me suspect what he knows about the Everly article comes strictly from my writing about it.".... courtesy of iss246 only today!

I did not lie. I read the article. Why does iss246 have to accuse and insinuate and attack constantly. Then one day, I snap. And give hime some back, I'm going to be slapped with a barring or whatever? That would seem grossly unfairMrm7171 (talk) 03:50, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Off iss246 goes again on the base of the Talk:Health psychology all day. I cannot stop him attacking me, accusing me of bad faith. Twice today. I remain silent as I very often have. Cannot an administrator look iss246 personalizing, attacking, accusing constantly. Can he not just focus on editing? Can no-one stop him from doing this. Here is another example. I remain silent. As I mostly do, under his relentless attacks and personalizing instead of focusing on editing only. Please refer to today's accusations and personalizing, by iss246. Again apologies for 'cracking under this relentless personalization' and accusations of bad faith by iss246. I normally try and ignore his attacks and remain silent as Wikipedia recommends but this is ridiculous. We are all human. That is the only reason why I cracked the other day. Iss246 also avoids answering direct questions regarding actual editing. Talk:Health psychologyMrm7171 (talk) 05:48, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Given this is on the administrator's page here, can an administrator please go to the Talk:Health psychology and read all of the last day's rants by iss246. I just re-readit and feel like I need to respond to his false, baseless accusations. I refrain. I keep silent. What do you recommend? All day, iss246 has personalized, accused, attacked. Not focused on editing. I stay silent. What do you recommend. Can you warn him please. Can you ask him at the very least to stop this relentless, personalization and focus only on editing. Please!Mrm7171 (talk) 06:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, and probable socking by User:Clubintheclub

First as an IP, then as a just-created account, User:Clubintheclub has repeatedly added unproven allegations of misconduct to Woody Allen. The allegations are rather graphic, and are characterized as unproven. Despite the edits being rejected and removed by multiple editors, most frequently myself, generally as BLP violations, the editor keeps adding them back, and has violated 3RR. Comments on various talk pages show sufficient expertise with WP principles and policies to support the inference that this is a "bad hand" account of an experienced editor (and the "if you exclude my content you're violating NPOV" is a standard trope of BLP violators). Request block of this account. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Response from Club in the Club

I have requested mediation to solve this dispute (actually prior to your posting here. See the mediation page - you should have gotten a notification. You should try mediation before going to Administrator's noticeboard. Clubintheclub (talk) 17:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, I am a longtime lurker, new editor. Hope that we can resolve this amicably! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

BLP violations, edit warring, false accusations by User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has reported false allegations against me above after I tried to find a solution through mediation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has denied mediation. Summary of issue on the Woody Allen BLP can be found here Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Woody_Allen_-_violation_of_NPOV_and_BLP_by_user_Hullaballoo_Wolfowitz

Allegations against me for "socking" or "using multiple accounts" or being "a bad hand" are false and will be found to be true with any analysis of my usage patterns and IP.

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has also violated 3RR and NPOV editing and ignores the BLP guidelines. I request an investigation into this behavior and sanctions against the account should the administrators find my concerns valid. Additionally, I request dismissal of the report Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs) has made against me.

I apologize to the Admin who has to deal with this petty dispute. Again, I attempted mediation but all parties must agree. :-/

Clubintheclub (talk) 18:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

More info on the specific page edits can be found here Talk:Woody_Allen#Sexual_Abuse_Allegations Clubintheclub (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Clubintheclub, if you continue to edit-war to restore unproven court-rejected allegations to the Woody Allen article without absolute consensus that doing so is in compliance with BLP policy I will block you. I am completely uninvolved from an admin standpoint and your actions on the article so far are unacceptable. A block for Hullaballoo Wolfowitz is not going to happen as he was correct in removing the disputed and incredibly contentious material while it is under discussion. Do you not see the irony in starting a section here decrying "false allegations" against another editor while potentially adding your own in to the article of a living subject? --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• • Understood. If I understand you correctly, I should continue to promote discussion and come to a consensus in the talk page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clubintheclub (talk • contribs) 18:42, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• • • Yes. --John (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Note I've merged these complaints, warned Clubintheclub for 3RR and BLP, closed Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's ANEW thread and will "keep an eye" on the new user in case he/she needs further support. I invite an uninvolved admin to formally close this unless anyone thinks further immediate action is required. --John (talk) 22:08, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Gil Brendan D´Angels

Gil Brendan D´Angels (talk · contribs) Has persisted in posting various versions of what is either a hoax or a highly promotional autobiography in spite of repeated warnings and deletions. See the user's talk page and deleted contributions especially. There are zero helpful contributions. I would like support for an indefinite block as per WP:NOTHERE. DES ^(talk) 17:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure he'll get an indef because the last (not final) warning was given to him/her a few months ago. Also, other than the warnings, everything else listed on the talk page isn't in English, so it's a little difficult to understand exactly what is going on. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:40, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

If you look at his deleted contribs, you will see that this editor started by posting what was in form an article about himself (or someone of the same name as the user name at least), which if not a Hoax, would be highly promotional. It was deleted as a Hoax multiple times. Variant versions of this have been re-posted in several locations on multiple occasions. More recently, this editor has taken to posting what seems to be a longer version of this same text, but in Spanish. It is in any case, pretty clearly not an attempt to communicate with anyone at Wikipedia, and so does not belong on the user talk page. See [this edit to the user talk page, this edit to the sandbox and this recreation of the user page. DES ^(talk) 20:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Only admins can look at deleted contributions. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:44, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Continued violation of WP:Original research at List of metro systems

This article uses user-invented criteria to list metro systems, including arbitrary numbers with no direct, reliable source. An example of this is that a subway must have a headway of 10 minutes in order to be listed. While sources do mention "high fequency of service", they do not give a direct number that backs up this 10 min rule, hence making the invention of a 10 min rule a breach of WP:Original research. User:IJBall is continuously ignoring consensus held by other editors to remove this 10 min rule, and despite multiple warnings of violating WP:Original research, it has now come to a point where he is deliberately manipulating a reference to mislead others and suit his own need. It appears that discussion alone will not result in a consensus due to User:IJBall continuously violating WP:Original research. I request actions taken by an admin to deal with this user's non constructive behavior. Massyparcer (talk) 18:07, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Massyparcer, I have supplied multiple references, which you continue to ignore. I also have made no claim about keeping the specific "10 minute rule", just pointed out that, by reference, headway must be considered as a criteria. That is all. --IJBall (talk) 18:13, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Please do not make false accusations here please. I have not ignored the references but quoted all the information from the references to show that a 10 minute rule doesn't exist in the sources. High frequency of service must be considered but not by an arbitrary number invented by a Wiki user, which you have continued to claim out of nowhere in the talk page. WP:Original research makes it explicitly clear that "you must be able to cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented". Massyparcer (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

The "10 Minute Headway" number is derived from sources, which is the fact that you continue to ignore. But, at this point, I'll wait for a ruling on this from someone official looking at the transcripts. --IJBall (talk) 18:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Then put up a source here to prove your claim. This is the problem. You have never shown any source that mentions the 10 min rule directly and are continuing to invent an arbitrary number out of the air. At this point, you have declared on the talk page not to respond to me, which is not constructive. You need to talk with other editors, even if they disagree with you, to reach consensus. Massyparcer (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

TheRedPenOfDoom, tendentious editing and a free-pass to edit-war.

Twice in the last day I've had cause to post Red Pen at WP:ANEW. First related to Mr Whoppit, secondly to Hotel California (2013 film)

• WP:ANEW#User:TheRedPenOfDoom reported by User:Andy Dingley (Result: Declined)
• WP:ANEW#User:TheRedPenOfDoom_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_Mixture.29

Both of these were promptly closed by user:Bbb23, without the slightest comment to Red Pen. Although one editor was blocked for socking.

Taking the second, simpler, first, we have a slow pattern of 6 repeated blankings, questioning the validity of review sources for a cinema review. I make no comment on the content issue here, but we have strong policy here that whatever a content issue is, there are other more serious behavioural issues that we don't permit, because they otherwise make collegial editing impossible. Socking and edit-warring are just two of these. How clear does WP:EW make it? Even if you're right, don't edit-war to enforce that. Find another way.

One editor has been blocked for socking, because socking is bad, m'kay. Yet the edit-warring goes uncommented by the closing admin (although two other editors did advise against it). Bbb23 also saw fit to threaten me with a block for harassing Red Pen, yet reporting an editor for edit-warring over 6 repeated blankings (and I'm otherwise uninvolved in that article) is not harassment.

The Mr Whoppit AfD followed the usual cycle of blank/blank/PROD/AfD. At the time I posted that, I agree it wasn't 3RR, yet given Red Pen's behavioural track record it was a fair assumption that they weren't going to listen to any comment from other editors. Sure enough, they followed up with the AfD. Their rationales though are crap. The PROD "all the "sources" are of absolutely non reliable kind" ignores the long-establishing sourcing of two robust books and the Daily Telegraph as " absolutely non reliable". When raised at WP:RSN, where Red Pen has recently been castigating the Daily Mail (perhaps he's just confused between them?), this opinion gained no support whatsoever - although Red Pen has yet to comment there. The AfD rationale is that it fails GNG - a short article with twelve refs, three of them to rock-solid books and one to a national newspaper.

Now, whilst Mr Whoppit is at AfD, Red Pen has taken to blanking chunks of it and removing the sources, on the grounds that "flikr is not a reliable source". Yes, not all of the sources in this article do meet WP:RS. There is no requirement for them to do so. Some of them are there because they provide additional material that contributes to the article. Per WP:RS, the major points of this article (Campbell was a superstitious man who always carried his teddy bear mascot, the bear originated in a children's comic, the bear survives and its ownership has been a source of contention since) are all supported by sources that do meet WP:RS. There is no legitimate reason to start bulk-blanking such material or sources, especially not when an article is at AfD. Red Pen then continued to edit-war (after all, there are no sanctions against him when he does it 6 times, so what's 2?) to repeat this blanking instantly, undiscussed other than the edit summary "WHAT???? are you nuts?".

This is not a complaint about Mr Whoppit (whatever the AfD decides, I'm happy about that). This is a complaint about the long-term corrosive and toxic effects that Red Pen has on other editors, across a range of articles. He clearly has no interest in creating content, or in the wishes of those editors who do. Just look at the long-running saga at List of unusual deaths. Sometimes he may even be right to delete what he does, but his behaviour goes so far beyond that: he now sees his ego and opportunity to exercise privilege to enforce policy as absolutely outweighing the effects on others. An editor like that has gone beyond the bounds of a reasonable check on flakey content (that's a good thing, like spotting copyvios, we need people who do that) and has become destructive overall. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• More stalking, wikihounding and harassment by Andy Dingley, when they get into a disagreement with another user this is fairly standard tactics for him. Werieth (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• The picture of the bear at a funeral is patently as primary as sources get. I see nothing wrong with that removal. Mangoe (talk) 18:48, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

So what's the problem with the photo of the bear at the funeral, given that the Telegraph covers the same material of the feud between Gina and Tonia? The problem with primary sources isn't that we must avoid them because they're bad, it's because they're susceptible to misinterpretation. Where's the misinterpretation? If anyone wants additional sources, then that's a reasonable request, but Red Pen is just interested in blanking content when he can find an excuse, not so as to improve an article. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I want to correct some inaccuracies in Andy's report here. Andy: "Both of these were promptly closed by user:Bbb23, without the slightest comment to Red Pen. Although one editor was blocked for socking." The second report was not closed by me. EdJohnston and TRPoD agreed that TRPoD would not edit the article for seven days. After that I blocked the two named accounts and one IP TRPoD had been battling with. The two named accounts were confirmed socks, and the IP was part of it. I added comments about those blocks to the report.

In the first report, Andy wasn't really bringing up an edit warring problem. Instead, he was raising what he termed a "regular pattern of disruptive anti-consensus behaviour". AN3 is not intended for such reports. I declined it and said so.

The second report ticked me off, coming so soon on the heels of the first. However, Ed made a determination before I entered the picture. I have no quarrel with Ed's decision - never do, actually. But that doesn't mean that both reports weren't filed in bad faith by Andy under the guise of "simply reporting edit warring". In neither case did TRPoD violate WP:3RR. In the first case he wasn't even edit warring. Plus, as I said at AN3, Andy's comments demonstrate the pretextual nature of the reports. They're nasty and vindictive.

The only good thing to come out of all this is at least Andy finally took my advice and took his issues here. I'll let others review the merits of his allegations against TRPoD.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:53, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

In the second ANEW, you describe Red Pen and his six blankings as, "more interested in improving Wikipedia than you are." Why are you even looking at ANEW if you see sixfold edit-warring as such a non-issue? Editors do not get to ignore SOCK or EW, just because one might happen to agree with their content position. One editor was socking to impose a position, the other was edit-warring to do so. Why do we block one for a month (first block!), yet let the other off? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

You need to familiarize yourself more with the sock puppet policy and practice. If you understood it better, you wouldn't say such things. In my view, the sock puppetry leapt off the page even without a CU confirmation. I'm surprised TRPoD didn't claim it as an exemption to reverting. TRPoD didn't do "blankings". He removed material that not only on its face was disruptive but was poorly crafted, some unsourced, and some unreliably sourced (see [86]). Now, that kind of revert is not exempt, but your calling them "blankings" makes him sound like a vandal and again confirms my suspicions about your motives.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Your closing of the ANEW

What part of sockpuppetry do you claim I don't understand? I don't claim that wasn't, nor do I see the blocking as inappropriate. As you state yourself re Red Pen, "that kind of revert is not exempt", so just what is your point here? By "blanking" of course I mean rendering large sections of an article to no longer be present. I stand by that. The link you cite as justifying Red Pen is from October,, and plays no part in any of the ANEW. Why do you mention it? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't a "closing". Administrators make determinations at AN3. In this instance, Ed made the determination. I simply noted after the fact that editors were blocked for sock puppetry and put a result in the header. I often put results in headers even when I play no part in the report. It's easier to see in the TOC what reports have been completed.

You described the month-long block of the sock master as a "first block" - give me a break.

The October diff is, I believe, where it all started and formed the dispute of the more recent reverts (see, e.g., [87]).

I may not respond to you again. Your comments are grossly misleading, and it takes too much of my time to correct them.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:45, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Would have to agree, Andy often does make grossly misleading comments. Werieth (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Sockmaster's block log One entry. Justified, but it's still their "first" block. For that to be a month indicates the seriousness with which we regard socking. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:50, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

it's the "first" block for the currently identified sock master of these three DUCK socks, but as Bbb23 and @Cmr08: point out, there is likely another sockmaster in the background other than just these 3. There's plenty of blocked fanboiz in the Bollywood article space and I didnt see any "tells" that I could specifically link to one of them so I didnt make any accusations. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:57, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• Pasting this here, from my talk:

Policy

Regarding your edit summary " There is no policy that all sources must meet WP:RS", you are entirely incorrect. The policy WP:V ,subsection BURDEN clearly states "Attribute all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed. ... The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material.

The fact that you are apparently so oblivious to one of the 3 core content policies is quite shocking.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

RedPen is removing non-RS sources from Mr Whoppit on the basis that they are not RS. There is no policy reason to do this.

Our policy is not simply "we must have RS ab initio", but it is that "All claims must be backed up by RS".

In practice, we usually allow minor claims to remain unverified, but tag them with {{cn}} and may sweep the lot up from time to time. Major or BLP claims, we do not. This is a pragmatic approach to WP:IMPERFECT, rather than any rejection of WP:BURDEN.

Note the difference in implication here: We can use a non-RS whenever we wish, but we cannot solely rely upon it. Provided that the key claims are supported (and by RS, such as the Daily Telegraph), there is no limitation on additional non-RS material (such as the Flickr photo) being used in addition). Red Pen disagrees. His editing history (almost entirely one of deletion) is based on simplistic removal of non-RS sources, whether they are being relied upon or not. Also (as here), he's quite willing to blank sections of content if they are tainted by the non-RS, even if existing RS also support them. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

MrCellular edit war and incivility

• MrCellular (talk · contribs · count)

Incited an edit war on Nokia Lumia 2520 by constantly re-introducing table of individual models and network compatibility (it is unclear whether there is consensus for their inclusion), used incivil edit summary "What's wrong with you?" on most recent revert that attempted to express the same information in a more fluent format. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) ViperSnake, he is in the edit war with you, so I'm not really sure it was right for you to warn him when you're doing the same thing (although I do admit that that final edit summary was a little uncalled-for). I have no opinion on the matter itself, but there is absolutely no discussion about it (or anything else, for that matter) on the article's talk page, so you should start from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:38, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

COI on the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Hello. I've been pointed here after asking the lovely IronGargoyle for advice on an issue that's been bugging me. Since I already summed up the issue when I asked him, I'll just be so bold as to quote it here:

Hello there. I have a question on how to process with something that's been bugging me for a couple of days now. Seeing as I'm not sure on where to ask (my issue doesn't seem to meet RFC/U requirements), and I've seen you being active (read: being faster reverting in Huggle than I was), I thought I'd ask you.

Here's a quick outline of my situation:

About two weeks ago, there was a user named Animalgatekeeper who was valiantly removing content from the RSPCA page, despite being reverted many times by various users. After he was finally blocked, I got an e-mail from the user through the Wiki, in which the user claimed to be the Head of Communications at the RSPCA. After discussing with the folks on IRC about the possibility of a fake, and verifying that there really is a person with that name and position at the company, I decided to give it a go and replied to the e-mail. It turns out that this person was indeed who he claimed he is. In the e-mail, I tried to explain to him what he did wrong and how he should proceed instead to the best of my knowledge. He seemed to understand what the issue was, and I figured the issue over. (PS: I uploaded a copy of the e-mail exchange here) However, a couple of days ago, out of curiousity, I checked up on the RSPCA page.

In the meantime, there seem to have been various edits done by two similarily named users, AdamB21 and RichB6. These two users seem to be desperate trying to mend some of the criticism in the article. A lot of the edits seem rather dubious to me. However, my entire "life" on Wikipedia is being a gnome, really, and I feel very insecure when it comes to editing of any kind.

For that very reason, I wanted to look for outside help.

What would you say the right course of action from here would be?

PS: If you can't be bothered, which I'd fully understand of course, I'd greatly appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction on where to ask. :-)

In any case, thanks a lot. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 16:29, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Now, I don't know if this is all just in my head. But maybe it's not, so I'd be grateful for some input about this. It doesn't seem far-fetched that this may well have been the same person.

Now, as mentioned to IronGargoyle, I'm more of a casual Huggler. If you folks were to decide that this is something worth looking into, I'm happily willing to participate of course (e.g. make the SPI or something like that), but if anyone is willing to take over, that would be good as well. Thanks & cheers. ~ | twsx | ^talk_cont | ~ 21:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

We have an WP:OTRS system where someone can "prove" their identity, however, that still does not give them "ownership over the article - they still have to edit as per WP:COI. Indeed, Jimbo himself has stated that those with COI should not edit the article directly, but propose changes on the article talkpage to gain new consensus ES&L 09:51, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Australia national association football team‎

Could an admin please step in to restore some sanity at this article. There have been two move requests in the past six weeks, both of which failed. The proposers of the move claim the article title is an NPOV violation, but they have not gained sufficient support for this position. Unfortunately, two editors have continued tagging the article with an NPOV tag after the discussion was closed, despite the failure of the proposal (WP:FLOG). Due to the extremely unpleasant atmosphere created in the debate by the proposers of the move (basically accusing anyone opposing the proposal as being chauvinist/sexist/misogynist - which has continued in the discussion on the NPOV tag), I have no desire to continue to interact with the editors involved, but someone needs to put their foot down to stop the madness. Thanks Number 57 22:20, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

I am looking at it now. Please join me in article talk and we will try to thrash it out. --John (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

User:Badmintonhist again

Badmintonhist has been engaging in uncivil behavior, name calling, personal attacks, and not assuming good faith on Talk:War on Women (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and (the reason I decided to make this post) 6). Specifically, he has yet again targeted Roscelese, telling BullRangifer to resign, and general hostility toward Binksternet and others. Because of this user's multiple past infractions and warnings, and being the subject of noticeboard posts for stalking/hounding behavior targeting Roscelese (1, 2) and general incivility/attacks on talk pages (1) I feel it necessary to report the current behavior. Badmintonhist has been given multiple warnings over 4 years and still continues to violate the conduct guidelines of Wikipedia. Moreover, he has repeatedly attacked and harassed another user despite "final warnings".

Given the history of this user and their recidivism, I'd like to see a subject ban from all political articles and a "no contact" with Roscelese policy enforced (if that is what Roscelese wants) with violations resulting in blocking. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:54, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

• Badmintonhist continued following me after the supposed "final" warning, so I obviously would be very happy with an interaction ban or a block. The community can decide whether or not to ban him from political articles, but at the very least, he should be banned from War on Women and its talkpage, where he's been admonished repeatedly for wasting everyone's time. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:55, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Badmintonhist has been continually disruptive at Talk:War on Women, and in the article space. At minimum, an article and talk page ban should be set in place. Of course, the violations of IBAN with Roscelese should be dealt with. Binksternet (talk) 08:09, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

So admins, how should this particular case of harassment be dealt with? He's had his warnings and ignored them. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Roscelese, would you be able to supply diffs, please? StAnselm (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Er, well, he was even blocked for continuing to follow me after the final warning, and then still did it again anyway (I don't remember if there's even more; as you may guess, it's been a busy few months for me and it wouldn't have surprised me if I just stopped bothering to warn after the admins' failure to enforce). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment) Sheesh, is there a kennel for this hound? I'm really sensing some WP:NOTHERE because s/he has continued the very behavior that s/he was blocked for at a faster (and more alarming rate). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:36, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

• This is a unfortunate because I've seen Badmintonhist contribute productively to discussions, for example at Focus on the Family where he calmly debates content issues and frequently persuades editors to consider other points of view. However, War on Women has apparently put a bee in his bonnet. He seems to be too invested in the subject to contribute dispassionately. He has repeated the same arguments ad nauseum and refuses to accept the scope of the article that has been established through consensus. His participation sometimes degrades into snarkiness, for example, "How's your eyesight?". It's obvious that Badmintonhist has contempt for Roscelese. Perhaps this could be addressed by a two way prohibition preventing both users from replying to or referring to the other on any article talk page. I don't think that an interaction ban should prevent either editor from editing the same articles, with the exception of War on women.- MrX 15:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1: topic ban

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

---

I propose that Badmintonist be permanently banned from War on Women, including the talk page and any meta discussions about the article.

• Support as nominator, for reasons explained above.- MrX 15:07, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

  Well let's see ol' Binksternet said that I didn't give an "actionable" problem with the article when I restored a template, which I clearly did; so the "how's you eyesight" query, while snarky, wasn't all that unreasonable. My "Resign" plea to BullRangifer was less than serious, and we've had a pleasant chat on his talk page since then. I say "half" because, if you care to notice, he had just engaged in one of his signature "If you don't agree with me, you're not fit to be a true Wikipedian" routines prior to my comment. Roscelese, who hadn't been around much, managed to chime in with a pointless "green spotted flying frogs" hypothetical as if it were somehow analogous to mine, so reminding her of her own ideological contentiousness, which FAR outstrips mine, is at least understandable. All in all, I'd say that I'm being indicted here for giving back as good, and sometimes perhaps better, than I got. Badmintonhist (talk) 15:56, 10 January 2014 (UTC) : Sorry.That was supposed to br "flying spotted green mice."

• Support ban on the topic of the US Republican War on Women, and any other instance of the phrase "war on women". Badmintonhist has been trying to water down the article and diffuse its focus, resorting to disruptive posts and repeated arguments when consensus is already clear. Binksternet (talk) 16:14, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Declaration that I am not an uninvolved editor. As far as article edits, I haven't seen much of an issue with Badminthonhist beyond the normal disputes that arise on a contentious article. On the discussion page, points made tend to offer opinions shared by other editors. What I think has other editors stressed is the persistence on issues when discussion seems worn out and circular - emotions are high and there is certainly some boomerang. While not clear, the !vote is leaning toward no changes, leaving the underlining issue for Badmintonhist unresolved. In an effort to change the consensus, I think he/she tried to present the discussion in a different context / role reversal and it ended up getting personal as other editors saw it as WP:IDHT. I'd say to Badmintonhist, you fought the good fight - let it go. If the discussion can move on from this topic, I think attitudes will settle down and we can work at improving the article within its current scope. Morphh ^(talk) 17:01, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose This is little more than ideological sniping in order to try and get rid of someone they don't like. Arzel (talk) 16:29, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Having a POV is okay, but pushing that POV to the point it affects editing is not okay. RS determine our content, not our political POV. The added fact that an even worse POV warrior like Arzel supports him does not help the matter at all. They should both be topic banned from all political articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban per original post. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per evidence and MrX. Sportfan5000 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I've never heard of this editor before, and am uninvolved in the article. Looking at this editor's block log, I see only one block, which was for a week several months ago. Assuming that he's the scoundrel portrayed here in this thread, I would recommend either a total block for one month, or a one-month topic-ban from this article. In other words, let's impose graduated penalties, and reserve the most severe stuff as a last resort.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban. Badmintonhist has repeatedly demonstrated an unwillingness to engage civilly on this article, often holding fellow editors in apparent contempt and refusing to acknowledge consensus. Gobōnobō ^{+ c} 20:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Draconian solutions rarely work, and there is too great a chance that the editors on WOW will simply wish to remove editors who disagree with them, or retain editors who agree with them .. anyone closing this should discount such !votes from editors active on that page. Collect (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, per Arzel and Collect. And, BS articles like "War on Women" should be free-fire zones where anything goes—it's the culture war, stupid! --71.178.50.222 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

^WP:NOTHERE EvergreenFir (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While I find editors that push a conservative agenda every bit as troubling as those pushing a liberal agenda (even though there's far more of the latter), that article is full of problems (starting with the fact that it's titled "War on Women") and desperately needs a dissenter. Joefromrandb (talk) 20:34, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per above & MrX, User wont engage in a civil discussion whatsoever so topic ban is IMHO the best solution!. -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, enough is enough. Cavarrone 06:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposal 2: no-contact order

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

---

I propose Badmintonhist be barred from contacting or talking to/about Roscelese. In other words, a zero-tolerance, zero-strike no contact order.

• Support (if not punished for most recent infraction) as nominator per original explanation at top of topic. User has clear history of hounding Roscelese. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:50, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per WP:HOUND, WP:NOTHERE, WP:POINT, WP:IDHT; take your pick. (BTW, Arzel, I personally think this would be people trying to get rid of someone they didn't like only if Roscelese or Bullrangifer made the proposal.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:16, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I assume the proposal is simply a one-way interaction ban. But at this point, I can't see any diffs posted regarding personal attacks/hounding Roscelese since July 2013, when he was issued a final warning. StAnselm (talk) 08:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• See the links 2 and 6 in the original post (or read that talk page). Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support (Note: I issued the original warning). Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the expectation that Roscelese will also not engage Badmintonhist. There is a troubling history of vitriol directed at Roscelese by Badmintonhist. Warnings and a block have not had the desired effect as evidenced by the latest interaction.- MrX 14:27, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose at this point. Badmintonhist was warned in July and blocked in August for harassment, and that has no place on wikipedia. I think wikipedia's biggest weakness is that we let editors get away with personal attacks. Any evidence of recent personal attacks or harassment would make me support this one-way interaction ban. However, at this stage the only diffs presented ([88][89]) are not really enough - especially if this is the only stuff that Badmintonhist has said to or about Roscelese since August. If it isn't, we need some more diffs, please. StAnselm (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support per comments and evidence above. People can disagree on subjects without abusing others. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Too many here look like combatants and not like editors who follow WP:AGF. Cheers. Collect (talk) 03:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support. This user has been warned about this matter before in previous ANI discussions. It's time to start exploring solutions beyond scolding. Gamaliel (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Suggest Roscelese stop editing in a manner that irritates or provokes Badmintonhist. --71.178.50.222 (talk) 06:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

^That's victim-blaming and utterly insulting. EvergreenFir (talk) 20:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Don't claim to be able to read ol' 71.178.50.222's mind here, but maybe he sees poor, kindly, affable Badmintonhist as the victim of a "fighting word's" comment directed toward someone that Roscelese would presumably stay away from. Badmintonhist (talk) 21:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I've restored this discussion from the archive. Participation has been far to broad to archive without closing, and there seems to be consensus for some sort of action. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually I fail to see any "consensus for some sort of action" above. It had been properly archived, but let's see if a consensus actually emerges from this. I doubt it though. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

• Support per Gamaliel, -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 04:29, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support, enough is enough. Cavarrone 06:22, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
• Support - Per Gamaliel, and suggest any further violations result in an indef block. And the archiving strikes me as improper, as well. I see substantial support here. Jusdafax 07:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

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

This could do with closing

There clearly isn't any sort of consensus on a topic ban from War On Women, but I think there is on an interaction/contact ban with Roscelese. As we have seen in the past, since Badmintonhist has not heeded previous warnings on this subject, this is probably the best way to avoid using blocks. Black Kite (talk) 10:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Blocking or warning an editor

Please take a look at the discussion between me and another editor on Rebecca Chamberlain. Firstly, this editor completely ignores some of my queries when I answer all of hers and she's particularly aggressive: Tells me to follow rules that she doesn't herself, and runs on with commentary before I've even finished editing. But mostly I'm annoyed because after giving me a list of where citations were needed, she comes up with another list. Can editors even do this?! I don't think Jeff Koons or Richard Serra's articles have warranted this much referencing. thank you--Aichik (talk) 23:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure if the disagreement warrants a block, but I listed the situation at WP:3. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have added comments to the article talk page about what I think happened.

In the meantime Aichik has tagged two articles I worked on sometime ago: The Guild of Boston Artists article with a "Refimprove" tag, when there were no missing citations. Farmhouse in Provence was also tagged. This may have been a misunderstanding. The citation was placed at the end of a list of bullets, which the user may have thought meant that only that sentence. There was one sentence that included the source in the sentence - and I formatted that into a citation. I posted a warning on her talk page about the non-constructive tagging of the Boston Guild article and a likely misunderstanding for Farmhouse in Provence at User talk:Aichik#January 2014. --CaroleHenson (talk) 05:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Self-report, outing

Per this page's editnotice, please do not bring outing-related issues here. Mark Arsten (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I put together an SPI which is now archived at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Thekohser/Archive#04_January_2014. A lot of the activity of this sockpuppeting was at Talk:Jimbo Wales (I, Jimbo and others were involved with discussions with these sockpuppets there), so I reported the results at the talk [90]. My last comment in particular was very misleading, as it was widely understood to mean something about workplace impropriety, which was not what I meant (I tried to clarify the statement: [91]). I've removed my misleading remarks, but there is the opinion that I broke policy and outed someone [92]. I never meant to do this and at first I was sure that this is not what I had done (I thought I was just reporting the sockpuppeting and COI-editing activities that happened to involve IPs, and the context), but now I'm not so sure, and I think I may have done something wrong, because of the response. I just wanted to post this here so that an admin can revdelete any outing, and explain to me where exactly I went wrong, and take voluntarily whatever admonishment is required . --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 23:59, 15 January 2014 (UTC) If you are concerned about possible outing, you need to report it in private and discuss it with them, also, in private. All your doing at ANI is bringing more attention to what should be a private matter.--v/r - TP 04:31, 16 January 2014 (UTC) I just think linking IPs with their workplace and broadcasting it to a wide audience is not a very fair tactic even when they are doing something we think is against policy. It runs a real risk of someone taking the accusation for action and notifying their employer. This transfers small "p" wiki politics into someone's real life and could seriously hurt them. Moreover, when you step away from the individual case there is still a knock-on effect of chilling IPs from editing for fear of real world reprisal. Sure the IP could create an account to avoid this issue but the WMF strongly supports anonymous editing as a first principle. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:53, 16 January 2014 (UTC)