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

Ihardlythinkso blanking articles in order to make a point

Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Ihardlythinkso has been blanking and disrupting articles he has contributed to in order to make a point. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]

A number of editors have discussed this issue with him, but he hasn't stopped. I brought it up on his talk page, here, and got quite a response back. His posts to other users, such as Quale, have recently been way over the NPA line.

• "shut your fucking stupid baselessly condemning mouth."
• "fuck off, Quale"
• "(I don't ever expect apology from that SOB.)"

His response to me was, frankly, even worse.

I think a block for disruption and personal attacks is, unfortunately, warranted in order to prevent this sort of editing from continuing.   — Jess· Δ♥ 00:00, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• Edit summaries like this [9] show he is trying to WP:OWN the article (or at least his contributions), but my guess it is spite more than anything. He can be blunt, but he isn't dumb and he knows he can't just remove his contributions to the articles. The third pillar makes that abundantly clear, as does the CC-BY-SA license he released the contribs under. He and I have bumped heads a few times, so I'm not inclined to get involved with dishing out sanctions myself, but an explanation from him is certainly due. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

"Blanking articles" is what vandals do, and I am no vandal. I have three (3) orthochess articles to my name, and any blanking was in error and corrected by me already. I did remove content contributions made by me in those three. On Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening, I removed my copyedits. (I have my own reasons, they have nothing to do with "proving a point", or "creating disruption", so you have no basis to assign those as intention as you have -- that's false, and springs from bad-faith. What readers of this ANI don't know and can't empathize with, is the way I've been treated by editors like yourself, User:MaxBrowne, User:ChessplayerLev (but that was a long time ago, but he never apologized for the bogus ANI and falsifications made then and attempt to get me blocked or banned, as you are doing), all supported indirectly by defacto project lead User:Quale, who has only disparaging accuses and false blames for me, and compliments to those who would attack and attempt to smear. (It's not very pleasant. There is only so much unfair treatment and bullying incivilities a person can take. That limit was pushed over me recently.) I won't be editing orthochess articles any more, as a result, I won't be able to return to project articles I've touched, to touch them again after having improved my editing skills. (Articles I've copyedited when I began here freak me out, how embarassingly poor my writing editing skills were then, and I've drawn the conclusion my skills will probably continue to increase over time, to the point where edits I think I'm pround of today will make me cringe in embarrassment again in future when I see them. I don't want those edits hanging around as permanent monuments to my mediocre skill as editor at that time. I can't return to ProjChess due to chronic maltreatment and prejudice by Quale to disparage me, and compliment those who would attack me. All of that is true for anyone doing the research. But ANIs are burning stakes, aren't they. (No time for digging the truth. Hang'em high!) I believe this ANI is nothing but the OP's assertion of continued conflict-dominance clashes with me at article Antichess and article Checkmate, and if true, a means to harass and misuse process. (Why does he care? No reason other than that. Oneupmanship. Need to assert superiority over another editor he's been in dispute with.)

The issue here is whether an editor has the right or not to remove their own copyedits from an article. If it can be done without disturbing other editors' contributions, then why should it be denied? Edit reverts are the same thing: an editor has changed their mind on leaving her/his edit in the article. So I have changed my mind on Elephant Gambit and Reti Opening. I have my reasons, they have been partially explained -- enough to know accusations of valdalism are wholly untrue and bad-faith by an editor who I've had content clashes with. p.s. In each case of clashes with the OP, I've withdrawn from said Talks to avoid drama with him. He's too aggressive and unstoppable IMO, and objective discussion isn't in the cards with him -- only forcing his way, and "winning". I've avoided him therefore, now he comes to my Talk to unfairly accuse, and open this ANI as further contesting with me for whatever motive. I suspect the motive has nothing to do with the health of the encyclopedia, but rather interpersonal conflict he revels in. I'd like someone to tell him to leave me be. I've loved Wikipedia and contributing to orthodox chess articles. But the hostility, false blames, attempts to smear and defame, have made the "collaborative editing environment" a joke of inhospitable abusiveness in my perspective. (Just symptomatic of the wider rampant incivilities and lies told and smears conducted against editors generally -- a civility problem WP has no answer for, but has become the encrusted cultural fact here long before I signed up as editor. I simply don't want to be a part of it.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

p.s. Dennis Brown's speculation of "ownership" is not correct. I wanted to remove my copyedits, and the example where User:MaxBrowne was excused for doing this at Chess.com by another editor, that he had the right to do so, was basis for me to believe or offer, that I have a right to undo my edits if I want. Nothing more. I have no desire to break any rule.

Myself, I am not the slightest bit convinced of the sincerity of your argument. But putting that aside and responding to your question, there is no rule against reverting your copyedits. However, once you make an edit here, you release your contributions to CC-BY-SA and have no right to deny the restoration of those very same edits. Others clearly feel the content is beneficial to the article. You have no right to remove it without building a consensus for removal. Resolute 01:14, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

My take on this is that Ihardlythinkso is always sincere. I'm not saying that he is always right. Cardamon (talk) 22:45, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, thanks for that answer. To clarify, I didn't assert at any time I had right to deny restoration. (I didn't know.) I asked an editor to not restore, that I preferred no restoration (and explained why). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

At least twice you told editors to not revert a revert, with one of them telling the editor to go read policy and the other telling the editor they were in violation of policy. [10] and [11] So you were asserting that readding the material was against policy. GB fan 01:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

That's misleading. I was telling that editor that his revert of my revert was out-of-order. (The edit-warring template itself says to not revert a second time, "even if you believe you are right".) That discussion issue was over BRD versus BRRD, and whether his or my revert was the "B". So that is entirely a different issue than if I do or don't have right to deny (ultimate) restoration. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:11, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

This is classic narcissist / Diva behaviour. When Kkj11210 (talk · contribs), a mature and polite editor, tried to discuss the blanking of the chess articles, IHTS immediately launched into a bullying ad hominem based on KJ's youth. I am also fed up with having my name constantly brought up in the process of attacking other editors over incidents that had nothing to do with me. I honestly have tried to have as little as possible to do with this editor lately, but his recent editing has been extremely disruptive. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:21, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Cesspool stuff, MaxBrowne. (As long as you feel free coming to the ANI cesspool to accuse of narcissism and disingenuousness, according to your need to falsely accuse and smear, do I in turn get to tell you that your behavior is that of an unethical cheat? Underhanded sleaziness? Do you want to throw more insults and buy the house some popcorn? This is your element, isn't it? Cesspool. Mud. Happy as a pig in mud you are!) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Please take a break. After a day or two think about whether you want to continue editing here, and imagine how much more pleasant it would be if you and other editors could be nice to each other. Jehochman ^Talk 02:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, he's taking a break whether he wanted to or not, as the above came after my having warned him not to continue with personal attacks; accordingly I've blocked Ihardlythinkso for 24 hours. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:41, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about what happened in discussions concerning the Chess articles in the past, but I can only give my views regarding what I've observed in the last few days. From my take on the issue, it looks like user Ihardlythinkso believes that he has been subject to personal attacks in the past and that a number of editors are against his good-faith efforts to improve Chess-related articles. In response, he has been removing his early (and apparently bad-quality) additions while believing that such removals are beneficial to the articles. I didn't accuse him of WP:OWN since I was being WP:CIVIL, but I do believe that he was acting without awareness of WP:OWN. After the expiration of the block, I think that a discussion attempting to put behind past events, as well as a good dose of WP:AGF, will be adequate to resolve the conflict. KJ ^{click here} 05:25, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ihardlythinkso has been editing for far too long and been embroiled in enough disputes to plead ignorance of WP:OWN or do edits like this. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

His responses on his talk page to my trying to explain why he was blocked are disturbing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Who's conduct I think is "disturbing" is yours, Bushranger. (Turning good-faith Qs of you, instead of according to your responsibilities re WP:ADMINACCT, into some kind of lecturing, shaming, baiting fest.) You obfuscated in every conceivable way and for as long as you could, to dodge answering two simple and clear Qs. (Until I had no choice but to give up.) Now you attempt to take credit for something not due you. I call that dishonest. You really take the cake. But somehow I think you don't care. (Is that because you're admin and see yourself invulnerable? My third Q also went unanswered: What are your recall parameters?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your questions regarding the block were answered immediately; whether you overlooked them accidentally or otherwise is something I cannot help. What you call "lecturing, shaming, baiting" was an attempt to point out how your conduct is unacceptable for a Wikipedia contributor; again, if you refuse to listen I cannot help that. As for recall parameters, they involve something that you have proven incapable of extending: good faith. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That makes no sense. (If my Q about the block was answered immediately, then why didn't you say so when I continued to ask the same Q several times, and complain to you that I'd not received any answer from you? Your RfA Opposes pointed out sarcasm and/or a pattern of your giving "silent responses", in the form of a complaint in that RfA about your behavior. I see now you haven't lifted even a little finger to make any corrective changes in that behavior, based just on what you've said above. Not good.) You have no right to lecture me, attempt to shame, condescend me at my Talk, when I was merely trying to get understanding of your POV for the block. You think you have the right to soapbox and lecture me regarding civil behavior? Boo to that. If we had a forum to discuss, and a moderator to keep our discussion reasonable, I can perhaps name at least a half dozen personal attacks and personal slights you made at my Talk. You have no right to do that to a good-faith editor trying to get basic info from you about the block you executed. That's bullying behavior, and abusive as well. I think you are not fit to be an admin.) About IDHT, sorry but my view is a competing one. It's you that consistently displayed IDHT, not me. And about your good-faith criticisms, just like the block you made, how can I appeal or address, when I don't even know what the hell it is you're talking about and your issues of concern have never been presented to me in any comprehensible or digestible way? In any event, though I'd love to discuss that with you, that will be impossible, because I'd require as mentioned a space to do it in, plus a moderator to regulate your manipulative and obfuscating communications. Another reason it won't happen too, is that the topic that caused the ANI was Mann jess's efforts to warn me from reverting my edits from articles, and when I didn't heed his warning, he immediately opened this ANI for purpose to stop said reverts. Now in manipulative fashion you seem to be re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI to some never-defined "bad-faith" issue of your concern. Sorry but I was having no luck even getting a square answer from you about the specific reason you blocked me, let alone all of the abuse you have decided amongst yourself that I must suffer from your mouth. Does not compute. Another reason no discussion of your issues will be conducted, not only because of the lack of feature here to provide a space for said discussion, and a moderator to keep orderly, but I'm finding it personally soiling to have any contact or interfaces with you whatever. That said, I wish you would get the fuck off my back and stop your irrational baits. I've already told you I think you're a disgrace as an admin; you aren't changing my opinion by your further lectures and condescensions. What do you hope to gain here? (Get me riled so I say something off-the-cuff whereby you have another crack at blocking me? For a longer duration?) Pathetic. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear: you got a specific answer after you asked what the specific PA you had been blocked for was, where I said "you posted this over an hour after you were warned", with "this" being linked to your specific post that caused the block; and it was made within an hour after you requested an explanation. I find it honestly perplexing that you're accusing me of "re-drawing the essential purpose of this ANI" when my comment regarding good faith was in direct answer to your question. I have answered your questions clearly and concisely, only not answering them promptly when the questions were accompanied by (yet another set of) personal attacks against other editors. However, your conduct in response, both on your talk page and here, has been a sea of invective and personal attacks, including but not limited to comparing me to Mexican immigrant traffickers. From your pattern of commentary it's clear that you immediately assumed bad faith on my part, and decided to remain in that position regardless of any attempted explanation, instead deciding that any attempts at speaking plainly and clearly about the issue must be abuse, and progressively escalating invective in response to each attempt to explain the situation - and its consequences for you. Accordingly, I regret to say I can provide no further assistiance in trying to help you to remain a productive member of the Wikipedia community, which is what I have been trying to do all along, and instead will leave you with the same advice I gave another editor below on this page: when you find yourself in a hole, continuing to dig can only have one result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Bushranger, I put in good-faith effort to learn the specifics of my block with you, and it was impossible to get any answers from you (you wouldn't give them, only lectures, condesensions, insults, attacks). At that point I gave up trying to communicate with you on the normal reasonable basis I give to everyone equally out of respect, until an editor shows me by their behavior and responses that I can on longer do that in good-faith. (In other words, you lost good-faith from me back at my Talk. I'm no longer entertaining anything you write to my attention with the usual good-faith care I give any and all editors. You lost that respect a long time ago, and I told you specifically the same thing on my Talk a long time ago. Now you are parading a paragraph to my attention, as though I care, and as though a communication link of question/response exists between us in good-faith, which it doesn't, and hasn't for some time. I've wasted enough time trying in good-faith with you. You didn't even give me the courtesy to understand the specifics of my block, before appeal time expired. That should have been priority with you, after blocking someone. Now you give excuses that you were busy or something, but that is BS Bushranger -- you are admin, and if you make a block, you should address the blockee if he is asking to understand for what exactly, when she/he asks. So I'm not buying your "I was busy". That is completely inexcusable given the power of block and role as admin at WP:ADMINACCT. The possibility of one-to-one communication with you broke down totally at my Talk as mentioned, and any pretense to others on this board that a conversation is still going on, or can go on between us over specifics of the block, or related Q/A, is just not the case. I've told you numerous times already that I wouldn't entertain any interface with you again, unless there's a moderator to control discussion, and a place to conduct said discussion. And you accuse me of IDHT???? I'm not interested in anything you have to say or accuse, without a moderator and a discussion room, Bushranger. I've found your argument & discussion style to be exceedingly manipulative and obfuscating, and I won't attempt to deal with that again, on my own. Now I've told you that perhaps more than a few times. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

"Busy or something"? "I was busy"? That proves that either you absolutely did not read my comment or are deliberately ignoring it, as I made no such statements and implied no such thing. At all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• So, while "classic narcissist / Diva behaviour" is just calling a spade a spade (as claimed on IHTS's talk page), "Cesspool stuff." is a personal attack warranting a block? Is this one of those Wikipedia April Fools' Day things? NE Ent 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Cesspool stuff" was not a personal attack. However calling somebody "an unethical cheat" who is engaging in "underhanded sleaziness" is, and when the person making those statements has previously been warned that any further personal attacks will result in a block, they get blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 12:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not directly call MaxBrowne those names. I was being rhetorical. He personally attacked me with "classic narcissist", which is pretty vicious and lewd and no editor should have to endure such an attack as that, and I came back to him with, essentially an argument: is that what he wants to do here? call names? does he want a name-calling fest? like me calling him [those names]? is that what he wants? I was clearly trying to shame him for opening up name-calling, since it isn't logical, it isn't appropriate, it isn't helpful, in descends to the lowest-common denominator. So just like Basalisk did on my Talk, you pick up on that and use it as an excuse to block based on a civility infraction. His attack was clear, mine reply was not a direct attack, it was rhetorical, I could have said "do I get to call you Frankenstein's butt now?" or any other thing, it didn't really matter. I did not want to PA him, he clearly wanted (and did) PA me. (That said, why didn't you warn him? If you had warned him, perhaps I wouldn't have needed to throw out the rhetorical stuff to try an deter him. But you didn't warn him. You warned me. And I did not see your warning, I was unaware of it because I was busy responding to the ANI, and not going to my Talk.) The fact that you excused MaxBrowne from the PA "classic narcissist" by telling me on omy Talk that it wasn't a PA because he was just calling a "spade a spade", is the same as you making the same PA against me, Mr. Administrator, and that is not only unbecoming but I think is de-sysop worthy, since you should and do know better than that. But you likely won't be de-sysop'd for that, since admins seldom lose their tools and you know that. So you take pot shots at me by reinforcing the "classic narcissism" PA, because you can get away with it. That's just plain abuse. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 03:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Come on NE Ent, don't employ tunnel vision over this. There are plenty of diffs provided in this discussion of personal attacks from IHTS, from both before and after the warning, and frankly it's not the first time this guy has sailed close to a WP:NPA block [12] Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 10:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk, ever since I criticized the editor who was your nominator at your successful RfA, you have gone out of your way to insert yourself in my wiki-life, and try and trick and trap me into a block. (For example, it is a fact that an admin called me a "mother-fucking asshole" in an Email, and upon knowing that, you went to my Talk and asked for the Email to be revealed at my Talk, knowing full well had I done that, it would have been an outing and an immediate sanction imposed on me.) I can diff several other of your posts where you bogusly threatened me at my Talk, and other editors came to my defense and chased you away. But you're still out to block me, or see me blocked. I call that carrying a long-term grudge, and is unbecoming of admin. You should self-evaluate better, Basalisk. You won't drop your stick. But tell you what, I'm willing to give you something and make you go away. I'm willing to commit [Eric could do this himself if he wanted, he doesn't want, I don't blame him] to never using a curse word at anyone ever again. [E.g. "fucker".] Just like Eric, when I've used curse words, they are by choice, not because I'm a lunatic madman not in control of my mouth. The challenge will be, how to get my meaning across as effectively, when curse words are short and succinct, whereas telling someone the same thing in more tea cerimony style is less impacting and "artful". But if it would make you happy, I'll promise to never use another curse word on the WP. Will that make you happy? [And BTW, I don't know why the WP software doesn't already screen for curse words, and replace them with "****" etc., like dating sites do!?!? Simple!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well to be honest, I don't know anything about dating sites, but I imagine the wiki software doesn't bowdlerise profanities so that they can be included in articles for encyclopaedic purposes. Generally speaking the whole system is designed assuming that the people using it will act like adults. Diff away if it pleases you, though characterising a threat as "bogus" strikes me as a category error. I'm not trying to get you blocked IHTS. That's what you say of everyone who disagrees with you; they're all a bunch of fuckers trying to get you blocked. Just take a break from this and take it on the chin. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 11:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I have some software background, and a table of article names could be exempted in the software to accomodate exceptions, that is all design-requirements stuff easily done. Adults swear Basalisk, more than children, so you got that reversed. Providing diffs isn't my entertainment or desire, Basalisk, telling you I can do that is a signal to you that you shouldn't challenge me on what I asserted, because I can back up what I say. (Your threat was entirely bogus and I can prove it.) I do not say about everyone that they are trying to get me blocked, that's a category overgeneralization, in fact I think I've said that of extremely few editors in reality. (But I know throwing BS overgeneralizations around at the ANI is consistent with the cesspool arguments and mud slung that is the cultural norm here, so you're fitting in real good with that. To me I'd be ashamed, but you and many others just love it. It's so tacky.) I don't know what you're advising me to do ("take a break", "take it on the chin"), Basalisk, I really don't. It was not my idea to open this ANI which Mann jess opened to stop reversions of edits at articles I've edited, turns out he's wrong about it, it was permissable to undo copyedits I've made to articles. I have no idea what you mean, and I don't seek your councel either, you just turned down a good-faith offer to get to leave me alone, I don't know how to make you leave me alone, quit calling me a child, I think you are the immature one, Basalisk. What will make you go away? Did you want to discuss Kevin Gorman here? This dialogue and cesspool tangents are abusive shit, and if you revel in it, you revel in shit. And I just can't fucking respect people who do that, you know. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Back to the issue at hand, Ihardlythinkso as was explained to you above you can not remove content from WP just because you added it, specially claiming things like "I created this article so should have a right to delete it (User:MaxBrowne once deleted Chess.com, and he as granted permission to do so, since he was author of that article", "Undid revision 601789037 by Kkj11210 (talk) a high school student reverts me??", "I am author, I withdraw this article". Incidentally on March 29th you breached WP:3RR on at least three articles (Veniamin Sozin, Fischer–Spassky (1992 match), Paris Defence) and should count yourself lucky you didn't get a long block for that alone. Your lack of civility only adds insult to injury and you should consider stopping while you are ahead. Just drop it, calm down and resume your editing in a few days with a cooler head. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 12:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Those initial reverts were mistaken and repaired, and those initial editsums were written hastily in span of only a few minutes during a windown of time that was indeed emotionally depressing to me. I have already explained this. I have a cooler head now, but some things remain the same, and this venue isn't really appropriate to discuss it. It's my understanding going forward that it is resolved that an editor may remove their edits from an article if they want. (Not OWN, and not barring restoration by another editor feeling differently about the value of the edits to the quality of the article. [That said, I'd like to point out that User:Mann jesse's restorations were not based on anything related to article quality, he has no interest or investment in said articles, he as only restored to counter reversion by an editor he feels in completition with based on previous content disputes where he also tried to force his way with edit-warring and IDHT discussions and I objected. So he forced his dominance where he can. This is interpersonal conflict in action, and nothing about article quality. He has no investment or care about said articles, he has only tracked my actions because of a need to prove dominance. Or claim I am a vandal. I am not a vandal, I've reverted my own edits, not other editors'. I explained I have complex reasons for doing so, and none of them are what has been accused.) You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility, and that there are perhaps 1000s of ways to be uncivil than using "bad words", and those forms of incivility are tremendoudly worse in my book than any bad words could be, since they enter unethical areas that bad words simply don't have access to. I don't think this is a forum to discuss individual diffs of incivility and their context with other diffs, and evaluation of what civility really is, and the limits of policy to define and capture it, and the inequitable enforcement by whim from administrators that results. What is the further purpose of this ANI, and Gaba, I respect what you are saying, but what practically do you want from me, or is this ANI just to chastise endlessly over a dead event that lasted only a few mintues? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 22:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"You should understand that there is never incivility from me that some editor did not initiate by their own incivility" - this frequently repeated claim by IHTS is patently untrue. Here a polite request to discuss an edit is met with "give me a fucking break" and accusations of "wikilawyering" and "edit warring". And of course this edit summary is the very definition of an ad hominem. Not an "accusation", but a completely accurate description. Want more diffs? No, didn't think so. But they're there for anyone who cares to look. There are *many* examples of IHTS initiating incivility in his editing history, most recently against Resolute (talk · contribs) who attempted to offer constructive criticism and was met with a torrent of abuse. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, those were an emotional few minutes for me, I felt the editor was edit-warring, and that provoked me to some degree, but you're right overall, the incivilities were mine there, and they weren't justified. But that editor and I were able to discuss just fine, after those emotional minutes of mine. I'm not a perfect robot, and never claimed to be, but it is true that there are extremely few unproviked incivilities from me in my three or so year history. This incident was an extremely complex emotionally challenging time for me, and you found one of extremely few instances. To attempt to take that and generalize or characterize me as misrepresenting myself, is a dirty underhanded trick, MaxBrowne. And you are also the editor how came here and called me "classic narcissist" unprovoked. In our past history you have proven to me that your behavior is one of the most despicabe I've ever experienced from an editor, and you know tha we are enemies because of that history. So you come here as a foe to throw mud and mischaracterize and join a lynch party. Your "torrent of abuse" hyperbole is just that. I tend to think exaggeration and distortion are forms of lies and dishonesty, but apparently you don't. You seem to have gotten away with your "classic narcisst" personal attack without a block, but instead baiting me into a response where an administraor unaccountably decided to block me and not you. Has this emboldened you perhaps, MaxBrowne? And aren't you lucky that readers to this ANI probably have no interest to discover your abusive demeaning bad-faith incivilities chronically made against me in WT:CHESS threads. But I know you'll attempt to throw more mud here, because that's your ilk. But your behaviors seem to be supported there, and here, and that speaks to the abusive environments here, not to anything I've done. You seem to revel in this abusive environment, I don't. As long as the WP is as hostile and uncivil as it is, you'll continue to do well here. And you're happy with that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Unprovoked? For once and for all, Stop dragging my name into it when you are fighting with other editors. Don't want me involved? Then don't talk about me.

It's good that you acknowledge that your attack on that particular editor was unjustified, but your claim that it was an isolated incident is untrue. Here you tell a new editor to "grow a brain". Your removal of the material was justified, but your uncivil edit summary was not. Here an IP's admittedly poor edit is reverted with the edit summary "dumbass". Please just drop the self-serving claim that you don't initiate incivilities, because you do, and frequently. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well you're right again, that editsum was bad form. (Was it to an IP for an edit that could be construed as valdalism? Possibly. But one should give benefit of the doubt, and I failed in that case.) But no otherwise, if you assess unprovoked incivilities by me as "frequent" -- that's just not true. The incivilities thrown at me by you, have been frequent. The godawful threads on WT:CHESS where you chronically and baselessly attack me without end for bad-faith, and your essentially trying to turn a convention discussion into a personal attack page on me, shows your own level of civility, MaxBrowne. So what exactly is your logic here? That I have incidents of unprovoked incivility, so I should be indef-blocked? Where does that put you then? Will you self-indef block for calling me, unprovoked, "classic narcissist"? Or is it that you don't see yourself as initiating incivilities? If the latter, that is complete self-denial. Your editing history shows that you don't have any real care about civility, insulting respected chess editor User:Toccata quarta, for example. And all the unreasonable and out-of-line defaming attacks you've made against me. At least I try to do the right thing on Wikipedia, I'm not perfect. But you exploit the loose environment here, are heavily more uncivil than I have been re unprovoked attacks, such as the personal attack thread at WT:CHESS and your unprovoked "classic narcissist". Do you think you are applying your civility standards equally to yourself?! You once even challenged me that I was not qualified to tell anyone they were being uncivil, if there was any speck of incivility in my record. (How logical is that?!) But now you are accusing of the same, when your own record has plenty of it, and even in this thread. Am I supposed to find some logic or reasonability in your arguments, MaxBrowne?? Ihardlythinkso (talk) 04:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Want me to find more examples of unprovoked rudeness on your part? Because I can. "Classic narcissist behaviour" was my interpretation of your actions, based on a number of factors, including but not limited to (1) your hypersensitivity to criticism (2) your extreme hostility and argumentativeness over the most petty disputes (3) your flattery towards those who affirm or defend you (4) your absolute inability to see yourself as others see you. I've come across this sort of behaviour frequently on the net and I can recognise it when I see it. Do you not even see the contradiction in an edit summary like "fuck off uncivil asshole"?? Do you think WP:NPA and WP:CIV somehow applies to everyone except you? MaxBrowne (talk) 04:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't believe you levy that PA again, MaxBrowne. And rub it in for good effect. (Do I have to tell any readers here how abusive?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the thing. If someone were to accuse me of having sex with sheep, that wouldn't bother me in the slightest, since I know I have no zoophilic tendencies whatsoever. It's so far from the truth that it's laughable. This is the effect that the majority of your insults have on me. On the other hand, if someone were to call me a loser who spends way too much time on the computer, that would carry a lot more sting, because it's much closer to the truth. If "narcissist" and "diva" carry a sting for you, that suggests to me that they're somewhere in the vicinity of the truth. If I'm totally wrong about this, maybe you could do something to correct that mis-impression? Believe me, I would love to be proved wrong. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there some reason we haven't indefinitely blocked Ihardlythinkso yet? Since 2012, all I've seen him do is jump into one raging dispute after the next and exhibit a level of IDIDNTHEARTHAT which a deaf person would find difficult to replicate. He seems to believe that NPA doesn't apply to him, as demonstrated above, and gets all up in arms if anyone dares to question anything he does. The headaches Ihardlythinkso has caused are way out of proportion to any good contributions he makes, and have wasted a tremendous number of man-hours from people who have to intervene and deal with the abuse he hurls at anyone and everyone. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Northern, I'm having hard time even imagining or conceiving that any paragraph could compete with your above paragraph, for being right-out-of-the-playbook for the infamous mob and pitch-fork generation for the equally infamous lynching that this board is noted for. (I mean, your paragraph is so iconic, it seems like a copy/paste right out of such a playbook. Cookie-cutter parody even.) The thing is, I don't think that occurs to you, because you are so like a pig in mud here, and that is the accepted cultural norm of this venue. (So, you have no embarrassment whatever for participating as you do, since you know your mud flinging, and torch-waving, will be accepted by other editors who over time have somehow come to accept and call normal this cesspool environment that is a magnet for peanut gallery abuse and drive-by incivilities [and digs, and lies, and smears, and BS]. Because anything goes here. And you have no shame for that. [Wow! I don't know what else to say. It seems right out of a comic book to me, but it is the reality, for so-called adults, "some of whom are partially educated" {George Carlin}, at Wikipedia!]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

That, right there, is probably the best example of someone failing to get the point that you'll ever see. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 00:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't done, Mr. Basalisk. And your reference to a "point", is BS. (It's a call for a lynching, plain and clear. With shot-gun unsupported condescensions thrown in to dress it up. Can you summarize the "point" you're seeing to be there, Basalisk? Let's see your summary sentence of said "point". It is criticism and condesension. Mud slinging without a venue to back up what one says. So a free-for all digs and insults and accuses session. Pure cesspool stuff. And I'm supposed to methodically address said editor's concerns? In this venue? When he only wants my head on a pike? You like the tenor here to be one of free-for-all abusiveness, and if I don't receive the abuse like I'm "supposed to", then you have more attacks, re "IDHT". Not buying it, Basalisk. I think your thinking is confused and purpose-driven. You want no reasonable result, or you wound't have rejected the personal offer I made to you earlier. (You're complaining, I thought, about swearing. I offered to stop swearing in any situation on the WP, if you would only leave me alone and stop harassing, ever since you introduced your self when I criticized your RfA nominator. You ignored that proposal. So how is it that you think you don't have unclean hands and unclean intentions here, Basalisk? (BTW, you give me a headache. Are you happy about that? Serve your purpose? Joy joy joy?) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:14, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

For a long time, I've known you to be an enemy toward me Northern, because I pinched your nerve for calling me a "12-year-old" in a bogus ANI that you closed, where I conducted myself as professionally as I could endeavor dealing with all the mud-throwing there. Because I went to your Talk and civilly objected to your comment "12-year-old", your response was to re-open the ANI on that basis, and you encouraged any admin to come in and block me. (That shows complete and emotionally-driven revenge, Northern, and how would that in any way possible be behavior consistent with WP:ADMINACCT or becoming of admin. Instead it shows to me complete abuse of your power as admin, and a disregard for "behavior at a higher standeard" as though that is a joke. You also kidded and joked and ridiculed me then, at your Talk, with your buddy and notoriously abusive admin Toddst1. Total unbecoming of admins. But you feel you have free license to do, because your admin badge is for life, and admins are seldom dysysopped here, and editors are under the abusive thumbs of admins like you, and you revel in that arrangement. I've not the first to claim the environment with admins of your ilk is corrupted and uncorrectabe, because said admins bar change through protecting their statuses, but surely "admin for life" is a corrupt concept to begin with, and fosters the kind of abuse of power you show so unembarrassingly. You're impressive Northern, as a model case of revenge-driven grudge-driven admin, doing what you can to fulfill those grudges, when opportunity arises. And many opportunities can arise, because any editor can open an ANI thread at any time on any basis, and then the doors open to this free-for-all mud throwing and torch-waving to service said grudges. A wonderfully civilized environment. You're part of what makes that environment tick. And you're proud of that. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I suspect it might have something to do with the 23,000 / 68% mainspace edits. The goal is to produce an encyclopedia, right?

I'm the first to admit it would be great if we actually had civility policy rather than a civility meme. Somewhere up there I'm accused of tunnel vision -- to the contrary I'm going to assert I have forest vision, and I just don't understand how someone can legitimately draw a line in the sand here and say that one editor's 8 meter "narcissistic diva" tree is okay but another's 9 meter "cesspool / rhetoric question" tree is block worthy -- even assuming we all agree as to measure the height of the tree. NE Ent 00:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

See again the part about continuing personal attacks following being warned that further personal attacks will result in a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, it's not enough to make an ordered list of words and draw a line between the ones that are just-barely-OK and the ones that are just-barely-unacceptable. The context matters. Two people might use the same phrase, but in one case have a reasonable basis for it and in the other case be lashing out without any real justification. You have to ask yourself: Does this person have a good reason for using this phrase? Do other reasonable users agree? Are they speaking with some specificity or as part of a broad pattern of personalizing disputes? In this case I think the answers to these questions are clear and focusing only on language itself (apart from context) misses most of the picture. --Amble (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes people just don't get along and it's best for them to simply stay away from each other. In case someone decides that's the case here and proposes an interaction ban between IHTS and Quale, MaxBrowne, Bushranger, Basalisk and The Blade of the Northern Lights, I want to make sure that we check various talk pages and add Malleus, Drmies, Eric Corbett, Sjakkalle, Dennis Brown and, of course, me. That covers the people baiting/attacking/wiki-copping/whatever against IHTS according to IHTS on my talk page. I'm certain there are more hiding out there on various user talk pages/article talk pages/ANI/etc. At some point I have to wonder how many people we can reasonably expect to simply steer clear of one individual before we decide a civility block is in order. A glance at IHTS's talk page seems to show that a 24 hour block for personal attacks generated more personal attacks, with only the slightest bits of light peeking through. Personally, it seems to me that the ratio of light to heat in this case has been appallingly low for far too long. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Which is why he should be blocked. If he repeatedly blanked pages, repeatedly Uses Vulgar language, and when he gets blocked, gives more Personal threats, he is obviously WP:NOTHERE. I feel we should just block or ban him, as he goes and tries to attack with WP:THROW. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 01:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not advocating any particular course of action with respect to this editor. It should be obvious that we're not friends, but I still think WP:NOTHERE is unfair. I think WP:NOTNOTHERE applies here, specifically the section which reads: "Difficulty in good faith, with conduct norms - A number of users wish to edit, but find it overly hard to adapt to conduct norms such as collaborative editing, avoiding personal attacks, or even some content policies such as not adding their own opinions in their edits. While these can lead to warnings, blocks or even bans in some cases, failure to adapt to a norm is not, by itself, evidence that a user is not trying to contribute productively." MaxBrowne (talk) 02:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

While WP:NOTHERE may not be applicable, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, and WP:IDHT are. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The idea that I'm some sworn enemy of Ihardlythinkso is a fantasy which exists only in his head. For the last year and 3 months I've barely been involved in the inner workings of Wikipedia, and on those rare occasions I've deviated from my article work I haven't really encountered him at all (except once when he started flinging mud at me in front of ArbCom, which doesn't especially trouble me). The articles I've worked on have also given me a fresh perspective on a lot of things, not the least of which is the definition of "abuse" (on a personal level I find it upsetting when people bandy it about so freely, for reasons that should be fairly obvious). I have paid some attention to what's happening around here, though, and I completely stand by every word I said above. If the list of people Ihardlythinkso doesn't get along with is the size of the one SummerPhD provides above, and Ihardlythinkso is the common denominator in all of them, it's a sign that the problem may be fairly one-sided; in addition to agreeing with The Bushranger that CIVIL and NPA seem applicable, see WP:All socks for a good summary of Ihardlythinkso's attitude. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So (per WP:All socks) being on the receiving end of a wiki lynch mob is like being denied credit by multiple agencies? Good analogy! Equifax loses 18.6 million lawsuit NE Ent 20:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you understand my point; if you can't get along with everyone else, there comes a point where you have to consider that you're the problem. I had to do this myself in real life, as indeed the way my brain functions (or doesn't, as the case may be) is the source of a lot of aggravation for people who interact with me. Over the years I've worked extremely hard at adjusting my communication style, and while I'm far from perfect you'd barely recognize my social skills given what they once were. I could have patently refused to accept that I'm ever the problem, but if I did that I would have likely been arrested for breach of peace many years ago (I get rather riled up over certain sporting events, it's been an enormous struggle to get that under control). Same basic issue here; if Ihardlythinkso rejects all responsibility for the problems above, as he has been before, the problems which are documented here are only going to get worse and create a massive timesink. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Block

• Support blocking, per the discussion above. And I'll third the notion that I don't appreciate my name being dragged up all over WP in disputes I have no part in. I've been referenced something like 15 times by IHTS in the last week, along with insults and accusations of bad faith. I've intentionally stayed away from his page and this thread to let others comment, and yet I'm still getting attacked. My very first involvement with IHTS was met with a stream of personal attacks which have never ended. This was followed by intentional obstruction, edit warring, and all manner of other issues, which completely prevented any hope of collaboration. IHTS is the first editor for whom I ever asked for an interaction ban in years of editing. I'm having trouble finding any editor with whom he's able to work pleasantly; none so far have commented. If he's unable to work with anyone, then he doesn't belong on a collaborative project.   — Jess· Δ♥ 04:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Suppport, reluctantly. As IHTS has now gone from egreious personal attacks to creating from whole cloth statements that were not made or implied, I have to conclude that either they are not interested in editing collaborately or collegially, or are incapable of doing so. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose (enthusiastically). He's already been blocked, didn't seem to help. Maybe we should try something else. NE Ent 11:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

NE, I trust you since you are a reasonable man and not a former enemy drawn to this ANI looking for blood. What do you like to see different from me. Please be specific. I guarantee you'll get it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:43, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, the first thing should probably be to stop expecting Wikipedia to be rational, fair, coherent, consistent, or anything like that. Secondly, if you find contributing to Wikipedia isn't enjoyable, I'd log off until such time (if ever) you find that it might be. Beyond that, it would depend on what specific goals you have moving forward. NE Ent 20:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment - During his block, he continued to make personal attacks (which he will tell you were justified/weren't personal attacks/were just payback/aren't as bad as the attacks he's endured/etc.). What would you suggest? Perhaps an interaction ban with an extensive and growing list of editors? "Something else" is not a suggestion. - SummerPhD (talk) 11:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. I've had no contact in any time recent, or need to contact, and no wish to contact, any of the complaining editors in this ANI. The only contact there's been between me and the complaining editors at this ANI in any time recent, stems from this ANI itself. And 100% of the responses I've given to the complaining editors in this ANI have been turned around and used against me by them, as "fresh" complaint. That is a trick and a trap, since the ANI itself is being used as bait for responses, and no responses were possible, that wouldn't be turned around. That is because all the complaining editors here are former enemies, holding grudges. I wish for no enemies, and no enemy relationships, that is why I have avoided contact with all these editors when the interactions turned sour. But it is a reality that enemies exist, and they are drawn to an ANI to try to find reason to harm, generating it in the ANI itself, since past contacts with them had been dried up and dead. This is a trick and a trap. There is also plenty of WP:STICK present which is the basis of it all. I don't carry any stick, and I don't taunt or bait anyone intentionally, ever. I have just wanted to be left alone by these editors. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

If you just want to be left alone, why did you drag my name into a dispute that I was not involved in on your talk page? Keep in mind that I'm not the first person you've done this to. Northern Antarctica (₵) 12:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment. How many more second chances is he going to get? He has been reported to ANI for incivility on several occasions. He has a chronic, long term problem complying with the WP:CIV and WP:NPA policies, and despite repeated warnings has shown no willingness whatsoever to address this issue. Rather, he has amplified his personal attacks recently, notably on this very thread, because he knows he can do this with no real consequences. What is the point of having a civility policy if people can continuously violate it over several years without so much as a reprimand? My patience with this editor is exhausted. MaxBrowne (talk) 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support He is very uncivil. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 14:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Undecided/Mild Oppose Good contributor, especially towards WT:CHESS. If he prefers to concentrate on Shogi, Xianqqi and Chess Variants in future then that's fine too. He's given at least a small amount of leeway in admitting that maybe, just maybe, he may not have handled things perfectly. But if nothing else comes out of this rather sordid process, I hope he will at least stop dredging up old conflicts every time he has a disagreement with another editor. It's really not nice to drag someone else's name into a conflict that they had nothing to do with. Please stop it! If nothing else comes out of this process, please at least take this on board! Seriously! As for past incidents between Toccata and me, we've long since moved on. So should you, IHTS. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC) *Edit:Reluctant Support: While the chess WikiProject needs more active participants, IHTS is a net negative for the project due to (1) numerous personal attacks (2) tendency to fly into a rage at the slightest provocation (3) holding on to personal grudges and constantly resurrecting them, even in unrelated discussions (4) utter unwillingness to address any of these issues. MaxBrowne (talk) 01:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with the part about dragging non-participant names into a discussion, but this section is about IHTS, not SummerPhd. NE Ent 20:25, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• We have already noted that IHTS has been known to drag non-participant names into a discussion. Northern Antarctica (₵) 20:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I feel IHTS is trying to make a last ditch effort to save himself from the tightening trap. To much incivility is to much incivility. Maybe we could only have him be able to edit chess related articles as a "Compromise" Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 23:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

As a matter of keeping the rhetoric at a reasonable level, let's avoid using terms like "noose" here. Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

OK then, does this phrase look better(Noose to trap)? Thanks for the heads up. 00:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yeah, I've got to say that although I'm highly critical of Ihardlythinkso I'm not really thrilled with some of the inflammatory choice of words on both sides; just as a reminder, this is what a lynching and a noose really look like, a discussion at ANI is neither of these things. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 00:02, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think the block caused Ihardlythinkso to vent, the venting continued after the block ended, and some of the things being used as a reason for a second block are the result of this venting. It's bad form to block for venting. @IHTS, please try to calm down. Cardamon (talk) 03:37, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - IHTS has a long history of venting, was blocked for venting and vented some more. Yes, it would be a bad idea to block for a venting event. It is, however, very disruptive when there's virtually no end to the venting and the venting consists of a steady stream of personal attacks aimed at anyone who dares to mention the personal attacks. - SummerPhD (talk) 04:13, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per above. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Cardamon. I also don't see enough "significant disruption or threats of disruption, or major breaches of policy" to justify an indef here. Is there evidence of, say, socking? That might change my mind. I still believe in the concept of "escalating blocks" unless it's perfectly obvious that an indef is warranted, and that an indef here in neither necessary nor in line with that. Topic bans can be issued if they are truly needed. Doc talk 03:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Cardamon, Doc, HiaB, et al.; and mindful of The Blade's observations about inflammatory word choices on both sides. John 8:7 comes, surprisingly, to my godless mind. Writegeist (talk) 06:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - Nothing here rises to the level of another block. The first one strikes me as having been a borderline call. Carrite (talk) 20:45, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. The big problem that led to this ANI thread was, obviously, the blanking. You can call that a diva-ish move, if you like; it certainly was disruptive but it's been handled. More useful than a block (which would deprive us of Ihardlythinkso's article contributions, that a few editors have pointed out are useful) is a restriction, a kind of ad-hoc restriction, like "no venting outside of your own talk page". Or, if an admin thinks some vent veers into NPA territory (and I would include "dragging" others into disputes, as examples of something or just to tirritate), a block (but not an indefinite).

  I am very mindful of what Ihardlythinkso did on Summer's talk page for the longest time, and I was on the verge, more than once, of blocking for it; the only reasons I didn't was that a. I may be a bit of a coward and b. I wasn't looking forward to having to defend myself from claims of being involved, in these endless rants. Let's keep Ihardlythinkso on a leash, if you will, and let's keep talking. They are not unreasonable, even if they seem to get pretty close to it sometimes. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

So kind of like WP:ROPE as in its his last chance? Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 21:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

If IHTS has been "swearing up and down that they understand and won't do again whatever it was that got them blocked, rather than arguing the finer points of the original block", I missed it. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support The user has demonstrated the same exact behavior for two years. That is enough observation to understand that this behavior will not stop. Removing the problem (the user in this case) is the only reasonable solution; otherwise, there will continue to be more ANI threads like this in the future. MezzoMezzo (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  From your user page: "I've also been [...] falsely reported for supposedly violating guidelines on many occasions." Clearly you've demonstrated WP:IDHT for too long with too many users. Clearly your behavior will not stop and the only reasonable solution is to remove you from the Wikipedia. Otherwise there will continue to be more reports like the ones you've received in the future. (Oh! Nice to meet you too.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  From User:Antandrus/observations on Wikipedia behavior: "Troublesome editors waste far more of the community's time than vandals. One who sometimes makes good edits, but endlessly bickers, threatens, insults, whines, and is eventually banned, will have taken hundreds of hours from other users who would have better spent that time building the encyclopedia. This is in part due to people's fascination with conflict. Efficiently managing troublesome editors is one of the best ways to improve the project, but also one of the most difficult." MaxBrowne (talk) 11:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  "Sometimes"?! (I put work in all my edits. What an insult.) Thank you for that philosophy. (I suppose by quoting it, it exempts you from being among those who are "troublesome". Even though you levy "narcissist" PA/insult more than once in this thread.) I have never threatened any editor in my wiki-history, and never will. Now, if you will kindly never post to my attention again, it would be good. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 12:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  Just quoting the article, not necessarily saying that every single one of his points applies to you. As I explained "narcissist" is just my personal impression. Please prove me wrong. Likewise about the "don't post to my attention" thing; that includes posts like this. Would be good if we could just stay out of each other's way. Shut up about me and I'll shut up about you, deal? MaxBrowne (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

  That post to Drmies wasn't about you. (It was about competing approaches when responding to a sock -- antagonizing vs. unantagonizing.) It's not the first time you've unnecessarily personalized my good-faith posts or contributions to article or project Talks, imagining and accusing without basis of bad-faith or that you're being persecuted [13]. You're hugely uncivil in my book, the opposite of open-minded collegiate discussion that is WP pillar. So please just leave me be. (I don't have to prove anything to you, and I don't make "deals" with an editor such as you.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a strange thread at this point. It's almost like a quasi-site ban discussion that does not have the consensus needed to enact a ban, and therefore should be closed per WP:SNOW. An attempt to seek consensus for an indefinite block, proposed over a week ago? It's still not there. The bot is about to archive this. There's apparently no consensus to block this editor for a even a few hours, let alone indefinitely at this time, and it should be appropriately shut down. Doc talk 02:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Harassment

I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples:

• DYK nomination for Tripedalia cystophora
• DYK nomination for Euglossa dilemma
• AfadsBad's talk page My name and reputation gets dragged into a discussion where the subject is something else entirely. User HalfGig was also harassed and stopped editing after this incident.
• AfadsBad's talk page again I ask for guidance on my errors but do not receive it.

The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar". Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I am not going to read all this. "Underemployed scholar?" Lol.

Anyway, Cwmhiraeth cannot accurately place information in Wikipedia, and her level of knowledge is frequently too low to communicate what is wrong to her, like why C4 and CAM photosynthesis have different names. Every article of hers has made up information, inaccurate information, random pieces of information that give undue weight to what she has added, and plagiarism. Her main sources are usually too old, and she cannot overcome the problems of the disagreements between 1963 taxomony books and advances in modern biochemistry. She does not repair articles when she can understand what is wrong, and continues adding the same errors.

Go ahead, check her articles against their sources. "Tropical Southern Ocean," "no cacti have leaves," "CAM and C4 photosynthesis are identical," the sea disaster corrected after it was off the main page.

Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, it is surprising that Wikipedia editors and admins would fight to keep 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia with made up science and taxonomies in them and want to continue adding them.

WikiCup Ahoy! And onward Essjay! Or whatever his name was, he has good company with WikiScholar Cwmhiraeth. Her articles are passed and passed to the main page based on the strength of her having written so many, she doesn't claim expertise, but Wikipedia editorial superiority over the "underemployed scholar." Expertise exhibited. Taxonomy for Dummies, anyone?

Correcting bad science is harassment? So what is making up 1300+ main page articles for probably millions of hits, replacement of accurate science in Google search results with fantasy taxonomies, and making a mockery of an encyclopedia?

And Colonel Henry demanding that intrusive liquid metasediments intruding imaginary rocks is a Good Article?

You don't need experts, just qualified ninth graders.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates WP:NPA. However frustrated you might be with a user, do not under any circumstances patronize him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of AfadsBad's critiques of DYK science content being very well founded. Mind you, AN/I probably is hardly the right venue for that discussion. (I'd suggest Wikipedia:Editor review or an WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.

As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for Desert and this is the response I got, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" The chunks of text I removed was misinformation; it is not true that all cactic don't have leaves, and no sources said that. I removed the misinformation about C4 plants being just like CAM plants, and Cwmhiraeth reverted the removal and claimed that it was true, again. And, in addition, also claimed that this information was sourced. She does not listen to corrections, and the only reason she is paying attention now is because of her claims, and now yours, about my "shitty way of bringing things up." Does any one on Wikipedia care that the content is wrong? I tried just stating that it was wrong. I was insulted and scolded as if I was an incompetent child interfering with someone's owned article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.

The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.

I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

  I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."

If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her wikihounding at the project, and the offsite harassment. Correcting an error or discussing an error is one thing...but AfadsBad's behavior, especially the counterproductive incessantly-repeated ranting and attempts to drive away editors (WP:CTDAPE), is downright bullying and abusive. I would propose some sanction also if AfadsBad keeps rehashing the same argument--it's old, it's tiresome-- she's said over five times and is older than two months (i.e. water under the bridge)--since most of her complaints have been repeated to anyone who would listen and happened last year (rehashing old shit is bad form to begin with...rehashing it as an attack is disruptive and a waste of anyone's time).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor and the commentary I saw at Cas Liber's page and User:AfadsBad as it appears today suggests a level of personal attacks that is over the top. This sort of thing is unacceptable; people can disagree over content without behaving like this. Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly no good reason nor intention from AfadsBad when User:AfadsBad directly names and shames User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know. Something must be done to stop AfadsBad from acting as so. starship.paint "YES!" 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out to Cwmhiraeth three days ago at the Editor Review that she added the following information to Desert in May 2013: "Cold deserts can be covered with snow or ice for part of the year; frozen water unavailable to plant life. They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica. The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F) ..." and that this information was false. Her response to me did not acknowledge the problem, and she has not seen fit to correct the article. (If you don't understand why the information in the desert article is so wrong, look up Godthab#Climate, Qaanaaq#Climate, Cape_Dorset#Climate, or take a look at File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png.)

So for most of the past year, the article desert has contained information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts that is completely false. Even when it has been pointed out directly to Cwmhiraeth, she has not corrected it. She also didn't correct a misleading citation I pointed out to her. I think it is fair to say that she is not very responsive to criticism, and in a collaborative project, that is a problem. Assuming AfadsBad's statement "she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct" refers to Cwmhiraeth, it is an accurate description of what I see happening.

The desert article is rated as a Good Article, and attracts around 100,000 views a month. It is one of Wikipedia's 3,000 most viewed articles. Since the false information about the winter temperature in cold deserts was added, the article has seen around a million page views. If it hadn't been for AfadsBad's criticism, this would not have come to light. Now I would like to ask everyone who commented here to think seriously about who serves Wikipedia's reading and donating public, and indeed this project's fundamental goals, better – AfadsBad or the editor who added this and other false information to Wikipedia and shows little inclination to acknowledge that there is any problem? Andreas JN466 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, the statement you make above is very misleading. In my review, you made a number of comments on the Desert article and I responded to most of them, but not to the one you mention above. This was because the information was cited in the article. It was not until several hours after you wrote the post above that you looked at the article, saw the statement was sourced and added "unreliable source" tags and I have now dealt with the issue. On my editor review page you then apologized to me and hid the discussion under an "I misunderstood" heading. Why did you not also retract your accusation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, still, there will still be consequences for off wiki harassment and NPA violations, regardless of the quality of their edits. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says a user who has been here for just about two months and has had his user page revision-deleted by an arbitrator. Good show. Andreas JN466 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas, This comment is confusing, what are you trying to get across? What should I do? Could you explain your advice? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, was there any reason for you to attack Happy Attack Dog? It seems rather suspicious that you resorted to Ad hominem. HAD's rev-dels were apparently done to suppress revealing personally-identifiable information, by the way. starship.paint "YES!" 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Much like me, Andreas is unimpressed about a child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor. — Scott • talk 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if a "child" can talk sense, why should I discount his opinion? You've made yourself look much worse with your comment and edit summary of Adults are talking. starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That was completely uncalled for, Scott. There's been enough mudslinging in this thread as it is. Let's keep it objective here and stick to what we know: Cwmhiraeth has charged AfadsBad with harassment, and there is evidence that while AfadsBad has some good points she could, to say the least, communicate them much more politely. Anger doesn't help a situation like this; let's refrain from slinging childish insults at each other and focus on the matter at hand - improving articles to reflect the truth. LazyBastardGuy 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to someone who calls himself "LazyBastardGuy", pointing out that someone is a child is a personal attack. I can't wait for the next Through the Looking-Glass style revelation that emerges from this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, a "child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor". Your use of "child" was inappropriate, and I do not care about the age of the editor in question (your use was more of a reference to immaturity than actual age). As for my username, it's a reference to me, not to you, not to anyone else. And trust me, the irony of it is not lost on me in this situation (I would have been a fool to expect no comment on it). Maybe if we could all step back from name calling and not care who is doing what, we could then look at the situation rationally and focus on the main ideas I've outlined above your post. I'm done here and if I were you I wouldn't respond to this so as to avoid the appearance of trying to WP:WIN. LazyBastardGuy 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The only way I could "win" would be if I could magically remove all the crud Cwmhiraeth has added to Wikipedia, retroactively, so that thousands of children of "Happy Attack Dog"'s age group could have been spared from being exposed to it. — Scott • talk 18:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Per your points above, LBG, that I could have communicated my points more politely. When I did, Cwmhiraeth scolded me for messing up the format when I removed one piece of bad science (so, formatting is a much more important policy than verifiability?), reverted me on a second piece of bad science I had removed, restoring it to one of en.Wikipedia's mostly highly accessed articles, and ignored everything else I said. How polite am I expected to be in the face of clear evidence that Cwmhiraeth has ownership issues with articles she writes and does not take to editors making corrections on her articles? I have been pointing out her errors for months now. She is upset and considers this harrassmnt. But she doesn't see any need to correct her errors. Pointing out errors politely failed. Pointing out errors in a straight-forward manner failed.

Does verifiability and accuracy matter at all to the encyclopedia? Another editor, below, points out that Cwmhiraeth obviously and repeatedly and problematically makes exactly the types of errors I claim she makes. They are not discrete, occassional or difficult to catch. They are howlers. And she has over 1300 articles full of errors she will not correct. One GA requires a reassessment, a FA required extensive rewriting of its howlers while and after appearing on the main page, and yet another is being rewritten during her editor review. Is she making the corrections? A few, but mostly she is focused on writng more articles in the race to the WikiCup, and they all have the same sort of errors. I think en.Wikipedia culture and especially its WikiCup and DYK subcultures make it impossible to correct a "popular" editor, because the culture favors social relationships built by insiders over accuracy and encyclopedic content. :::::::::::En.Wikipedia has an essay about experts that diminishes and scolds experts to show the supposed superiority of Wikipedia's content delivery system over other encyclopedias, warning experts not to rely upon personal opinion, and that their information must not be OR and must be verifiable. It appears these rules apply to experts, but not Cwmhiraeth. There is no method that will get Cwmhiraeth to correct her howlers, politely pointing out errors was dismissed and scolded, while the errors were returned to en.Wikipedia or ignored. Are we writing an encyclopedia here? Not around those 1300 articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

I won’t comment on any of your interactions with other editors, but I will say this: Take a deep breath and relax; now an editor review is open and things are getting done. I hope it is to everyone’s mutual satisfaction; we’re moving forward, hopefully, to what the end result should be and should have been all along. LBG out. LazyBastardGuy 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the end result being 1300 bad articles that fail verifiability and fly in the face of policies on OR and SYN remaining on Wikipedia, uncorrected, and the next editor who notes a problem wiith the science also being told, "Hold your breath little girl, you're too tense." As if this is the only problem. A GA was promoted full of nonsense, imaginary rocks and time travel. I was told the editor had followed rules in promoting it, so it could not be delisted even though it was far worse than a hoax. A Featured Pcture was promoted that contradicts the article, pic or article is either wrong or unsourced or pure OR. I noted this at the FP selection template, but the picture was promoted anyway, because consensus on en.Wikipedia is a majority vote, and, again I find that verifiability is the lowest policy on Wikipedia. There is no method for an editor to safely remove a scientifc mistake fom Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth is not correcting the mistakes she knows about, she is creating more. That is the end result, another thousand mistake-ridden articles gracing en.Wikipedia's main page to follow the last thousand she put there. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light.

Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopia^speak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the most sensible post on this debacle so far. Andreas JN466 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet, as obvious and glaring as her errors are, they require that Wikipedia spend thousands of hours pointing out every one of them, instead of her stopping with their creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yes, but moaning won't help. As far as I can tell, you're right on the science; you just need to decide whether you care enough to do something about it here, on Wikipedia, or not. If you want her to stop creating these articles, draft an RfC/U with the appropriate evidence and make a case for a topic ban. Or simply walk away, leave Wikipedia to its devices, and contact editors of science journals. Andreas JN466 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. It is especially obvious the editor review is a waste of time, although I will post a list there. Many other editors have seen and can see the glaring errors in her articles, but Cwmhiraeth is content to create more, and the community is content to let her. Verifable, accurate science articles, that are not OR and not odd syntheses of random facts and factoids are not wanted on en.Wikipedia, and my moaning and groaning about the crud will have no impact until en.Wikipedia demands competence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Harassment ok now? Need sanctions on editor

Whatever the content problems, I can't help but wonder why this harassment hasn't been dealt with quickly per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and anything else that might apply. Off wiki harassment wise, I see on her blog User:AfadsBad has a number of posts about user Cwmhiraeth. Why not just change the section title and content to: Feel free to trash editors/admins/arbitrators offline if the policy is not enforced? The editor needs some sanctions til she admits it's bad behavior and stops it permanently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore WP:Verifiability should be added first, it's a higher pilar. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here or elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like this, this, this, this or this. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. Andreas JN466 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that. (Will check the links.) Are you talking about Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment which is linked from Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment? So we can criticize away on our personal blogs as long as we don't link to it from wikipedia or "out" others ourselves? Even ones you are forbidden to interact with on wikipedia? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Mostly conjectoral/rethorical question. Not something I would do myself, but it could get annoying and feel like harassment if others did it to me more frequently than they already done. I have seen two editors using their user names say nasty things about me on one of the Wikipedia-critical sites (one now site banned for other reasons, another who stopped editing a year or so ago). And an anonymous non-Wiki user with off wiki issues trashed me repeatedly about Wikipedia on his personal blog (someone was blocked recently for linking to one of his posts about me). So I have to have sympathy with Cwmhiraeth. Plus it's not the sort of thing we want to encourage Wikipedia wide and at the least should be considered a negative factor when looking at the whole picture, which I think the harassment policy makes pretty clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad no one will ever be blocked for creating 1300 unverifiable articles. The criticism on my blog is largely content criticism, but, I do mention the editors who create the content. I have problems with the WikiCup which appears to create an atmosphere that encourages promotion and front page dispay of articles full of made up science. Did you create bad articles, filled with unverifiable nonsense, then revert and scold the editor who removed the nonsense? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Actually we do want to encourage people to pay attention to bad science in articles, as well as editors who cause issues in multiple articles. It is not harrassment to look at, and point out an editors errors in detail when they show a pattern. The relevant quote from the harrassment policy (hounding subsection) would be Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. From the evidence at the review its becoming quite clear there are related problems on multiple articles. Well, a related problem. Perhaps next time pay attention to the whole of the policy rather than the specific bits you want to sanction someone for. The harrassment policy is designed to prevent people from being unduly harrassed. It is *not* a shield to hide behind when you come under the spotlight for your bad editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and the incessant repeating of vitriolic harangues and browbeating to anyone anywhere who would listen with few genuine efforts to correct problems. If AfadsBad worked like a little gnome to correct errors and actually contributed to the greater pool of knowledge no one would be having this conversation. Instead, she has the kindness of a rabid hyena and can't stop sounding like a broken 45. If Cwmhiraeth made errors, fine, she's working in good faith and if approached in the ideal spirit of Good Will that Wikipedia prefers (as I've experienced working with her), she would work to correct the record. However, AfadsBad doesn't have an ounce of good will in her, and in eight months of constant harassment, hasn't done much to "fix unambiguous errors" or "correct related problems". Just ranting and obsessive attacks. Thus, sanctions are not just appropriate--they are sorely overdue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Do you think Cwmhiraeth will correct all of the errors in her 1300 article contributions? When? She does not seem to be able to correct the errors in five articles in a week. Say 2 days/article, a couple of years from now, while those articles stay on Wikipedia? The Desert schtick is old? How come editors are still having to correct her errors in the article? What would really make the schtick old is if the errors had ben corrected. They haven't. It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. You should feel free to correct them yourself, if being here so I can talk about them bothers you. Better yet, she could correct them while stopping to add more. It is an encyclopedia, after all. And competence is required. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Laugh all you want. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project--one person adds, another adds more or subtracts a little, etc., until eventually it's polished. If you don't intend to contribute, then why are you here? If you only exist to sit on the sidelines and scream at the participants but never played the game yourself... well, I could find some colourful metaphors for "go home" that would not be in good faith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. WP:SOFIXIT exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

When you discover an oil spill which is the better fix a) mop up the mess day after day, or b) shut off the faucet? John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried. She reverted, scolded and told me that she owned the articles and would do as she pleased. And, Cwmhiraeth is well supported in this, in keeping her 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia, on its main page, in its FA and GA queues. SOFIXIT doesn't really allow for battling a popular incompetent editor. She wins. Even you are supporting her, Bushranger, by saying the problem is not her writing 1300 bad articles, by saying that WP:Verifiability is trumped by WP:SOFIXIT, and the real problem is my not fixing them. Lol. You don't have to be competent to write Wikipedia articles, because fixing your incompetent edits is someone else's job? 8 months telling her, and she continues to add hundreds more bad articles, and it's now my job to fix all 1300 of them? It's taking her a week to partially fix five of her articles. Why don't you go fix 650, then, when you're done, I'll begin working on the other 700. Meanwhile, she'll create more. And, Wikipedia's reputation as a source will continue to plummet. Editors will question, rightly, whether they need to have verifiable articles, whether they can just fake or make up what the source says, whether they can just mix and match a bunch of different things picked randomly, carelessly, and inaccurately from sources and call it a DYK or GA or FA. Yes, look, Cwmhiraeth does that, and look at this ANI thread, and this editor review, all these people know she does it, and she wins awards and praise for it. Everyone should just do that. And, then, if anyone questions the incompetency, tell them to go fix it! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You keep bantering around that number 1,300 like it's a real statistic...so far you've complained about maybe a dozen articles, maybe 15 at most. So while you harp on about bad science, maybe you should consider bad statistics...in the vein of knowing 500% of statistics are exaggerated, put up the facts and stop the rhetoric. If you have a list of 1,300 articles with their errors, put it up. Instead of bitching and complaining and repeating yourself over and over and over again....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Identify the specific errors succinctly (no rhetoric), fix them yourself, or go back to your day job pushing a mop at walmart and be a intolerable miserable curmudgeon on your own time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you had me working as a night clerk at WalMart, now I mop floors days, too? In spite of all this work, I can still spot those science errors, like the imaginary rock formations.

Find one of hers without errors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Can't shift the burden of proof. Put up or shut up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that another one of your rules, like the Good Article review rule? Lol. Just one. She even offered a list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

And in those 8 months have you actually done anything about the problems or just scream harrassment too? 8 months is a long time for an editor to have no improvement. It cuts both ways. Because if AfasBad has been doing this for 8 months and no one is listening, it doesnt really reflect badly on AfadsBad. It reflects badly on the people blaming the messenger. "Working in good faith" does not excuse poor writing. Well actually it probably would excuse poor writing if someone else did the clean up. But it does not excuse synthesis, bad sourcing and blatant factual errors. Nor does it excuse the people reviewing, promoting, then defending such as great work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If AfadsBad rolled up her sleeves and got into the mix, or provided an actionable list of things to correct, they would have been corrected. Instead, aggressive rants was the only m.o. Unfortunately, trolls can only be tolerated for so long and best ignored. If AfadsBad was ignored, and she was often, it was because of method, not message. I have only so much time in this transitory life to be hunting for the chance that she's provided one gem of a worthwhile actionable correction in the massive pile of dung she spewed in her tediously repetitive rants. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to let this play out without commenting, but what the hell. The issue is systemic within the DYK, GA and FA crew. Hardly any of them have expertise in the subject matter. What the editors are doing is grabbing books from libraries, and pdfs from the web and mixing and matching the content. However, they don't have knowledge as to whether the works they are referencing are reliable, up to date, or aren't works of fiction. The mix and matching process that then takes place is an effort to avoid complaints plagiarism, by the the close paraphrasing nazis, so synonyms are used, sentences swapped about, and the science that may originally have been in the sources becomes mangled. The reviewers come along and, being just as clueless as the editor, looks for phrases in the source which are similar to those in the article. The result, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe: all the right words are there they just aren't in the right order. The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. John lilburne (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and your opinion was heard on Wikipediocracy already. No one has ever accused me of plagiarism, paraphrasing, or being egregiously wrong in the articles I've written--so, apparently you're talking from your posterior, IMHO, in painting me with your broad brush. You find something to correct, I'll correct. But a critic who aggressively rants and raves and abuses in the petulant manner as we have seen directed at Cwmhiraeth and others, and someone like AfadsBad deserves to be banned--and I'm rather certain AfadsBad has been before (under other names) for the same crap.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well now it is being heard here too. Now weren't you the one that promoted garbled Geology to GA status only to have it yanked 24 hours later? Despite evidence being presented you still seemed hell bent on dismissing the nonsense science in the article. I think it is plain that you are incapable of discerning rubbish science, and resort to bluster and moaning when called on it. Others might also be inclined to think that your comments here, in particular the mean minded speculations and aspersions about AfadsBad above, are little more than sour grapes on your part. John lilburne (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I said articles that I have written, and that you bring that up (one out of a ton of GA reviews) shows you're AfadsBad's talking parrot who flew here after being canvassed at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned in this paragraph The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. The Geology GA review adequately illustrates the point that you are 'tone deaf to the science' in the articles you are supposed to be reviewing. I don't care about the articles you write but it wouldn't surprise me if you had Mermaids in the South China Seas based on some 16th map drawing, or talking horses because one of you had got hold of a copy of Gulliver's Travels. John lilburne (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, hic sunt dracones, and Wikipediocracy's talking horses have all shown up here--just like you and AfadsBad and Scott did before. Sounds like canvassing, or gangland bludgeoning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet a number of editors accused you of being egregiously wrong in the articles you promote to Good Article, with this sentence which was included in the Pedra da Galvea article when it was promoted by you, ColonelHenry, to Good Article, "The gneiss layer dates to around 600 million years ago; the granite layer is younger and dates to around 450 million years ago and is the result of lava flow.[2][6] The mountain, much like other stone outcroppings that surround the area, is the result of Meso-Neoproterozoic high grade metasedimentary rocks intruding into Neoproterozoice granitoid rocks and thin Cretaceous diabase dikes.[7]" Granite, by distinction is not a lava flow, middle age rocks that have never been liquid, by definition, cannot intrude (something that liquid rocks do) into younger rocks that don't yet exist, in particular, metamorphosed (never liquified) sediments, are very unlikely to melt, since by definition they've never been liquid, as they are metamorphic, into thin dikes that won't exist for at least another 800 million years. The amount of nonsense in these two sentences is stunning. The author, however, took blame and apologized. The promoter fought tooth and nail to keep this article, as is, a "Good Article." --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yawn...do you have anything else than continuing to banter around one bad GA review that I've done out of dozens from months ago that you've already repeated like 2000 times since then because you have nothing original or insightful to add except harping harping harping on tired bullshit? My dispute was that you liked to hijack reviews back then instead of collaborate. Imperious and aggressive at ranting and abuse, just like you are now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet you're still supporting her creating bad science on en.Wikipedia. Creating it, writing it, promoting it. It all leads to bad articles on en.Wikipedia. It's always about someone's behavior, but it's never about the lack of WP:Verifiability. Stop Cwmhiraeth from creating bad science articles, correct the 1300+ existing turds, and I'll stop harping on everything here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

WP:V isn't the crux of this issue--because if you had a list of 1,300 articles with errors, you would have put it up, if you so concerned about errors, you would have fixed them yourself. Instead you provided a wall of text with aggressive rhetoric with nothing constructive and would complain to high heaven. If you care about fixing errors, get your hands dirty. If you don't want to collaborate, go home. If you only want harass and assault others who in good faith are volunteering their time for the project, go home. Quite frankly, you're an anonymous bully hiding behind a computer screen, but unlike some of the less than palatable Wikipedians (myself included) who actually build content, you don't contribute anything but vile disruptiveness and vitriol. When you get blocked, I will raise a glass of Laphroaig to your departure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is the crux of the issue. It's a Wikipedia policy. As for collaboration, aren't you the one that freaked out and thought that you owned a Good Article review? She keeps creating hundreds, and you and she keep getting upset that the errors are pointed out. Find one of her articles without these errors. If you don't want your errors pointed out on Wikipedia, don't edit. As for being blocked, I'm already essentially blocked from correcting errors, because correcting a single bad article takes eight months. So, you have my permission to toast now! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm all for some kind of editing restriction on Cwimhraeth, and I'm all for some editing restriction on AfadsBad. As said above, they are both a mixture of good and bad: good faith but sloppy editing on one hand, useful criticism in a sea of harassment on the other. Both need to stop. What I would do, if I were running this place, is: 1)Restrict Cwimhraeth new article creation and article-space editing until a comprehensive review on her edits has finished 2)Put some accuracy warning tag on all articles Cwimhraeth has created, so that at least we can warn readers 3)Enforcing on-wiki harassment of Cwimhraeth by AfadsBad to stop: if AfadsBad wants to do useful criticism and/or fix stuff herself, all the best, but any more personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, if I were running this place, but luckly I don't. --cyclopia^speak! 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds User:Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Even if I hadn't been constantly sidetracked by BLP nonsense in 7 years in wikipedia, I can't imagine writing 300 good articles in the relative less complex areas of politics I'm interested in. And looking into possible collusion or whatever the allegation is in the Good Article process would be helpful. (I've never paid much attention to all that ranking business myself.) If those charges are exaggerated and someone is mostly ticked articles aren't written to impossibly high standards and would rather just complain about it and harass a more productive editor, that's definitely even a bigger problem. We'll see if there's an admin willing to be proactive and creative on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please have a look at the editor review. We are not talking about failure to meet "impossibly high standards" here. What we are talking about is a million readers being told, for nearly a year, that the average winter temperature in cold deserts like Greenland and Antarctica is between –2 and +4 °C, for example. And that live penguins' feet are kept at deep-freezer temperatures to prevent them getting chilled. These were absurdities. Andreas JN466 03:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Endorse the opinion that Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Just throwing out an idea, perhaps Cwimhraeth editing should (for a while) be restricted to cleaning up all the previous articles that she has previously edited (if you trust her on that). But AfadsBad's attacks on Cwimhraeth simply have got to stop. starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think we need to close this and focus on the content at the editor review. Really. Bluster on both sides that engenders more antagonism is unhelpful. No comments on this thread are going to do anything but add more heat and less light. Anyone who wants to help out please go to the editor review page and please focus on (or fix) specific articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor review will probably help Cwimhraeth, but how will the editor review affect AfadsBad? Has AfadsBad at the very least agreed to be nice and guaranteed better future behaviour, if not expressed some form of remorse? I see User:AfadsBad still mentions Cwimhraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Casliber. But, try to emphasize that it is not just the articles at the editor review it is all of her science articles. I checked about 50 for my blog, looking at her early ones, later ones, insects, bats, plants. Every article contains the same sloppy editing, made up descriptions, imaginary colors, falsely weighted information, inaccurate information, made up information, synthesized taxonomies that are complete OR. There are only a few articles at the editor review, and it looks like it will take days for every article to be checked. There are 1300 articles that need rewritten. Time spent doing that would be time much better spent than this discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Ongoing personal attacks by User:Skookum1

Despite by blocked for 48 hours for unspecified reasons ([14]) by User:Fayenatic london, User:Skookum1 continues to make personal attacks. The last month and a half has seen an incredible wave of personal attacks, many against myself. Other more experienced editors advised me not to do anything since it would be a waste to time, so I sat back and observed the Skookum1's attacks continue unabated. Finally I started issuing warnings on his talk page (March 20th, March 21st, March 21st, and March 31st, in hopes of grabbing the attention of an administrator, but so far in vain. People have commented that Skookum1 makes valuable contributions; however, the other editors and I also make valuable contributions to Wikipedia for years now and have done so without violating basic Wikipedia Pillars.

For a sampling of personal attacks ("Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence" also constitutes a personal attack):

• Against myself: "she's NOT a good editor, she's behaving in a rogue manner, I'll take it up elsewhere, I guess I was just pointing out to you that somebody's sleeping dog didn't really want to stay lying down...." diff
• Against myself: "You don't get how half-informed you are about the FOO people problem ... Your logic throughout all of this has been half-informed ... It's ironic to me that you, as someone on an indigenous high horse often enough, as with how you came at me over the Nevada categories, would in this case wind up pandering to the name-changes brought on by colonialist attitudes/chauvnism towards native nomenclatures..... diff
• Against myself: "Well, if I didn't have to hear the same obstinate, half-informed ideas brought over time and again ... All the things she's bringing forward right now I told her about already, she dismissed them, told me what I thought didn't matter, and that she's entitled to her opinion. What she's really saying is she's determined to underscore her ignorance and has no intentions of learning about the subject matter she's screwing with" diff
• Against myself: "you violently and bitterly resisted my attempt to make sense out of the Nevada categories ... start throwing apples and oranges around and pointing at other name problems to justify your rashness and obstinacy defending this bad choice of category name which you made without having a clue what you're talking about." diff
• Against myself: "pretending yourself to be such an authority on it that youy think your "opinion" (=ignorance of the topic) matters, and that you have a "right" to impose it on others??" diff
• Against myself (accusation w/o proof): "... considering her timing of this re other convos in IPNA and elsewhere, and her territorial WP:OWNership of Nevada tribe/reservation categories where she accused me of being a vandal for trying to make sense of that category structure to bring it in line with IPNA standards ... to me it seems like she jumped on top of it as a provocation or a "throw the skookum a bone" time-waster like Kwami likes to do.... Hard to do, to accept good faith, when someone who has accused you in no slight terms in the past in very pointed NPA terms (impugning I'm a white racist or supermacist, calling me a vandal for trying to fix glaring miscategorization problems) is so aggressively WRONG in terms of the suggestions and reasons she brings forward, no matter how often I explain the facts to her, she reiterates her lack of correct information as if it were valid and mine was only "opinion", and wrong in her actions of ignoring the CfD and acting on her own without recourse to proper process." diff

...these go on and on, and I can provide more diffs if need, but to move on to more recent attacks:

• Against User:Maunus and myself: "He was at the time of most if not all, hence the overwrite power he had, which maunus and Uysvdi still have despite their contrarian and hostile and incivil behaviour." diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami and myself: "Your attitude has been hostile and contrarian, and you yourself attacked me subtextually during that little game you played with the Shoshone categories, your position there also being against guidelines for category use and harmonizing names with category titles. Kwami's out of line, and this ain't the first time (his little game with the K'omoks title these last two days was way out of line, and geez I thought you of all people in the cabal, being indigenous yourself, would seed the point of respecting modern name-choices made by those peoples..... but as with Squamish, which you waded into without a clue about the implications, you apparently prefer to stick with teh colonialists' names for peoples you don't even know. EAt apples much? And this little NPA message of yours is horseshit, given your own behaviour towards me....... Kwami defends racist terms and regularly espouses anti-native attitudes, and yet there you were lecturing me about not being indigenously aware...... ACK what a waste of time the lot of you are; ramming through your NCL pet project, applying it helter skelter without any thought of consistency, or the long-standin convention about standalone names being dismissive about native endonyms, and about Canadian English. That you are an admin is a joke." diff and diff
• Against User:Kwamikagami: "YOUR POV is what the problem is here, and accusing me of that is a farce. I'm the one that's being regularly attacked and criticized, and if I do so much as criticize a policy or point to someone's erroneous or ill-considered actions, I get an NPA warning from someone who's attacked me herself. Your problem Kwami is you can't admit you're wrong and that you have a complete disdain for the knowledge of the places and people and linguistic idiom (aka Canadian English usages) that's really obnoxious and you show it time and time again" diff
• Against JorisvS: "If all you can so is soft-pedal insults at the nominator and not address the 'support' votes from others, it's clear that your opposition is NOT based in guidelines but in personal contempt for me ... Your vote should be disqualified on those grounds ... Stop the axegrinding and discuss the issues ... it's you who declines to discuss this, and are making me thet issue, not the topic at hand, and are knee-jerk voting on a very personal and now targeted basis." diff
• Against JorisvS: "Please contain your prejudices ... The subtext of bigotry towards native peoples and their names in all such RMs is both tiresome and disturbing ..." diff
• Against JorisvS: "You bleated that UNDAB and NCET haven't faced RfCs; I think it's high time that NCL got a once-over by more than your little crew of linguistics groupies." diff

If anyone wants more examples, I can furnish more.

Skookum1 has frequently accused me of attacking him, but when asked to find concrete proof, could not (User talk:Skookum1#March 2014). The conversation where he incorrectly believes I accused him of racism is located at User talk:Skookum1/Archive 18#Categories on redirects and User talk:Skookum1/Archive 19#December 2013. He accused me of calling his edits to Nevada tribes' categories as "vandalism"; however, I never did. The edit summaries of the edits in question can be found: here and here; they involved removing reservation cats from redirects.

Skookum1 has many conspiracy theories against me, which, frankly, I find disturbing. In truth, I try to avoid him as much as possible in my editing, this AN/I being a major exception. In real life, I work with numerous Native artists from British Columbia, but don't bother writing about them on Wikipedia in the attempt to avoid Skookum1.

This recent barrage of personal attacks has created a toxic environment that does not serve any of us well. Ignoring the problem hasn't helped, and issuing warnings on Skookum1's talk page hasn't achieved anything. These personal attacks need to stop. If there *is* a policy that allows a user to attack anyone they want without any recourse, I would like to hear it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 22:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Comment I've had many run-ins with Skookum, though I haven't always been polite either. If I disagree with him on a matter of procedure (for example, when Skookum dislikes the names of articles that follow our naming guidelines, I think it's best to discuss changing the guidelines, rather than making scores of move requests and arguing each of them independently as an exception to the guidelines), then he accuses me of racism, perversion, conspiracy, or other acts of bad faith. I've had good experiences with him too, where he's been reasonable and helpful, but only when (a) I agreed with him, or (b) I was seeking his advice and had no opinion of my own. Skookum has made valuable edits, but not IMO valuable enough to overlook his socially inappropriate behaviour. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

• My reasons for blocking are set out on my talk page rather than Skookum1's, User_talk:Fayenatic_london#Skookum1. I have tried to coach this editor, but have not succeeded. Although I chose not to take further enforcement action in his case, I have been warning him (see his talk page) that action is bound to come if he does not change his behaviour, but sadly this has not changed. – Fayenatic London 22:23, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
  • My encounter with Skookum1 was at this recent CfD. I went into it neutral but speaking quite frankly I came away from it with the impression he's here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, not to improve the encyclopedia. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• This ANI and the threats of it I view as part of an ongoing harassment of attack and obstructionism by Usyvdi on partisan and personal grounds and constitutes an abuse of power; Bushranger made me as a person the target of discussion in that CfD, rather than address the issues or even read my statements, despite support from other editors who were in agreement with me on that issue. Usyvdi has partisan motivations here and is abusing her power as an admin on behalf of that agenda, and has issued NPA warnings one-sidedly while ignoring those made against me by herself, Kwami, JorisV, Maunus and others, and also tolerating an obvious campaign of oppositionism in various RMs and other discussions. Her own condescensions and derisions toward me are a matter of record and constitute harassment on behalf a particular agenda and some kind of personal resentment that seem to have begun quite a while ago; this is all highly unCIVIL and AGF and her own NPAs against me put her assault on me in a highly hypocritical context. Others respect me, and actually are capable of reading my posts instead of complaining that don't have time or ability to read so-called "walls of text"; many patronizing comments by her and her colleagues at NCL are staple fare in various RMs, and her refusal to discuss her inconsistency on various matters pertaining to guidelines and other matters. This is a nuisance an ANI and I believe it is her conduct, not mine, that should be on the table and her adminship reviewed - and revoked.

She denies saying things to me which I know she said and must be hidden in page histories somewhere, which I will take the time to dig out because of this ANI; she has also deleted my attempt to broach an important issue where she is in conflict with her own actions, and added the extremely NPA edit comment "Get a life!". she has refused discussion and met important questions with silence. The one-sided nature of her conflated NPA accounts completely belies the ongoing derision and opposition and insults of herself and others who are defenders of the extremely flawed guideline WP:NCL.

This is all a waste of time and just more harassment, and I believe part of a joint campaign to drive me by that particular faction to drive me from Wikipedia or have me blocked so as to muzzle my critiques of their actions and faulty guidelines and questionable behaviour. It is completely one-sided and highly partisan in nature and highly immature overall; playing wiki-cop when she herself is no one to talk is, quite frankly, a bore. I have been doing useful work while putting up with harassment, evasion, derision and more; this ANI is just more procedural obstructionism and hostility towards my editing activities and is highly questionable in the extreme. This ANI should be about her, and her erstwhile allies against me, not about me. I have work to do and that life to lead that she told me to go get; Wikipedia is becoming more and more about procedure and protocol that honest work on articles and seems increasingly smaller and smaller pool full of narrower and narrower minds invested with more and more power....and pompous behaviour. Yes, I am voluble but I am articulate and respected by many editors despite all the derision and denunciation.

This ANI is a nuisance ANI and partisan harassment and IMO nothing more; conflations of critiques of actions and guidelines are being misportrayed as NPA when much more explicit and vicious personality attacks and sundry derisions go unaddresszed, and are a tiresome bore at countless RMs and also that CfD that Bushranger interloped on by attacking me for my writing style without addressing content and support votes; that CfD and its predecessor and t he RMs preceding it all need revisiting, perhaps mediation or Arbcom or wherever, and NCL needs an RfC to address its many inadequacies. The use of adminship on behalf of a partisan alliance hostile towards me is highly questionable and should be being reviewed by all the adminship, not just the claque of those who recite TLDR as it it were a guideline and not an excuse to not listen or address important issues and incorrect claims which cannot be put in terse form.

The presumptuous behaviour and comments towards me by her and other admins who presume to speak for "the community" or as "we", as JorisV has done and others allied to Uysvdi is also a matter of record, as are incantations of guidelines without reference to the wider context of the rest of guidelines; the use of "fanatic" is an apt discussion of the WP:DUCK behaviour of those concerned, and was conflated into NPA by hypersensitivity and an obvious laager mentality by those who maintain that NCL has primacy over all other guidelines. Yet despite even more virulent NPAs against me, I am the one being attacked and now officially harassed....I will post a link or two later to longer replies and comments about the decay in commonsense and civility at Wikipedia in recent times, including a reply to her on her pre-ANI warning to me last night, which I withheld for review until today.Skookum1 (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am not an administrator. I ignored your personal attacks for weeks; however, they did not abate, so I gave giving you warnings for your personal attacks (which I would have no cause to do, if you would simply stop creating personal attacks). An AN/i is not a personal attack; having a different opinion is not a personal attack. -Uyvsdi (talk) 05:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • how bizarre but also typical of you, in all your conflations of my points about issues and guidelines and ongoing conduct and often rank dishonesty into alleged NPA status. "having a different opinion is not a personal attack" is completely contrary to how you have been treating my "different opinions" (which are 90% of the time or more directly about citable facts, other precedents and various guidelines other than the one being tub-thumped repetitively and out of context; I present facts, you claim they are only opinion while continuing to defend ORIGINALRESEARCH in NCL and also in NCET, and you deride my presentation of this with open derision and uncivil commentary on a regular basis, though not as harshly as the many AGFs and NPAs from your NCL colleagues which you also turn a blind eye to.

I am glad you are not an admin; I have seen your overwrite redirects and other things which led me to believe that; your pompousness and back-handed attitude towards my attempts to discuss guidelines and such matters as the "FOO people" problem and category redirects has been noxious and insulting. Your ANI is as hypocritical as much of your other conduct and words; this is a waste of time and is just more obstructionism and and a way to keep from answering to issues and RMs and to seek official muzzling of me to keep me from critiquing the NCL agenda and your own inconsistent positions on many matters. I will find that lengthy derision you launched at me re the category redirects which you deny making, as it was competely an NPA, being insulting and also somewhat racist towards me as a non-indigenous person.Skookum1 (talk) 05:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1 is passionate about what he thinks is best for Wikipedia. While Skookum1 could have picked less inflammatory words I can understand his frustration when faced with a group of editors who don't understand what the guidelines (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ethnicities and tribes) and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (languages)) say, here and here and here. Faced with that sort of remark and the belief by this group of editors that "one size fits all" ("Foo people: and "Foo language") even when this leads to article titles that violates Wikipedia:No original research it is no wonder that he tends to get frustrated. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 16:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a single monolithic group of editors. Over years now, I've dealt with the exact same situation, have been equally frustrated, but read and am familiar with the current iteration of both conventions, discuss the issues on the talk pages of those conventions, and don't resort to personal attacks. -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Given there's established consensus to violate WP:NOR in the name of WP:MOS when it comes to article titles in certain other parts of the encyclopedia, that ship sailed long ago. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Me, too

In this diff today, Skookum1 attributes all kinds of unspecified bad intent to me and others. This is uncalled for. Dicklyon (talk) 05:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Geez, yet more conflation and distortion claiming to be NPA when really it is evasion of the gist of your opposition, which is obstructionist and not about guidelines or real-world usage, but only a defence of your claim that the title in question is ambiguous, which it is NOT and you ignore both guidelines and cites/stats produced by entrenching the belief that it IS ambiguous, despite being no different from Coquitlam, Nanaimo and other town items that share a name with now-archaic usages;WP:CSG#Places is very clear about such issues but you muddy the waters despite proof that the District of Saanich is the primary usage in the course of justifying ignoring guidelines that I am acting under the mandate of, and with consensus from other WPCANADA editors.Skookum1 (talk) 05:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Skookum1, forgive me for being extremely blunt here, but there's a saying that's relevant to your situation here. Extremely relevant, even. "When you're in a hole, stop digging." - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:40, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your repeated attacks on my writing style buried the very relevant points I raised and the support votes coming from informed and conscientious editors who understand what I'm talking about and don't hassle me for my writing style as if it were a crime; BHG's closure in making me the target of the negative and off-guideline closure are of the same kind as your own targeting of me in your Fayenatic's close of last year of the previous CfD. and rather than heed him, you ignored the Mightyquill's comments about focusing on what I have to say not on me, which is totally contrary to the way any discussion is supposed to be decided on; on guidelines and facts, not targeting the proponent as a reason to deny the very needed CfD to correct the very bad and vague resulting stasis at a very questionable title. Others see my points and agree; the closure of the Squamish town RM was similarly skewed by procedural bafflegab and the endless TLDR mantra by those who cannot manage to read extended argument or even the guidelines, and by a host of opposition votes from people voting against the proposal in well-established and persistent patterns of knee-jerk opposition to anything I do or say.....Skookum1 (talk) 14:41, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • As I mentioned there, I came into that discussion neutral; my opinon of your editing style and discussion style was fully shaped by nobody other than yourself. Perhaps you need to consider, just for a moment, that if people are "opposed to anything I do or say", then perhaps maybe, just maybe, the problem is not them, but you. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Wow I'm not sure if Skookum1 could have proved the OP's point any better. Might have been better to plead the Fifth, however, based on the above alone, I forsee a break in Skookum1's editing patterns in the near future ES&L 10:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You mean the huge amount of valuable work I've been putting in despite endless harassment from a certain faction who want to see me gone because I'm in their way? Summary censure of a valuable contributor and very encyclopedically-conscious editor because of the insecurities towards my lengthy writingz and detailed commentary and wide-ranging interests and knowledge, or silencing my ability to respond to putdowns and insults accordingly? Is Wiki-bureacracy putting itself ahead of content so readily that someone who's created a huge mass of articles is so easily shut out by someone's attacks against me reaching such fever pitch and endless hypocritical accusations against me by those stonewalling and degrading me on a regular basis? Really? Is that what Wikipedia is about? The iron hand of so-called wikiquette and blatant hypocrisy about same, rather than honestly and fully addressing issues of content and TITLE??Skookum1 (talk) 14:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:No personal attacks provides the definition of "personal attacks," which includes, "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence." -Uyvsdi (talk) 15:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Oh, so Kwami calling my bringing up guidelines that he doesn't like "ridiculous" and "idiotic" and more is fine and dandy huh? And there were claims about NPA about me that had to do with nothing more than showing how he (and others) were in violation of guidelines or had ignored consensus (just as you had done in re-creating Category:Squamish). I'm busy in real life; your own groundless accusations and many putdowns of me are many, I'll get to them yet.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You have also successfully showcased why there is WP:DIVA (Specifically the part stating "... long-time user who believes he or she is more important than other editors, long of course being subjective). Seriously just in the ANI responding to your behavior you have tossed out at least half a dozen dispersions. The requirements to edit also include being able to work in a colaborative environment; content isn't created in a vacuum. Creating a hostile editing environment is not the way to go. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Funny you should use that term "Diva" it applies very much to Uysvdi as links here later will show; but here's a good one where she reverts a needed change to NCET saying "no consensus", meaning that she and Kwami don't want it, even though it's come up over and over and over again in the RMs that the "NCL Pack" (I was reading WP:List of cabals last night have been so bitterly and repetitively opposing on spurious grounds; claiming that the NCL-advocated "FOO people" is "preferred" has been clearly shown to be in violation of TITLE, as is also the claim that it is "unambiguous".....those have to come out, along with the ORIGINALRESEARCH claim that such in a "language-people pair" both are primary topics so both' must be disambiguated; the consensus has taken place, just not in the little backyard where she and Kwami are stonewalling/ignoring the discussion of NCET that will never be a consensus, given her silence at questions she doesn 't want to answer, and Kwami's rank insults and negative commentary. "Subjective" is hardly what others familiar with my work would call it; guidelines, sources, informed local knowledge and more, are being met by everything from ad hominem attacks and snipes, irrelevant red herrings, mis-citations of guidelines or just not answering to the major guidelines; I'll compile links to these later; I'm busy in real life today, but between "DIVA" and "subjective" you have nailed on the head not me, but the activities thrown up and thrown at me in opposition by those railing against my attempts to put right what they have put wrong, including that little reversion of Uysvdi's at NCET, which she does not WP:OWN. Many others have pointed out those flaws in NCET, the consensus is there, and the flaws are so many in NCL that IMO it should be trashed and started over from scratch from objective reality, not the agenda of a club of linguists.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to AN/I, Skookum1, the little that I've learned is that, regardless of your contributions thus far, editors that are seen as disrupting the project are sanctioned. I've seen editors who were productive for years and years, then some straw breaks the camel's back, they go off, making accusations and can't be talked down off the ledge and they end up being blocked. Editors here are asking you to come down from the ledge. Enough of the conspiracy theories, claims of being ganged up are rarely met with empathy because these are never one-sided disputes.

Also, no one, I mean, no one, wants to read a wall of text. If you want people to read your argument, please be concise, direct and on topic.Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The editors who are disrupting the project are those who are persistently blocking changes mandated to titles by major guidelines; and Kwami's attempt to shut down RMs because he claims he wants a centralized discussion; one that he did not hold when he went across thousands of articles without discussion, applying a guideline that he wrote himself; among the casualties were important indigenous titles in my own part of the world, which it took five bitterly fought RMs and no end of personal abuse and baiting from, to correct. "Disruptive" like "subjective" and "diva" are way more apt for his behaviour and that of the other NCLers who persist in trying to block name changes with subjective arguments, specious commentary, and re-incantations of NCL with no discussion of anything else - except attackign Canadian English. Uysvdi has mostly stayed out of these RMs; the whole campaign of oppositionism has been noted and criticized by others.... I'm used to the ironies of being accused of what others are doing, but calling ME "disruptive" when all this is going on...well, that's what Kwami said about my launching of individual RMs on the titles he wantonly changed to suit himself after the bulk RMs I launched to address only 120 of them were closed. I have to get busy with my day; the track record of this campaign to bully and oppose me is very long, and I'm not the only one who has observed that there's one hell of a lot of knee-jerk opposition and relentless nitpicking going on to delay the needed reversions; I was going to file a multiple ANI on this group of editors (whicvh is not a conspiracy because it's public and also demonstrable fact) but Uysvdi beat me to it. I'm not the one being disruptive, I'm the one being victimized by those who are being disruptive.Skookum1 (talk) 00:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum, you're doing yourself no favours here. Walls of text + inflammatory language in response to concerns raised at AN/I are extremely unlikely to result in a situation that continues with your unimpeded ability to edit. Walk away from the computer, have a cup of tea or whatever you prefer, and practice some mindfulness before you continue to engage here. I urge you to do this for your own good, and for your ability to keep editing without problems. — Daniel 02:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 exhibits some classic diva behavior, and his inevitable return from the last "throw my arms up in the air" wikibreak that lead me to this conclusion is reinforced - and problems continue. I do not understand the persecution complex, and I probably don't need to. Skookum1 needs to toe the line like we all have to. Doc talk 03:07, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The tacit message I've received from Wikipedia in the last month and a half is that Skookum1 gets to shower me with personal attacks, including accusations with no proof of my attacking him, and he will face absolutely no recourse—despite personal attacks bringing a major breach of the pillars of the institution. I've been plugging along since July 29, 2007, editing and creating new articles. But despite a solid track record of six and a half years of editing, apparently I just have to lump it and endure attacks such as the following?

• "IMO you are a coward and a hypocrite... like a blind bull in a china shop. ... So go ahead, feel powerful, delete me from your little self-contained world; and throw me another taunt; you attacked and degraded me over your precious nevada categories, then waded into a BC category as if by deliberate malice. Knowingly provocative. I think you're happy with the mess you've created. Since I've pointed out that you're a hypocrite and acting from cowardice too, I might as well add that your behaviour is clearly passive-aggressive ... I also think you're a racist." diff
• "impugning me as a racist and a white-guy-who-should-butt-out-of-native-topic areas, as Uysvidi has done" ... "Childish behaviour masked as righteous snottiness; I'm not the self-righteous one here, you are, and Uysvidi." diff.

There's all this discussion about how to attract and retain new editors, female editors, native editors, etc. Why would *anyone* want to work anonymously and for free just to endure treatment like this??? -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Uyvsdi, I'm not sure you've read the comments we've made towards Skookum if you honestly somehow read that we tacitly approve of their pathetic, childish, and inappropriate behaviour at all. The message that they should have got was this: "you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message DP 00:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

WHOA ""you're hanging by your last thread. Any further such comments will lead to a block" - that's the rather loud, clear, obvious message" = if that's a statement against me or for me, I'm not sure, but given that the prevailing winds here are "shut up and let us pass judgment on you" I'm gathering it may be the former. "The condemned is not allowed to speak in his own defence".......very Kafka-esque. The "pathetic, childish and inappropriate behaviour" is in the nasty and/or wheedling comments and obstructionism I'm responding to in all cases. "Any further comments [from the accused] will lead to a block"?? So it's ok to vilify me, but not OK for me to put any of it in context? If so, then per my just-now comments in response to Uyvsdi's continued hounding of me below will see me blocked by the time I wake up (it's 1:51 am where I am) - and the discussion she's quoting from will go quiet and the issues and guidelines I have brought to the front burner will be left gather dust in archive-space. Upshot: nothing done except tossing out of Wikipedia a highly productive contributor with a great amount of knowledge and dedication, as many others have observed, despite my prolix manner, I've done one hell of a lot of work in many areas.

Why toss me out? Because I dared defend myself against unfair criticism, and dared to dispute guidelines that are flawed by pointing out how they are in violation of major guidelines? Is that how wikipedia works? I'm not the one trying to waste time by delaying or obstructing RMs, I'm trying to correct things that were recklessly done in the name of those inadequate guidelines (one in particular, whose advocates are the real problem here); it was Uysvdi's own actions at Category:Squamish et al who precipitated my taking things to proper procedure to get the matter properely addressed. Instead of y'all continuing to justify your intent to ban me here, why don't you actually have a look at the points raised in the RMs and in the NCET discussion and take part in it, instead of aiding a very partisan opponent in her campaign to prevent me from continuing to try and raise the issues of those guidelines. If you do vote to block me, you are being played ..... and the guidelines will go uncorrected and will continue to be abused by those who perpetuate their misapplication and inadequacies, and Kwami will go have a beer and a laugh.

Other editors have observed to me privately that ANI and the like are habituated by people who like to exert power, who like to say no, who like to pick people apart unfairly...... who relish their roles as jury, judge and executioner......prove me, and them, wrong.Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I was in part responding to a message on my talk page that nothing would happen and that I was wasting people's time. Here's posts from yesterday/today:

• (directed at User:Kwamikagami): Edit summary: "pfft, you're hardly the one to talk about 'workign with other people'", talk: "why do you continue to pretend that any further discussion is needed when you have resisted, stonewalled, and derided any attempt to discuss anything and indulged in endless and repeated derisions and insults?" diff and "The further point, constantly rejected by "global English chauvinists..."
• (also directed at User:Kwamikagami): "Your own attitudes towards native people in last year's RMs "we don't have to care waht they think" are both un-wikipedian and against guidelines. It's also worth noting that a lot of the native endonyms are plurals, in fact I'd be hard pressed to think of one that isn't. Your attempt to shut me out of a discussion you yourself invited me to is all too typical of your behaviour and bad attitude and is yet another AGF on your part. Will you ever address actual issues instead of wheedle and wiklawyer by habit of being obstructionist and endlessly seeking to defray discussion rather than actually listen to it???? It is you who are "disruptive" and it is you who deserve the nasty epithets you wielded at me, here and elsewhere." diff
• (still directed at User:Kwamikagami): ""Or do you mean stop taking part in pointing out issues and precedents you persistently ignore by attacking and sniping at me?? Points, since I know you have difficulty, like so many here, with reading blocks of sustained argument and topic points..." and "Let me bold the critical phrase for you, since you have comprehension problems it seems..." and " I'm talking straightforward references to guidelines, you are making accusations and distortions and now "shut up and go away" subtexts "will you stop now?" Why don't YOU stop refusing to recognize widespread consensus that is based on, as CBW has observed more than once, guidelines that you just want to ignore or nitpick by whatever means; when confronted by them you attack me...." and " "Why don't you stop now?" indeed. YOU are the stonewaller - and "white man speak with forked tongue" also." diff.

The last line, wth??! We're in the 21st century. -Uyvsdi (talk) 13:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

You really don't have any sense of irony at all do you??? That comment was because Kwami is, as always, twisting what people say to claim it means something else- something you have done to me yourself re the "people" issue I raised in a guideline and you came back as if I were talking about TWODABS, which it was clear I was not. I'm a white man, and I don't engage in such dishonest behaviour as we so persistently see from Kwami, who you are bizarrely defending here as though he were a victim and not a persistently disruptive and obstructionist quibbler (there's other words I can use, but...). Why don't you address the guidelines and consensus points I raised there instead of coming here and giving my responses to Kwami instead of also the b.s. he was dishing out so as to avoid discussing those same guidelines and issues that you won't condescend to admit to, though dozens of RMs, as Cuchulainn has observed and I quoted there, have already spoken loud and clear. You don't want a discussion, and you don't want a "consensus" with someone about guidelines and precedent-setting RMs, you want to silence that discussion by blocking the person who brought all those guidelines and issues up and has had success in getting others to listen, though you won't even answer me, but you do want to talk ABOUT me, out of context, so as to have me banned. So those discussions will go nowhere, and you can claim that "consensus" is on your side. To achieve that consensus you have come here to enlist a firing squad......Skookum1 (talk) 19:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're avoiding me, but you're obviously still bent on hounding me, and continue to be "just fine" with Kwami's ongoing snipes and tendentiousness at that guideline "discussion" where CBW and I are trying to talk about guideline issues and changes that need addressing in the wake of, as observed by Cuchulian, "consensus has spoken" across a whole slew of RMs mandating that changes that I tried to make and you claimed "no consensus" when reverting........your silence on questions concerning the terms "preferred" and "unambiguous" speaks to your lack of unwillingness to enter discussions about actual guidelines that you and those who concocted NCL and now seek to stonewall NCET from the changes mandated across dozens of RMs...my retorts to Kwami are all correct, and your unwillingness to address his ongoing taunts and the insults he copy-pasted across those RMs is proof to me of your one-sidedness and your intent to continue to harangue about me while it's me who's bringing forward the issues that the consensus you say does not exist has clearly already mandated.

Your hypocrisy on the "FOO people" issue in re-creating Category:Squamish against consensus on a category title you knew very well, if you had indeed read the CfDs as you claim to have, was contentious and controversial in the extreme, and happened only a few weeks after Montanabw suggested we stay out of each other's way, me out of Nevada and the Southwest, you out of areas you know I'm active in i.e. BC native categories, the system for which I am, yes, one of the principal architects. You waded into a controversy on a subject/title that you know very little about and on the basis that "FOO people" was ambiguous - your word precisely, and ratehr than address that you rudely deleted my attempt to raise it with you, just as you had refused to listen to reasons why Category:Skwxwu7mesh was valid per TITLE/CONSISTENCY/PRECISION and yes, it is very ironic that you would seek to retrench a "colonialist" name instead of going with CONSISTENCY to return it to the native form that was created by an indigenous artist and activist of some note.

That you also unhatched a PRIMARYTOPIC dispute over the town/district of Squamish is not incidental; precedents on "town-people" pairs continue to be resolved in favour of the town; you waded into somewhere you had no knowledge of, and refused when I did try to broach it with you, as recreator of the "new" (previously deleted by consensus) category

Using me as an excuse to not create native artist bios is, quite frankly, pathetic. Create them, I rarely work on artist bios of any kind......no doubt you will point to this as another so-called "personal attack" when you tolerate Kwami's direct insults and stonewalling right and left is just proof to me of your partisanism and not giving the full context of why I was responding as I did to Kwami - and JorisV, who also has been extremely tendetious and oppositional and also refusing to address guidelines.

CBW is right, I'm passionate about what I believe is best for wikipedia and that I'm very frustrated with the stonewalling and derision coming from the NCL camp and speak my mind about the obstinacy and pissy - tendentious - responses I get, which often contain overt or soft-pedalled personal attacks and condescensions of all kind. Kwami has tried to shut down the discussions that, with some exceptions due to PRIMARYTOPIC reasons, now have established consensus, as observed by Cuchulainn, for the amendments to NCET and NCL that you refuse to address (through your silence) and which Kwami is turning, time and again, to attacks on me, including twisting what Cuchalainn had said to pretend it agreed with him which it did not in the course of, once again, to stonewall addressing the issues that not just me, but CBW, has raised.

There is much more background behind Usyvdi's selections against me above, including the recent ones from NCET (where she does not post the material I was responding to), that point to an overall pattern of obstinate and hostile BAITing that is very much along the lines of Kwami's failed attempts to block last year's RMs. Among these were my attempts to raise the issue of indigenous endonyms at IPNA, only to be pushed aside with "we've got more important things to do" without even telling me about NCET or, if that was before NCET came into existence, the relevant section at NCP it was transferred from or the discussions going on about it on the NCP talkpage.

No doubt my 'failure' to shut up as instructed above is going to be yet another stroke held against me; but if I can't defend myself against a one-sided witchhunt when others who do much worse, and persistently continue to obstruct and oppose and also insult and deride me......ack.... if that's the case, then Wikipedia consensus is more of a kangaroo court than rational discussion, and issues are being ignored while the bearer of the person who is bringing them forward, wanting them addressed when they have not been, and you refuse yourself to deal with them (Uyvsdi) never mind condescend to discuss them;

I have produced view stats, googlesearches, guideline citations, and been responded to with silence/inaction on your part and continued WP:BAITing me by Kwami, and now seeing you cherrypick my responses to him as more evidence of why you want me banned from Wikipedia, raises again my original point that this is a highly partisan and one-sided ANI and is really harassment, and nothing else. Well, it's not nothing else if you do succeed in having me thrown out like Kauffner has been....interestingly it was his tendentiousness that created the Squamish imbroglion in the first place, what with his very hasty speedy CfD and TfD to "Squamish" right after the initial RM there were ill-informed claims were made to justify changing a title that had stood for six years

as with other native endonym RMs/ closures and guidelines raised in them have demonstrated, "Skwxwu7mesh" did address all of the bits of TITLE that NCET and NCL, which you refuse to allow proper reforms to - reverting saying "no consensus" but refusing to discuss anything towards that consensus discussions where, other than having to respond to Kwami's ongiong nastinenss, I'm being very "rational" and specific about guidelines and precedents.

If my need to voice my defenses here, or against Kwami and his wikilawyering and tendentiousness at NCET and elsewhere, is used as a reason to call me a "diva" and throw TLDR at me as if it were a criminal offence, with capital punishment awaiting me if I dare to speak again, or to respond to you, then it underscores my point that wikiquette, and not content, is the primary governing module of the Wikipedia "backroom".....making an editor the issue instead of the content is boilerplate for discussion pages.

The Squamish issue that you waded into either without knowing what you were doing, or as deliberate BAITing is not dead; it will come back if not by me by others; it was in fact, your observation in doing what you did there that prompted me to address address moving via RM back all the NCL-instigated "people" additions on indigenous articles, and also those RMs for Canadian unique placenames-take-no-dabs per WP:CSG#Places that led to the growth of WP:CANLIST considerably this last two weeks, including the Squamish-parallels Lillooet, Chemainus, Sechelt and Tsawwassen, among others (Comox looks at this point as though it will close in favour of the town), and where PRIMARYTOPIC has not been shown to be the people, who themselves self-identify differently from the towns and regions which are the modern primary topic of those names.

Squamish is no different, the problem there is that any attempt to talk reason there is drowned out by ongoing attacks against me....including from those other people whose personal attacks you show no interest in replicating, only singling out my responses in the course of your attempt to get me banned from Wikipedia. So that, it seems, silence will fall on discussions to reform NCET and NCL and that you and Kwami can claim that "consensus" means that those guidelines will stay the way they are.

If your intent here was simply to provoke me to more necessarily longish responses to your one-sided complaints against me, you have won. If defending myself against ongoing obstructionism and insults means that my voice has gotten sharp, it is a measure of frustration with the lack of comprehension or respect that this is all about. I know my subject material very well (which you do not, as you displayed re Squamish), and because of all the RMs required to fix what you will not, I'm getting to know guidelines pretty damned well too. Disruptive behaviour and tendentious, obstructionist conduct in discussions by your cohorts go unaddressed and uncommented upon by you, yet you make a point of continuing to defend them as if they were victims and do nothing about them and single my responses to them out. Your attempt to turn a point of mine into something else re "people" vs TWODABS somewhere seems typical; you didn't even apologize for that; changing the meaning of what someone has said I've seen lots of before, it may have been a lack of comprehension of what I had said, but given the overall pattern of picayune wikilawyering and ostructionism I am seeing and continue to see', it's me that's being victimized here, as elsewhere.

I'm trying to improve Wikipedia by correcting out-of-date titles and addressing guideline issues that, frankly, the "old consensus" at IPNA did long ago until it was ignored by some who knew better; you only got here in 2009, long after Luigizanasi and Phaedriel and the others who established the conventions re titles and category names retired or went inactive. And now rather than fess up to the realities of those guidelines, you refuse to discuss them and are trying to silence their main proponent, who has been getting NCL-instigated titles corrected right and left. It is you who are not willing to properly discuss issues, not me. Instead of discuss these issues, you continue in your campaign to have me blocked and continue to be one-sided about what I say in response to ongoing obstructionism and attacking me instead of discussing the issues I raise, without ever addressing what it was that got said that I was responding to. That is tendentious, clearly hostile, and disruptive in the extreme; rather than talk to me and try to seek ground, you continue to talk about me, relentlessly, and continue to remain silent on the atrocious behaviour of Kwami and the more soft-pedalled but persistent derision from JorisV and others; it appears not only white men speak with forked tongue. Oh, is that a personal attack? I don't think it is, I think it's totally fair given your one-sidedness in this matter, your hypocrisy on "FOO people" re Squamish and re "preferred" and "unambiguous" at NCET, and the way you are indulging in your right to speak here, knowing that the TLDR mindset already heard here means that if I do speak to defend myself, that will damn me further. In other words, and per my "kangaroo court" comment above, the accused does not have a right to speak, and anything they have done will be held against them........conflated out of all context and irrelevant to the content issues those comments came from.

I've done a mammoth amount of work here, despite the campaign to systematically obstruct and, it seems, BAIT me, and during the course of this ANI, which I've been trying to ignore as t he partisan witchhunt I still maintain it to be. That you are spending more time attacking me here than actually addressing the consensus that has emerged (due to my assiduousness in pursuing these issues, item by item, guideline by guidline) speaks worlds about the contrast between "wiki-idealists" like myself and "wiki-bureaucrats" that I have seen comments on in various places.

I've tried to talk common sense and guidelines and facts and been treated with derision and insults, and by yourself the back of the hand when I try to raise issues with you; long before the NV categories thing it seems, you've had it in for me......and now, seeing my success in putting NCL on the hotseat where it belongs, overturning its false premises in RM after RM after RM, this ANI was launched against me, while you continue to refuse to discuss issues or guidelines, and Kwami continues to insult and wheedle endlessly and tries to turn my words against me, per his usual inimitable....and you take notes and come running here to report back my responses to him. I'm the one talking guidelines and better content; all you are trying to do is muzzle me so those guideline and content issues will remain unadressed....and maybe so you can go start writing those BC native-artist articles you blame me for you not starting bios on. Hmpf. Skookum1 (talk) 18:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I must say, in Skookum's defense, that he does make a large number of valuable edits, and WP is on the whole better off for his presence. But it's no longer possible to have an intelligent, or civil, conversation with him: Any disagreement is proof of "perversion". There's one article (Comox people) where the last time he was on the talk page he had agreed with me, that we should use the assimilated English spelling Comox, but now he's changed his mind, and thinks that we should use the "native" spelling, K'omoks (though this isn't the native Comox name, but the name one of their neighbors uses for them!). Since he's changed his mind, without so much as a mention of that fact on the talk page, all the people he used to agree with are now racist, recalcitrant, obstructionist, etc., as if somehow all our opinions should stay in sync, without any discussion, even when we change them, and any divergence of opinion is willful disruption. You can't reason with an attitude like that. — kwami (talk) 18:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Apparently you can't reason with someone who just doesn't know about the topic at hand, as you have just demonstrated, and who cherry picks former opinions, now changed because unlike you I actually go do some research on the topics rather than just guideline-toss without knowing anything like you do.....
  • 1) if you knew about this people and their current state, their name is adopted, as is their modern language, which is Lik'wala, the language of the Laich-kwil-tach or Lekwiltok; Island Comox as a language is dead, and these people have adopted the language of their neighbours, and the name given to them in that language; I used to think the name was a derivation of the Chinook Jargon word for dog kamuks, referring to the dog breed once raised for wool in Contact and pre-Contact times (now extinct)
  • 3) but it turns out that the name is in fact Lik'wala ("Southern Kwakiutl") and not of "Comox" origin at all (their original name in their now-dead language was Sahtloot). Which is why it is unsuitable and incorrect for the Sliammon/Tla A'min, Homalco and Klahoose (the "Mainland Comox"), who obviously have not adopted Lik'wala unlike their Island counteparts.
  • 4) K'omoks IS the native name used by this people, who explain this all on their webpage, which by your comments it appears you disdain to have read. I'm the one with local, modern expertise and aware of the complexities of the native cultural/political revival, you are the one relying on "facts" and terminologies from old books.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some sanction needed. AFAICR, I first encountered Skookum1 when I was trying to help clear the CFD backlog, and spotted a CFD which had been open for weeks. When I looked at the page, it was obvious why it was open: the extraordinary verbosity of the nominator Skookum1 had produced a discussion which no sane admin would even try to read, unless they had a masochistic desire for a prolonged headache.
  My closure (as consensus to keep, on account of the nom having tried to bludgeon everyone else out of the debate) was challenged on my talk by Skookum1, who was again verbose and rambling. I responded that I had nothing to add to the close, but that deletion review was open; and then I closed the discussion. Skookum1 stil posted again anyway, and I promptly reverted that post.
  What we see in this discussion is more of the same extraordinary verbosity, blaming everybody else for the conflicts which surround Skookum1's editing. I agree with User:The Bushranger's comment that Skookum1 appears to be out to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Whatever the merits of his case, his style of communication prevents consensus formation. It's not just the number of words, but the failure to structure them with sub-heads or bullet points, and the rambling mixtures of substantive points with complaints about other editors.
  Unless Skookum1 radically changes his approach, I don't see how can work collaboratively. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • BHG, this last few days I've been making a point of bulleting comments or at least separating them into paragraphs as on last night's responses here; I did so also on the Squamish CfD re TITLE's and NCET's various points relating to that discussion and still got hammered and BLUDGEONed for the "walls of text" complaint.
    • 1) I have bulleted on RMs this last week, and also on the NCET guideline discussion; where instead of addressing those points, Kwami turned Cuchulains closing comment on Talk:Lillooet#Requested move on its head, claiming it agrees with him which it does not, and continuing to resist discussion by slagging me instead; distorting and misrpresenting things I've said just as he has done again immediately above.Skookum1 (talk)
    • 2) Your own bad call on the Squamish issue I will make no direct comment on here; the PRIMARYTOPIC research has been done on that title and will be addressed again in the light of a couple of dozen related and now closed/moved RMs, where I was not made the target of the decision, and what I had to say listened to, and the irrelevancy of the "oppose" votes refuted by other participants. Skookum1 (talk)

• • • 3) IMO people who don't know about a subject area who wish to dispute PRIMARYTOPICs on things and places they have no real acquaintance with should neither comment/vote nor close unless they are prepared to learn about the topic and address the issues raised. The "I don't have time to read that" cant that I'm hearing is a sorry excuse for proper discussion of encylopedia contents....I have local expertise as many have observed; this is regularly derided or, as too often the case, passed over without being read by people who, if pressed for time or a lack of effort to learn about the subject, should not be voting or closing. The mess this has created I spent a lot of time and energy trying to correct, and with a few holdouts the consensus emerging underscores all I've been saying in each and every RM and CfD.....Skookum1 (talk)

• • • 4) I've changed my style of posting, but am still being BAITed into the necessary responses against ongoing deflection and the very evident campaign to exclude me from Wikipedia altogether, as per example of Uysvdi's quoting of me last night without including the pejorative and misleading/distorted comments I was responding to. Despite Kwami's disclaimer above that he doesn't want to see me banned from Wikipedia I have good reason to doubt that as being any more honest than his persistent dishonesty and misrepresantations for a very long time now; He hasn't changed his ways, in fact he's being even more reactionary and hostile than ever, and Usyvdi continues to look for things I've said while ignoring the things said that prompted them....one-sidedness on display in extremis.....and I've just wasted another hour of my life on people who are trying to railroad me.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Some sanction needed Skookum does make some positive contributions but these sorts of comments are entirely unacceptable [15]. Neither can I say I found accusations against me of wikilawyering terrible positive[16][17]. If Skookum can turn down the snarkiness of his comments, and maybe make his comments more brief, than I believe he would be a positive contributor. However, the negativeness of his comments is currently obstructive.--Labattblueboy (talk) 01:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Your obstructive behaviour on various RMs, including ones now closed against your opinion, comes off as snarky itself.....and yes, you are wikilawyering, that's not an accusation that's by the definitions given on WP:Wikilawyering, using guidelines out of context and not in the spirit in which they were written. The FIFTHPILLAR "there are no rules" is violated every time someone tries to turn a single guideline point into "policy" and use it as an iron-fast rule to obstruct a needed and rightful change/reversion as you persistently are doing there, and have done in other RMs as well.Skookum1 (talk)

• • the guidelines that allowed Sta7mes in the first place, which you are so hotly resisting return to the original title (as called for by guidelines when there is an intractable dispute) which were consensus-driven by many editors of that time, including that page's/title's author, you persist in denying, calling Canadian dab standards "irrelevant" and continuing to tub-thump on the use of /7/ in that title; which is specious and you still do not continue to address the other primary example of a non-English character in a title in teh same region, in fact just down the road - the colon in Sto:lo. I'm the one talking guidelines as a whole, you're the one zeroing in on only one aspect of the title and IMO misinterpreting and abusing that guideline despite the ambibuities and dab problem of the current title.Skookum1 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

New personal attacks on Jimbo's page

Skookum1 is now posting even more inappropriate remarks on Jimbo's page. [18][19] —Neotarf (talk) 11:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, we have precedent, with Giano. Except that Giano's content is better and his commentary less obnoxious. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know Giano and I don't know Skookum, but Giano has never gone out of his way to WP:BITE me. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Site ban proposal for User:Skookum1

This discussion has now gone on for more than 8 days and 10,000 words. Skookum1 doesn't seem to be able to participate without massive disruptions across multiple forums. Blocks have been tried and they didn't work. The attacks continue, even as the spotlight is trained on him and even more editors continue to express their concerns. Skookum1 can't stop. I propose a site ban. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. —Neotarf (talk) 04:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a site ban. When personal attacks are pointed out and the individual decides to ignore the problem and cast further aspersions there is no way to work with it. I believe they will be a continuing disruption and further time sink if nothing is done. I do believe an indef block should be applied. Tivanir2 (talk) 15:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

India Against Corruption disruption yet again

We've got more incoming disruption at India Against Corruption from the same meatpuppets/SPAs/role accounts that have previously and tendentiously been pushing a POV and issuing legal threats. I'm really rather fed up of this place at the moment and can't be bothered digging out diffs but if someone is around who knows the history then please could you do the necessary. Plenty in the archives here, and stuff at mediation, with OTRS etc. I have reported it to RFPP but that can take hours and this is election season in India.

You'll see some recent back-and-forth on my talk page history and at that of TheWikiIndian (who is blocked for 2 weeks right now but only the tip of the iceberg). - Sitush (talk) 08:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I protected the page when I noticed the edit warring a few minutes ago - hadn't seen this or RPP. This is the second time in a few weeks that this page has been protected. The elections are 12 May 2014 and I expect a number of attempts to use Wikipedia to promote candidates and parties. Dougweller (talk) 09:00, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect the problems will continue after the elections because this is a massive misunderstanding of how we operate. They've been invited on numerous occasions to create India Against Corruption (organisation) or similar if they think they can satisfy WP:GNG but they never bother. Which is because up to now it hasn't satisfied GNG and they know it. Anyway, I'm gone & it is no longer my problem. - Sitush (talk) 09:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a gross distortion of the facts. IAC is an apolitical organisation. We care a fig for elections. FYI, yhe elections are on 9.April.2014 onwards. It is Sitush who is promoting political candidates Arvind Kejriwal (who was a part of IAC but is now a politician) and Anna Hazare (who was never a part of IAC, but is endorsing candidates for a fee). On 27.March 2014 the leading Indian newspaper "The Hindu" published this [20]. Sitush now stands exposed and refuses to discuss this news report . Accordingly IAC demands that all references in the article titled "India Against Corruption" to Anna HAzare / "Team Anna" are deleted within 36 hours. Mr. Sarbajit Roy and Mr. Veeresh Malik are the trademark and copyright holders for all aspects connected to the brandname "India Against Corruption". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The article has been fully protected. Jim1138 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
  • The above looks like a "chilling effect threat" to me. Probably the IP should get a time out for that. BMK (talk) 09:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Please read the news report first and the retraction by the newspaper. Does Wikipedia still justify IMPERSONATION of our body? Can any Admin explain WHY Sitush dropped out of MEDIATION when he couldn't justify his impersonating edits ? 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:24, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
      • What happens after 36 hours when we don't comply with your demands? (Incidentally holding trademarks doesn't prevent the organization from being discussed without its permission, and, at least in US law, one cannot copyright a name.) BMK (talk) 09:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
        • We have many options open to us. This is NOT a legal threat. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
          • Discuss us freely, but don't allow IMPERSONATIUON of us on your website. Impersonation is a contravention of WMF's "Terms of Use". 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
            • • Impersonation of who? You're not a named account, you're an IP. We have no way of knowing who you are, so there's no way to prevent "impersonation". Make an account, show OTRS some proof that you represent an organization, and if it's verified, then if someone claiming to be from the organization turns out to be an impersonator, something can be done. Until then... Beside, who are claiming is impersonating the IAC? Sitush? Simply because he's written an article based on facts from reliable sources that you don't like? You don't and can't (and won't) control what's written about you here, so if that's what you're after, it's not gonna happen. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Just to assist you folks. On 27.March.2014 the venerable Indian Newspaper "The Hindu" deleted a news story that Mr Hazare was with IAC and fully published our rejoinder that Mr. Anna Hazare was never a part of IAC, and after confirming this from Mr. Hazare. The link is above. 2A01:7E00:0:0:F03C:91FF:FEDB:DDC8 (talk) 09:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

My earlier comment here was removed by someone. As for discussing freelym, we've done that for nine months and you "lost", for want of a better word. It is things like this that have put me off Wikipedia, ie: clueless contributors & the fact that the WP systems mean one has to put up with them for such a prolonged time. Ending the ability to edit anonymously would be a start. - Sitush (talk) 09:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, regarding IP editing. BMK (talk) 09:47, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IP, howe many more times must you idiots be told that the article does not say Hazare was a part of the IAC organisation that you represented. He was a part of the IAC movement and a member of a committee that was popularly identified with that movement and the term (not the organisation) IAC. - Sitush (talk) 09:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for evasion - I think it's pretty clear that, whether sockpuppet or meatpuppet, this is a continuation of the usual IAC disruption. Since there's clearly no reasoning with this person/these people, blocking on sight seems to be the only strategy that will work. Yunshui 雲‍水 09:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• @ Sitush: it wasn't the IP who removed your earlier post — I think that must have been an accident. The sock you mentioned in the removed post has been indeffed, along with another one who just removed the header to this section from the ANI TOC[21]. Possibly more interestingly, the more established editor TheWikiIndian has made legal threats and called you a paid editor who published inaccurate information in Arvind Kejriwal as a paid edit to solicit votes for Mr. Kejrijwal's party and to confuse the public. I think you recognize that, Sitush — do you have the link to that blog again? — and Dougweller is in it too, he and the paid editor Sitush jointly vandalised Mr.Roy's Wikipedia bio-entry. Well, it is April 1. These abuses by Sitush and admins have been reported to Michelle Paulson and Philippe Beaudette, TheWikiIndian states. I only blocked him for two weeks for egregious personal attacks, which he repeated on his page after the block, so I removed talkpage access. But if anybody wants to indef him pending retraction of the legal threats, I won't stand in the way. There may be multiple reasons — a checkuser of TheWikiIndian vs the IP posting in this thread would be nice — but anyway, I started with two weeks. Bishonen | talk 10:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC).

• TheWikiIndian's claims are just bizarre. For example, I've supported deletion of Gopal Rai, Santosh Koli, Naveen Jaihind and Hemant kumar PY - those all relate to the Aam Aadmi Party that I'm suposedly being paid to support here and they're just the examples showing in my 7-day watchlist (others went before then). There is a lot of abuse of Wikipedia going on at the moment in the name of the Indian general election but I have absolutely nothing to gain from favouring one group or another: I'm not Indian, I'm not resident in that country, I've never voted in any government or local government election in any country, I'm not a member of any political association anywhere, etc. My only connection to India is a great-great-grandparent who was born in Bangalore to English parents who may have been very minor officials in the Raj or clerks to traders. She was back in England by the time she married, aged 21. - Sitush (talk) 10:45, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Community Ban Proposal for User:HRA1924

It's pretty obvious from the last several ANI threads about IAC that HRA1924 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and associated sock/meatpuppets are NOTHERE (or are here to RIGHTGREATWRONGS). I'm not generally a fan of community bans, but given the persistent sockpuppetry, legal threats, and refusal to understand how Wikipedia works, I think the ability to block and revert on sight would be a significant net positive for the encyclopedia.

• Support as proposer 207.38.156.219 (talk) 11:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment The problem is, we're not sure whether it is the same person or various meatpuppets. There are allegedly 29,000 people on the IAC mailing list hosted via riseup.net. Since it is an activist group and communicates in large part using electronic methods, I'd guess that there'll be quite a few different people acting in a co-ordinated manner here. We know that they've used open proxies here before, so things are really messy. I think admins just need to be aware that, for example, as soon as someone mentions paid editing/impersonation/libel/Indian legal system etc in connection with IAC then they're probably of the same tendentious origin and should be blocked at that point.

I've had some people in good standing from India contacting me about this: they would like something to be done that stops the torrent of clueless stuff coming here from the organisation. But they dare not get involved because they are in the country & so there are issues re: reprisals as well as the legal system. It should be borne in mind that practically anyone can open a case in India by filing a First Information Report - although that doesn't constitute a formal charge (as far as I am aware, but I'm no lawyer), it is a matter of public record & so can affect employment etc.

Ha! I've just noticed my very own AN is showing in the edit header for this page. As Bowie would say, we can be "heroes", just for one day ... - Sitush (talk) 13:19, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

On my talk page another IAC sock claims " 1,03,000+ edits 832+ still working accounts" while calling editors chutiyas.[22]. Dougweller (talk) 17:09, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

This is he - 1 limb of the HRA1924 network. Can we discuss this sensibly without being banned and blocked ? FYI, I've been on Wikipedia for 9+ years, 1,03,000+ edits, and 833+ working user accounts. The HRA1924 "team" had 47+ years at Wikipedia and 6,00,000+ edits between us. And also FYI, we hardly ever edit India-centric articles. I only called Sitush thatTrangDocVan (talk) 17:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Not while y'all are still making legal threats (saying "this is not a legal threat" doesn't make it not a legal threat), baseless accusations, and personal attacks, no. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sitush: Now there's an insteresting concept. We could deal with this coordination/canvasing via the authorized mechanisms laid out in WP:EEML or one of the related ArbCom cases. Yes I know this makes me the poster child for an attack by members of IAC (which ironically is trying to corrupt the wikipedia decision process) and for being an an ArbCom groupie, but as I recall this is the 4th or 5th time I've seen the topic come up so I consider it time to start taking hard actions against the instigators of wikidrama. Hasteur (talk) 17:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, we are being told that there is a very large network of editors - 833+ (more than a few hours ago) not including blocked editors, working together to edit Wikipedia. This sounds not good. Dougweller (talk) 20:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm currently looking into this matter. I've blocked additional accounts and will continue to investigate affected pages. FYI, here's a similar description at User:Turnitinpro. Elockid ^(Talk) 23:35, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, crumbs. Legio mihi nomen est, quia multi sumus. Support. Pete aka --Shirt58 (talk) 12:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Elockid, anything new to report? Hasteur? Dougweller (talk) 20:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked additional IPs they've been using as well as some more accounts. I think we can expect some diminished activity on the affected pages. I am keeping an eye on the affected pages daily in case the disruption resumes. Elockid ^(Talk) 20:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as one of many people who has got nowhere trying to politely explain to these editors how Wikipedia works and why legal threats and personal attacks are not appropriate. Hasteur also correctly observes that many of the principles at WP:EEML seem applicable to this issue. From observation and experience, every conversation with IAC editors has been identical - walls of text filled with threats and red herrings, followed by claims the legal threats aren't really threats, followed by a repeat of the legal threats and dramatic pronouncements of refusal to abide by Wikipedia's rules or terms of service. It is disruptive to a number of Indian articles, has a chilling effect on editing and is no doubt wearying for the editors who are the subject of attacks. Like many political advocates ahead of an election, the IAC editors seem less in building an encyclopedia and more interested in promoting causes and condemning their foes. Good luck to them, but an online encyclopedia is not the place for electioneering. Euryalus (talk) 23:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Token oppose by the viewpoint farm trying to re-litigate the base issue again.

OPPOSE as a proud member of India Against Corruption. The article on India Against Corruption is factually incorrect and a violation of WMF's Terms of Use. It also promotes the impersonation of the actual "India Against Corruption" (a Registered Trust and Trademark owners) who actually organised and financed the 2010- onward anti-corruption movement in India, by a set of imposters. The article is a WP:HOAX. The point to be noted is that (a) HRA1924 was a declared role account for "India Against Corruption" (please see the account's user page history). (b) Till 23 Nov 2013 the article was exclusively about the actual India Against Corruption (ie. us). (c) On 23.Nov.2013 Sitush merged "Team Anna" into the article. (d) from 17.Dec.2013 "India Against Corruption" availed every opportunity on Wikipedia to correct the text of the article. (e) finally the content dispute reached "MEDIATION" under Admin:Sunray - the 2 core issues were "Is IAC and Team Anna one and the same entity ?", "Are the defamatory remarks about Anna Hazare to be taken to other articles ?" (f) These issues were vigorously prosecuted by IAC and Sitush could not defend his edits or his sources, and dropped out of Mediation - a Mediation carried out under a Wikipedia nominated Mediator under Wikipedia's rules. (g) Accordingly, the content dispute is decided in IAC's favor, and the text of the article has to be changed to delete all references to Mr. Anna HAzare and his Team from it, and to restore it to the version dt. 23.Nov.2013 by "Bobrayner". (h) IAC has no quarrel with Wikipedia if this is done. Thanks. We have always been prepared to talk /discuss. 6 of the 7 members of HRA1924 role account are also WP editors with 6,00,000+ edits and 2,971 working accounts between us, and we do not edit disruptively or pose a threat to the Wikipedia projects eg. [23], [24]. DocVanTrang (talk) 01:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Comment - If as you say, "6 of the 7 members of HRA1924 role account are also WP editors with ... 2,971 working accounts between us" then you are operating a sock farm. There is surely no credible reason for 6 people to collectively create 2,971 separate Wikipedia accounts. Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2014 (UTC) Comment, we do not operate any sock farm nor do we POV push or actively collaborate on edits (generally, there are a few examples though where 2 or 3 have at a personal level outside of IAC). The vast majority of our edits are to clean up articles in subjects on which we have absolutely no interest. The reasons for having multiple accounts (collected over 48+ years of edits) are complex. One of these is certainly that our members are "above average" intellectually w.r.t the average Wikipedian, have a life outside of Wikipedia, don't want to waste time in "dramatics" or Notice Boards, And also because of the racist Anglo Saxon biases in the English Language Wikipedia, and the snide sexist nature of some editors who are never regulated by the community. If Sitush can call one of our female editors an idiot and ask her to "piss off", she can certainly snap back that he is a "chutiya" (idiot). Another reason is that most of our members tend to "Deletionism" and don't agree that Wikipedia should be "the sum of all crap". PS: IAC is non-political and does not stand for elections. DocVanTrang (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC) NB: Our editors also generally don't use more than 1 account at a time. Please see our track record on the India Against Corruption article. In fact during the entire time we engaged in DR from 17.Dec.2013 nobody from our side touched the article. We also disclosed our COI (on Day 1) and requested edits to be made for us, which Sitush kept blocking. DocVanTrang (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2014 (UTC) You are operating nearly 3,000 sock accounts because you are "above average intellectually w.r.t the average Wikipedian?" That's certainly a novel reason for socking, but unfortunately its not listed in WP:SOCK#LEGIT, which outlines when multiple accounts might be permitted. In addition, the policy on multiple accounts includes the following: "editors using alternative accounts should provide links between the accounts. " If your contention is that these sock accounts are legitimate, please identify them. Euryalus (talk) 05:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC) I am another part of HRA1924. Please do a Checkuser to verify it. We are not SOCKS. At least 300 of my own accounts are in use simultaneously - mainly in anti-vandalism and anti-pornography on the language projects and Commons. As a 12 year old Wikipedian, (and retired Administrator) I have no respect for the chutiyas who are admins today or draft these ridiculous policies. We're the good guys here. Wake up and smell the coffee. Don't waste your time over this IP. It will be discarded in 2 minutes and alloted to somebody else. The only thing which matters is Treating any person who has a complaint about how they are portrayed in our projects with patience, kindness, and respect, and encouraging others to do the same.. SOCKS can only be controlled with verified identities. The day that happens I'll gladly turn in 313 of my 321 accounts. 120.59.180.172 (talk) 05:52, 4 April 2014 (UTC) "We are not SOCKS. At least 300 of my own accounts are in use simultaneously" - I think we can add WP:CIR to the list of problems here if this is truly believed as stated. - The Bushranger One ping only 07:16, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This isn't going away, this is mass socking, and they're either unwilling or unable to follow policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support although I think this isn't enough. A networked group of people editing Wikipedia is bound to be of detriment, as we have found before. Dougweller (talk) 13:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, primarily for the ability to revert on site postings of a banned editor (or their socks) BMK (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Robomod

Robomod has been adding external links to fashionmodeldirectory.com since its first edit, now also crosswiki. I'm doubtful about good or bad faith. The template itself is questionable and imho that's clearly spam which should be checked by local sysops. --Vituzzu (talk) 11:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear Sysops. Dear Vituzzu. I'm not a spammer, spambot or anything that wants to harm Wiki at all. The reason why I have been adding a few links to FMD is simple. They have revamped their website and their new designer profiles (all profiles actually) are more than just useful for Wikipedia. The interconnectivity brings you from a designer profile to the brand of the designer , up to all the editorials , advertisements and works that have been done by the designer. From there you have the featured models, booked agencies. Generally speaking, I believe and many on Wiki do, that FMD offers the user a lot of informative material. And that's what external links are about.

I've not "only" done links to FMD, I actually write clearly on my user-profile what I am into on Wikipeda. I've contributed a lot of editorial work and also other external sources such as imdb. I love fashion and I love models, designers and brands. I also admit that I love FMD and that I spend hours hours on that website. If you consider the links I've added to you the designers being non-informative and spam, please highlight them and I will personally remove them and apologize for decreasing the quality on that parts. I don't think there are any. I'm also fine with being supervised in the future to show and prove that I am only acting in good faith.

I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is, is above the average wiki-editor and I’d love to point the perfect example and I kindly ask you all to consider the following under a neutral point-of-view:

I have linked to FMD from Driess van Noten with the following link:

http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/ . The link provided contains an image of Dries (he is an awesome designer btw!) , describes with new content the designer himself and his look (wiki doesn’t do that).

From there the user is able to click on the associated brands: http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/designers/dries-van-noten/brands/ , which is only one in this case, but others like Versace have dozens of brands.

From there again, you have the brand profile , which to be honest should also be listed in the external links .

The brand profile (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/) offers even more about Dries as a brand, and includes contact details but the most important is: it shows me his last fashion shows http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/shows/ and 560 (!) fully credited editorials : http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/brands/dries-van-noten/editorials/ .

I assume that Vituzzu didn’t notice this immense set of information when he/she accused me of being a spam, but I totally understand the concerns as mentioned above.

Generally speaking, I kindly ask you to not take any measures against me and my work on Wiki. I love Wikipedia and I love FMD, and with regards to all the information used here on Wikipedia which comes from FMD since the very beginning of Wikipedia (thousands of references?), >>> Please continue reading at the bottom my final pleading.

As for the crosswiki accusation: I'm multilingual , I'm fluent in Italian (sono anche cittadino italiano :)), German, mostly with French, even Croatian, Russian and a few more. I study languages. I also invite you to consider the fact that the remark in bold at the top of the page, saying "Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page." was not followed, I would have been happy to have this discussed earlier. Kind regards ► robomod 11:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't use imdb as a good example - it's not a reliable source. From a quick check, FMD is as bad as imdb and should never be used on Wikipedia of any language - using it would violate WP:EL and WP:SPAM. ES&L 12:39, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You probably don't have the necessary background to know whether FMD is a good reliable source or not. I'm into fashion and I actually worked for a fashion label with both FMD and models.com, we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns. If you consider FMD and IMDB to be so bad, then I believe 99% of the links should be removed and most fashion articles would have to be removed from Wikipedia as they rely on information of these websites. Furthermore, only accusing isn't the way here, tell me how and why you consider FMD not being reliable? They are a kind of authority in fashion business and I think you didn't check the facts with your "Quick check" (http://www.fashionmodeldirectory.com/info/about/). I also couldn't find any violations, you are welcome to point them out here. ► robomod 12:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns" ... taadaaaa! And that's the reason it's not acceptable as an RS. Muchos gracias :-) ES&L 13:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

At that time, the brands sent the original images of the fashion shows and I am sure they still do. Otherwise how could they have 1Mio credited fashion images? It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users". Wouldn't you agree? ► robomod 13:06, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

>that wants to harm Wiki at all

Sigh.

>adding a few links to FMD is simple

A few? Try a few hundred.

>They have revamped their website

When exactly was this? You've been adding links to this website since your third edit, which was nearly six years ago. Also, are you trying to promote this website? That paragraph reads suspiciously like a sales pitch to me. We have a guideline on external links and your fluff does not address this.

>many on Wiki do

[citation needed]

>I also believe that my judgment of how important fashion information is

The lack of referenced content you have added in contrast to the number of links speaks otherwise.

> I also think that Wikipedia owes this to FMD.

Huh?

>we - as a brand - sent these websites our press kits and official campaigns... It's actually reliable that way rather than getting the material from "anyonmous users"

I was wondering why the site's profiles sounded like vapid promotionalism. What about the things the brands don't tell you?

Now for the million dollar question: why are the overwhelming majority of your edits and link additions to this website? You should have broader editing interests, having been here for six years and made over 1300 edits. MER-C 13:12, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was that much. I agree that I was kinda crazy for fashion a few years ago. I am not related to Ford Models nor FMD. As for FMD, I've been helping in the past with submissions but stopped after they started to rarely accept user submissions. I do have two editors in my FB-profile but don't know them personally. That's all. When I wrote "owe" I meant that many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information. It was not meant in any bad way. I just feel that we need an administrator here who is also into fashion and understands the work of a designer. I must admit, it's horrible to get dashed by a couple friendly(?) administrators. Addendum: The revamp motivated me to add links, like it was back in 2010 at their last revamp. You see the parallels? I agree with your comment that I should have more interests than fashion alone. I'll change that in my behaviour. ► robomod 13:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It's good to see this here at last, though I'd have thought Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam would be a more appropriate venue. This is major, wide-ranging, long-term spamming. {{Fashiondesigner}} was nominated for deletion by SilkTork in 2012, but the spam aspect did not come up in the discussion, such as it was. That template has 353 transclusions, {{Fashionmodel}} has 613, {{Fashionlabel}} 29. We seem to have 1857 external links to www.fashionmodeldirectory.com. A large proportion of those appear to have been added by just one user. I suggest that their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia, and that they should be removed. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 13:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"their utility to that website is lot greater than their utility to Wikipedia" . Please have a look at the model profiles my dear, how many information come from FMD? What benefit should they have from a link to a designer that has probably no visits per day? Viceversa you have for example 600 galleries to the brand or designer or model related? However, I leave the decision to the sysops and belive and hope they don't see it one-sided as you all do . I apologized but I am even more sorry for FMD that due to my behaviour I have probably ruined their reputation on Wikipedia. ► robomod 14:14, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited Wikipedia under any other names since you started editing as Robomod in 2008? NebY (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have probably edited many articles, especially not-fashion-realted ones, more spontaneous without logging in. I should have logged in more often to prove that I am not a stupid spammer, as what I am exposed now. I did the triple of edits in the content and without log in, when I read an article and noticed mistakes (I suffer from perfectionism). Shouldn't be an excuse at all. I'm sad that my username may be deleted now. ► robomod 14:37, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, but that's not quite what I was asking. Have you edited while logged in with another name? (BTW, I don't believe anyone's saying they'll delete your username.) NebY (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry. No, actually I have only this account. Is that somehow relevant? ► robomod 15:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is. You mentioned above that "many articles on Wikipedia rely on their information" so I looked for references to fashionmodeldirectory.com on Wikipedia and who had added them. On checking contribution histories, I saw the familiar signs of one person editing first with one account, then with another. One of those accounts was Robomod. I thought I should give you the opportunity to save some of your reputation here by owning up to those edits and revealing account names. I invite you to do so now. NebY (talk) 15:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Which reputation? I have no other accounts. "familiar signs"? Maybe someone copied the annotation, as I did in the past and others did as well. I think the SysOps can look that up anyway. This is turning into stoning like with the Talibans. Did anyone of you fabulous guys answer to my questions? I argumented everything and you are just trying to put dirt over me , over and over. Now I know what kind of people are managing Wikipedia. Do whatever you all must do as this is so ridiculous and you have fun in torturing people who try to argue seriously. ► robomod 15:51, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm not someone who manages Wikipedia - not by a long shot. I've written up what I've found at WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod; there's space for you and others to comment there. NebY (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be a bad person to try to widen this witch-hunt. I hope you were very happy for at least a few hours but note that they decided that I am not one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive

• Just as a last note before I leave the place: It is said that nobody of those who bashed me now have answered the questions I asked. I apologized and I also defended myself with argument whcih were left apart. I hope the sysops don't judge my wrong contributing, but moreover look at what is found at the end of the links. It's not spam, it gives you much more information about all the profiles I have linked and I thought that this is the understanding of adding an external link. Please consider the above example of how much of further information a Wikipedia-user is able to find by following it. Thanks for reading me. ► robomod 14:20, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• I personally find the information provided in the FMD website quite useful. I have requested for a few modifications to be done in a number of profiles in the past and they require members to provide reliable sources beforehand, regarding the new information being submitted, if not it gets rejected. That speaks a lot of how professional and accurate they strive to be. Furthermore, most, if not all, of the fashion-related articles in Wikipedia are based on information from FMD. Just take a look at the Chanel article, for example, and how many notes use FMD as their reference (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References). If links to FMD are removed, I'm pretty sure it would hurt Wikipedia more than FMD, but then the same should be done with links to Models.com, IMDB or other similar informative databases. -- Lancini87 (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have here administrators who are not able to evaluate this. They see my account with many links to them and for them it's spam now. Noone of the above have visited the website from my example above. Where the link to Dries van Noten turns into an information flood that Wiki can't provide. And I agree, they should remove all articles that contain information from FMD. After all FMD is just like a fashion-Wikipedia, with the difference that you can't just edit and add funny information. ► robomod 16:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the editors here can properly evaluate a modeling website, posting links to your website shows a clear conflict of interest WP:COI ...Wikipedia shouldn't be used to promote a product, service or website and adding links to your website in external links on multiple articles is a kind of self-promotion. As far as reliable sources, Wikipedia prefers independent, secondary source that have some kind of editorial process (peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers who have managing editors, books that are not self-published, etc.). What is not prized is a blog or website that reflects a particular individual's point of view, unless the article is about that individual and his POV. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Liz. Please note that this is not my website, but I wish it was. Your comment is practically in line with what FMD is. They are seen as a neutral authority within the fashion industry, just like models.com, but with the difference that they don't accept any advertisings and promotions from any listed entities (see their about-page posted earlier : It says "FMD is not a place to buy promotion"). And they have independent managing editors [[25]] just like Wikipedia has, some of them are accredited journalists (two of them I have on Facebook as mentioned earlier). I think I shall invite the editors from FMD to this discussion, since we are now talking about a punishment of their property although the mistake of "spamminG was mine. ► robomod 18:17, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

i personally don't think that this is such a big issue at all. why make an issue over legitimate and reliable content information from a source that is most comprehensive when it comes to fashion data. if you look closely you will see that 90 percent of models info comes from the fashion model directory. for that matter if we are speaking about the legitimacy and reliability of data then for that matter why not question models.com, supermodels.nl or any other such service? imho i honestly feel that this is a totally biased and unjust situation that is being directed in effort towards User:Robomod. for that matter there are thousands and thousands of companies that have users on wikipedia editing and posting content on their behalf. why is the legitimacy not in question for them? if your intent is to bash user:Robomod i think the message has been sent across loud and clear. Clintong (talk) 18:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! I did a mistake, I apologized for linking to many times (although my userpage states that I'm linking to other databases since ever!) and now they are trying to punish a fashion database that was source of thousands of fashion articles. ► robomod 18:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Simply put I just don't see the difference between this and our reliance on IMDB at all.--v/r - TP 01:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see something else which is not mentioned here.. FMD is really more than a database of profiles like IMDB. FMD also has a constantly-updated news section which gives professional reports of events of the fashion world. It conducts and publishes its own interviews with the models, such as in the Model of the Month section. In this way, and the way I use the site, I see it like an entertainment magazine which also has a huge database that consolidates and links the information. I haven't had time to go through all of Robomod's history, but it seems plainly wrong to discredit FMD as a source. It seems to be as reliable as any entertainment magazine. I know we are not talking about academic journals here, but this is fashion journalism (what do you expect?). In that realm, they are respected professionals. PdrMorales (talk) 14:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Honorable Wikipedia-Community.

We have taken note of the various statements found within this topic. First of all, we clearly distance ourselves from any activity on Wikipedia and we are not in any way related to the users who contributed about and for The Fashion Model Directory on Wikimedia projects. We also don't pay for such legal services. We run an old but updated Wikipedia license , Wikipedia License from 2001, that defines what underlines the exchange of data and content. This agreement survived thirteen years and was set up with the young Wikipedia team, and is still subject to simplify the usage of our material and the partnership with Wikipedia. Thus, we are not seeing this issue as a legit call to deprecate information from Wikipedia that has come from our fashion database. For any further bad reputation that is caused herein, we will need to clarify this with the Wikipedia management directly, and take the responsible persons to account. Please don't hesitate to get in touch with me or our editors board by sending your concerns to wikipedia(AT)fashionmodeldirectory.com . Yours sincerely - Anne Roth (FMD Executive Board) --Fmdwiki (talk) 21:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

and take the responsible persons into account Potential legal threat? KonveyorBelt 01:18, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not at all. How I read it, they are essentially saying "Hey guys, we weren't involved in the crap that happened. We have always supported Wikipedia, we continue to license all of our content to your needs, and hope to continue a good relationship with Wikipedia. We hope that you don't stop using our content after 13 years of a good relationship. Please feel free to have the WMF talk to our folks anytime if you have any concerns related to us. If anyone from our staff is involved, tell us and we will hold them accountable." That's my translation.--v/r - TP 01:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO, they shouldn't have even started this thread in the first place if the issue was so petty. The best thing to do in cases like this, is for them (or anyone else) to not even bring up the topic at all.

And is this a sub-thread to the section above, or a new section? I can't tell, but it looks like it is unrelated to the section above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

i dont think this is a new thread, it is related to the section above. i think someone should merge it into the robomod discussion thread. WRT to what theyre trying to say i kinda agree with User:TParis, i went thru their wikipedia license note and it seems they are delivering 8000 vector logos and have no problem in having their content here on wiki as long as it is in tune with our policies. WRT to User:Konveyor Belt point on a threat: the way i read the situation is theyre basically trying to say "look guys we did not have anything to do with the spamming,but should the wiki community feel there is a abuse of usage feel free to let us know and we will take necessary action against that user/persons".... to User:Epicgenius, i do not think it was they who brought up the topic, but an administrator whose talk page wud seem to reflect a bias with the intent of damaging their templates and content herein just bcuz some user was spamming and not following our guidelines... at some point everyone seems to have lost focus of what the intent of this whole discussion was, it started with an admin bashing a user for spamming content here, but not only that the discussion went on to even talk about penalizing the source (FMD) as well. Admins should be thorough in their opinions without bias and have a neutral point not just in the content but also in their insinuations without the abuse of power... if this issue is not such a big thing i think we can all agree that it should be closed and let the topic lie to rest instead of dragging it on and on and inviting unnecessary attention from external parties Clintong (talk) 10:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Final pleading

• Dear Sysops, Dear Wiki

As an addition to the final word at the end here and the above: How many dead links did I remove over the years? I always stated my position that I will be adding wiki-conform links, removing links, removing bad typos, removing spam-links(!) and whatever I did. I am still sorry and apologize that the editing went in a one-sided direction. Also being denounced by an “administrator” like User:Vituzzu , who, after reading his Talk-page, seems to be everything else than a very responsible and courtly (probably young?) person. In my opinion, he does not deserve to be an administrator if you look at his way of talking to users. Even if someone calls me whatever, I don’t bite back like that as an administrator and move down to a level of that sort. He likes to open answers disrespectfully and fully dismissive like “Senti qua” (ma con chi parli cosi??), talking like the user would be some piece of shit. I’m, not referring to me in this case, but to the conversations on the linked talk page. Dear Sysops, you really should consult an impartial Italian administrator of higher status that should evaluate his talks there. I also wanted to note that at least he, as an administrator, must abide to the rules from Wikipedia. In this case you have it bold at the top of this page, saying “Before posting a grievance about a user here, please discuss the issue with them on their user talk page.” Vituzzu did not do that but I was open for any conversation and I always read my user messages. As for the rest, I overvalued the accusation from Vituzzu after reading through the messages again and some more comments here. I feel like a warning is sufficient and I will prove you that I am not a spammer (look at my final words please) and I am not a spambot (my nickname comes from Robocop, one of my fav movies = Robot Modification , but I am not a bot) and I am also not a sock-puppet Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Robomod/Archive (read how easy you get stoned on Wiki please! I'm accused here and immediately others try to destroy you. Sad.). I have no interest in neither harming Wiki nor linking anyone who does NOT deserve being linked, if for example based on the information taken from that page. At the same time I consider Wikipedia an open encyclopedia that should not just steal information and take work from others without annotating the source, especially when in the case I mentioned (Dries van Noten - actually all pages), the linked website is often the source of the article and offers more information (yes, I’m riding on Dries van Noten’s entry with 600 editorial galleries! – the probably worst example tho as Chanel has over 2000 editorials[[26]] - credited information that can't be shown on Wiki for copyright issues probably?). I also want to invalidate all the funny comments from the guys above who were talking about FMD and IMDB and other professional databases being sooooo bad, when Wiki has millions of outgoing mass-links like to http://www1.cpdl.org/ for example, for every composer? Generally I found mass-links to many open Wiki-like-websites. So my question is, do you consider an open source Wiki-website( like there are many around - not wikipedia.org I mean!), where vandals or any anonymous (not for CPDL , please don’t get me wrong I love that website!) user can edit and write down what someone wants, as a more reliable source than a professional database that reviews and proofs submitted edits hundred times? (will come back to this later below) Please continue reading all messages, as I specifically mention Wikipedia , and also the note to Anne from FMD. Thank you very much!

• Dear ES . I guess you have no idea about fashion. If I don’t have any clue about certain things, I prefer to stay quiet. You discredit websites and have a way of talking that reminds me of User:Vituzzu. Reading that you are one of the most active users on Wikipedia is not a quality sign and makes me sad.

• Dear MER-C. You are an administrator on Wikipedia and the ironical way of how you mucked around with me (“sigh” etc) is usually not deescalating like an administrator should handle such situations. I missed the neutrality towards me as a person. You sounded more like a biased friend of User:Vituzzu, but I hope I am wrong and anyhow I fully respect you as you were partially right in your argument.

• Dear Justlettersandnumbers . I noticed your continuously deleting of all the links I added. Did you even look at ONE link of them? Don’t you think Wikipedia readers could be interested in HOW the designer works? How their clothes look like? Did you EVER read one of the linked profiles? I can answer you this question (sorry for being bad educated in this case): No! You are probably a "sock-puppet" (now that I learnt what it is) or a nominal member that just wants to muck around and has fun in discrediting others. You removed links to Viktor and Rolf, Dries, Chanel(probably?) and many others. Wikipedia has actually NOTHING apart from a few statistical facts about these designers. If you followed the link you would have had hours of material to browse and read and if I knew about the Wikipedia agreement with FMD, I would have copied and re-edited it just for you too. In my eyes you could be an accomplice of stealing content from other sites by discrediting them. Good job!

• Dear Anne from FMD! I didn’t harm FMD’s reputation at all! I approached and invited FMD to this topic with the intention to help and as a result I get “take the responsible persons to account”. If you want to take someone to account you should do that with the accuser or you should consider taking someone to account who removes the links, like Justlettersandnumbers, who has removed links from profiles that are mostly based on FMD like the Chanel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chanel#References) article (and not to forget hundreds of model profiles who are sometimes a copy of FMD profiles) mentioned above by User:Lancini87 user . Why don’t they credit you? How could I know about your agreements with Wikipedia? Which in my opinion is ridiculous and needs to be redone if you look at the one-sided benefits. You should keep an eye at what they are doing with your content! They steal and take ownership of it and then remove you even from the references. This is Wikipedia in 2014 where anarchy and vandalism has reached almost the administrators level, dear Anne! You and your team should sometimes put an eye outside the fashion world! I expected some more professional support from you to be honest. Thanks anyway!

• to the rest. Thank you for sharing the same point of view and the support. Fashion is not for everyone as it seems.

Final Word: All my arguments with which I defended myself are left unanswered because there have not been any opposite arguments to it. Since this case applies to my user account for being a spammer, I ask the responsible SysOps and Administrators to not classify my account, my person and my edits as spam and not to ban or delete me. I clarified from the very first minute and beginning of my work on Wikipedia (see User:Robomod). I was always a member of WikiProject External links, WikiProject Biography, WikiProject Persondata, Wikipedia Neutrality Project and after all the initiator did not approach me before posting a grievance about me here. I admit that my work became too one-sided after my interests turned in that direction, and respectfully ask you discharge me of spamming and to leave the cause as it is, with a more than noticed warning and a pain in the stomach. I furthermore promise to improve my editorial work on Wikipedia and I am open to an assigned supervisor. Always in good faith ► robomod 05:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that you've taken on my suggestion to broaden your editing interests, so this thread has served its purpose. (Please note that when discussing things, the likelihood of your posts being read decreases with length. I also think you should skim User:MER-C/SmartQuestions, it illustrates why I had some issues with what you wrote above.) MER-C 14:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for both suggestions, here and there. Yes, I will try to defocus and diversify my edits. As soon as I plan any mass edit, I will consult with an administrator first (preferably with you if you allow). Mass edit in the sense of a bigger job like adding the 80k vector logos to wiki-profiles that are offered in the wiki document there (just kidding!). I will also skim in the future. Promised! ► robomod 18:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above massive wall-o-text is absolute rubbish, and absolute proof of the battleground mentality that the editor has. The statement "I guess you have no idea about fashion. If I don’t have any clue about certain things, I prefer to stay quiet" is a clear attempt to tell me to shut up, and is a direct insult at the same time. So what if I've never written an article in the weekend fashion section? I'm an admin because my understanding of policy and process, not because I can tell a pencil skirt from a poodle skirt. I provided a quick analysis of the reliability of a website - which based on your own comments AND those of someone from FMD was 100% correct, and I thank you both for that. IMHO, you're a danger to this project because a) you refuse to listen to sage advice, and b) you lash out at anyone who dares to provide such advice - yet, you're requesting a WP:MENTOR? What do you expect a mentor to do...just say "nice job, keep it up?" No, a mentor will say "feck, don't do that again" and "NOOOO ... the policy says X and Y". Even when the rep from FMD tells you that you're embarassing them, you attack them! That's absolutely unacceptable behaviour.
• My recommendation as an editor, as an admin, and as a human being is that User:Robomod be put and kept on an extremely short leash for at least 6 months. This would include:

1. Immediate mentorship from a QUALIFIED mentor
2. No linking to FMD unless approved by their mentor
3. Strict civility parole
4. 1RR across all fashion-related articles

• Personally, I'd have thrown in a week block for CONTINUING his personal attacks, however, anything less than the above is merely telling the editor and the rest of the project that attacks and wikilawyering are ok around here ES&L 10:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Dear ES&L. If you read my other discussions with MER-C, you'll note that I conceded most of my focus-caused faults and to skim down instead of battling. To my supposed insult, which is actually more a suggestion of what I do usually, I wanted to let you know that you were the first to answer to this incident and especially after reading Vituzzu's talk page, I felt like you were the same person. Although I don't agree that it was a direct insult, I hope you accept my apologies for both. I said sorry to FMD, although they didn' react and I want to apologize to all who felt offended during this discussion. To your recommendation, I'm ok with to the first two points (I actually asked for it - I am fine with it, also with two mentors), I partially agree with the third and am abiding, and I don't see any sense in the 4th (1RR) as the edits are not only FMD related and with your first two points I believe you are more than safe, don't you agree? Besides I fixed many broken and dead links (like I did with composers in these last days) and for the above mentioned reasons, as a fashion connoisseur (let me be that), I consider it to be of more than just an additional value. If you give me a few examples where this isn't the case, I will personally remove them and stop adding links forever and cancel myself from the Wikipedia External Links Project. Apart from that, it would just cause FMD to hate me more than they already do (?), plus having lost a lot of time while trying to improve the info on wikipedia in good faith with links to the works and images of the designer, which can't be shown on Wiki for copyright issues (As a reader I prefer a link to it, than having to google it). Please understand my pov here. On the last point I (have to) disagree, and rather agree to MER-C's statement. But if you all feel better with blocking me for a week, I am ok , although I don't see the sense anymore as I got your messages. I hope we are good. ► robomod 11:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, you are thrashing around way too much. Please stop, you only are making things things worse for yourself. You need to actually show that you have taken on the advice above, otherwise you'll be back here and likely blocked. MER-C 13:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By "trashing around" you mean writing too much for my defense here? If so, I'll take a pause until further notice or until the judge (?) asks me. ► robomod 13:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it also refers to what you wrote as well. MER-C 12:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Steeletrap reverts to Austrian Economics Sanctions article – Request for editing restrictions

Background: This is regarding an edit made by User:Steeletrap in which a (contentious) edit was made while a discussion has been ongoing.

• There is an ArbCom case pending in which User:Steeletrap (and I) are parties. See: Pending Arbcom.
• The article in question (Walter Block) is subject to General Sanctions. Steeletrap has been notified of those sanctions. The article talk page has a General Sanctions notification template.
• The editors involved with this particular piece had, to greater or lesser extent, agreed to a voluntary IBAN/TBAN. USER:SPECIFICO did not agree to the IBAN/TBAN. The ban between Steeletrap & myself seems to be void. User:Carolmooredc agreed to the IBAN/TBAN and seems to remains bound by the bans.
• Steeletrap has complained to an Admin about my edits. See: User_talk:Adjwilley#User:Srich32977_editing_AE_pages & Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Austrian_economics/Proposed_decision#Dispute_continues. (No action was taken.)

Edits:

1. At [27] Steeletrap adds material about Walter Block.
2. At [28] User:Carolmooredc reverts the edit.
3. At [29] I open a BRD on the particular edit, noting the sanctions and inviting discussion.
4. At [30] User:SPECIFICO restores the material. (No participation in the BRD was undertaken by Specifico.)
5. At [31] I revert the edit and point out the specific talk page location for the BRD.
6. Steeletrap engages in the discussion, see: Talk:Walter_Block#Writeup_in_NYT_opinion_piece. Specifico also contributes.
7. At [32] Steeletrap restores the material.

I submit: The discussion has been on-going, but not all issues (particularly WP:BLPFIGHT) have not been resolved. One of the interested editors (Carolmooredc) has not participated in the discussion (perhaps as per her voluntary IBAN/TBAN). There has been no RFC submitted on the edits. There has been no request for closure submitted. But, most importantly, there is no consensus for this BLP related edit. Accordingly, I submit that Steeletrap's restoration of the material violates the General Sanctions which pertain to this article and sanctions editing restrictions should be applied. – S. Rich (talk) 19:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Without regard to the merits or non merits of these edits I will note a very recent ANI discussion which pointed out WP:NOCONSENSUS says " However, for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." which would make the default action remove, until there is a positive consensus for inclusion. This is echoed in Wikipedia:BLP#Restoring_deleted_content "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first, and wherever possible disputed deletions should be discussed first with the administrator who deleted the article. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." although that second policy bit appears to be written assuming the entire article was deleted, and not just a particular bit of content. Beyond that, with the sanctions on the page, it seems that this is an area where some level of enforcement may be needed. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If three editors agree to an IBAN and violate it then the ANI should be about the resumption of disruptive editing, not a transplanted inappropriate content dispute at ANI. Take it to RSN or BLPN if you have genuine policy based concerns. Last I looked, Srich was changing his reasoning every time he posted, and the primary behavioral issue is not Steeletrap's content edit, which does not violate policy, but rather the Carolmoore's and Srich's violations of their IBAN given the sequence of events, I'm not sure but I think it is possible that Steeletrap also violated the IBAN. SPECIFICO talk 19:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

AFAICT, the primary issues (positing that the material is about a living person, thus automatically falling under WP:BLP) are whether the material in the added material is intrinsically "contentious", whether the material is a "contentious claim" asserted in Wikipedia's voice, whether the material is "opinion clearly cited as opinion", and whether the material has a clear consensus for inclusion if it passes the other bars.

The first source (NYT article on Rand Paul) is neither primarily about Block, nor does it go into any factual specifics about his views other than in a clearly "sound bite" format, which Block clearly pointed out. Thus it is not actually a fact-checked reliable source about Block, although it clearly would pass usage at Rand Paul for its statements specifically about Paul. It is clearly an "opinion piece" with regard to its en passant mentions of Block. The NYT article clearly is not a "strong reliable source" about Block, especially where the issue of "out of context" has been clearly raised by Block. Thus that source, independently of any other considerations fails to meet WP:BLP as a source, much less a source for a contentious statement.

The second source provided in the edit at issue is from lewrockwell.com and is written by Block substantially as a retort to the NYT article which is not usable in itself, so I would rule out the response to material which fails WP:RS without debating whether the source otherwise would be usable.

Lastly we have the "insidehighered" source. The article is clearly an opinion piece, and by Wikipedia dicta is only usable for its opinions ascribed to Scott Jaschik as his opinion and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. Any facts therein ought to be sourced to a separate non opinion secondary reliable source if we wish to use them.

We thus end up with one actual usable reliable source, albeit one which is substantially an opinion piece and not a dispassionate piece of reportage.

To the extent that the section is trying to specifically deal with NYT editorial opinions, it pretty much fails the primary Wikipedia tests of "Is it of encyclopedic value to readers seeking information on the topic?" and "Is it a contentious claim?" It also fails on the implicit claim which is clearly "contentious" that Block would approve in some way of racism and slavery, as material in opinion pieces frequently is taken "out of context" as apparently Block argues.

I suggest therefore that the material as presented does not have strong reliable sources, although some of the claims in the insidehighered piece would be usable if sourced to clear reliable fact sources, that the material is contentious, that it would require both acceptable reliable secondary sources not based as editorial pieces and also a consensus of editors on the article. Cheers (long answer, I know - but wish to cover this in a logical manner) Collect (talk) Collect (talk) 21:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Collect, are you and Srich opening up a new version of Wikipedia? I ask because you seem to be parroting his imaginary policies. For instance, you claim that the NYT article cannot be used because Block is not the main point of the article. There is no policy suggesting that. You also repeat his statement that the piece, which was written by reporters for the Times news section, is an 'opinion piece.' Seriously, do you boys read newspapers? Read a Paul Krugman, Ross Douthat, David Brooks, or Maureen Dowd piece and tell me if it remotely resembles the report on Rand Paul's ideological influences. Moreover, the claim in question -- that Block thinks slavery was "not so bad" apart from its being involuntary -- is not a claim of opinion but a claim of fact: it's either true or false that Block believes this. The burden of proof is on you to show that the Times and its writers were misrepresenting an opinion piece as a news piece (the assumption on WP is that NYT is RS).

17 of Block's academic colleagues and the President of his university disagree with your view that it is unreliable. They were sufficiently satisfied by the accuracy of the quotation to publicly criticize Block for it. To my knowledge, no reliable sources agree with Block's claims of misrepresentation, despite the substantial coverage this story has generated. If you are concerned that the quote about slavery is too brief, you are welcome to expand it. (Block provides the full context of the quotation in his response article; anyone is free to quote his entire remark.) However, purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy.

Finally, is a BLP/RS issue rather than a behavioral issue. The question is whether the New York Times and Inside Higher Education pieces are reliable sources, not whether Miss Steele is an incorrigible trouble maker. It should be moved to the appropriate forum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:59, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

"purging reliable sources and notable controversies from an article is contrary to policy. " Somehow I've missed you making that argument in the Gun control debate... Perhaps you meant to say notable controversies you agree with? Gaijin42 (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC

I thank User:Gaijin42 for the no-consensus link. It applies to a certain extent, but is pre-mature. That is, the Walter Block discussion is on-going, not all possibly interested parties have participated (such as CarolMooreDC), and only some of the issues have been resolved (e.g., use of "however".) The problem is that Steeletrap seeks to re-introduce the BLP material while the discussion is going on. Also, Steeletrap describes my reversion of the BLP material as "cleansing" and "purging" and "OR" and now Collect is "parroting" my "imaginary" policies. It comes down to this – Steeletrap has a personal distain for the Ludwig von Mises Institute and people associated with it. Steeletrap is importing a BLP fight into Wikipedia. Steeletrap is TE by re-introducing the material before consensus is reached (or not reached). Steeletrap's behavior in this is unacceptable. – S. Rich (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a principle, not a policy. I tried to work with you in fairly representing Block's response, and to make the content more neutral. But you insisted on purging everything, from the 17 academic colleagues, to the university president, to the New York Times. Given the highly notable and imminently reliable nature of this material, your conduct is unacceptable. I cannot sit by idly while you 'cleanse' well-sourced content from an article based on no cogent argument. Steeletrap (talk) 22:49, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is a principle that reflects the overwhelming WP:CONSENSUS of Wikipedia's editors - and WP:CONSENSUS is policy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is a dynamic process. Editing (not just discussion) is part of building a consensus. Rich should have reverted whatever part of my edit he found objectionable, rather than purging everything and taking me to a noticeboard. I am not edit warring; my last edit to the article before un-doing Rich's reversion today was several weeks ago. Steeletrap (talk) 00:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

How on earth Steeletrap can say a re-re-revert to the particular material – while the discussion is going on – is "building a consensus" is beyond me. Steeletrap wants Steeletrap's particular version. – S. Rich (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I believe you missed my point. You can't discard WP:BRD as "just a principle", because it reflects the consensus of Wikipedia's editors on the subject - people can and have been blocked for ignoring the "D" in "BRD". And even with "several weeks" gap between reverts an edit-war is still an edit-war. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that performing one revert (ever) constitutes an edit war. Is the meaning of that term whatever admin says it is? Steeletrap (talk) 02:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

These issues continue to simmer and occasionally boil. It might be easier for some passing admin just to topic ban all of the participants name in the ArbCom case under the terms of the existing sanctions, pending an ArbCom decision. ArbCom are dealing with a couple of messy cases at the moment and it is no wonder that it is taking a while: trying to hit a moving target doesn't make things easier for them.- Sitush (talk) 11:54, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:IDontLIkeit. Apparently the merit of my edit, which no one has addressed but OP, has no bearing on whether i should be banned. Also: It's frankly naive to think that the reason Arbcom has taken months (particularly on a case as clear-cut and accessible (confined to one page) as gun control) solely because it's being so meticulous. Steeletrap (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap, it's about time that you learned to AGF a bit. Since the voluntary IBAN etc did not work, a formal topic ban pending the ArbCom decision is eminently reasonable. No-one named in the ArbCom case has denied that there has been disruption etc: the issue has always fundamentally been about who is to blame, and the situation has not been helped by the tendentious wikilawyering and general pedantry of those who have been involved. Perhaps you can all get along on other subjects but you sure as hell are not doing when it comes to Austrian Economics, Ludwig van Mises etc.

There is nothing pretty or useful about a group of narrow-focussed, pedantic and often clearly-biassed contributors battering each other over a prolonged period and continuing to do so even when in the glare of the ArbCom spotlight. While I've got my own opinions about how ArbCom should decide, right now the greater good is clearly that the lot of you stay away from the topic area and from each other. And if you don't like how ArbCom do things then just walk away from Wikipedia entirely until the end of the year. - Sitush (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't break the IBAN. Rich did by reverting my edits, to non-Austrian pages incidentally (and in Carol's case, responding to posst of mine). It's absurd for me to submit to an IBAN when others insist on interacting with me. Steeletrap (talk) 14:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming what I've been saying. I've not apportioned blame in this thread and I'm not getting involved in arguments along the lines of "he started it ...", like kids in a playground. It is equitable to topic ban the lot of you until such time as ArbCom make a decision. - Sitush (talk) 14:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

You can ridicule me all you want. But provocation is a legitimate defense in plenty of contexts outside the playground. If anything, that 'he started it' is ridiculed on the playground shows that schoolmarms lack moral nuance. Steeletrap (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop deflecting and grow up. You've been using the tactic for months now. I didn't ridicule you but, even if I had, it wouldn't alter the point. None of you are or have in recent months been a net benefit to Wikipedia when contributing to articles about this subject area. Since you can't control your own urges, the sanctions should be enforced as an interim measure. Don't like that? Go edit someplace else. - Sitush (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Topic and interaction bans for core Austrian Economics arbitration parties

I propose the following temporary sanctions restrictions be placed on Srich32977, Carolmooredc, Steeletrap, and SPECIFICO to avoid further disruption in the topic area:

• The editors shall not edit articles or talk pages in the topic areas of Austrian economics or libertarianism, broadly construed.
• The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages. (To avoid doubt, "interaction" includes edits to the same article or discussion after any of the other sanctioned similarly restricted editors have recently participated there; and "recently" is subject to discretion of the enforcing admin.)
• These sanctions restrictions shall terminate automatically when the Austrian Economics case is officially closed.

These sanctions restrictions are not intended to apportion blame among the named editors, but to halt the dispute until the Arbitration Committee resolves it.

Struck "sanctions" and replaced with "restrictions" to better convey non-punitive intent. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. alanyst 20:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support, very good interim measure. Bishonen | talk 20:40, 2 April 2014 (UTC).
• Oppose Excuse me, I sincerely object to this. I have not participated in the recent incivility and I don't expect to be grouped with those who declared and then willfully violated their own topic and interaction bans. SPECIFICO talk 20:44, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support One would have thunk the ArbCom proceedings would have furnished a clue here, but for now this is a decent interim solution. Collect (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support This expresses much better the suggestion that I was banging on about in the thread. Specifico, it is equitable and, frankly, everyone has been claiming innocence and has been accused by others at various times. To exempt you would provide you with an open goal, especially since you basically chose not to accept the earlier attempt of a voluntary ban - you knew of the thread but kept schtum. - Sitush (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

So, @Sitush: Are you stating that because I stated that I rejected the ban and instead declared that I would behave within policy and accept the consequences of any misbehavior, that I should now be sanctioned even though I did not misbehave? Let's ban you as well. Who knows when you might act improperly? And let's not forget Binksternet, Ellenct, Alanyst, and all Adjwilley. Let's ban the anyone in the room! SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per SPECIFICO. We dont ban people for something they might do, without good evidence they will do it. Remove SPECIFICO and I will switch to support. Even though frankly I agree with Steeletrap, but if it keeps carol and srich out of action, its probably a hit the encyclopedia can cope with. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Wow, umpteen weeks of nothing and then you throw this into the mix? And you express a preference for keeping one "side" of the debate out of action? I wonder if you are up to date with events? And if you are approaching this neutrally? SPECIFICO was and still is a major part of the back-and-forth and yet they have fairly consistently supported the position of Steeletrap and of the now-gone MilesMoney. I've no real idea whether SPECIFICO's position is more in line with Wikipedia policies than anyone else's but what is clear is that they've remained involved over a prolonged period, they're named in the ArbCom case, they basically ignored the suggestion of a voluntary TBAN/IBAN that was mooted on the talk page of that case ... and we really should not be presenting someone who has been so involved with an open goal. - Sitush (talk) 23:12, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I proposed something similar as to Specifico & CarolMooreDC back in February when the ArbCom started up. And I joined the voluntary bans when Alanyst & Adjwilley were attempting to stem the continuing dispute. (And I later edited the Mises.org page when an IP posted some unacceptable material.) The only way to keep peace is to apply a ban/bans across the board. – S. Rich (talk) 21:59, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Modifications – 1. Allow for article talk page edit requests to correct errors/suggest improvements. 2. Explicitly allow for vandalism reverts. – S. Rich (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I do not support these suggested modifications. Given that the restrictions are proposed to be temporary, I think the potential for harm to the articles is outweighed by the potential for a re-ignition of the dispute if any kind of editing by the core parties in the topic area is permitted during that time. Edit requests on small errors and improvements can wait; vandalism can be handled by someone who is not restricted (just send them an email if it seems nobody has noticed it). alanyst 04:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: While I'm supporting the bans, I don't think "sanctions" is the best term to use. The only evidence/diffs presented are those related to the Walter Block article. "Sanctions" sounds so punitive. (Perhaps I should be more careful of what I ask for!) – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

As the proposal is not intended to be punitive, I have struck "sanctions" and replaced it with "restrictions". I apologize for the imprecision in the original wording. alanyst 03:43, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support I'm cordial with SPECIFICO and I hope he won't take this personally, but he's as much a center of the disputes as the rest. Or at least, he's always shortly at hand whenever the dispute escalates. However, I would rather see this as an Arbcom injunction, formalizing it as related to the Arbcom case and making it more impersonal, than an ANI consensus.--v/r - TP 22:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

TP, my friend, this is exactly what is wrong with this process. I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration. The current problem, the one which is the topic of this ANI, is about Srich, Carol, and Steeletrap. Are you sure you meant to say that? One thing that causes a lot of corrosive back-and-forth on these noticeboards is editors' tendency to make factual assertions based on subjective impressions, faulty memory, or casual calculations. You were honorable enough to correct a similar misstatement about me in a prior ANI. I'm very disappointed to see you make the statement above. Others will now come here, see your baseless assertion, and falsely judge me and support sanction against me. That is not the way an open community should function. I am very disappointed. SPECIFICO talk 22:46, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't help the perception you've developed, whether intentionally or not. I'm sorry, this is my impression and I haven't seen much effort by you to suppress it. Not that you haven't, but I can't recall a time I've seen you not explicitly in agreement with Steeletrap and explicitly oppose to Carolmooredc. Can't help what I see from outside the mess that is Austrian economics.--v/r - TP 23:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[insert]TP, that question will be decided by Arbcom. What I am saying is that I did not misbehave in the matter which prompted Srich to launch this ANI. It's pretty simple and if you didn't see anything to justify your characterization of my behavior in the current dispute, then I do feel it's not appropriate for you to make such statements about me. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you say above: "I'm a center of which disputes? None since the Arbitration." The case began in late January of this year. Judging from the occurrences of your signature and the tenor of your remarks at Talk:Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Talk:Murray Rothbard, Talk:Robert P. Murphy, and User talk:Steeletrap since that time (not an exhaustive list), I think it's safe to say you have not remained aloof from the dispute during the arbitration. Even if you are talking only about the instant dispute at Talk:Walter Block then you still seem to be embroiled there, having chided Srich there twice just a day or two ago. alanyst 04:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

@Alanyst: Excuse me, I thought it was clear that the context for the current ANI and the behavioral issue is the discussion which began when you returned to the Arbcom talk page recently to report that there was bad behavior continuing. At that time I pointed out to you that Binksternet and I had not misbehaved or squabbled in the timeframe you identified. I didn't say above (and given your familiarity with the context, I'm surprised you did not understand) since the beginning of the Arbitration. However, it's now clear that I should have said "since the close of the Arbitration evidence and workshop pages" or something to that effect. As to my comments to Srich, you can call it "chide" if you like, but frankly that is not a helpful description of my clear, on-topic, substantive statement in response to his edit summary and subsequent elaborations on it. I addressed you on your talk page a short while ago so that we would not need to clutter this ANI with comments such as this. I know you are sincere and well-intentioned but I reiterate my opinion that you are not exercising due care in your statements about other editors at this sensitive time. SPECIFICO talk 04:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Our opinions seem to be irreconcilable at this point, so let us amicably disengage and let others opine as to the suitability of my proposal. alanyst 04:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

What's amicable about you misrepresenting my behavior in the context of the current "voluntary IBAN"s and "voluntary topic bans" and the factors which Srich cited as the topic of this ANI? Misrepresenting other editors is a form of personal attack. If you have forgotten the sequence of events or are not familiar with the details of everyone's behavior since posting ended at Arbcom, it's all still there for the record. It's not a difference of opinion, and I feel it's disrespectful and counterproductive for you to insinuate yourself so deeply in these matters if you are not inclined to be thorough, clear and accurate in your statements about other editors. Incidentally I don't see that anyone has even notified Binksternet of this ANI. SPECIFICO talk 04:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a good start, but this can't last. Something else would have to be implemented in the long run. Epicgenius (talk) 23:16, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: That would probably be where the current Arbcom case comes in. (Hopefully they'll be able to find a good solution where so many others have failed.) ~Adjwilley (talk) 05:00, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Grudgingly Support I don't believe I should be banned, but if that's what it takes to get CMDC and Rich to stop their tendentious editing, I support it.Steeletrap (talk) 23:53, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support on Austrian economics and libertarianism biographies Almost all the articles that have been in dispute are WP:Biographies of living persons-related, yet somehow innumerable complaints by several editors about BLP issues on several noticeboards have not been dealt with properly by Admins, leading to arbitration. In any case...

I'd like to note that, I did ask here at the beginning of Arbitration for an injunction on editing of Austrian economics articles. Also, I have not edited any Austrian economics-related biographies or articles, etc. since the voluntary edit restriction went into effect.

I also recommended as a remedy in Arbitration that Steeletrap and SPECIFICO be banned from all libertarian articles because of concerns about their BLP-related edits in libertarianism articles.

However, this proposal is overly broad since it bans me from the many articles on libertarianism I have edited over seven years only because two editors choose to make controversial edits on a few libertarian biographies. That is manifestly unfair and just invites trolls (and sockpuppets) to find ways to ban editors they don’t like from all articles in a subject area by causing ridiculous controversies in a few articles and harassing the editor about them. That is not a very wise precedent, is it??

If Admins choose to make such an overly-wide ban, they might consider including @The Four Deuces: since he also spars with SPECIFICO/Steeletrap frequently, has taken them to noticeboards, engaged in the Arbitration, and edits quite a bit in libertarianism articles.

Also I’ve asked as an Arbitration remedy that SPECIFICO be interaction banned from me because of his history of following me to articles on completely different topics and reverting my edits or criticizing my talk page comments. Feel free to impose such a site-wide interaction ban now, and include Steeletrap who also has followed me, if less frequently. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Your tendentious and ill-informed edits to barely notable and non-notable libertarian pages are problems. Thus edits to all libertarian pages should fall under the topic ban. Steeletrap (talk) 05:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support per nom ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Note I have temporarily topic banned User:Steeletrap (pending the Arbcom close) with a somewhat milder version of the above, over an issue unrelated to the original poster's complaint. ~Adjwilley (talk) 00:28, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: the community can impose editing restrictions similar to Arbcom restrictions. See WP:0RR. So lock the page already and allow only admin edits that have been agreed on the talk page. —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• That won't stop spraying of the dispute across umpteen other noticeboards, nor are the disputes necessarily confined to one article - there has been more than one involved since the ArbCom case started. - Sitush (talk) 14:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Until the voluntary editing restrictions started a couple weeks ago, in 2014 I pretty stopped significant editing except on articles already under contention since SPECIFICO (and to a less extent Steeletrap) would not stop following me to articles they had not edited before. I did not want to bring the conflicts to the articles. In fact, this arbitration was started by someone after I complained here in January to an Admin that SPECIFICO was continuing to Wikihound me. An uninvolved editor there announced he was requesting Arbitration (see last sentence). (More details here.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)::::Am I reading this right? You'd pretty much stopped until the voluntary restrictions? Meaning that you started again after them? Also, define "significant", explain why you were still involved in ones already under contention, etc. I really don't see the point of your response here except as yet another attempt to sling mud at those with whom you've had disagreements (ie: to finagle a mention of wikihounding that is seemingly not related to the Austrian issues). That is something which you do a lot. Since the proposal includes a temporary IBAN, the alleged hounding would go away. - Sitush (talk) 20:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Wording is too broad For example, CarolMooreDC for years been a solid researcher and contributor on libertarian articles unrelated to the current disputes. North8000 (talk) 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot find a single person who agrees with your endorsement of CMDC's "research" and is not on the same side of the ideological spectrum. Find me a pro-Israel liberal who thinks she contributes "solid research" to the community; you won't be able to do so. Good research is respected by both sides of the political spectrum. Steeletrap (talk) 21:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't the above a gratuitous personal attack? Or am I supposed to contact a bunch of editors (organized by political orientation, evidently) to get opposing opinions? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Only in death does duty end. — goethean 21:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. This would prevent these editors from participating in their own ArbCom case. You think I am joking? Look at the current request by Lecen to have a topic ban lifted that he himself requested. He has already been blocked after making an inquiry into whether he can comment on the topic bans of the other editors in this topic. —Neotarf (talk) 01:29, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Neotarf: The interaction restriction says: "The editors shall not interact with or mention each other except at the Austrian Economics arbitration pages." Perhaps you missed the bolded part? alanyst 02:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @alanyst: Read WP:IBAN. "If editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to...make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly". What do you think the admins are gonna read, the policy or some archived ANI discussion? I'm not saying that's the way it should be, I'm saying that's the way it is. —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  Any admin who notices the parties interacting at Arbitration and is aware that they are under the restriction is more than likely to be aware of the exception I have pointed out to you. And in the unlikely event that some admin waltzes in and blocks one or more of them as per your scenario, I will personally pursue a reversal of that action as soon as I become aware of it. I really don't see that kind of thing happening. Far more likely is that without these temporary restrictions while the Arbitration case is pending, the dispute will continue to fester and spread. alanyst 03:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @Neotarf: even the strictest reading of WP:IBAN allows for dispute resolution. See WP:BANEX which says, "Unless stated otherwise, article, page, topic, or interaction bans do not apply to the following: [...] Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution...". In this case, it is "stated otherwise" with specific wording in the ban proposal allowing them to participate in the Arbcom case. I guess I just don't understand the objection here. ~Adjwilley (talk) 16:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

  @User talk:Adjwilley, that's how I would interpret it, and I see others have a similar interpretation to mine, but that's not how it goes down at ArbCom. If you look at WP:BANEX again, the exact wording is: "Engaging in legitimate and necessary dispute resolution, that is, addressing a legitimate concern about the ban itself in an appropriate forum." This has been interpreted at WP:ARCA and at WP:AE to mean you can only comment on YOUR OWN BAN and not on any restrictions on the person you have the ban with. Here's the diff [33]. In posting his evidence, the editor had made a question of whether he was allowed to comment, assuming that he was, and asking to be informed if otherwise, but as a result of the conversation between an arb and an enforcement admin in this diff, the editor was blocked for a month with no further discussion. I think some of the other arbs were a bit shocked, and indicated they would entertain an unblock request, but the editor was completely demoralized and just posted a retirement banner. These content disputes can end up being waged on many levels. —Neotarf (talk) 02:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here's another example. In this case evidence is presented of someone violating their topic ban, but the clerks are instructed to remove the diffs, since the person presenting the evidence is under an interaction ban with the individual. —Neotarf (talk) 04:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you for the explanation. ~Adjwilley (talk) 06:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not to say the Arbcom would pay any attention to, or try to enforce a community interaction ban, but there are some rather large differences in expectations here between the community and the few arbs who have weighed in on the subject; I think some people who have asked for interaction bans in the past have regretted it. —Neotarf (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Alternative: topic bans but not interaction bans

• Oppose interaction bans and support topic bans preventing those who espouse the idea that all taxation is theft instead of a means of supporting trade, and those in support of people who do, from editing articles on politics and economics. In this dispute, one side is correct and the other side is incorrect, so restrictions should not be symmetric. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: What about those who think only land tax is not theft? Or communities should decide if they want to call such financial commitments taxes or user fees or voluntary contributions? Or those who think taxes support government but hurt trade? (I'm sure dozens more variations on these themes could be found or imagined.) If we are going to impose ideological dictates, we better be very specific. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 09:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose this alternate proposal. If you want to pursue a political agenda, find somewhere else to do it. The very act of making this proposal smacks of someone who should themselves be topic banned. - Sitush (talk) 09:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment What EllenCT really seeks is a topic ban for editors who don't let her post whatever she wants and now she's venue shopping. Here are just a few of the RFCs that have gone against her POV pushing:

1. Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_graph_linking_top_marginal_tax_rates_to_job_growth,
2. Talk:Progressive_tax#RFC_on_income_inequality_effects,
3. Talk:Progressive_tax#Is_this_material_topical_to_the_progressive_tax_article.3F.

Mattnad (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Political censorship

Please review [34] and [35] which I believe are blatant attempts to squelch discussion of accurate article improvements because of political implications. EllenCT (talk) 06:04, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the underlying dispute, but I agree that Cadiomals has no business deleting your talk page comments. Reyk _YO! 06:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

No business eh? I suggest you read WP:TALK and WP:NOTFORUM thoroughly and tell me what part of her post mentioned improvements to the article and that it isn't an attempt at general "forum" discussion. That is justification for removing the post altogether. That is all I have to comment on this non-issue. She has done this on the Talk page before ([as well as bringing a dispute here before, in which she was swiftly rebuked) and shown her total lack of understanding of many Wiki policies. It won't be tolerated as we desire a Talk page with continuous discussion on improving the article itself as per the guidelines, and not a place for her petty political discussion/debate. It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor who has not removed most of her posts and only done this twice when it was clearly a violation. Any and all qualified Wikipedia administrators will back me up on this. You do not appear to be an admin. Cadiomals (talk) 07:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The linked discussion says, "the bottom line is that the US taxes as a whole are not really very progressive (due largely to the payroll taxes exemption starting around 100k and the 15% long-term capital gains / qualified dividends rate) and it is difficult to paint the picture otherwise, although this seems like [an] attempt" but Cadiomals has defended VictorD7's unsupported assertions that US taxes are progressive. EllenCT (talk) 03:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is an example of EllenCT's disruptive editing. This isn't the proper forum for a content dispute, much less one where she makes false claims. Every source presented supports the fact that US taxation is progressive, including her own source of choice. Her own comment here starts by conceding that they're at least somewhat progressive (rather than regressive, like European taxation), before closing by implying the opposite. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There are no peer reviewed WP:SECONDARY sources which support the assertion that US tax incidence is anything other than regressive at the high income brackets that User:VictorD7 so incessantly attempts to portray otherwise, and he knows it. This repeated insertion of paid advocacy must end. EllenCT (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Loads of sources refuting everything you've said (including your own few sources, which you didn't understand) have been presented and several are being used, but this isn't the place for a drawn out off topic content discussion. I've never been the type to run to admin and tell, but if you falsely accuse me one more time of being paid to edit I'll look into the rules on that, because I'm confident that leveling such baseless charges is a rule violation that can result in sanctions. VictorD7 (talk) 00:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've restored the edit. Blanking sections per WP:FORUM can be appropriate for, say, new users who have stumbled into WP:FRINGE articles and want to share their views on creationism (and even there, a gentle nudge is often more helpful and less pointy). Blanking a discussion between experienced editors on what appears to be a topic relevant to the article.... probably a bad idea. Edit warring over it is definitely a bad idea. And at this point, I'll let the admins take over. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 07:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the same as my reply to you on my Talk page but I will copy-paste it here for others to see. @Lesser Cartographies: I'm sorry but you are wrong in this situation. The links in that post are not found within the article at all, they are simply links Ellen used to facilitate more of her POV pushing, and she has a history of wasting people's time with off-topic/casual political discussion or simply whining about other editors on an article Talk page (not necessarily me). Please read my post on the board also. I have only done this twice so far when I saw it as a blatant violation and have respected/tolerated her the rest of the time. As a third party who just randomly arrived at this not only do you not have all the info but it seems you didn't even glance more than once at her post and tried to see if it was directly pertaining to article improvement. Based on WP:NOTFORUM I feel I am justified in my actions in trying to keep the Talk page a productive environment. The last time she tried doing this she was rebuked by several people. I would also like to add that your interpretation of WP:NOTFORUM may not be everyone's interpretation, as the guideline is not just used against new editors and can/has been used to discourage unproductive or off-topic discussion or argument on contentious articles. I will leave your revert until an admin resolves this non-issue but if you had actual context you would know it was a mistake. Cadiomals (talk) 07:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Except her post didn't mention the article or contain a proposal for improvements, her links were to a political talking point that has nothing to do with the article, and her section title didn't even accurately describe it. That's on top of her well documented history of disruptive editing on multiple articles and talk pages (including that one). Context matters. VictorD7 (talk) 08:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@VictorD7: isn't it true that you've repeatedly attempted to insert statements paid for by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation claiming that US taxes are progressive, because they assume that corporate income taxes are not passed on to customers? EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

No, and doesn't it violate a rule for you to level such a preposterous and false personal accusation? Not only am I not paid by PGPF, but they aren't used as a source for any "statements"; just a graph they created based on Tax Policy Center data, which you know full well. It was more convenient than drawing one from scratch. As for your description of taxes, multiple editors have patiently spent paragraphs and hours of their lives explaining the basics to you, including what your own sources say, but you still have no idea what you're talking about. VictorD7 (talk) 10:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context of her other editing that is disruptive/forum-like (I don't know whether it is or not, you'd have to produce diffs). On the face of it her post is ambiguous as to whether WP:FORUM applies. It literally doesn't suggest a change to the article, but normally, AGF, one would assume it's implicit what the impact for the article would be. I don't know enough about the topic/talk page background whether that's so here. So, I think those that want the reverts to stand need to post diffs of the context. DeCausa (talk) 09:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I would say a good rule of thumb is: don't. It pisses people off. It does nothing to reduce conflict. It increases edit warring. We are not trying to build some idealized society. We're trying to build an encyclopedia, and an off topic comment or two is much more sustainable with that than conflict over said comments' removal.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:23, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Wehwalt is correct. Trying to enforce FORUM on a user's talk page is almost always a bad idea. To enforce it strictly here would mean we have to enforce it strictly on everyone's page, which is a nightmare. We give tremendous latitude on how a user uses their talk page. I've been known to talk about what I did this weekend, or my opinion of something else that I"m not directly editing. A degree of socialization is tolerated and can actually be helpful. If you think something needs deleting on a user talk page because it is "borderline" (not vandalism or a personal attack, which is obvious, but FORUM or similar), ask an admin or uninvolved experienced editor. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:41, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

This happened at Talk:United States, not somebody's user talk page.--Atlan (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I misread the one comment then. Still, FORUM is not a policy that is strictly policed for good cause. Doing so causes more drama than tolerating a little side discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• The diffs shown do not show an appropriate enforcement of WP:FORUM. Regardless of Dennis's very good point that we DO in fact give people latitude as regards posts, these comments were not in any way forum posts. DeCausa points out the level of literal thinking (and in my view rules lawyering) needed to consider these posts in that way.
  As regards enforcing WP:FORUM a warning within the thread should be given FIRST to note that it is straying off topic. If after that warning the forum posting continues then it could be appropriate to "hat" or "collapse" a discussion. But at this point in wikipedia culture, deletion is rarely acceptable for good faith posts anywhere (except on one's own talk page and even then it can be considered rude). Only clearly and unambiguously disruptive posts should be deleted and there again only when they have not been replied to (except in the most extreme cases).
  It might be an idea to template:trout Cadiomals but unless there is clear evidence of a pattern here the allegation of political censorship is just about as unhelpful as Cadiomals's deletion of the comments. I'd suggest both users should take a step back and try to extend an olive branch to the other party--Cailil ^talk 15:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cailil: In hindsight I could have just ignored her and let her posts blow over as they always do, since I'm not worried about her pushing her POV into the actual article anymore. But she has a history of sidetracking people's attention with political debate that doesn't directly pertain to making changes to the article, and I wanted to prevent it before it started. To me her most recent post with the links was another attempt at this since I doubt she actually expected it to be added to the article (and never mentions doing so). Funny thing is, if she had only mentioned adding it to the article, I would never have removed it since it would have complied with WP:TALK. But it was just the links, so I interpreted that as attempting forum discussion. In the past she made a more obvious violation by whining about other editors (not just me) on an article Talk page. I removed her post, she complained here and the admins backed me up, so that probably encouraged me to do it a second time. For the future I will just have to tolerate her little side discussions as long as it won't affect the actual article's content. Cadiomals (talk) 17:13, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Better approach to something like Talk:United_States#Health_by_political_preference is to simply and succinctly ask "What changes to the article are you suggesting?" NE Ent 20:50, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reagardless United States is not a good place to be discussing the advantages or disadvantages of each political party and I'd suggest that anyone doing so is indeed pushing a POV worth ANI's investigation.--v/r - TP 17:45, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend that concerned administrators contact the editorial board of Social Science and Medicine to ask their opinion of whether encyclopedia editors have any reason to disagree with the publication in question. EllenCT (talk) 01:20, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not what your putting in, EllenCT, it's where you are putting it. The article, United States, covers political parties in general from a overview. It does not cover what they believe other than calling one center-left and center-right. If you are using that article to bash a political party, that's POV pushing in an inappropriate place. We are not going to fill every nook and cranny of Wikipedia with political bashing.--v/r - TP 18:49, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Politics of the United States is also an appropriate location for this, but I strongly disagree with and object to the implication that there is no variation in health by political preference. While conduct and behavior restrictions requiring political neutrality may exist in the military (and I will instruct my congressional delegation to zero their enforcement funding at once, if they exist) such restrictions are opposed to WP:V. EllenCT (talk) 00:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

More evidence that you're incapable of neutral editing. But first, your bringing up my job and my opinion is a veiled doxing threat, please don't do it again. Regarding the rest, I haven't at all argued whether there is "variation in health by political preference". This isn't even about that. If you were capable of putting your POV behind you, you could see that. This is about where on Wikipedia you are pushing that and whether it is an appropriate location. United States is not an appropriate location.--v/r - TP 00:45, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Are members of the US military required to be politically neutral on questions of such political import pertaining to US political parties? Why do you imply that I have been holding my personal opinions over the conclusions of the peer reviewed literature reviews? Why should a summary report about United States demographics and health considering one of the most important questions, the effect of political preference on health, not be in the United States article? EllenCT (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have to chuckle at this. The support for this is politically motivated mapping and your strong beliefs, arguably correlation without causation. As an example, there are people out there that argue bras cause breast cancer. But because someone makes the case, does not make it so. Since you're often keen on primary source material, I'd suggest you see what the scientific literature says about this.Mattnad (talk) 23:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The last time you tried to imply that causation wasn't confirmed in the secondary peer reviewed sources, you let me prove I could find in a matter of hours what you said you hadn't been able to find in years. EllenCT (talk) 03:46, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah... coming back to your old saw, and I quote, that "government spending on tuition subsidies pays for itself many times over." You never did provide a source that even came close to stating that.Mattnad (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Every single one of those sources proves it's true, unless you assume that the income tax tables aren't WP:CK. Here's a story published just today that illustrates it quite clearly. What are the reasons you have to doubt it? EllenCT (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Not going to debate you on this here (not the place), but your all your source says is that often, but not always, a degree has a positive ROI for the individual. It does not however say that government tuition subsidies have a positive ROI as a whole. If you want to bring it up again, there are those discussion thread on Government spending and Progressive tax where the editors took you to task on your past efforts. Mattnad (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You clearly are debating, inasmuch as making stuff up because you want it to be true and then pretending it is actually true could be considered a debate strategy. Summaries discuss aggregate general truths, not specific details, and writing an encyclopedia involves summarizing. Nobody has ever produced a whit of evidence that the statement is not supported by the sources, including you and all your buddies who continually "take me to task" because you don't like the fact that I look things up in the library instead of the collected works of Ayn Rand and Ron Paul. EllenCT (talk) 21:44, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Mattnad brought it up, I would like administrators to please review Talk:Progressive tax#Additional sources, where he and User:Morphh show that they lack understanding of what is and is not a WP:SECONDARY peer reviewed literature review, even when it has "Review" in the journal name. EllenCT (talk) 21:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

This page isn't supposed to be some sort of wandering fishing expedition. If you want to start another ANI topic section about different editors and other pages go ahead. Personally, I feel that Morphh has shown a pretty good understanding of Wikipedia and WP:PRIMARY & WP:SECONDARY and that so far you have shown real difficulties with both those and WP:SYNTH. I'd suggest staying on topic here. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I recommend a topic ban preventing User:Cadiomals, User:VictorD7, User:Mattnad, User:Morphh, and User:Capitalismojo from editing articles on economics, politics, demography, or geographic political divisions until such time as they can show that they have an understanding of the Wikipedia rules which they show they do not understand above. EllenCT (talk) 23:41, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow, just wow. Capitalismojo (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Me thinks you doth protest too loudly, EllenCT. Looking briefly at your contribs,you seem to not understand what improper synthesis of sources means, and based on what you are trying to introduce, it seems you definitely have a POV to push. Just because something is sourced, that doesn't mean it is appropriate to include. Otherwise, we would have to include every crackpot theory that any decent newspaper mentions in every science and politics article. That is NOT what an encyclopedia does, and we aren't here to be a platform for any political philosophy. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

To which of my statements pertaining to synthesis do you refer? If the reliable sources support 1+1=2, but there are factions paying for inclusion of 1+1=3 and 1+1=4, that doesn't mean 1+1=3 is right and should be included, it means 1+1=2 should be included and the controversy should be described in terms of who is paying to deny the reliable sources. EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• They alert you when your name is mentioned: I just have to say, it's both funny and sad that she is actually serious about wanting sanctions against those people who keep her heavy bias in check and thinks she'll be taken seriously when her contribution history is out there for everyone to see that she is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. It is so incredible that there are so many fascist nazi Hitlers on here keeping poor little Ellen from spreading the Truth! "Until such time as they can show that they have an understanding of the Wikipedia rules"–sigh...the irony. Cadiomals (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Would love to see noticeboard actually review this and see the boomerang. This arbitration contains several editors repeating the same issues with regard to her WP:TE editing. Morphh ^(talk) 01:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

[Own comment on the above proposal removed] Iselilja (talk) 10:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that is a personal attack, do you not? Perhaps you should find a better way of communicating. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I do find it very weird that an administrator find that it is my behaviour that is the problem here. Iselilja (talk) 12:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone else's misbehavior doesn't excuse making a personal attack on anyone, it is that simple. It was unnecessary. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I removed it. Iselilja (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If it's a personal attack to call someone a randroid, why is it POV pushing to point out that the reliable sources don't support Rand's followers' tenets? EllenCT (talk) 14:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you didn't even consider "bible-thumper" to be an insult isn't lost on me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An incivility ban on Cadiomals would cetainly get my vote. Is there such a thing? When I first read this by Cadiomals, I lauged out loud: "It can also be noted that I am a respectful and cooperative editor" Characterizing someone as "petty" and "whining" is neither respectful nor cooperative, nor is condescension. Neither is sarcasm like this: "It is so incredible that there are so many fascist nazi Hitlers on here keeping poor little Ellen from spreading the Truth! " Howunusual (talk) 20:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Banc De Binary

There appears to be a sudden, orchestrated whitewashing of Banc De Binary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). There are five newly autoconfirmed editors with about ten edits made before they began editing Banc De Binary. Requests have been made to discuss in talk:Banc De Binary, but seems to have been met with demands and no real discussion. One of these editors was blocked per NLT. In one case an edit summary was "removed whitewashing" when in fact appeared to be performing whitewashing. Not sure what to do about this. Jim1138 (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There's enough to say a very high likelihood of meatpuppetry going on if not outright sockpuppetry. Time for an SPI methinks. Blackmane (talk) 09:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Followup comment. I've left notifications on all the editors' talk pages based, hopefully I haven't missed any. Also, @Pinkbeast: has raised an SPI for all the accounts Blackmane (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted to the consensus version (I can't see anything that is contentious and unsourced in that version - let me know if I am wrong) and fully protected for a week. Black Kite (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Odds are likely this is meat puppetry and maybe some sock puppetry. Style comparisons tell me you have two or more people involved. A CU might or might not be useful for some of these as they may be in different cities. I'm guessing much of the blocking will have to be done the old fashioned way. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:06, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

• Sockdrawer: see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Notsosoros, which was originally opened as Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Webgrasp, but moved when it appeared Notsosoros was the oldest account. This SPI has already been checkusered and closed, with a very long list of socks, about forty, blocked and tagged. Ironically the originally supposed sockmaster, Webgrasp, turned out to be unrelated. Bishonen | talk 21:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC).

Banc De Binary was fully protected because of this sockfarm. Maybe someone can lift the protection now?--Atlan (talk) 21:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Good point. I've restored the previous semiprotection. Bishonen | talk 00:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm a bit surprised about Webgrasp. Checkuser may not have turned anything up, but they sure quack like a duck, grinding exactly the same axe as all the others. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. Compare WP:MEAT. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC).

If no one is actively working on the page would it make sense to keep it protected? I don't think people are done messing with it. This was an account's 11th edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banc_De_Binary&diff=603174173&oldid=602655024 165.214.12.69 (talk) 19:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ha: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MrOllie - MrOllie (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
3RR: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Scapestessa reported by User:Black Kite (Result: ) Jim1138 (talk) 15:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I've got someone who claims to be not Laurent/Cohen but senior in the company contacting me on IRC (via #wikipedia-en-help); usual run of meaningless platitudes about "finding a solution", etc. I'm pointing them to the COI policy. Pinkbeast (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Similar case

There is a mostly IP editing user, claiming to be Friedwardt Winterberg who thinks he is being denied credit for inventing the concepts of Firewall (physics) and Black hole information paradox. There may or may not be truth to his claim that he came up with these concepts and due to some politics in the physics community is being denied the credit, but there are no reliable sources linking his research to these concepts (with the exception of one footnote in the more famous Firewall paper). I came to this topic through being the closer at an RFC, where Winterberg supporters were involved in heavy socking Talk:Firewall_(physics)#RfC:_What_mention.2C_if_any.2C_should_be_made_of_Friedwardt_Winterberg.27s_2001_paper.3F Since the closer the IPs have been on repeated diatribes accusing the wiki WP:CABAL of being part of a physics conspiracy to deny him credit. (his being shunned in the physics community may be due to the fact that he famously accused Einstein of plagiarism) Also, apparently, I personally am a sock of Jimbo Wales. Not sure what should be done here, but its a persistent problem.

Diatribe diffs [36] [37] [38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

due to repeated insertion of credit/priority claims for Winterberg, Both articles are now semi protected, (although they will expire in a while) limiting this disruption to the talk pages for now, but its gone on for quite a while now.Gaijin42 (talk) 14:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

The user is continuing with his personal attacks [46] [47] He is bearing the WP:TRUTH Gaijin42 (talk) 20:13, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if a range block of 134.197.31.x and 12.72.186.x is appropriate? I personally stay away from range blocking, I know it's pathetic because I'm a professional network admin but I suck at subnetting (it is a big shame of mine). From what I can tell, though, this would only involve blocking two /24 subnets (one that geolocates to Reno and another to Salt Lake City). If this is effective we may even be able to remove the semiprotection from the articles. -- Atama頭 17:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Checking with Whois at ARIN, it looks like the former IP range is with the University of Nevada, Reno (which makes sense, Winterberg is a professor there). I don't feel like blocking an entire university for the actions of one person, so that's no good. The latter range of addresses is with AT&T Worldnet Services, so it looks like a dynamically-assigned range. This is why I dislike range blocks. My only suggestion is if talk page disruption continues, ask for the talk pages to be semi-protected at WP:RFPP and mention that this person is IP-hopping using a university's system. There's much less collateral damage in semi-protecting a talk page (even if that is something we rarely do) as opposed to blocking these IP ranges. -- Atama頭 19:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban Between Ryulong and Nug

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

---

User:Ryulong and User:Nug are at it again at Talk:Soviet Union. These are two editors who cannot leave each other alone. They have edit-warred in the past, and are now name-calling. An interaction ban is requested.

The diffs are:

Ryulong restores 15-state infobox on 22 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=596596315&oldid=596547221

Nug restores 1-11-3 state infobox on 21 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=596547221&oldid=596004922

Ryulong restores 15-state infobox on 11 Feb https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Soviet_Union&diff=595039113&oldid=594563073

Ryulong insults Nug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602437442&oldid=602436264

Nug insults Ryulong using a barnyard term https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602616533&oldid=602465678

Nug tightens the insult https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602616756&oldid=602616533

Nug piles it on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602618559&oldid=602616756

Ryulong insults Nug https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602621160&oldid=602618691

Nug returns the insults https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602637297&oldid=602621160

For a change, Ryulong is just barely civil https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602683008&oldid=602637297

Nug won't drop it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASoviet_Union&diff=602701273&oldid=602690484

Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I enjoyed the commentary. — lfddersmitten 00:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Can we discuss this, as well as dumping on and defending an editor who quarrels a lot, is often uncivil, and is usually right? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

  Why are you keeping this thread alive? I've got nothing else to say to Nug regarding Soviet Union unless he suggests his preferred form after the consensus is currently for the opposite. This is all pointless and should have died when all these subthreads got locked up.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 12:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It's time for Ryulong to go

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It's clear that this flew like a lead balloon. I will propose an alternative below. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

• Claim of disruptive behavior in Sept. 2013
• Civility issue in Oct. 2013
• Withdrawn 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013
• Another 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013
• 3RR thread from Nov. 2013
• Misc. complaint from Jan. 2014
• Edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014
• A second, unrelated edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014
• Page ownership and hostility in Mar. 2014
• Thread on failing to use AGF and calling accounts SOCKs from Mar. 2014

I've really had enough of this. Just looking at the last six, seven months, it's clear that there is a pattern of edit warring, page ownership, and incivility on the part of Ryulong. These are just what I could find in the time frame from the first two pages of the AN archives. There are dozens of other threads on Ryulong stretching back all the way to 2009, and possibly earlier. Every time that Ryulong makes peace with one user (after many months of fighting with User:ChrisGualtieri, they appear to have made peace earlier this year), Ryulong picks up fighting with other users. It's clear that the issue is Ryulong, and that the most sensible course of action is to cut ties with the user. It's sad when we have to ask productive content creators to leave, but Ryulong has had plenty of chances to change his behavior and has failed to do so.

In short, I am proposing an indefinite block of Ryulong, with an indefinite 1RR restriction on him as a condition for any future unblock. I don't see any other answers that could possibly work. Sven Manguard Wha? 00:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef ban, disruptive to the community for years, I'm surprised it took this long for a ban to be proposed. Secret ^account 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, while not always a shining example of civility Ryulong is still a net positive to the site. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 00:43, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with Hell in a Bucket (god I love that user name), plus...I still feel many are over reacting.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support Ryulong feels like a failure now. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Booo, booo on the h8ers. Ryulong gets in trouble cuz of his big mouth sometimes, but he doesn't need to be blocked, just spanked. Mindy Dirt (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I support an indefinite 1RR restriction and a good long block (1 month at least) for Ryulong. The amount of disruption he causes is just way too much over a long time. Dicklyon (talk) 02:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with Dicklyon that some sanctions might be warranted, but imposing what's functionally a siteban is a bad idea unless lesser sanctions (interaction bans, topic bans, something else) have been attempted without success. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. A site ban is inappropriate to say the least. As HiaB says R is a net positive for the project. MarnetteD | Talk 03:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• That's a good point. We need to consider the impact of banning a consistent content creator — someone who's actively developing content needs to be given a lot more leeway than someone who's not here to build an encyclopedia. Bans can be appropriate for people who are adding good content, but we need to be more hesitant and try a lot more other approaches. Nyttend (talk) 03:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Some kind of sanction seems to be needed, perhaps what Dickylon suggested, perhaps something lesser than that, but an indef block does not seem to be called for. How about 1RR and what used to be called a "civility restriction", i.e. a hair-trigger on anything that's even remotely impolite or uncivil. BMK (talk) 03:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While Ryulong does have a bit of a block log, I don't think jumping straight to an indef block is appropriate unless more reasonable and moderate restrictions have been considered first, especially given Mark Miller's analysis of the diffs below. - Aoidh (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

See withdraw message at the bottom of this box. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

---

@Secret, Hell in a Bucket, Mark Miller, Mr. Gonna Change My Name Forever, Mindy Dirt, Dicklyon, and MarnetteD:@Nyttend, Beyond My Ken, Aoidh, and Georgewilliamherbert: - Based on the feedback from the above section, I have proposed an alternative below. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Place Ryulong under a 1RR restriction

Based on the conversation above, it looks unlikely that there will be a consensus for blocking Ryulong. There are several people in support of a 1RR restriction, however. Ryulong has nine blocks for 3RR violations, 10 if you count the 4 February 2014 block. Three (four if you count the 4 February 2014) have come in the last six months. It has been a recurring problem since 2006, and tends to come in waves of several violations and blocks over a few months, followed by no blocks for a year or so. In addition to the 3RR complaints that have resulted in blocks, there have been numerous additional complaints of edit warring - some more valid than others - stretching over several years. As such, I propose the following:

Ryulong is placed under an indefinite 1RR restriction. He may appeal it (with the expectation that it will be lifted, barring other serious concerns) after one year without a block for edit warring or disruptive/battleground editing (blocks that are overturned don't count against him in one year period). If Ryulong receives three additional blocks for edit warring or disruptive/battleground editing before this restriction is vacated, it automatically becomes a 0RR restriction (again, overturned blocks don't count against him).

While I personally believe that this is perhaps too lenient for the amount of disruption Ryulong has caused, I feel that it is more in line with what the community would support; progressively escalating sanctions aimed at preventing recurring edit war issues.

• Support as proposer. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I was too late to add my strong oppose to the proposed ban. Site bans are for the most egregious vandals and and sockpuppeteers, and those whose potential positives are far outweighed by demonstrated negatives. Ryulong is none of those things.

He has seriously annoyed an awful lot of people, but there appears a lack of evidence of malice in his behaviour: he appears not to be able to help himself. As Sven points out, this has been a problem for years. Ryulong is a valued content contributor, but appears to be unable to change his behavior to consistently match community norms. If he cannot change himself, then the solution is to make him change.

As evidenced above, the problem here is edit warring. The solution is to reduce his ability to edit war. (Discourtesy is unspeakably ugly to me, but I thinks this is a secondary issue. It will be difficult to be rude when you are under a 1RR restriction at the same time. There is also a pragmatic reason to concentrate only on edit warring: civility is hard to define, let alone agree what is a breach of it; edit warring is obvious.) If he can contribute under this restriction, it's a win win-situation for all involved. If he cannot contribute under the restriction, then the blocks will get longer and longer, and he will effectively ban himself. --Shirt58 (talk) 04:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

So is this like a last chance thing then? When's the last time that worked for anyone, I wonder? It seems pretty obvious to me he can't be disciplined on this, so if we'd like for him to stay, we ought to try a different approach and/or put up with it (i.e. give him the customary 24h block when he edit wars). — lfdder 04:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Not exactly. The point of a 3RR block is to force the parties involved in a revert war to de-escalate. The point of a 1RR restriction is to prevent the escalation in the first place, or at least attempt that. De-escalation is what happens every time someone takes a dispute to the talk page, solicits a third opinion, or simply walks away, and if someone is unwilling or unable to do those things, 1RR is a way of pushing them towards the goal of not escalating into a revert war. Sven Manguard Wha? 05:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• So if 9 blocks didn't do a thing, why will this change anything? You know, other than getting him blocked more easily next time? What's your aim here? — lfdder 04:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Two months later and you want a community sanction for edit warring. Some may say that last edit warring issue is stale after that long and the editor was already sanctioned for it. What is the specific reason here? Because the first proposal failed? This has no better basis for this sanction than the above proposal. This begins to sound more and more like a punitive action.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • lfdder and Mark Miller: 1RR breaks the feedback loop. The longer someone remains in a contentious debate (reverts are an abstract form of debate), the more likely that person is to start taking the disagreement personally, becoming emotionally invested in the outcome. When that happens, incivility and revert wars can be quick to follow. 1RR changes how a person is involved in a debate, from being able to go back and forth to only being able to say your piece once before moving on. Obviously talk page discussions are still an option with 1RR, but when someone is no longer able to contest the article itself, the urgency of making the change dissipates somewhat. Sven Manguard Wha? 04:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I can agree with that, but I doubt that it'll work out in the form of a restriction. — lfdder 05:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't. There has been no attempt to address my concern that there is currently no issue to sanction over and this seems rather random and punitive at this point.--Mark Miller (talk) 05:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support That's a need for Ryulong because of his ongoing violation of Wikipedia rules. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 04:59, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't like the fact that many people don't want an indefinite block on Ryulong, but that block is neccessary. More people would like this 1RR restriction than the block. If either don't gain big support, then it's failure. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:07, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose seems like this would just pad out his block log and make the work he does in already difficult areas even harder, since the opposition would automatically have the upper hand. We should be applauding editors willing to take on such unpleasant tasks, not crippling them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment did not please me, because it sounds like support for a failing user because he causes damage. "We should be applauding editors willing to take on such unpleasant tasks" means supporting a user whose edits are disruptive and controversial. Anyone opposing either the indef ban and/or the 1RR restriction is making Ryulong worse. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The AN/I discussion was started because of recent perceived incivility issues (which I won't comment on one way or the other), while also mentioning the edit-warring. However, the aforementioned edit-warring shown in the diffs last took place in February, and it's April. Civility was the recent concern, and a 1RR wouldn't address that. The edit-warring can be addressed if it continues to be a problem. I don't see a pressing need for that right now, especially if Ryulong is aware that continued edit-warring in that manner would result in, at minimum, a 1RR restriction (and Ryulong I have no doubt that's what would happen if it continued). But for now, a 1RR restriction seems like an odd response for civility concerns, since that seems to be the recent activity causing concern (though I do thank Sven for the notification, not everyone would be that courteous). - Aoidh (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Aoidh points out, the edit-warring is a past issue. Sanctions, like blocks, should whenever possible be preventiative, not punitive, and imposting a 1RR sanction in April for edit-warring in February is punitive. There may or may not be problems with this editor, but if there are, this is not the solution. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
• I regret my support of the 1RR restriction, so I ultimately oppose it. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:20, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion for 1RR proposal

Can someone please explain WHY we are proposing this right now? What is the reasoning to hand out a 1RR restriction to this editor at the moment. What is the spark or the driving force....in other words, what was the "incident"?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:14, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia community did not support an indefinite block on Ryulong. The decision to not block him was bad since it creates more destruction from Ryulong, and I was annoyed in my mind by the support for Ryulong (and not that restriction) because Sven wanted an indef block. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:19, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Uhm...OK, but what is the specific incident bringing this to the community now?--Mark Miller (talk) 05:23, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The incident was Ryulong continuing to make edit wars and disruptive edits on articles like Attack on Titan days after an innocent user was the subject of a sockpuppet investigation because he edited Soviet Union hours before the time another user edited it. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Because anybody whose name shows up at ANI more than x number of times is apparently a bad guy and needs some kind of sanctions. It doesn't matter if they're usually right and/or that the complainer is often found to have done worse things than what they're complaining about. And it certainly doesn't matter if the person being complained about is a valuable content contributor working in areas many hardened Wikipedians wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. Anybody who gets mentioned that much must surely be guilty of something or other, right? Right? Right? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:29, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Any opposition to the indef block and 1RR restriction is actually wrong because they did not pay enough attention to every single Wikipedia rule violation Ryulong ever made during September 2013 — present. Everyone must stop supporting him because he is getting worse. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The 1RR restriction proposal recieved 3 supports and 2 opposes. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:54, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I realized he actually made (slightly) more good edits than bad edits, considering Special:Contributions/Ryulong for evidence. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 05:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Furthermore, this has been open for one hour - assuming it doesn't get speedy closed, these discussions last at least a day. Also, your replying to every oppose making bad faith comments about the opposers does not help your case. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you Bushranger, I actually realized that compared to the opposition, I was more harmful than them. I regret supporting the indef block because Ryulong is actually still good. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 06:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This has an air of accusations of "Witch"!--Mark Miller (talk) 06:04, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The specific impetus for all of this was seeing the "Proposed Interaction Ban Between Ryulong and Nug" thread above, which caused me to remember all of the other proposed interaction bans and complaints of battleground behavior (incl. edit warring) that I've seen on AN/ pages about Ryulong lately. I made the mistake of listing all of them, instead of listing only the ones that gained traction, and clearly that has undercut my argument.

Andrew Lenahan points out Ryulong's work in areas that most users "wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole", but Ryulong has historically been one of the major causes for areas becoming untenable to work in. Anime and manga has been a mess for years, and Ryulong was a major part of that. I stepped in to try to resolve what had been a long-running dispute between Ryulong and ChrisGualtieri, which resulted in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/franchise coverage RfC. Before I stepped in and suggested the RfC, the community was rapidly approaching a long-term block of both parties. I ultimately backed out after Ryulong started edit warring with someone else and after an IRC conversation with ChrisGualtieri that did not go well. Once I pulled out, the two got spooked an worked out their differences in private, but "worked out their differences" just ended up being ChrisGualtieri leaving the area of anime and manga. That's not a solution, that's one user poisoning the atmosphere of a topic area so badly that other users leave it.

Since that RfC, Ryulong has been blocked three times for edit warring. The thread above, while primarily a civility issue, is also about revert warring. Ultimately, while many people here draw distinctions between edit warring and civility issues, they both come down to battleground behavior. Ryulong's editing, both the way that he treats editors he disagrees with and the way he exerts ownership over articles he is interested in, is a source of recurring problems. My proposing a block came from the belief that the rest of the community was as fed up with his as I was, something that appeared to hold true at the end of last year, in the midst of the Ryulong/ChrisGualtieri flare up, but doesn't seem to be the case now. My proposing the 1RR is a next best attempt at trying to force Ryulong to stop engaging in battleground behavior. It is clear that short blocks do not deter him, and it is also clear that administrators are not willing to give blocks in increasing lengths, something that normally happens for repeat offenses. Aside from blocks and 1RR, there aren't any options I can see for preventing incidents from flaring up month after month after month.

Ultimately, it's clear that I jumped too far on too weak a triggering incident, but I remain convinced that some sort of action is needed regarding Ryulong, for the reasons I outlined above. I fear that we will eventually be discussing all of this again, either here or at ArbCom, a few months down the line. While I understand the community's reluctance to place sanctions on Ryulong in this case, I find it troubling that despite nine blocks and well over a dozen serious reports at AN/I and AN/3RR, some people aren't even willing to acknowledge that this is a symptom of a larger, recurring behavioral issue.

My proposal is withdrawn. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Discussion for indefinite block

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

---

• Mark Miller: There has been a thread on Ryulong at either AN/I or AN/3RR, on average, once a month every month for at least a year. Does this one incident justify an indefinate block? No. The monthly AN threads and the five blocks in the past six months for disruptive editing and edit warring do demonstrate, however, that Ryulong is repeatedly breaking our editing policies, and is ill inclined to change. I could be talked down to a block for six months, even a block for three months, but Ryulong already has a dozen blocks for 3RR and disruptive editing, and continues to do so. Avoiding 3RR really isn't that hard. If a user refuses to stop engaging in battleground behavior, he has to be removed from the battleground. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:08, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You don't need to be talked down...you need to gain a consensus.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
    • By talked down, I mean talked into supporting a lesser sanction. It there was a developing consensus for a three or six month block, I would support it, even though I believe that as soon as the block expires, we'll be back at AN/I and AN/3RR again. Sven Manguard Wha? 01:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I simply meant that regardless of what you desire you still need the consensus of the general community unless there is an admin willing to block regardless of the outcome of this community discussion. That's all.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Lets take the diffs one by one shall we?

• Claim of disruptive behavior in Sept. 2013

• This thread simply states there was a claim. A claim is not sufficient reason to ask for a block especially when it ended with the editor staing: "I get it. I will cease relying on WP:ROLLBACK and stick with WP:UNDO and WP:TWINKLE and curb my language to be more approachable.—Ryulong (琉竜) 21:24, 30 September 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Civility issue in Oct. 2013

• Ok, now this was a simple mistake that was immediately rectified without almost any recognition to it. This is what the editor said there: "I realized my errors regarding the accusations of WP:GAME and retracted them and apologized." But there is more, if we are to rehash all of this, than let us rehash ALL of it and remember that others held some blame in this interaction such as per Hateur's comment: "A Pox on both (or all) your houses ChrisGualtieri, Ryulong, and another editor who has been previously sanctioned (with respect to the other 2) have constantly been bickering back and forth across multiple venues (DRN,AN*,VP*). At this time I consider the net good you may have as been completely overshadowed by the eruptions of drama-bickering that require well trained (and thick skinned) volunteers to take their time way from productive ventures to extricate the combatants. I seem to recall that the riot act has been read in relation to these editors before, so I assumed that they would have behaved themselves. I guess I was wrong. I am deliberately being obtuse regarding the third editor because I don't want to inject any further drama into the issue by giving notice to them and opening the door for them to comment here. If others disagree, please feel free to notify the user in question Hasteur (talk) 21:13, 3 October 2013 (UTC)" And then there is the last comment by the OP which seems to indicate there was nothing there to begin with: "I request the closure of this thread. It has gone off topic, no admin action is necessary. Also, this needs to be closed for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Ghost in the Shell 2 to begin. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:46, 7 October 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawn 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013

• This entire thread was closed as : "ChrisGualtieri (t c) has requested to withdraw the report, and there was no particular consensus to take action among the admins who commented. —Darkwind (talk) 04:00, 22 October 2013 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Another 3RR complaint from Oct. 2013

• The report ended with "No action".--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3RR thread from Nov. 2013

• This one gained a sanction. Ryulong blocked for 24 hours.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Misc. complaint from Jan. 2014

• Closed as: "Any editors that feel the dispute is stuck should proceed with the steps at WP:DR. Claims about revert warring are handled at WP:AN3. Sancho 16:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014

• Closed per: "This has been overcome by events as Ryulong has been blocked 72h for an entirely different matter. The SPI on the other side of the issue is here, so it seems there's nothing left for ANI at the moment here. - The Bushranger One ping only 14:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)"--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• A second, unrelated edit Warring thread from Feb. 2014

• Wow....just...wow. This one is rather ridiculous. It gained no consensus and clearly shows that others behavior was not to snuff either.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Page ownership and hostility in Mar. 2014

• This to me...was just a complaint fest and really achieved nothing but making editors look bad all around.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thread on failing to use AGF and calling accounts SOCKs from Mar. 2014

• I don't see failing to AGF as a violation that is block worthy but this one is where Dennis brown at least informed the editor that accusations of Sock Puppetry without an SPI report is a personal attack. I see this often and when I mention this people really laugh...but it is true and I see that Ryūlóng simply did not understand that as many do not.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In short, of the ten diffs Sven linked only one garnered a sanction and one other was closed do to sanctions already imposed. As we can see there have been some blocks, but I also see a lot of over reaction and exaggeration here.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

As of this edit, there are 3 supports and 3 opposes to the proposal by Sven. }IMr*|(60nna)I{ 02:45, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

And at Wikipedia we call that "no consensus". But the most important part of any discussion is whether or not the original complaint is legitimate enough to be going this route. Frankly...it doesn't appear so to me.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:48, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I never said that all of the threads were valid. Some of them were, and some of them were not. What I said was that Ryulong constantly gets brought to AN/I and AN/3RR. The frequency of the complaints against him is higher than almost any other user I can think of, and that's because he has a pattern of aggressive page ownership and overt hostility. If I wanted to, I could have gone back several years and pulled a dozen really nasty incidents. I don't believe, however, that what someone did in 2009 should be held against them today, at least in most cases. Instead I pulled the most recent discussions I could find, to illustrate that the user is rather consistantly at the center of disputes, and seems incapable of avoiding them for any real length of time. Sven Manguard Wha? 03:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong has been controversial for some time, but simply counting ANI appearances is deceiving, as has been noted. R is super active, and in some areas that attract less experienced users. R is generally looking to do the right thing for the encyclopedia, not just have his way. The times he goes overboard he gets sanctioned and the times he's warned it usually makes appropriate changes in his behavior, other than perhaps not generally having mellowed out overall that much. I think the appropriate questions are, do questions about Ryulong's conduct come up a lot (yes), does Ryulong generally take input from uninvolved admins and editors (mostly), does Ryulong contribute positively to the encyclopedia (mostly, and voluminously). Lacking any particular huge feuds or horrible incidents, a ban seems way out of proportion. Even if the behavior has crossed some new threshold, and needs to be walked back, proposing a ban without having worked with the editor directly or with a RfC is counterproductive.

I encourage direct feedback... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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

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

User:Eddaido

Further eyes needed here, please. A while back I blocked this editor for harassment of another editor, User:SamBlob - the proceedings can be seen at User_talk:Eddaido#Edit_summaries_used_for_personal_attacks (note the final sentence - post-block - where Eddaido clearly promises not to change their behaviour). Now, Eddaido has been reverting their edits on another article with uncollaborative summaries here. This issue was flagged up on Eddaido's talkpage at User_talk:Eddaido#Yet_more_problems_with_your_edit_summaries.

Whilst these are not actually personal attacks, they are clearly not optimal, especially as the edits that Eddaido was restoring are not even particularly good; this, for example, is ungrammatical and confusing to the reader. I do not believe that SamBlob should be on the receiving end of this nonsense for improving an article. I am hesitant to block again (though I wouldn't object to it), but am wondering if a one-way IBAN or similar might be the way of fixing this problem. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see IBAN as the way to go here, because Eddaido's behaviour is his problem, not SamBlob's – nor is it limited to SamBlob. It's long term, it's childish and a competent editor can work out that it's not acceptable in this community, to the point that it's solved by removal of either the behaviour or the editor. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, which is why I suggested a one-way IBAN; i.e. Eddaido should would be prevented from reverting SamBlob's edits, using edit summaries to belittle, etc. I'm thinking WP:ROPE here, but it is fairly clear that Eddaido does not grasp the concept of collaborative editing. Black Kite (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Having dealt with Eddaido a lot in the past, I value his knowledge and often ask him questions. Even then, he's often extremely rude and shows very little understanding for any viewpoint than his own. SamBlob just happens to have a little less patience with Eddaido's behavioral issues. I don't want to see a permanent block but I can't fathom how to better his editing style since he solidly rejects any input.  Mr.choppers | ✎  16:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Eddaido loosed off the latest volley at SamBlob in response to corrective, constructive, and collaborative edits by SamBlob (prior to which the text, shaped by Eddaido, contained an inadvertent error which SamBlob corrected). IIRC, Eddaido has shown ownership tendencies in the past, and if WP:BATTLE continues to be the default response when users Eddaido happens to dislike attempt active collaboration instead of leaving whatever Eddaido writes untouched, that's a problem. Like Mr.choppers I'd rather not see Eddaido blocked again. I think they're a valuable contributor insofar as they do grunt work on articles about such as old cars and planes. I favour whatever would be the minimum action for the desired effect on Eddaido. The one-way IBAN is a good suggestion if Eddaido's behaviour has been confined to interactions with SamBlob. My sole reservation: articles of the kind both Eddaido and SamBlob seem drawn to would be deprived of Eddaido's knowledgeable input.

@Andy: If the behaviour is long-term and also relates to users other than SamBlob, diffs would help here. Writegeist (talk) 17:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Some earlier examples of how Eddaido has corresponded with editors other than me:

To User:Swarm, 14 September 2011:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=450430674&oldid=450424581
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=next&oldid=450435825
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=next&oldid=450436797
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eddaido&diff=next&oldid=450439128

To User:Moonriddengirl and User:Ironholds:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=515715669
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=515771657
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=515938293
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516114706
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516125756
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516235579
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=516560060
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Daimler&diff=next&oldid=517096295

More might be forthcoming.

Sincerely, SamBlob (talk) 00:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Participation here by Eddaido would also be helpful, I think. Writegeist (talk) 16:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC) (adding) For instance, what is the meaning of this revert's edsum ("Poorly judged. So it is war again, You've been let out of jail after three months!")? Writegeist (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User: Pdheg

Pdheg (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please consider the editing and conduct of User: Pdheg (was PuttuHegde). He has been renaming multiple places in Karnataka, India without discussion. The one move that was taken to Requested moves and discussed was not successful – see Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka. He was then asked to discuss moves before he made them, and has refused to do so on the grounds that it his names are ‘Government of India names’ [48]. This is a position he has maintained since, despite the fact that there is no government policy on names and spellings in Roman script. After the Sagara incident, a general discussion of his actions was raised at the Noticeboard for India related topics. On the basis of this discussion I and some other editors moved back some of the unilateral renames pending case by case discussion, but they have only been reverted again with no attempt at further discussion. Thus the move / revert / discuss cycle does not work with this editor – requests to raise a discussion and get consensus are not heeded by him. Reversions of his work have been reverted back, his reasons being typically 1. he has been there and knows that he is correct, 2. quotes of cherry picked government websites which he then asserts are an official name, 3. some confused and unreferenced assertions as to what local pronunciation is. All this is done with little reference to wikipedia policies and practices including WP:Name. His last comments to me on my talk page indicate that he continues to believe he is justified and has no need for consensus or discussion.

The move of the former Ramanagara to the current Ramanagar, Karnataka was made with the claim that Ramanagar was the ‘official name’ [49]. In the following edit, he removed the reference to the district government website http://www.ramanagara.nic.in in which both the district and the town are referred to as Ramanagara (and he marked it as a minor edit, as he has done for many of his other arguable moves). The move of Kundapura to Kundapur, Karnataka with an unnecessary disambiguation was probably made because he could not move it to Kundapur.

Most of the renaming he has made have been dropping of the final ‘a’ in place names to correspond to Hindi pronunciation. In Kannada, unlike Hindi, most names end in a vowel, usually ‘a’. The other group of his changes, of the sound written as ‘th’ in south India to the ‘t’ of north India, again brings it in line with Hindi (e.g. at Amaravati_River). The reasons he gives for his preferred names are variable, but none are in accordance with WP policy; examples can be seen in this message diff after one of his reverts to a page move, and a different reason on this talk page after its last revert [50] . His statement at Talk: Sagara that the Kannada name ‘ಸಾಗರ' is pronounced ‘Sagar’ suggests a major lack of knowledge of the language and of the region he is working on, and confusion with Hindi.

Messages to him can be seen on his current talk page [51] and there are also redacted comments made prior to this, at [52]. Some other relevant messages are at [User_talk:Imc] and later.

I understand that this may be referred back as a content dispute, but in light of Pdheg’s unwillingness to provide useful evidence why his views should stand, while still reverting instead of discussing, as for instance at Talk: Kundapura, I’m raising it here first, since he is quite willing to revert without attempting to reach a consensus. Imc (talk) 13:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC) (first added at the time given previously on this line, then overwritten by User:AutosohdohmeeLives! at 14:18, then copied in again by Imc (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

The final “a” in place names is added only in the southern few districts of Karnataka, which were under Madras Presidency. For example, these districts use “Madhavapura” instead of “Madhavapur”. This pattern is not seen in rest of Karnataka state, contrary to what user Imc claims as Kannada names. User Imc is trying to push this pattern to rest of Karnataka towns and cities, which is incorrect. The whole of India(as well as Northern Karnataka and Coastal Karnataka) uses “pur” as in Kolhapur,Haldipur, Sultanpur, Hamidpur, Berhampur, Bijapur etc. and “nagar” as in Ahmednagar, Itanagar, Gandhinagar etc. As I mentioned earlier the pattern of using “pura”, “nagara” instead of “pur” and “nagar” is limited to a handful of southern districts of Karnataka. It is definitely not applicable to the rest of the Karnataka state, which was not part of Madras Presidency. Moreover, under Common Name policy of Wikipedia, to bring these places in accordance with naming patterns of India my actions are justified. User Imc is selectively considering a few websites as officlal websites and does not what to consider central government websites for official reference. Pdheg (talk) 17:37, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Pdheg, any reason you didn't respond to Imc's queries on your talk page?

Secondly, your understanding of common name isn't quite correct -- Bearcat explained it well at Talk:Bangalore#Its_not_Bangalore_anymore -- you might want to review that and, if you have more questions, I'd suggest asking at the teahouse. NE Ent 18:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

NE Ent, I have responded to Imc's queries on his/her talk page. Though I might have been on the wrong side in some instances, my moves on most accounts have conformed with common name. User Imc's claims do not apply evenly to the entire state of Karnataka as it has diversity. What may be applicable to Imc's region of Karnataka may not be applicable to my region of the state and the same cannot be addressed under common name simply because a few editors from Imc's region work in unison to influence the decision on Wikipedia. When a place is spelled differently by people of two different regions, which spelling do we consider on Wikipedia? The one used locally or the one used by people outside the region (with more wiki editors to vote for)? common name does not address this situation effectively. The page moves initiated by me are as per the spelling used locally and by state/federal governments. Now, Imc has reservations against the moves because the user thinks that the way names of places are spelled in his/her region is the standard for Karnataka state, which is incorrect. Pdheg (talk) 20:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

Sorry about the first question, forgot to to check for that style of interaction. To answer the second question, what governments use is not the basis on Wikipedia works, it's what English language reliable sources use most frequently. NE Ent 20:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved only those pages of places that I belong to and I am sure about how they are spelled by people from that region. Northern and Coastal regions of Karnataka state use naming patterns identical to that of rest of India. While user Imc's claims are pertinent to the English usage of the user's region, those claims in no way hold good for English usage in rest of the India. In one other discussion with user Imc, I have pointed out that we cannot consider the majority opinion as the right opinion on Wikipedia. Since any editor is able to edit articles, a coordinated move by a set of editors has the potential to entirely change content of articles and dump the true information. Pdheg (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2014 (UTC))

I'm afraid you're misunderstanding a few fundamental points regarding how Wikipedia works. "What may be applicable to Imc's region of Karnataka may not be applicable to my region of the state...When a place is spelled differently by people of two different regions, which spelling do we consider on Wikipedia?" WP:COMMONNAME actually does make this quite clear: the "common name in English". It might not be yours, it might not be his, and it might not be the "official" name, but the most commonly used name in English sources as a whole is the one that is used. "we cannot consider the majority opinion as the right opinion on Wikipedia" - No, we use WP:CONSENSUS, and we spell out how consensus works in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines - including WP:COMMONNAME. If a majority of sources say the name of X is X, then Wikipedia must describe X as being named X, even if the people of X prefer to call if Y. "a coordinated move by a set of editors has the potential to entirely change content of articles and dump the true information" - "True information" is not what Wikipedia is about. Verfiable information is. The standard of inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. If everyone knows X is true, and even if X is actually true, if the sources describe it as Y, then Wikipedia must describe it as Y. In this particular case, even though (to use an example already used here) the official name of a certain city is Bengaluru, and the people there call it Bengaluru, since the majority of English sources call the city Bangalore, Wikipedia must title the article as Bangalore. That's simply the way Wikipedia works, and that is the correct way for Wikipedia to work (indeed, unless the encyclopedia is to descend into WP:OR and WP:SYNTH-laden chaos, it's the only way Wikipedia can work). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, As per your explanation of WP:COMMONNAME and "common name in English", my edits already conform to WP:COMMONNAME. User Imc is for using standard Kannada Transliteration system (--see Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka) rather than common English names, which I have used. It may please be noted that Government of India and Government of Karnataka are already using common English names for which I have provided links to Government websites for reference on relevant Talk pages. Pdheg (talk) 05:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC))

It is to be noted that India was ruled by British for centuries until 1947. All City, Town and Village names in India are already in common English except a handful places such as Mumbai, Chennai and Kolkata, which are renamed by Indian Government. All state Governments and Federal Government in India use English names as they were used during British rule. I have been insisting using those names used by the Government for centuries (common English names) while user Imc and a few other Wikipedia editors in India are pressing for using spellings that make the places sound like Kannada language pronunciation. User Imc does not want to consider Government names as standard because the user thinks that they are pronounced differently in local language. Of late, the user has been giving Kannada and Sanskrit language references to support his/her claims. Kindly go through all the references provided by user Imc above to see how the user is pushing to use Kannada names rather than common English names.Pdheg (talk) 17:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC))

<-----

Pdheg, you provide an interesting and ever widening list of reasons why you believe the final ‘a’ is not used in most Karnataka place names. However this is not the place to discuss it, that belongs in discussions on place names.

You have stated above that you understand WP naming policy, but you then go on to say ‘’Moreover, under Common Name policy of Wikipedia, to bring these places in accordance with naming patterns of India my actions are justified.’’ Having first stated that different places in Karnataka have different naming patterns, you now claim Wikipedia naming policy justifies renaming places in India to meet a claimed Indian pattern. Absolutely not. The naming policy requires that each name be justified as the common name. It has nothing to do with whether naming patterns exist for India or not. If you think that there is a ‘naming pattern of India’ and that it should be policy, then you are welcome to try and get in codified in line with other Wikipedia policy.

Another matter is that Wikipedia is a group effort. You appear convinced of your position and your attitude in the one group discussion that there has been (India noticeboard ) to state your position then make no further response. This is not how Wikipedia works. If your actions are disputed, then you have justify your case with reliable references and not just by your assertions as to how you have been there and know it to be so. At the previous discussion you stated your case, then failed to respond to other comments or the solution I put forward, but then have reversed the one action I took two weeks later for its implementation. This was renaming Kundapura, even though it was with justification for my actions, which you then reversed once again with your ‘I was there and I know better’ justification.

You make irrelevant arguments that confuse the issue. Contrary to your claims, neither at Talk: Sagara nor later at Talk: Kundapura have I suggested that Wikipedia place names should be transliterated from Kannada. You have just added a reference to me mentioning Sanskrit, presumably to do with Matrika? What has it to do with this? You need to address the subject and the arguments made by other parties.

Finally, you have said that ‘a few editors from Imc's region work in unison to influence the decision on Wikipedia’. This sounds as though it could be an accusation of illicit conduct – is it, if so can you provide some detail?

Imc (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Imc, any reason you didn't provide reference to the complete conversation on Talk pages? The links you have provided highlight select old conversations and do not show all conversations on the Talk page. See here (Talk:Sagara,_Karnataka) for the conversation where you talk about Kannada names. Pdheg (talk) 13:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC))

• The main problem here is that the user fails to form consensus and makes changes unilaterally, which is contrary to the spirit of editing on Wikipedia. This is not a discussion about whether article names should have an a added to the name or not. It is about working together in accordance with wikipedia policy. I feel that the user:Pdheg, in my previous interactions, fails to work with fellow editors. Gsingh (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others

For the last several months, and on and off dating back least as far back as April 2013, editors User:Brews_ohare and User:Snowded as well as to a lesser degree and at various times users User:Bob_K31416, User:Machine_Elf_1735 and User:Pfhorrest have been involved in a series of long-running disputes accross a number of articles, including (but not limited to) Meta-ontology, Free will, Mind–body_problem, Moral_responsibility, Dilemma_of_determinism, Subject–object_problem, and most recently Enaction (philosophy). While at its core these are content disputes (primarily over the inclusion of, or the degree of emphasis on certain references put forth by User:Brews_ohare the (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) content issues have been eclipsed by a pattern of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point on the part of User:Brews_ohare. At issue (at least as I understand it) is Brews' insistence on using a melange of citations from primary sources, to advance a novel presentation without citations or references to other, secondary sources supporting this presentation. This runs afoul of Wikipedia policies of No Original Research and avoidance of Synthesis. Despite this being pointed out to him repeatedly (mostly but by no means exclusively by User:Snowded) the process has become completely mired in edits, reversions, accusations, accusations of bad faith and general battleground mentality (see the talk page discussions of any of the articles listed for ample examples). This also leads to forum shopping and canvassing with seemingly endless RFCs and petitions on policy pages (Wikipedia_talk:NOR#Explaining_rejections.3F), project pages (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy) and various users' talk pages to bring others to Brews' d way of thinking, almost always to no avail. Then the whole cycle starts again on another article.

Perhaps complicating the situation is the fact that User:Brews_ohare is (or was) under an ArbCom sanction relating to a very similar pattern of behavior (see the original case and the attendant amendments and requests for enforcement) resulting in a topic ban from all physics-related articles, broadly construed. While the current disputes (to the extent that they are content dispute) does not (as far as I can tell) run afoul of the letter of Brews' topic ban as they concern different subject matters not falling under "physics, broadly construed", the similarity of the patterns of behavior on Brews' part is troubling and is evidence of someone who is WP:NOTHERE.

At the very least, some outside parties with fresh eyes to try to defuse the long-running user conduct issues would be welcome as the patience of those involved has long ago been exhauted (with the possible, notable exception of Brews' himself who seems to have absolutely nothing but time on his hands to engage in these behaviors). Beyond that, some clarification of the relevant policies WP:OR, WP:SYN would probably not go amiss as this seems to be the biggest sticking point between User:Brews_ohare and User:Snowded among others. Then, once (when as and if) these issues are resolved or at least ameliorated, perhaps (dare to dream) actual editing of the articles could resume. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Other eyes would be more than welcome. Brews has received no support and rejected attempts to help him over multiple articles (the most recent being the very patient work of Pfhorrest on the Free Will article. Having explained WP:OR and WP:Synth several times when Brews first made a failed attempt to change the definition of Philosophy (that debate with multiple editors itself deserves examination) I've run out of patience. I really wish someone could get Brews to listen and he has time and ability but will not abide by policy and is incapable of working with other editors unless they agree with him ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the behavior pattern that caused the Arbcom to ban Brews_ohare "indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed." So he picked his next-favorite topic area... Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

His choice of topics, (free will, meta-meta-physics, etc.) could also be read as a response to the ban itself and, force of nature that he is, even a direct result... I agree it's exactly the same behavior. Say what one will about it being insufferable, it is being tolerated outside of physics. I hate to say it but if the physics editors need some pointers in coping, we've got that down to a science. So I appeal to Brews, go get you some physics/free-will and us some relief.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is brought by a numbered account, a non-participant in the matters raised, and with no record of substantial contribution to articles on WP, or of engaging in any serious talk page discussion over content. Although WP:OR and WP:SYN haven been asserted on occasion in Talk- page discussions between Snowded and myself, such claims have never been supported, and all such claims have been abandoned upon challenge. The basic issue, as noted, is content, and a preference by some editors for insisting upon personal views rather than discussing sources. As Wikipedians are aware, it is pretty non-controversial to report what a source says, while getting WP editors to agree about each others' opinions is hard. However, many WP editors prefer their own judgment, and simply refuse to deal with sources. Driving discussion toward consideration of sources is like herding cats, and some WP editors find contradiction of their beliefs, even if opposition is reliably sourced, to be irritating, especially where an editor is somewhat inarticulate or is unable to locate supporting documents. Irritation leads some to avoid support of their beliefs using sources, or logic, and instead to resort to dubious means to quash an impending confrontation with reality. However, WP is written by non- experts, and appeals to personal expertise are denied, replaced by reference to reliable sources. So sourcing is a sine qua non of talk-page discussion about content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what prompted the OP to include me. I think my last interaction with either Snowded or BrewsOhare was 9 months ago in a discussion between just Snowded and me. I didn't think there was any hope for agreement so I ended the discussion.[53] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked some more and found an interaction I had with both Snowded and BrewsOhare 8 months ago.[54] In my message there of 18:35, 6 August 2013, I tried to give Snowded and BrewsOhare the following advice, "A discussion between only the two editors doesn't seem to be making progress towards agreement, and seems pointless. It may be that there are no other editors who wish to get involved. For situations like this in the future, the two editors might try to reach some general understanding about what to do when they disagree on an issue and no other editors are interested in getting involved." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is correct that this started as a content issue. But it became disruptive editing when, after having had his contributions removed or declined and the reasons explained to him, he has persisted to disregard policy and continued trying to insert original research across multiple articles. He understands the policies, he just disagrees with them, so much that he has tried to change policy to match his way of editing. Having had these rejected and explained again to him he continues to edit as if policy doesn't apply, ignoring editors that disagree with him.

Arbitrators imposed restrictions on him that might apply here but that remedy expired long ago. So I don't see any grounds for arbitration enforcement. But I also can't see how this won't end up at arbitration eventually, once other avenues for dispute resolution have been exhausted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this three and a half years ago.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration.

the 'visit to arbitration' doesn't apply as sanctions have expired/he is editing well outside the bounds of his topic ban. But otherwise I don't see anything that's changed from then to now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that WP:CANVASSING is happening here. Brew's is not a perfect contributor his posts are lengthy and that disturbs many people. I think though that the encyclopedia experiences a net loss when we run out qualified contributors. I think in this case the dispute has mainly been between snowded and brews and snowded tries damn near everytime to run to AE. I think an interaction ban would be a good idea, it seems right now snowded is the only one having problems. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, ban me too.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says the long-time career Brews booster. Pray, enlighten us how a single post to ANI is ‘canvassing’. I suppose Brews’ carpet-bombing of talk pages, policy pages etc. don’t count as canvassing, by your definition. 173.166.17.106 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket has had a problem since s/he tried to elicit Brews support for an attack on an admin who had banned them both. Since then s/he appears from time to time to support Brews behaviour. For the record (I) every editor who has engaged with Brews on philosophy articles has had problems and attempts to portray this as a personal conflict do not bear examination. Todate Brews has failed to get ANY support for his edits (II) three of those editors who have a lot of experience on philosophy articles have thanked me for monitoring, someone has to (III) I have not brought anything about Brews to ANI, I know I am too involved I do that. Worth. Opting that Brews has not responded to the concern raised here at all ----Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try User:Snowded, I've never been banned, a few blocks in 2009 and 2010 but nothing since so your entire line of reasoning is so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are forgetting this ban. I don't know if it still applies (to you and Count Iblis). As for the rest of your comment: WP:NPA.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC) It no longer applies: see WP:ARBSL#Motions #4 and #5.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I"m not forgetting that at all, a ban is something altogether different then what you are alluding to and I('m sure if you put just a little more effort you'll see where that was rescinded lol. Also please point out any personal attack made, I have not attacked anyone, I've called the viewpoint or reasoning is full of shit that is hardly a personal attack. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK you were blocked by the same admin who blocked and banned Brews., you then tried to canvas Brews in an ANI case against that Admin and I was one of the editors who pointed out the issue. Since then this type of intervention by you, with the belligerent language has been typical and distracts from the real issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Snowded I think Sandstein blocked me once and who gives a flying fuck if I cuss. I think what you are doing is deperately trying to smear any opinion against you and if your argument is that by using the word "shit" nyour logic must be weaker then I first thought. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like me, Brews is the sort of editor who is most suited to edit articles on scientific subjects where the kind of logic he is used to applies. But this will only work in those subjects that he is an expert in and knows the literature quite well. The problems started a few years ago when he ventured out of his usual domain and in the speed of light article he caused problems. That led to an ArbCom case which imposed rulings that made things worse, because he was banned from all physics articles, while the only thing he could edit well were certain physics and math articles. Then because things were worse than they were, that led to more broad topic bans and he was banned from all math articles as well.

I have said many times before, if a topic ban were imposed on Brews that would ban him from editing any articles except a few approved ones (e.g. accelleration in curvlinear coordinates, Lagrangian mechanics etc.), he would be happy and the rest of Wikipedia would be happy too. So, I see the Brews problem more as a symptom of the new Admin/ArbCom ideology that exists here since aboput 2008 clashing with certain realities here than some big unsolvable problem. It's a purely ideological problem that has caused some editors to be banned from Wikipedia just for speaking out on the stupidity of the situation, an Admin has been desysopped for reversing some block that was argued to undermine ArbCom's authority. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a thoughtful solution. Relax the topic ban to areas where he has expertise would benefit Wikipedia. Maybe a 'give up if you do not get other editors to buy in' on all other articles. I'd happily support a case being made to relax the current ban to keep him engaged in a useful way----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That applies to all of us though. We all have our own areas of experience and expertise which we can usefully contribute on. One of the key skills of WP or any collaborative enterprise is knowing where your talents lie and focussing on those to make your most useful contribution. Once you reach adulthood you don't expect others to tell you what your best areas are, you're expected to know them yourself with only occasional pushes from peers.

And editing only approved articles implies some sort of oversight, e.g. another editor approving which articles he can edit. Something like this has been suggested before but thought unworkable. Any editor involved with Brews in a way that he disagrees with inevitably ends up with their arguments ignored, their motives questioned and often their ability to edit or character attacked. Assigning an editor to tell Brews which articles he can edit would be a particularly cruel and unusual punishment for that editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It was thought to be unworkable, but knowing Brews reasonably well and some of the articles he has worked on in the past without much problems, I think that this is something we should try. E.g. Slavomir asked Brew a few years ago to work with him on dirac delta function, and they had a good collaboration. This is completely different from the fighting that we've seen in other articles. Thing is that there is already a topic ban in place, so you just change this topic ban into a flexible one. A small list of approved articles may to Brews be a lot more than a big pool of articles that he really isn't interested in. If you give me one interesting math problem , I can work on that the whole day. If you give me an entire museum of modern art, I will be bored to death. Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that the conversation is running along the lines that contributing articles to WP is best done by experts in those topics.

First, I have found WP editors to be unimpressed by expertise, and ready to argue with all comers, even regarding specialized topics like centrifugal force where they know nothing. So arguments won't be fixed this way. But second, and far more important, WP by it's very concept, it's basic nature, is to be written by non- experts.

So the real challenge for WP is to develop a culture where non- experts can do this. A key ingredient in a conversation among non- experts is to rely upon published sources. That reliance means discussion is about sources. If discussion is confined to what sources say, that goes much easier than arguing with each other to build a popular consensus. Unfortunately, many WP editors do not wish to address sources, but wish to assert their opinions, and that holds at least as much for real experts as for WP self-professed 'experts'. If the focus can be held upon sources, WP would be on its way, IMO. Brews ohare (talk)

Brews response here illustrates the problem raised by several editors here. Despite the fact that many editors have explained that it is not just about assembling sources he simply ignores them and carries on with the way he thinks Wikipedia should work. In practice Wikipedia has developed the culture where non-experts can contribute; Brews does not want to respect the rules that make that possible. When he has challenged the rules on the various Forum discussion pages his position has been consistently rejected, but he doesn't learn from that. Just yesterday we find a situation where he creates one article to use material rejected elsewhere. I opened a discussion about agreeing an appropriate name for an article but Brew's response is simply to create another one with the same rejected material and to use PROD, inappropriately, to delete the first one. He simply will not engage with the communityother than on his own terms. Talk a look at the essays on his talk page for more evidence on this. For those interested I re-directed his new article back to the first he created and have made yet another attempt to engage him in agreeing things on the talk page first. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I do think you are onto something here. Maybe a list of articles and a mentor agreed by Brews and the Community who can add to that list and help Brews learn the rules, accepting the mentor being a condition. I think you have the measure of this, would you draft something? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It might help if the vicious cycle of Brews ohare contributing, Snowded deleting, Brews ohare restoring , Snowded deleting ... is broken. From what I've seen, Snowded doesn't contribute material to article pages. Perhaps Snowded and Brews ohare could agree to a contribution, for example on the Talk:Enaction (philosophy) page, and then Snowded could make the edit that adds the contribution to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: You are such a beacon of hope; your suggestion is wise; Snowded has refused this invitation by myself to do the 'heavy lifting' to flesh out his ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, if you check out the free will article you will see that Pfhorest went through all of Brews material and proposed some limited amendments to the article. Brews then refused to accept those changes unless all of his edits were accepted. I've had similar experiences in the early days, as did you when you tried to help him and I stood back. I can find the diffs if you want. If you check it out, I leave as much of. Brew's edits as I can (so I disagree with your characterisation) but there is extensive OR and synthesis of primary sources. Every RfC todate has supported the deletions by myself, Machine Elf and others. Most recently on Enaction you will see another editor asked to engage by Brews, starts by supporting the deletions (I left a lot of the original draft). So the process you propose is fine, if Brews is prepared to compromise and work with other editors on the he talk page to agree text. Todate (as on Physics articles before) he has refused. If you look at the comment above Brews wants me to engage in primary research and I'm not doing that; I think you actual proposal is sensible butI I don't think Brews understands it.----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, you have an evocative term for what you don't want to do: "Engage in primary research". or what Jc3s5h has supported as "Source-based research [which] is the method used to write Wikipedia; without it, Wikipedia cannot exist." Here you have hit upon an excuse for never discussing sources - either they are "primary" sources that should be avoided, or they are "secondary" sources that need no comment. Add to that the vagueness of WP policy about the distinction, and you never have to do more than simply revert what you don't like without going into any detail.

I have caught on that you don't want the labor of adding to articles, and offered to do the heavy lifting if you provide an outline of what is on your mind. Why not do that? Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Brew's every editor who has engaged with you over multiple RFIs has tried to explain WP:OR to you. Your views have not received support from other editors over multiple articles, but you persist in stringing together quotes based on your personal selection of original material. Pfhorest in particular put hours into trying to explain to you how you had misinterpreted that material on Free Will, as multiple editors did before when you tried to change the definition of Philosophy. It is a simple verifiable fact that you have not been supported by any editor over multiple articles. Until you learn from that you will get no where. It is, as other people have pointed out, a more or less exact repeat of the behaviour that got you permanently banned from all articles on Physics. If you carry on I suspect sooner or later it will come back here. It would be useful if an uninvolved admin or two could review the editing history and comment. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed a recent section at Talk:Enaction (philosophy).[55] If you continue there, the suggestion I made in my last message might come to pass. Also, I noticed some productive work in another recent section there involving you, Brews ohare, and another editor.[56] Maybe it's time to give peace a chance (all I am saying). --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I initiated that, but as yet I just see the same old response from Brews. I or others try on most articles then after being rebuffed give up. Maybe he will change this time but I very much doubt it. Shifting all the disputed material onto another article rather than engage on the talk page you reference was his first response. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

COI that might need more than COIN

The other day, I ran into an article on the new owners of Newsweek. Very long and interesting story short, they are also owned by the company that owns the International Business Times, and are religiously-affiliated. Later that day, I decided to clean up some of the page at Olivet University, which was founded by the owners of the two companies. I ended up removing some text and was reverted twice by Rr2002, who appeared out of the blue. None of this would raise an alarm, except for the fact that they added back in what appears to be promotional text, which also occurred with Glory4321, Syl.White, and Seashellpicking, all of whom have edited that article and done similar things. Clrwiki99 has also engaged in this kind of behavior on the talk page, removing text while adding some more information (I am less convinced in this person, but them coming out of nowhere is what is concerning me).

Fast forward to today when I decided to check up on some of the other articles that are on here that are related to IBT Media. On that page, I added a COI template on the IBT page, which was mysteriously removed in this edit by 38.104.70.190. On this page, I suspect that WoodenTree might also be related to IBT, based on their actions, as well as 66.233.11.67. On the Newsweek article, as well as the IBT ones, 209.66.114.182 is also a participant here, adding information to these articles. On the International Business Times article, 38.104.70.190 has also removed text without explanation (although not to the degree of the above users). Finally, on the now-redirect for Etienne Uzac, Serendipity133 and 209.66.114.182 have engaged in promotion. The IP even replaced Huffington Post links with plot summaries from IBT (the Mother Jones article mentions IBT ripping off others' stories, so replacing links isn't out of the question).

Now, besides the above evidence, what leads me to believe that these are all related is a few different things. One of the IPs traces to around New York City (headquarters of IBT and Newsweek), and could very well be from the residences of staffers. Another IP traces to the D.C. area, although I am not so sure about that one. In terms of the first users that I mentioned before, they almost exclusively edit Olivet University's article, and I suspect that these accounts belong to members of the church that is part of IBT. Almost all of the expansions to Olivet are made by users like this, with a few established Wikipedians thrown into the mix, and there are no IPs that trace to the Bay Area (or anywhere else that is concerning, for that matter). Based on what the above article said, and the fact that at least two of the user names have "glory" and "serendipity" in them furthers my conviction that these are probably church-related persons. Finally, whenever the users remove text, it is either not done with an edit summary, or performed while removing information that could be considered compromising to the company or would link the groups together to a religious organization.

I would be interested to see what Guanxi thinks of this, as they have also edited some of these articles before, and might be able to provide another take on what I found above. I am also going to notify the editors who have edited recently, because not all of these editors are active anymore. What do others think, as I was hesitant to put this on COIN because it involves so many articles and persons, and I would like to have a wider body look at this in order to make a decision on where to go from here (article protection, etc.). Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically, a good summary of the above, as I realized I wrote a lot of text: There are many suspicious accounts that seem to be advocating for this company's holdings, and I would like for someone else to take a look at it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Frankly I'm not convinced there's a basis for the COI tag. I see many articles in which there is suspicious activity of the kind you mention. Perhaps I've missed something, but unless one or more of these IPs is from a related entity, and have performed significant editing, I don't think the tag is warranted. Coretheapple (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that obnoxious edits like this[57] are worrisome. However, unless the article was authored by an SPA and is pretty much an autobiography, or unless there is an admitted COI editor openly editing the page, a COI tag just doesn't seem appropriate. All that said, your points are well taken and all these articles should get additional attention. Coretheapple (talk) 13:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would be more than happy to remove the tags, but I guess they were more of a knee-jerk reaction after reading the article, especially since the article made it clear that promotional work on the part of IBT-related entities was possible. What would you suggest in the meantime, as I think protection of some of these articles is warranted, or at least more people watch the pages. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think more eyes are definitely required. You could always apply for semiprotection, obviously. Coretheapple (talk) 16:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Rim sim pretending to be an admin

I had removed the icon, he restored it, someone sort him out. Darkness Shines (talk) 06:36, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Also claimed to be a GOCE co-ordinator. Have removed that as well and left them a note - they look like a new editor who is building a userpage by cut and paste from others. Hopefully that's the end of the matter unless they revert the removals. Euryalus (talk) 08:50, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps next time Darkness Shines could discuss the issue with the editor before starting an ANI thread? NE Ent 12:01, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@NE Ent:, I have no interest in discussing anything with someone who says shit like this about me. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss changes and WP:BLUDGEONing at the AfD is a rather poor way to resolve this dispute, don't you think? KonveyorBelt 20:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no dispute. I will not discuss anything with someone who attacks me just because I asked him for sources. Darkness Shines (talk) 21:13, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

The diff of Rim sim's edit as provided above by Darkness Shines is absolutely outrageous, I am at a loss as to why this report was started by only mentioning Rim sim putting misleading material on his userpage. I am also at a loss as to why Rim sim is not blocked yet, based on that diff. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Can a non-administrator issue discretionary sanctions warnings ? Only an uninvolved admin can impose sanctions, so it would make sense that only they can issue warnings as well, which by the way the new draft makes clear. There may be POV-pushing problems with Rim sim though. Cenarium (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, per the last line of Wikipedia:AC/DS#For_administrators. (arbcom is only required to get themselves elected and more or less follow policy, "making sense," while both desirable and a frequent but not universal occurrence, isn't an actual requirement) NE Ent 22:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I've never given an AE warning, but my understanding is that only admin can issue the warnings as only they can follow through. Someone should correct me if I'm wrong. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 22:14, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually a wondrously grey area -- with anyone able to "notify" anyone else about Discretionary Sanctions in the past -- there are now proposals which will clarify/murkify everything, as is the wont of all committees since Noah had family meetings on the Ark. Collect (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I issue them sometimes, but, like that guy in that short story, "I would prefer not to". As far as I can remember, last time I did so, I asked an admin for advice first, and he suggested a particular template to use. I think he had also been accused of being the administrator in charge of dealing with communist terrorism (sic), which may have helped. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not gray A warning need not be issued by an administrator; NE Ent 22:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Dennis, I had that very conversation with different admins. Some say any editor can issue a DS warning, some say only "uninvolved editors or admins" can, some say only "uninvolved admins". Some say that every warning needs to be logged in on the particular DS page, others say that doesn't matter much at all. I assume this variance is why the policy is being reviewed right now. 22:48, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Unless the admins were one of those listed at Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee#Members, it doesn't matter what they think (please let me know if it was one those guys or gal). NE Ent 22:54, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I often take administrators' opinions into account, even in cases where they are not arbcom members. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:58, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Ent, individually, Arbs have no more authority than anyone else. Only Arb as a whole has more authority than you or I. That said, the people whose opinions matter more to me tend to be a mix of Arbs, Admin and Editors. For instance, in this case, you actually knew more about DS than I did, even though I have the bit and you don't. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown: Is it not against the rules to remove comments after they have been responded to? While I appreciate the removal of those rants, it now looks like I am talking to my imaginary friend Darkness Shines (talk) 09:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The guideline is at WP:REDACT. The language is really wishy-washy. For example: If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Or look at: Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. It's difficult to figure out in our guideline what is allowed and what isn't. I think you can revert the removal of comments and cite that guideline, but I don't know if someone can be faulted for not following that guideline because of how it's written. -- Atama頭 16:12, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, if you do feel that it's necessary to restore that info (which constitute personal attacks) it would be courteous to at least strike them out. I think we can assume that Rim sim removed those remarks as a way of retracting those comments, which was at least a good intention for them to have. I don't like faulting someone for technically going against a guideline in an attempt to do the right thing. -- Atama頭 19:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Debian (IP 84.127.80.114)

84.127.80.114 is refusing to acknowledge the consensus and is pushing on with its agenda ([58]). It has also demanded that the editors 'cooperate', translated 'accept my edits'. The consensus has been identified as against the edits Talk:Debian, Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_88#Debian, Declined arbitration request by IP, and that the edits are against Wikipedia's policies.

This IP has been blocked before as a warning and is still ignoring this warning, could the IP be blocked for a (much?) longer period of time (before it wastes any more editors time, see links).

Thanks mthinkcpp (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Note this IP has been blocked twice. Last week for disruption on Talk:Debian, which was made more restrictive during it, & an earlier block.[59] To date, this IP has almost no useful contributions,[60] & has caused too much disruption. This IP also has yet to demonstrate any comprehension of WP's policies & guidelines, though this IP is obviously skilled at learning & (mis-)using WP's administrative procedures. Thanks, Lentower (talk) 15:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

In the previous incident, I complained about not being able to reply. I am aware of this new incident. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This IP was unable to reply during the later part of this IP's second block, because an admin decided this IP replies in the earlier part was too disruptive. The admin made the block more restrictive. Lentower (talk) 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed 84.127.80.114's edits since the block expired, and I don't see anything that is even slightly disruptive. Nominating an article for GA[61] and asking other editors who he has had conflicts with in the past to cooperate?[62] Nothing even slightly wrong with that. Expressing his opinion that the block was unfair on his own talk page?[63] Perfectly fine. If anyone doesn't like it they should stop reading his talk page. One short critical comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment?[64] Allowable. Making constructive edits in other areas?[65][66] That's exactly what he was advised to do and in my opinion shows good faith.

In my opinion, 84.127.80.114 is being unfairly punished for things that happened before the block. That's not how we do things around here. He should be allowed to make a new start without prejudice. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on what he wrote, he intends to place the material on the page, using the GA nomination as a mechanism for doing so:

"I could not prepare the article with the help of the regular editors. Thus, I will have to do all the work by myself."

"From this point on, either Debian becomes a good article or I get blocked finally."

Unless you see another interpretation (please say), I cannot find an alternative reason for writing the first comment, or the last. Doing all the work "myself" implies ignoring consensus (based on history) and doing edits that have been rejected. This is backed up by his words "could not prepare...with...regular editors", so it is the rejected edits he's targeting.

The idea of doing a GA nomination is that hopefully (from the IP's view) the reviewer will say something similar to the last reviewer

"This GA review is not looking good here, if you fail to include some type of controversy and/or criticism of Debian. miranda "

In 2008 (Wayback machine) it didn't have a criticism section, which I presume the IP is unaware. Why bring this up? The IP quoted Miranda as an excuse for the content to go on the page (see Debian talk page).

It implies that he hasn't 'dropped the stick', instead he is trying a new mode of attack. As he has been advised by administrators to 'drop the stick' he is violating the warnings he has been given. Yes I agree it isn't giving the IP a fresh start, however it works both ways, he has to try to make a fresh start, and also give any other editors (and administrators) a fresh start too (i.e assume that the IP never had dealings with them before), as the primary condition for a fresh start I would require that he actually drops the stick.

mthinkcpp (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Seems fair to wait until this IP actually makes such edits in article space, gets disruptive again, or otherwise goes against WP's policies and guidelines. This IP might even become a constructive editor. I agree that this IP's words since this IP's second block are not encouraging. Lentower (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. mthinkcpp (talk) 07:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Kirk loganewski

Resolved

Please help me: An edit this user made in the article Salome Alexandra did not appear to have any source for the additional content added in this edit by Kirk: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&diff=602833329&oldid=595346061 I had reverted the change because there was no source for the additional content added, so I posted in the edit summary as I reverted to "discuss this further on the talk page of the article." The user did comply but reverted my revert before I could reply to the discussion. The user is being unconstructive and has made a personal attack against me here in the article's history by insulting me: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history As I quote the attack, "I know you didn't like that I did not reduce the Jewish faith to the term "Pharisee" did that 4 u, removed anything not directly mentioned in the source, removed the opinion "only", made the other contentious part 2 u a footnote. OK now Jerm?" and on the talk page of the article and is POV pushing in the started discussion which I did not reply. Talk:Salome Alexandra. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:33, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Jerm, it looks like Kirk has tried to start a conversation on the article talk page. Is there a reason you can't talk about your differences there first? While that edit summary is a bit snippy, I don't see a personal attack there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

A discussion shouldn't begin with such a negative vibe to begin with. The comment in the edit summary was unnecessary, and I could tell this user was not going to cooperate anyway because of the tone of the discussion. It was a POV view in the discussion so there was no choice but ANI. -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of negative vibes, ANI is the last resort for resolving a dispute. You should at least try to discuss the matter at the editor's talk page, the article's talk page, and/or WP:DRN before coming to ANI. As for the edit summary comment, while it's a bit uncivil, it's not a personal attack (at least IMHO). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If the user does not reply for a while like say a week. What about the edit the user made that if I don't agree with? I'll reply to the discussion, but I assume it will lead to nowhere but a drag if the user replies to this ANI. -- ♣Jerm♣729 02:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I would still like the comment in the edit summary the user made to be removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history. I find it as a personal attack although it doesn't apply to the qualifications as a personal attack or might not sound like an attack because it is not implied to anyone else but me. Having my username bashed in the article's history damages my credibility as a editor on Wikipedia. -- ♣Jerm♣729 18:54, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think if you want an edit summary redacted, you have to get it oversighted. Make your case at WP:OS. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:39, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No Liz, we can wP:REVDEL them here, it doesn't need oversight. However, I do not see any recent edit-summaries in that article that meet any of Wikipedia's Oversight OR RevDel qualifications for deletion. Jerm, please read the criteria for RevDel and if you still feel something needs suppressing, can you link us to it? DP 09:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The comment made in the edit summary by Kirk here in the article's history: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Salome_Alexandra&action=history As I quote the whole thing: I know you didn't like that I did not reduce the Jewish faith to the term "Pharisee" did that 4 u, removed anything not directly mentioned in the source, removed the opinion "only", made the other contentious part 2 u a footnote. OK now Jerm? The more I read it now, it sounds like I favor POV Judaism when Kirk types it sarcastically. My username is also there displayed as a bashed username, which will damage my credibility as an editor on Wikipedia. I already sent an email to: WP:OS but no reply yet. -- ♣Jerm♣729 21:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I saw that edit, and cannot see any way, shape, or form where it violates anything that needs oversight nor REVDEL. The only thing that damages or increases your credibility on Wikipedia is your own behaviour - and I have to say, your actions in this thread, and this request are really not helping. Back away, look at things objectively, try not to see things as a slight. I don't want to say "grow a thick skin", because I believe that real attacks need to be dealt with. This is not one of those times DP 21:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see now, your refering to the request I made for a 'confirm account'. My behavior is only effecting you because of the message I sent you. That's why you found this topic by looking into my contributed edits. Now your being biased against me. My behavior has been good. I have done nothing wrong other than talk to you about a confirm account which was a civil message. -- ♣Jerm♣729 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And now accusations of bad faith? God Almighty, get over yourself. This is entirely about something that does not meet the definitions required for REVDEL or OS, and nothing to do with our friendly (I thought) exchange where I politely corrected your misunderstanding between "confirmed" and "autoconfirmed" DP 22:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Your accusing me of bad behavior. What is friendly about that? -- ♣Jerm♣729 22:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Who has ever accused you of "bad behaviour"????? Step back from the brink, Padawan DP 23:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Jerm729, multiple people have told you that this is not a personal attack, is not revdel eligible, and is not oversightable. Your username is not "bashed", it does not impunge your credibility, and the only way it could have any relevance to your reputation on Wikipedia is through the Streisand effect. So now would be a good time to drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. (Also, please properly indent your comments - failure to do so makes the discussion hard to follow and can, if continually done, be considered disruptive. I've taken the liberty of indenting them here for you.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Trolling or compromised account or both

Orphiwn left this insult at User talk:AndreasJS. Andreas justifiably reverted it. Subsequently Orphiwn leaves a message to Andreas in Greek telling him that the notification [system], which informed Orphiwn of Andreas's revert, is wrong and that Orphwin never did the original insulting edit and that he doesn't even know Andreas. Orphiwn goes on to say that this is a security issue and he wants to be informed as to how can someone leave an edit with Orphiwn's account name without Orphiwn knowing about it. This can be some type of trolling or compromised account. Whatever the case may be, I think it needs a resolution. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 03:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, this does look like an account that was temporarily compromised somehow. Given that Orphiwn appears to be otherwise a perfectly serious and constructive contributor, I'd exclude the "trolling" scenario. More like "accidentally left his account logged in in a library once" or "little brother did it". Normally we'd technically block the account for being compromised, but since it seems to have been a one-off thing, and the original account owner is currently clearly back in control of it and there has been no sign of ongoing illegitimate activities, I think in the interest of not scaring off an otherwise very positive contributor we should avoid blocks. It ought to be sufficient to remind him to change his password. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your analysis is ok, except that this statement gave me some cause for concern: "Φυσικά αυτό αποτελεί παραβίαση ασφαλείας αφού κάποιος μπόρεσε να γράψει κάτι τέτοιο και να αφήσει να φανεί ότι το έχω κάνει εγώ. Αν βγει κάποιο συμπέρασμα παρακαλώ ενημερώστε με, με κάποιο τρόπο." which translates to: Naturally, this is a security breach since someone was able to write something like that and to make it appear as if I did it. If a conclusion is reached please notify me, somehow". According to this statement, this user did not consider the rather natural possibility that their own computer, or some computer terminal, might have been used in their absence, and while they were logged in, but instead he is asking to be notified if a conclusion is reached about the nature of the security breach. It may be that the editor is not particularly technically savvy, but that is also not a good sign, especially when security breaches are concerned. As far as the case that the original account owner is back in control, from their global contributions it appears that they have not edited anywhere past the 28 March 2013 date when the compromised edit was made. The only edits past that date appear to have been made on en.wiki and concern the message to Andreas JS. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 09:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Trying to help the understanding on the subject I decided to add this annotation. I wanted to inform the previous annotator (Dr.K.) that there is not any possibility that someone else logged in from a computer I had previously logged in Wikipedia. I know enough about computers and specially security subjects as a programmer and networks' administrator for many years. I live completely alone, I am 59 years old and have no little brothers or other persons that could use my computers. I also never use computers in public places like an internet cafe or other business places outside my home as the last years I spend all my days writing a book. Certainly this story is something that makes me worrying and makes me feel uneasy and I have never seen anything alike (in my unfortunately until now small experience here) posted in any page on Wikipedia sites. I hope and wish it is not something serious, but I also could not keep it without informing AndreasJS for the event. Specially since I am also a Greek native and would never of course make such a comment to an other Greek. Primarily I am interested that the right persons in Wikipedia be informed for the information of their records that maybe fit with other cases. I trust the persons involved in the Wikipedia project and I know there are people who finally solve all the problems.
☺ Orphiwn (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC) ☺

Care to explain why you removed/edited other comments [67] ? .... Me thinks you're trolling! -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Me too. It's true that a simple removal of somebody else's comment is something the "ANI bug" can do, but if Orphiwn's invasive "copyedit" of EllenCT's comment (same edit) was accidental, I'd like to see an explanation for how such a thing could happen. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Looks to me that it undid several unrelated edits; the EllenCT one was this one. I think it was probably inadvertent. alanyst 00:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that was the ANI bug. He had to take the diff of these revisions and then revert to the older one by EllenCT. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 00:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't realise Ellen had used a separate edit to add those flourishes, that Orphiwn removed. Then it could be the bug, indeed (even though you seem to draw the opposite conclusion, Dr.K). Sorry, for my part I withdraw the trolling suggestion. Bishonen | talk 00:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

I'm pretty certain it's the bloody bug and not us being trolled so apologies Orphiwn for that accusation which I've now struck :). -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

ANI goes screwy when it gets too long -- the old bot has stopped and I've tried to get a new one to take over (see Wikipedia_talk:Administrators'_noticeboard#It_looks_like...). In the meantime I've semi-manually archived a few sections which might help. Oh, we're supposed to WP:AGF around here, by the way... NE Ent 02:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

First we had the account compromised through an as yet unknown process, then the ANI bug hit unraveling multiple edits. Perhaps we can close this thread now and open it again on Halloween. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 02:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Incivility escalating to personal attacks and edit-warring to restore them

An ordinary content dispute on Talk:Sanctus involved Esoglou (talk · contribs) and Thanatos666 (talk · contribs) and later myself. Thanatos soon got personal and testy, and then offered a solution which turned out to be removing a source altogether, which I interpreted as WP:POINTy and disruptive. I reverted and warned him, on both his user talk page and the article talk. I was accused of Wikilawyering and not having a clue, whereupon I replied that I had no problem with the revision as it stood and I assumed naïvely that the discussion would be over. Thanatos decided to escalate with a textbook example of the vicious personal attack, which I reverted, and warned him appropriately, level 4 "final" warning, after which I found another personal attack directed at me on his user talk page, which I removed delicately, which he promptly restored with profanity added and assertion of WP:OWN of his user talk, I reverted and he restored with another OWNership statement and finished off with a third OWNership and profanity-laden extremely rude attack. Elizium23 (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes. - Embram (talk) 03:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now he and Lfdder (talk · contribs) are conversing about the incident in Greek; both have been notified that English must be used here on en.wiki. Elizium23 (talk) 03:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I've explained it on my talk page. — lfdder 03:47, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

My replies to Elizium23 can be found here, here and here. Research, read and reflect on the actual content/info, the actual edits-edit-history and the actual behaviour and acts. Thanx.
In short, imo, this is a cautionary tale of - within a context of a probable total ignorance of relevant stuff, e.g. Greek, Ancient Greek, etc. - boundless arbitrary legalism, in-group, herd behaviour

(more or less actually admitted: "This topic area is frequented by Esoglou and myself, we are all experienced editors here, and so seeing that Esoglou had a concern, I decided to investigate and back him up if I found his concerns to be well-founded."

NOTE: I'm not in any way accusing Esoglou. From my point of view he/she has been very very reasonable and understanding once explained in detail),

EDIT-ON-NOTE: Strike this, I take it back: Esoglou seems to have used this as a means or an excuse to go ahead and do as he pleases despite the serious objections-arguments explained in detail by me to him and without giving any counterarguments to them at the talk page... His edits have now been dealt with accordingly... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 12:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

censoring of "bad" language, actual personal attack, and finally persecution syndrome(?) (e.g. vicious personal attack, Now he and Lfdder (talk · contribs) are conversing about the incident in Greek).
PS Let alone a case of total absence of a sense of humour... ;-)
Thanatos|talk|contributions 03:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

While English is the dominant language for article space (although quotes and references may be in other languages), there isn't any "English-only" Wikipedia policy for user talk pages. If I'm wrong, please let me know what policy applies to this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I may have misinterpreted WP:SPEAKENGLISH because it falls under "Talk pages used for collaboration" and appears to specifically exclude user talk pages. My bad. Elizium23 (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Elizium23, I wasn't aware of that guideline. I appreciate the link. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Then would you mind terribly striking out your warning? — lfdder 16:08, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No need. User talkpage discussions should also be in English, unless impossible to do so. That's how that "guideline" reads. The "warning" isn't really a warning - it's a notification/reminder to speak English. We peons need to be able follow user talkpage discussions as well - in part so that we don't re-warn, or re-advise of something already warned about ES&L 18:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, that's not how the guideline reads. This is what it says right at the top of that section: "These guidelines apply specifically to discussion pages which are used for collaboration, which includes just about all talk pages other than user talk pages." — lfdder 18:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, read the "guideline" a little higher up ... you know, common sense, etc. And remember, it's a "guideline". DP 19:25, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is boring. — lfdder 20:04, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the guidelines saying English use is "preferable" which is quite a way from "must be used". Plus, it is not uncommon for me to see editors and admins talking in other languages to others who speak their primary language on their talk page. I also see American users who speak a little German have a conversation with a native German speaker or French or any number of languages. I think it's necessary to favor the English language in article and article talk page space although I do see Italian sources or Korean used in footnotes, for example. But editors are given more leeway on their talk pages and as long as it is incidental (which is was in the OP's complaint), I don't think it should pose a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I have conversed with another editor in French because they were unable to understand the rules and processes in English. I always left an English translation in case someone followed up behind me and needed to understand. DP 23:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The use of non English sources on the English Wikipedia is only when there are no English sources of equal validity. As for speaking or writing in non English on your own talk page there are limits to that as this is a collaboration and you cannot collaborate if only a few can understand you. If you use non English on your own talk page there is some leeway but not much as this isn't a social network and the purpose of the User talk page is to discuss improvements to the project. The last non English talk page I encountered was purely promotional and may have been using non English to avoid scrutiny...which didn't actually work. I like the way DP includes a translation.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, okay, so there is a small disagreement here over how broadly the English-only rule applies. If it does apply to user talk pages, then you currently have a problem at WP:TPG because that guideline is listed under the section which explicitly excludes user talk pages. So some consensus and modification is called-for there. However, I would like to draw your attention back to the main issue at hand. The Greek thing was really a minor afterthought that I am not too concerned about, so rather than spilling ink on that here, can we focus on Thanatos' outrageous hostility and unfounded personal attacks in light of a very simple and minor content dispute? I'd appreciate some kind of action in that direction, given that he was amply warned and continued to escalate. I am quite offended and I did nothing to deserve any of that. Elizium23 (talk) 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that the discussion has wandered off, would it be best to let the matter lie with the issuance of a public rebuke to someone who on his talk page has said of himself, in Greek, that he has "the courage of his words" and who may thereby be helped to reduce somewhat the temperature of those words?

My parenthetic remark, which I did not expect would be treated as fueling further anger, was given in Greek because meant for him alone and was in response to his citation of an (unreliable) source in Greek alone. It seems I should not have used that language there, even as a parenthesis. I apologize for doing so. Esoglou (talk) 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Use common sense; "policy" can't cover everything. If two users who're fluent in English choose to use Greek to converse on the English Wikipedia, and to blow off objections, it's obviously inappropriate. If it wasn't done for the purpose of shutting others out, you still need to be aware that it looks like that. Please use English instead of offering legalistic arguments about how there's no rule that says you have to. Bishonen | talk 00:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

Please apply in and provide appropriate, proper, relevant, actual context next time... The same thing, emphasised to the maximum, should be pointed out to Esoglou ;-) (see comment above, 07:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)):

• 1.Talk:Sanctus#The purpose of providing a Greek text:

"... (Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)... Esoglou (talk) 15:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)...

...PS Continuing for a while and only for while, between us two in Greek (after Esoglou started it...:) ):

"(Περιέργως, η συζήτηση εδώ δεν λαμβάνει υπόψη το γεγονός ότι το λειτουργικό κείμενο περιλαμβάνει δύο διαφορετικές φράσεις.)"

Δεν σε πιάνω... Δες σχόλιο υπ'αριθμόν 9. Αν πάλι δε εννοείς κάτι άλλο, διευκρίνισε σε παρακαλώ...

Συνέχισε σε παρακαλώ πάντως την συζήτηση στα αγγλικά· είναι κανονισμός αλλά και χάριν ευγενείας και σεβασμού προς τους άλλους...

Στο κάτω κάτω της γραφής είμαστε στην αγγλική, όχι στην ελληνική wikipedia... ;-)

Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)..."

• 2.User talk:Thanatos666:

"...This is my talk page. Feel free to use e.g. google translate. Or ask some other Greek speaker to translate. After your recent behaviour I won't do you this favour...

Especially when you're again invoking and (mis-)interpreting rules (or in fact good practices) at will:..."

PS Especially when it's not me who had actually, in any instance, started conversing in Greek or who has shown an overindulgence in legalisms... ;-) Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this directed at me? What legalistic arguments are you talking about? What blowing off objections? I wasn't even involved in the argument. — lfdder 00:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This legalistic argument that the rule doesn't say you have to. The blowing-off-objections part was Thanatos: "This is my talkpage. Feel free to use google translate". Bishonen | talk 01:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

I disagreed on the interpretation of it -- what makes it a legalistic argument? You seem to think I'm trying to make excuses for writing in another language or something; I'm not. I didn't think much of it when I did, and, like I've said before, I appreciate that it might've not been the right time. — lfdder 01:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, nobody seems to care to discuss Thanatos' behaviour; it pales in comparison to my having spoken in Greek....naturally. Somebody hat this then? — lfdder 14:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Massive tagging spree

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

---

Buspirtraz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be tagging every stub on sight with {{Expand}}. If such massive tagging sprees were helpful, I guess we would have run a bot. Or am I mistaken here? --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

At first I thought you meant the generic expand tag, which is pointless with a stub tag too. But these look like good expansion tags, as they link to the relevant interwiki article. The first one I looked at was Rudolf Burnitz, which has the "expand German" tag on the page. Looking at the German article, it does indeed have much more content than the English version and might encourage someone to use the German one for expansion. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Infact, on closer inspection, all Buspirtraz seems to be doing as adding in the article title parameter into an existing expand tag on the article. I don't see anything wrong with that. Have you raised this with them on their talkpage? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:16, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I sampled about 20 of his edits, and see no problems. Taking a generic "expand" tag and fix it so it is pointing the reader to the exact article that they can use to expand from. That would encourage bilingual persons to actually do the work since they don't have to hunt for the article to expand from. I would say those edits are improvements and a good thing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Isn't it obvious to any bilingual person that the article about a Russian city in the Russian Wikipedia is way longer than its counterpart in the English Wikipedia? It does not take an Einstein to figure that out. If such tagging is indeed helpful, you'd better run a bot and tag all the russia-geo-stubs. Template:Expand says, by the way, that its use has been deprecated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
    • A bot would be better, I'm just saying the purpose of the edits seems to be to improve the encyclopedia, not to do damage. Adding the link adds convenience, but if there a specific reason to not do so, you could just discuss it with him on his talk page. And the template that is to replace it, Template:Incomplete talks about a section, not whole article, so I would say that it isn't a good substitute. Regardless, I don't see any bad faith or behavioral concerns so I don't see an issue here that requires an admin jump in and take action at ANI, and since it is a content issue, admin generally don't get involved unless we can see he is defying consensus and has been shown what consensus is. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:13, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
      • Actually, a bot would not be better. This tagging is only appropriate when the other language's article is better: a short well-referenced article should not be expanded by translating a completely uncited article from another language. Most expansions of this sort would require a longer article in the source language, but if the other language has a short well-referenced article and ours is longer but uncited or otherwise junk, we'd do better to reduce our article by translating. Unless you can show that Buspirtraz is tagging articles that are obviously better than the corresponding foreign-language articles, there's nothing to worry about here. Nyttend (talk) 15:40, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Well, there you go. Thanks for adding the final bit of clarity to the issue. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Ghost0099

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

---

I've noticed this user's involvements on a couple of Christian-themed pages. After two warnings from myself and another user over his edits to God's Not Dead (film), he has continued to make the same edit, consisting of an inflation of the weekend box office take of the film. Discussion has been attempted on both the user's talk page and on the article's talk page. I wouldn't have come here with it without attempting further discussion, except when I looked at his or her contributions I've seen that all of his or her edits appear to be vandalism. Here are some diffs to highlight the problem:

• The Passion of the Christ
• The Passion of the Christ
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• The Exodus
• Maccabees

And diffs of the multiple edits that drew my attention are here (note the time stamps, as this is the user making the exact same edit repeatedly, without discussion):

• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)
• God's Not Dead (film)

Note that this is the majority of the user's edits, and that those not presented here consist of more changes to articles' era-dating style, and two edits which could be argued not to be vandalism per se, here and here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MjolnirPants (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandal for 24 hours, but not a vandalism-only-account, since some of the edits (e.g. the ones you gave at the bottom) definitely aren't blatant vandalism. Any recidivism will warrant longer blocks. You could have taken this to WP:AIV and maybe gotten a quicker response, by the way. Nyttend (talk) 15:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of WP:AIV, but thank you for informing me. I can't possibly complain about the response time either way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. It seems like most reports here of this sort come from people who don't know about AIV, so I figured you probably weren't aware of it. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

ADITYA NEHRA

This editor has created an article Major General (Retd) GD Bakshi which is copyvio and tagged for speedy deletion many times, but author is removing tags again and again. He is vandalizing after warnings too. I am not an admin, Please do respond him. Thanks A.Minkowiski (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• You didn't notify them via the template at the top of this page. It looks like Cindy is already aware of the situation and handling it on their talk page. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:03, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I placed template here on user talk page, not on the top but in middle A.Minkowiski (talk) 17:09, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Peaches Geldof

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

---

The BBC is reporting the Peaches Geldof is dead. This is likely to attract a lot of edits- eyes would be appreciated. J Milburn (talk) 17:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• Rolling coverage on Sky News at the moment. GiantSnowman 17:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It would seem the 5-year-olds are out in force today, so I've semi'd the page for a week. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 17:48, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding

Petrarchan47 has been canvassing Wikipedia with COI accusations aimed at me for over a month now, along with personal attacks, and has helped create a toxic atmosphere in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, BP, and Corexit articles and talk pages. My patience has been expended and it needs to be sorted out. P47 is convinced that I work for a stakeholder in the ongoing Clean Water Act litigation and tells people (while canvassing for assistance against me) that I'm here to sway a US Federal court case through Wikipedia. I find that just bizarre, but I also believe that she is admitting to her purpose in being here...WP:ADVOCACY and WP:SOAPBOX, as she did the other night when she found a question of mine at the RS Noticeboard. In spite of her having been warned about her COI accusations by many others previously, even to the point of having her name come up here at ANI at least twice before, she recently had the gall to post her accusations against me on the user talk page of an Admin that others have previously gone to with that problem.

Some diffs: [68] [69] [70]

Similar attacks on others: [71]

COI attack on Jimbo's page: [72]

Another editor's commentary on her behavior on Jimbo's page: [73]

She rants about "shills" which she finds everywhere: [74]

Her being warned by another editor: [75]

ANI 1 (mentioned later) [76]

ANI 2 (Petrarchan comes in later) [77]

Geogene (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

More bad behavior: canvasses COI accusations over at an Admin's talk page, intent to influence courts: [78]

Refuses to read thread, disrupts RS Noticeboard with soapboxing/advocacy: [79]

Geogene (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Excuse me, but where in any of this are you accused of being "a stakeholder in the ongoing Clean Water Act litigation" and that you're "here to sway a US Federal court case through Wikipedia." Not seeing it. What I do see is a content dispute in which you have been accused (with some justification, I believe) of pushing a POV. And frankly I don't see even that point being pursued very aggressively. Coretheapple (talk) 18:07, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I think she means that I work for BP. That's what she repeatedly insinuates, and has been since about February. Of course, she's very vague in her insinuations, because she knows what she is doing is against the rules. Incidentally, here's an instance where she deletes my cited content, calls it "undoing whitewashing". [80] Geogene (talk) 18:12, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I should emphasize that I don't work for BP. Or any PR firm. Or oil company. Nor was I involved in the spill or its aftermath in way. But somehow she thinks I'm here to change the outcome of a trial. Want to see examples of what POV-pushing really looks like, Core? Geogene (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, not really, though there isn't a force on earth to stop you if you want to go on about this. Coretheapple (talk) 18:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Here's a diff that shows P47 "tilting" the Fort Calhoun Nuclear Generating Station the article over two days: [81]. This is what the article looked like before P47 became involved with it: [82]. Compare to what it looks like now. Geogene (talk) 18:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, thank you, I will certainly examine that with care. It looks to me at first blush that she expanded the article with sourced content but I am no expert. Meanwhile, I'd suggest discussing it with her on the talk page of the article. Coretheapple (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

She uses sourced content, and I use sourced content. I accuse her of POV pushing, you accuse me of POV pushing. Some of the sources she uses are extremely questionable, but your remark that "she added sourced content" is not germane to this discussion. The point is that she POV-tilts articles. Geogene (talk) 19:55, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I read the article and examined those additions, and I think that they were good additions that added important information concerning the plant. They seem perfectly neutral. They seem to have improved the article in a material sense. Now, if you feel otherwise, if you feel that there these are not good edits, then perhaps the place for you to express those concerns is in that specific article. But do keep in mind that if you follow an editor around from article to article, it can be considered harassment. Just so you know. Coretheapple (talk) 21:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

They may have been good additions but they certainly weren't neutral additions, all of them were related to the plant's shady safety record. Just as all her edits in all the DWH articles are all edits that make the spill look as bad as possible. It's POV pushing. Why I followed an editor to that article (and it isn't the one you think it is) I will explain, if someone that isn't directly involved in this were to ask. "Can be" and "will be" are not the same anyway. I know that you "can" and "will" accuse me of just about anything around here regardless of my actual conduct. Geogene (talk) 21:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a I left out the plagiarism. You'll find examples of that here: [83] Geogene (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• A favorite study of hers is an analysis of synergistic toxicity of Corexit and oil. She has been trolling me ever since I started pointing out that the toxicity explicitly relates to plankton, making toxins in the oil more available to small organisms by splitting it up into droplets. Here she accuses me of "throwing off the message with overly technical lingo". Then she quotes the same paper a second time in the sentence that immediately follows, but introduces it as something else, so she can make one critical paper into two. That isn't POV pushing? [84]

• Here she accuses me of "pre-trial sugar coating". She thinks I'm trying to manipulate the courts with my Wikipedia edits, and is apparently worried about it. [85]

• Here she removes my cited addition (from the NIOSH, a US government agency). She says in edit comment: "stored Health effects section; please seek consensus first; this is currently in being battled in the courts". Some of it she did put back in later, once she saw it was about workers possibly exposed to ozone she decided it was acceptable. [86]

• After I established that the study mentioned above was about plankton, she decided to delete my version from DWH Oil Spill completely. Her edit comment is "remove whitewashing". She copy/pasted her version of it that never mentions the toxicity is for plankton, only the the "52 times more toxic" and "made the oil spill worse" variants. [87]

• Invokes conspiracy theories at the Talk:Corexit page, says that government science agencies aren't to be trusted. "We're not here to tell the USG/BP/EPA/NOAA side of the story as if it's RS. We give the entire story, but independent sources are preferred, and if the one questioing this study was hired by BP, that information should be given to the reader, who would want to know. There are also sources which say the government agencies worked in collusion with BP to hide some truth about this spill. Therefore, these sources should be taken with a grain of sand." (Emphasis mine.) [88] Geogene (talk) 20:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed interaction ban between Vjmlhds and Levdr1lostpassword

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Let's just let these two continuously bicker and harass each other. Gloss • talk 22:26, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

---

Vjmlhds (talk · contribs) and Levdr1lostpassword (talk · contribs) have a long history of arguing over random nonsense. Here is a link to their most recent lengthy blowout: here.

Some past arguments between the two (covering almost three years now): August 2011, August 2011, August 2011, November 2011, March 2012, April 2012, July 2012, August 2012, October 2012, November 2012, November 2012, March 2013, April 2013, May 2013, May 2013, August 2013.

Moving into 2014, a lot of their bickering has been over Vjmlhds' desire to give Levdr1lostpassword a new award every so often by placing it on their user page. See here, and their continued battles since then: January 2014, April 2014, April 2014.

Note that these discussions are only the ones from Levdr1lostpassword's talk page, I didn't even get to the ones from Vjmlhds' talk page, nor do I think I need to (a look through these conversations and you'll quickly see the problem).

I've attempted to get them to cut this all out before: here. Levdr1lostpassword reply: here. So my proposal is an indefinite interaction ban between the two because I see no other way to end this nonsense. I'm not fully sure how interaction bans work, so if this proposal goes through, the terms, conditions, and consequences are something that would also need to be discussed. Gloss • talk 19:43, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Gloss is correct in that Vjmlhds and I have occassionally gotten into heated disputes, but these are generally limited to our respective talk pages and do not involve other editors. I don't think we are interfering with other editors, and for my part, I always try to remain civil and AGF. More often that not, these disputes go away without incident. Levdr1lp / talk 19:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Also, I think Gloss' characterization here is exaggerated. Many of the above interactions are not disputes at all. For example, this exchange (May 2013) involved a third editor, Ashbeckjonathan, who lashed out at Vjmlhds (see diffs here and here); at the time, I was uninvolved. Despite the section heading ("WTF?!"), Vjmlhds was coming to me for help, and I offered advice while defending his position. A number of the heated interactions also result from Vjmlhds' tendency (in the past) to routinely add unsourced content to articles, so much so that an administrator suggested that I open a discussion at ANI (see archive listing at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive794#Long term problems with WP:VERIFY). Most of all, I feel it would be very unfair to say I am at fault for our earliest interactions going back to 2011, during which time Vjmlhds would use personal attacks like "a real pest", "buddy boy", "pain in the @ss", "wiki hall monitor", etc. I have never addressed Vjmlhds in such a manner (and to his credit, he has long since abandoned these type of comments w/ me). Levdr1lp / talk 20:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether it has or has not interfered with other editors is irrelevant, as these arguments are not healthy discussions and have been going on far too long with no indication of stopping. Gloss • talk 19:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: To reiterate, these discussions generally go away w/o any problems. If anything, I think allowing Vjmlhds and I to hash out our differences on our respective talk pages has been helpful. More often, the two of use are able to effectively cooperate, and I think Gloss – who rarely edits the same shared content as Vjmlhds and I – may be reading too much into his limited one-on-one interactions with the two of us. Levdr1lp / talk 20:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Gloss: Has it gotten ugly in the past, yes. Has it gotten that level in the last couple of years...no. I won't speak for Levdr, but I think it's safe to say we're both just looking to make Wiki better (especially in our similar fields of interests), we just have our different ways of going about it. Vjmlhds (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

IMO I'm not sure why we'd institute an interaction between two people, when neither wish it, and it's confined their user talk pages. It'd certainly take more than some abrasive conversations for me to get on board. If their personal interactions bother you, maybe you should avoid reading them. (I mean that last as an honest sugestion, not a sarcastic comment).--Cube lurker (talk) 21:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nothing about it personally bothers me whatsoever. There is no way this kind of interaction among two editors can be considered healthy behavior. Gloss • talk 22:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Your comment also leads me to believe you didn't read any of the linked discussions. Perhaps skimmed through one or two. For if you did, you'd see the problem. Gloss • talk 22:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Qwyrxian, the administrator I referred to above, is familiar w/ our history of interactions. Most recently, Qwyrxian directed us to discuss a content dispute on the WOIO talk page, which we subsequently settled. Qwyrxian is currently on "an extended break", so I'm not sure this helps at all, but I felt compelled to point it out. Levdr1lp / talk 21:06, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption and malicious editing

Requesting assistance with the current state of affairs at Jews and Communism. The article is, in my view, being deliberately sabotaged by vocal advocates of its deletion, in order to facilitate future nominations. Particularly the users USchick (talk · contribs) and IZAK (talk · contribs), with the assistance of Galassi (talk · contribs) as an edit-warring proxy. A good example of the "sabotage" is the current campaign to deliberately prevent the article from sporting any lead image.

First, a poster depicting Leon Trotsky (in a positive light as the guardian of Russia), has been removed for being "anti-Jewish propaganda", even though it was in fact - issued by Trotsky himself (i.e. the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky). Now, a photograph of Karl Marx is being removed from the lede on such grounds as "Marxism is not Communism" and "Marx was not a Jew, because he was baptized" (even though there are a half-dozen refs in the article stating the renowned philosopher was, in fact, "a Jew", and none stating otherwise). It used to be "Marx is not mentioned in the article, hence we can't have him in there", until he was actually mentioned in the article. Now of course the objection shifts.

In short, one argument more absurd than the other, essentially pro forma to allow for the clique to edit-war anything they oppose out of the article, and essentially keep it without a proper lede and lede image. See this thread, and this one in support of my above outline. Here's a quote of the latest post, to illustrate my point:

“ If this article were about Marxism or the theory of Marxism, then Marx's photo would be appropriate. This article being about Jews and Communism, Marx being a Christian is not a very good representative of Jews. Marxism is not all encompassing of Communism, so his ideas about Communism are not the best representation of all of Communism. On both counts, his photo does not qualify as the lede photo. ”

This article was the subject of an unsuccessful AfD nomination, and, very quickly afterwards, a DELREV review. Participants in support of its deletion are now very active at the article, and are stonewalling proposals to improve its quality. I hope to find out whether our illustrious ANI corps regards their arguments as honest and justified, or whether they are, in fact, malicious disruption with a mind to future deletion attempts. -- Director (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards USchick, I would like to suggest for consideration the possibility of a topic ban on communism, independent of this issue. Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one, or, just now, posts like this. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that "disagreeing with Director" is evidence of deliberate sabotage. By the way, wondrous text like "The philosopher Karl Marx was a descendant of two rabbinic families." in the Karl Marx caption should be on some racist blog, not an encyclopedic article based on secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? How is it racist to say someone is a descendant of rabbinic families? Also, the term "Jew" is not purely religious. There are Jews who self-identify as atheist, so it's not necessarily contradictory to describe a Christian as a Jew. Howunusual (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose the communism/jews topic ban for DIREKTOR himself, on the basis of habitual pushing of antisemitic POV.--Galassi (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to solve the problems of this article is an AfD as it is a first class battleground. And secondly, I am not entirely convinced that the information is true and properly balanced. The Banner talk 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. As a matter of fact, I revised the caption, which was introduced in the first place as a response to talkpage claims that Karl Marx wasn't Jewish (which are, btw, actually offensive to Jewish people as well as untrue: Karl Marx was a great philosopher). Then Galassi restored the caption you're reading [89].

Further, if you believe being descendant from historic rabbinical families is insulting, then I would suggest its your own views that belong in said racist blogs. Perhaps even more so through your implication that Jews are a "race".

As for "disagreeing" with me, I invite you to actually read the exchange.

@Banner. One dispute over an image? The article is actually pretty quiet compared to many that I've seen. If we deleted all articles that are "battlegrounds" by such standards, I dare say we'd halve the project. As far as I'm aware, Wiki is here to cover controversial and difficult topics as well as the rest: whether an article is warranted or not is hardly determined by the level of controversy its topic engenders. -- Director (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the entire article seems shaky to me. The Banner talk 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the text is disputed.. it really isn't. But this isn't the place for such discussion? -- Director (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how biased the other editors involved are, but by what I have read, I can't avoid noticing that Director is not very used to addressing actual arguments and frequently makes personal remarks, threats and fallacious arguments instead of presenting valid reasons to support his position. That can be easily noticed here: [90]. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm to blame..

That's only one of several discussions with USchick, I make no secret of the fact that I am very annoyed with the user's conduct - hence this thread. But I believe I have good reason: the user is extremely unfamiliar with the topic she's trying to discuss, but insists on her positions regardless (that's the mild formulation). Please read on past the first couple of posts (which basically amount to a groan of annoyance on my part at the prospect of another "discussion" with the user).

As Altenmann points out, talking to her is WP:CHEESE, its infuriating. In that exchange she basically demands that the poster be "Jewish", which baffles me since the person in it is a famous Communist of Jewish ancestry (Leon Trotsky). It quickly becomes apparent she never heard of Leon Trotsky, and upon my explaining who the person in the poster is, she continues to demand more "Jewishness", until Altenmann realized she was talking about the religion. Yes: she wanted a communist poster with the symbols of Judaism. Her reply was "Imagine that! Is that too much to ask?". I won't relay the whole discussion, but there's the gist of its first part. She moves on to how the person in the poster isn't really Trotsky, etc.

In my view, the user is simply opposed to the article, but nevertheless hangs around the talkpage - to block any attempts at expanding it or improving its quality. When the article was posted, she attempted to blank it almost entirely on grounds that "Marxism isn't Communism"; I'm not kidding: its a "theory" she still pushes on the talkpage right now! -- Director (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You claim the person in the uniform is Trotsky, and the only actual reason you or someone else gave for that is his uniform. That's not necessarily a good reason to believe it's him since other people probably wore it too. Regarding the diff concerned, all I have seen is USchick ask for a good reason to identify the person in the picture as Trotsky, which is the only reason you gave to consider the poster jewish, and I think you failed to present any proof of your point. That doesn't mean I agree with any particular political view of USchick by the way. But since you presented that diff as an example of misbehavior by USchick, I think it speaks more against yourself than her. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, please look closer: #1 the poster was obtained from image hosting websites listing it as a poster of Leon Trotsky, and links were provided. #2 The photograph of Trotsky apparently used as an inspiration for the depiction in the poster, has also been produced (he looks practically identical in the two). -- Director (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Director, who otherwise is quite capable, loses objectivity when discussing Jews. He thinks the connection between Jews and Communism is self-evident and ignores that even if it is, we need sources to say that. I would suggest he avoid articles about Jews. I disagree with any action against USchick, IZAK or Galassi resulting from Director's complaint. TFD (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, TFD has never missed an opportunity to imply antisemitism on the part of those who oppose his various agendas. For him "its all about the Jews". To me, its about adding a damn lede image to one of our articles. He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong to oppose to an article. I myself, at reading the article, wonder why is it any more relevant than if someone created an article called Blondes and Communism. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course. But if I don't think we need an article, I don't try to torpedo it if I don't have my way in the AfD.

As for "Blondes and Communism", the difference is - sources. There are numerous sources covering the topic of the article. There are none for "Blondes and communism", or "Brunettes and Communism", or "Hot-dog vendors and Communism", etc. :) I myself don't presume to decide which topic is relevant and which isn't: I see if scholarly sources think so or not. If you think its "racist" to draw such parallels, then I can only suggest you take it up with the sources (which, by the way, appear to be mostly Jewish scholars researching the phenomenon). Its also implied in these sort of comments that Communism is something "bad" (as opposed to "very, very good"), which is a view that millions and millions of people might disagree with. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this source used to justify the poster. [91] A personal blog that describes a military uniform (Шинель) as a "red dress" hardly qualifies as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

*groooaan* They don't mean a female dress! Uggh.. Dress (noun): 1. a piece of clothing for a woman or a girl that has a top part that covers the upper body and a skirt that hangs down to cover the legs. 2. a particular type of clothing. As in "dress uniform".. for goodness sake. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A SHINEL is a MILITARY overcoat.--Lute88 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Response by User:IZAK

1. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a highly skilled, obviously extremely professional and highly knowledgeable editor who writes on a very high academic level and therefore I have enjoyed co-editing the Jews and Communism article with him. Prior to this I do not recall having any interactions with him. DIREKTOR has rightly been complimented for his extraordinary abilities many times. But when he enters controversial zones, he seems to be blind to the raging fires that are already built into such topics as "Jews and Communism" or "Communism and Jews" where it is vital to keep calm and avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL at all costs so that, as I have warned a number of times, WP not become like a shadow of the antisemitic and racist anti-Jews and anti-Judaism Jew Watch hate site God forbid! That much should be obvious. It is truly amazing how DIREKTOR manages to come up with mountains and myriads of sources on short notice as if he had a staff of people, or very good data bases backing him up. Well done, we don't know how you do it! Not everyone can be as efficient as DIREKTOR is and he often uses his skills and resources to swing articles his way and resulting in a WP:OWN syndrome, so that whenever he is challenged he complains bitterly and simply cannot fathom that other users may feel just as deeply and passionately as he does about a topic and also have the ability to go toe to toe with him, and while they may lack his resources and his ability to dredge up sources on short notice, they are not afraid to stand up to him if they can survive the frustration of his tactics, such as running to ANI when nothing is wrong about just some ongoing CONTENT disputes over a contentious topic with everyone behaving in line, albeit in a feisty spirit.
2. The recent article Jews and Communism was created on 27 February 2014, by two determined users User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) who clearly and consistently violate WP:OWN in all their interactions with other users. For some or other odd reason they fail to see and blithely ignore the fact that this is a highly volatile and inflammatory topic that needs to be handled with utmost care and a high degree of WP:NPOV and skilled editing so that it not come across as a violation of WP:LIBEL in and of itself and that it not read like a mere accusatory "list" against Jews or anyone, as is self-understood by any truly neutral observer.
3. To add insult to injury one can fairly say that this article was born in sin/controversy. See the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (1 March 2104) with a huge majority of 22 users in favor of deletion, 3 to merge, and 14 to keep. That was then taken to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14 with 17 users endorsing the closure and 14 voting to overturn it in favor of deletion. With the over-all topsy-turvy results, that in the AFD the minority won while in the DRV the minority lost.
4. But be that as it may we all go on, and in my case in the AFD I had not voted to delete, rather, if possible, to save all content and redirect to History of Communism [92] [93] for the sake of better context and NPOV.
5. There have also been several good faith suggestions by a variety of users on the talk page to rename the article into a more suitable NPOV name, see Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move; Talk:Jews and Communism#Alternative proposed move: Communism in Jewish history; Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move: Jews in the history of Communism, some resolved, some still wide open.
6. I have been contributing to the article constructively since 13 March 2014 always striving for NPOV and to keep up with WP:RS and WP:V: [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100].
7. I have added a number of sections to the article, some about other Jews who were communists and those who opposed them [101]; and about Jews as victims of Communism [102] [103] always using WP:RS and WP:V citations often found in other related articles as well.
8. I tried to move the page to a more NPOV balanced title of Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism since many other articles deal with the topic this way [104] backing it up in a "See also" section with [105] [106] [107] [108] [109] [110] but I was reverted. I did not agree but I accepted that even though the current title is very unclear and will always be a problem.
9. I have always tried to engage User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in good faith serious dialogue but he finds it difficult to communicate with an equal -- but that has not deterred me or others, see examples at Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Response by IZAK; Talk:Jews and Communism#Name change without consultation; Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent additions by IZAK disputed by Director; Talk:Jews and Communism#IZAK's draft; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosenbergs; Talk:Jews and Communism#"Jews as victims of Communism" suggestions; Talk:Jews and Communism#Picture of Marx for the lede; Talk:Jews and Communism#Pic of Emma Goldman; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosa Luxemburg and Spartacist League.
10. As for the Trotsky poster File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, that DIREKTOR would like in the lede, there is already one good photo of Trotsky in the article that I have never disputed. As was discussed in Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Edits by IZAK. The problem with it if left in the lede is that it is not truly NPOV because with one glance it automatically evokes a feeling of either "you hate Trotsky or you love Trotsky" (as it was meant to do as a propaganda poster) and is not suitable for setting the tone of an already volatile enough topic because it is a blatantly very controversial caricature. People can agree to disagree but it is not "obstructionism" and it does not belong on an ANI discussion.
11. The issue about Marx, after long debate, seems to have been somewhat settled at this time (obviously, how it will develop no one can know). After my and others' initial objections, DIREKTOR finally added some lines about Marx's connection to Communism. No one disputes that at the age of 6 Marx was converted into Christianity by his father when he renounced his and his children's Judaism and at 16 Marx by free choice personally confirmed himself as a Christian and practiced as such, all before anything else Marx became famous for, and I created a section to deal with DIREKTOR's insertion and my additions with citations added, with the pic of Marx in it [111].
12. As they say in the classics, DIREKTOR should stop over-reacting, quit demonizing other editors he does not agree with, stop the crankiness and deprecating lines, and return to the bargaining table of the talk pages and improving the article bit by bit and as best we all can together in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and most vitally WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

About the poster: I would like to point out that the red soldier in the poster is highly stylized, without very much detail in his uniform. Anyone who claims this person is Trotsky, lacks a basic understanding of communism, and maybe that's why Director is having trouble finding sources to support his novel idea. In communism, the individual, even the leader, is not at all important, as demonstrated by the credo "All for one and one for all." The reason it can't possibly be Trotsky, is because to single out any one individual in a communist movement (like a revolution) would destroy the movement. The soldier in the poster represents a regular soldier, part of the proletariat, which is much more important than any specific individual. As proof, you can see his sleeve. The uniform in the poster is very generic with no tabs on the sleeve. If this soldier were Trotsky, the uniform would have a tab on the sleeve showing the rank of an officer [112]. I respectfully request a topic ban for Director on the subject of Communism, since he lacks a basic understanding of the subject matter. USchick (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Director wrote above "Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one" and I did have a look at it, I agree that it is appalling, but not in the way Director means. Director wants to use a poster of a soldier in a red uniform dominating a map of parts of Eastern and Central Europe as an illustration of "Jews and communism". USchick wants to know how that image is an illustration of the topic. Director tells her it is because it is a drawing of Trotsky, who was Jewish, and refers her to two websites, which however when you click on the links, do not bring up that poster or a discussion of it. USchick thinks that is not an appropriate image to illustrate "Jews and communism" and Director responds by repeatedly insulting her.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see, having looked closer at those links Director provided, that if you search for that poster on them you will find it and they do say it is a drawing of Trotsky. This would not be obvious to readers though and it makes me wonder why Director wanted to use an image of a scary looking soldier dominating huge parts of Europe, brandishing a rifle with a bayonet on the end of it, and bringing his heavy boot down on grovelling people at his feet, as the lead image for an article on "Jews and communism".Smeat75 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either I'm posting fake links, or I'm trying to push some kind of sinister image. Typical. The image itself, once somebody clicks on it, naturally provides the source. Further, aside from the links, there's also the Photo of an Identical Trotsky.

To answer your second post, the caption says "Be on guard!", and its meant to show Trotsky guarding Russia from the foreign, pro-White interventionists who were invading it at that time, and also the Poles, who were also invading the country. Its a defensive pose, he's defending Russia, he's not shown "dominating" any part of (non-Russian) Europe ("Russia" was much bigger back then). The reason why Trotsky is in uniform, is because he is the founder and first commander of the Red Army, actually leading the military at that time.

Also, that's the only poster I could find of Trotsky, aside from this one. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this is such a historic poster, is there a historical explanation that goes with it? From a reliable source? USchick (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reliable sources" here? Are you seriously requesting a scholarly publication that covers obscure Russian Civil War posters?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The poster is obviously Trotsky, that's pointed out wherever the image is hosted, and there's the photograph of him looking exactly as in the poster. Yet its impossible to introduce it in the article due to WP:CHEESE arguments like that. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim it's Trotsky in the poster, yes, you need a reliable source if you wish to make that claim. It could be lots of other people as well. [113] USchick (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely undaunted by the "dress" thing above, you just keep on going.

That's just more of your absurd, malicious WP:DISRUPTION. The person in the poster is effin' Trotsky. The sources are perfectly reliable for the confirmation of the blatantly obvious - why don't you present a source that its not Trotsky, considering everyone else in the world seems to think it is. If every image on this project required a scholarly publication as the only "reliable" source - we'd be left with twenty images. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That image, whether of Trotsky or anybody else, of a huge intimidating soldier bringing his boot down on pitiful, grovelling figures at his feet, is completely inappropriate as an illustration of "Jews" in any context at all. The fact that Director does not seem to see this makes me question if he should be editing articles connected to Judaism or Jews.Smeat75 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not an illustration of "Jews". Its an illustration of a Jewish person defending his country against foreign incursion - issued by his own propaganda. The person was very much a military leader, as are many Jewish people. If Trotsky and his party thought it appropriate - who are you to say its somehow misrepresentative (though again, its supposed to be the "stomping" of aggressors). But all that is not the subject here, because you're voicing a completely different argument from what we saw on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this argument really over which image to use in the lead of the article? What is wrong with the photo of Leon Trotsky that is on the article now? This seems like a talk page discussion and off of AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I'm asking is a review of the arguments presented in the two discussions, as I hold them to be indicative of a pattern of disruptive conduct aimed at deliberately diminishing the article's quality. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any rs that says it is Trotsky. The artist, Dmitry Moor issued another poster in 1920, "Have you enlisted?", that has a similar figure. But rs says the figure represents a Russian soldier not Trotsky.[114] TFD (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shinkazamaturi's long history of unproductive edits

Since late last year Shinkazamaturi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a habit of going around various professional wrestling related articles which involve wrestler Big Show and changing his name to "The Big Show". This goes against consensus and he has been warned a number of times by a number of users, including myself, HHH Pedrigree, and Richard BB. When confronted this user has called people selfish and told them that they shouldn't be editing or accused the admonishing user of threatening them and committing crimes. Beyond that, Shinkazamaturi adds generally misleading or totally inaccurate information to articles, such as this. When he was warned he ignored the warning and just reverted the other user. Here's another example of general nonsense added by the user:[115][116].LM2000 (talk) 20:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree the user does not seem very open to discussion, going by their talkpage, but at least they don't seem inclined to edit war, which is a big plus point. Could you please give a link to where I can see the consensus that "Big Show" without "The" is the correct name? And, since you say Shinkazamaturi has gone around various articles changing it, could you also give diffs for a few examples at articles other than Big Show? (I can read the history of Big Show for myself, and see that the user moved it to the "The" version, among other things, but other examples of the same change are harder to find.) I see warnings about other matters on their page, too, but they're not that helpful to an outsider after the fact: a diff or two with regard to those warnings, especially more recent ones, would also be helpful, if you have them. Thank you. P.S. I can't take the user's accusations of selfishness etc as matters for sanctions or even warnings — more childish, to be frank. Have any of you tried the kind of soft answer that turneth away wrath? Bishonen | talk 20:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC).

The first time I encountered this user was actually in the middle of an edit war on Template:WWE personnel. As a general rule this particular template, we use the ring names that WWE bills them by, and as Richard BB tried to explain to Shinkazamaturi, WWE bills him as Big Show (notice the lack of "The"). The edits began in December[117][118][119][120] but continued into January[121] and February[122]. Shinkazamaturi's account was only two months old when the December edit war occurred, but after being adequately warned by February, he should've known better. Edits like these([123][124]) are from just a few days ago. HHH Pedrigree and I discussed what to do before bringing this here. He doesn't seem to respond well to template warnings or when we explicitly tell him what he's doing wrong.LM2000 (talk) 21:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary, he is edit warring, it's just an incredibly slow edit war. He is, even now, changing things that go against consensus. His edits range from the ignorant to the disruptive, and attempts to guide him otherwise are met with either silence or vitriol. This user is not here to further the project. — Richard BB 22:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The Zeitgeist Movement

Once again, our troubled article on The Zeitgeist Movement is under sustained pressure by supporters of the movement out to remove legitimately-sourced content from the article, and replace it with reams of uncritical puffery. It is also pretty well self-evident that either sockpuppetry, meatpuppetry or both is going on. Since I'm about to blow my top once again over this issue, can I ask that (a) the article be semi-protected (I did this yesterday at WP:RFPP, but was turned down on the basis that this was a 'content dispute' - true in a literal sense, but clearly not the whole story), and (b) that experienced editors familiar with policy help ensure that we don't end up with a page drawn straight from the TZMs FAQ and the credulous blogs of its supporters. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to semi-protect it for 6 months, but then decided I didn't need people claiming that an 'agent of the government' is somehow oppressing them. For some other admin, this is my suggestion.--v/r - TP 00:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Meh, PC1 seemed to be a good idea, infinitely DP 00:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks - though my request for more eyes on the article and talk page still stands. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

New name for vandalism-only editor

User:Xxxeeexxx123 was a short-lived vandalism-only account, amongst their ~10 edits were some at Coureur des bois, an example relevant to the next sentence is [125]. That account got blocked. Shortly thereafter a new account User:Phaydenvideos (IMO clearly the same person) was formed and their one lifetime edit was this edit [126] to repeat vandalism including same unique weird type of stuff. I'm fine with watching that one article, but last time they also went to other articles. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I took care of it since it was pretty obvious. Normally, WP:SPI is the preferred venue, although it is currently overloaded and slower. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was viewing it as mainly a "vandalism-only editor" (rather than sockpuppetry) situation, with the linkage to the other account being only to support that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 10:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, WP:AIV is the preferred venue for obvious vandalism, even if it does involve some socking. SPI is usually too backlogged for simple cases of vandalism socks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 12:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

COI, 3RR, inappropriate content at Russell Targ

An editor Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who has identified as the subject of the article has repeatedly (5 times) inserted an inappropriate comment as content. There is clear violation of 3RR and COI. The same editor has removed sourced content repeatedly and inserted unsupported puffery repeatedly.

Insertion of comment diff. Removal with explanation diff. Reinsertion with additional inappropriate content and indication of COI diff. Reremoval of comment with additional mention of commentary not being appropriate diff. Third insertion of comment diff. Removal (by me) of comment diff. Fourth insertion of comment diff. Removal of comment diff. Fifth insertion of comment diff. I realize that more than one editor may have stepped over 3RR but this is a case of an editor identifying as the subject ("my research") of an article repeatedly inserting an inappropriate comment into the content of an article. The appropriate content from the source cited in the comment is already in the article with full citation, "In 1980, Charles Tart claimed that a rejudging of the transcripts from one of Targ and Puthoff’s experiments revealed an above-chance result." The source is also first party as Targ is a coauthor.

Repeated removal of sourced content diff, diff.

Insertion of unsourced puffery (no source says pioneer) diff, repeatedly reinserted said puffery with sources that don't support the content (partial citations of primary publications don't support claims of firsts, no secondary source stating these were firsts or are notable)diff, diff. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Torgownik (talk · contribs) who claims to be Targ himself has tried to delete criticism from his article before on Russtarg (talk · contribs), it's obvious that the IP that was deleting any criticism from the article last week was also him 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs). He seems to want to remove the criticism of David Marks from the article or claim that he has rebutted Mark's criticisms but that isn't the case considering Marks published a paper in Nature in 1986 which Targ did not respond to which contained valid criticisms (David Marks, Christopher Scott. (1986). Remote Viewing Exposed. Nature 319: 444.). If Torgownik is indeed Targ then he also doesn't understand Wikipedia policy because he's putting his own personal commentary into the article. He keeps doing this and now he has inserted nonsense into the lead. Goblin Face (talk) 02:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have blocked the editor for 48 hours. If he returns with similar editing after the block, I will be willing to consider a longer block, perhaps even an indefinite block if he shows no sign of intending to do other editing other than self-promotion and suppression of criticism. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 13:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Mass killings under Communist regimes

82.164.96.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) All of IPs contributions are spamming Mass killings under Communist regimes to the See Also sections on dozens of pages. Some might be considered germane but many are not. Editor has been repeatedly warned and has not responded, in fact repeating the spam after my reversions. I had half a mind to report this at ARV but I'm not 100% sure there's the editor intent to make a vandalism charge. Chris Troutman (talk) 05:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've actually just reported the IP at WP:RVAN as I'm trailing them reverting your reverts, Chris. I'm seeing more notifications for pages on my watchlist as I type. I've also been scratching my head over whether the 'see also' section additions are germane or not, but am finding that the pattern is mainly contingent on whether Russia (and Nazis?) is in the title or content. The majority of the additions are so tenuous that they're embarrassing. I'm leaving those working on the Holocaust denial article to make up their own minds. The only realistic solution seems to be to at least have them blocked for a period of time in order to sort things out. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I reverted Holocaust denial; it was very easy to make up my mind on this. —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Quite right, Anomalocaris. As soon as I'd read what I'd said about 'embarrassing', it occurred to me that the addition was downright offensive and denigrating. Cheers on that catch! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Holocaust denial was my point of entry to this morass. I'm a reviewer; I was on Special:PendingChanges; I saw Holocaust denial, which I've reviewed before, so I opened it and saw the change and quickly determined to revert. Then, as I usually do after a reversion, I went to the contribs link to see what else this user had done, and then I went to the talk page and discovered the link to this discussion, and since then I've reverted Language death, Stalinist architecture, Putinism, Infanticide, Russian nationalism. Thank you all who are working to get rid of this "See also" link of no relevance to so many articles! —Anomalocaris (talk) 06:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Among the articles are Timeline of Russian innovation, Russian culture, List of cultural icons of Russia. This is just disruptive and the IP should be blocked. TFD (talk) 06:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've caught some of those, TFD, but am still trudging through the rest. Hopefully, someone will respond to my report ASAP. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• While the relevance of placing the link on some of the articles may be debatable, on some of them it is clearly irrelevant, the most ridiculous example I have seen being Language death. It is also clear that the editing is being done from extreme political motives, as is shown by the fact that a few of the editor's edits are concerned not with calling attention to "Mass killings under Communist regimes", but with suppressing information about nazi war crimes: [127] [128]. I have blocked the IP address for 48 hours, but since the first edit by this editor dates from just over a month ago, that may not be enough. If the problem returns, please feel welcome to contact me, and I will consider whether to impose a longer block. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
• Thank you James. May I add that the utter lack of edit summaries and explanations is a clear enough indication of what kind of editor we're dealing with. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Unified Modelling Language, policy violation (WP:V)

Justification: WP:V states that all content must be sourced, and any editor that inserts (or reinserts) such content MUST include a reliable source, otherwise it may be removed (and cannot be replaced unless reliable sources are provided).

User:Walter Görlitz is violating the policy by insisting that content unsupported by its references should be on the page, and also content without any references. He has revoked me twice (and I have informed him that he is violating WP:V#Burden, only for him to revoke me again). I cannot reinsert the content due to 3RR and it would be edit warring.

See [129] and Talk:Unified Modeling Language.

mthinkcpp (talk) 07:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not state that you are an unsuitable editor simply that you were edit warring rather than discussing and coming to consensus.

What I did write was that you're misinterpreting WP:V. I indicated that it's usually more appropriate to consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step rather than deleting material unless. This is not grounds for an ANI. Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Some of the tags have been there for years, which indicates that there isn't any source for the statements (as you have had ample time to find one before removal).

From WP:V#Burden "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material.", you haven't done so. mthinkcpp (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't misinterpret WP:V, it explicitly permits me to remove the content (read it). mthinkcpp (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you insist on removing the text for the article in question? By the way, you don't have to be an expert in the chosen field to edit an article on Wikipedia. All you have to do is go by what reliable sources say, and try to sum up the ideas the best you can therein the sources you are utilizing. I see that the source in question is just a print-based publication that cannot be accessed via the internet, so you may want to try to go to the library to do further research of your own.HotHat (talk) 07:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

1. It isn't just one source in question (see the diff). 2. The source you refer to was published before the item they are made to criticise existed (UML 2.x). mthinkcpp (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Agree with HotHat.

I just came back to comment that the material has been in the article for several years. It was one of the first articles that I added to my watch list and has had very few edits for content over its life. The criticisms section has been in place since at least 2005. It does need more refs, but so does the whole article. Every paragraph in the criticisms section has at least one reference, which is rare for technology articles.

If it needs updating, then why is the content being removed and not tagged with an out of date type of template? Are the criticisms valid for any version of UML? Are the criticisms referenced? Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest if the article in question is important to you for accuracy purposes Mthinkcpp that you put some actual hard work into getting it fixed rather than just deletion of entire pieces of text. I know where you both are coming from! Lets try to improve articles please...am I asking for that much.HotHat (talk) 08:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

My point is that Walter Görlitz has violated Wikipedian policy in reinserting unreferenced material in an article. Walter Görlitz is obliged to provided references, otherwise the content is subject to potential removal (all in WP:V#Burden). In effect you are saying that even if the criticism section is biased, I am not allowed to remove biased content, remove text that is wrong, just because it might be right and there may be a source that supports it. IMO a misapplication of Wikipedia's templates and policies mthinkcpp (talk) 08:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You might like to read WP:OWN. mthinkcpp (talk) 08:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I see your point on the matter, but how about trying to work with someone with respect to the article that has more experience in the subject. Or, why not do a piecemeal approach instead of "throwing the baby out with the bath water". Just try to use a scalpel instead of a hatchet. I cannot help you to much in this subject area, but an editor like Thumperward could. If it is not correctly verifiable, then it should be deleted; however, I would urge you to give it some TIME for others to help you.HotHat (talk) 08:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If an editor doubts / contests unsourced material, it goes out and it's up the folks wanting to put it back to find references. They may optionally chose to tag to give someone time to find sources but are not required to. NE Ent 09:30, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand but CAUTIOUS should be followed.HotHat (talk) 09:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor in question did not even discuss the changes beforehand.HotHat (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

How does the editor in question know that the material is right or wrong? What gives rise to the editors deletion? These are just some of the questions that I would love to have answered.HotHat (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Verifiability is pretty clear:

The editor doesn't have to know it's wrong, they don't have to discuss it, they just have to know it's uncited. NE Ent 09:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

"...any material challenged or likely to be challenged" is usually taken to mean that the removing editor should have some inkling, at least, it might be incorrect. "The sun is hot" shouldn't be deleted for lack of a citation. DeCausa (talk) 10:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, The editor is still wrong because he/she has been removing cited material without discussion as well as the uncited, so the editor is partially in the wrong and in the right. The editor removed the entire criticisms section which has a mixture of citations and references needed, so the editor must take a scalpel!HotHat (talk) 10:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I provide you with the diff of evidence.HotHat (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:HotHat I supplied you with the link WP:OWN for a reason, and I have just been justified in supplying it, you have almost exactly taken your words from that page, which implies that you and some other editor feel that you own the page, please READ it. Also read WP:BOLD, I DO NOT have to discuss changes before implementing them (edit summaries for the edits are enough). mthinkcpp (talk) 10:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't OWN anything because I create stuff on here and other editors mutilate it to pieces, which I don't say anything about it.HotHat (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

User:NE Ent, am I allowed to revoke the policy infringing edits (without incurring 3RR). mthinkcpp (talk) 10:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not, there's no 3rr exemption for wp:v. I'm going real life, perhaps other volunteers / admins want to address WG's edit summary here [130]? NE Ent 10:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok. mthinkcpp (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• You only have the right to remove V stuff that has a citation needed without discussion if another editor disagrees with a sourced edit then you have to discuss the change. You are trying to disguise the two by deleting stuff that is sourced and non-sourced in one blow.HotHat (talk) 10:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Do read WP:BOLD, I have the right to make any edit (provided it doesn't violate a Wikipedia Policy).

One blow? I did 17 edits, which allows one to pick the one that they feel requires discussion (rather than blanket revoke all of them). mthinkcpp (talk) 11:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see that but Walter reverted them all, and you reinstated all the 17 edits, and then he deleted them again. My main objective and aim is for Wikipedia to achieve it best and full potential.HotHat (talk) 11:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:V is very fine, but there is also the minor matter of Wikipedia being a collaborative community. Mthinkcpp's first edit to Unified Modeling Language was at 13:09, 7 April 2014. It's less than 24 hours later and now we have an ANI report with aggressive commentary about WP:OWN and assertions that anything without a refence nailed on it is going to be removed. How about working with other editors to improve the article? It does appear that at least some of the material may be inappropriate, but there should be no suggestion that an editor is free to go to articles and destroy anything without a reference. WP:V says that material must be verifiable—it does not say that it has to be verified right now. If an editor says "I'm challenging that material", they need to provide some explanation rather than go straight to battle. Johnuniq (talk) 11:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Johnuniq This is not my cup of tea, some other editor like yourself needs to figure out what goes in the trash bin and what makes the cut!HotHat (talk) 11:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have challenged the unsourced material by removing it, WP:V says "All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This means that all the unsourced content MUST have a source provided for it - immediately - (otherwise the article will continue to violate Wikipedia's policies, and the unverified content can just be removed, again).

(Off topic) Under WP:CSECTION, having one is discouraged, especially if it is just a list of complaints (as the UML one is) about the topic, Wikipedia:Criticism#Approaches_to_presenting_criticism, see criticism section on table. I attempted to remove the out of date criticisms (about 1.x), and integrate the one criticism about 2.x (size), which resolved the csection issue, which was rejected.

mthinkcpp (talk) 13:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you hung-up on the idea that the criticisms are "out-of-date"? Change your perspective, and change the copy to indicate that the criticisms are for a specific version instead.

I have no problems with removing specific material that is tagged with a CN for a long period of time. I have a problem, as should ever editor, with removing material because it's old or supported by a dead link. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Racist comments in talk page of Purley, London

I've come accross some racist comments in Talk:Purley, London posted from an IP user (they've been there since Dec-10) which don't add anything to the article, but I don't know if it is classed as vandalism. I can't work out what the Wikipedia policy is on this situation, so I've come here for help. Can I remove the comments? Seaweed (talk) 12:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

@Seaweed: I originally read "Dec-10" as meaning the 10th of December 2014, but I now see you mean December 2010. I regard it as vandalism, but whether it is vandalism or not, it is use of a talk page as a forum about the subject of the article, not about editing the article, and both Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines indicate that such content may be removed. I have removed it. My advice is to be BOLD and remove irrelevant and offensive content, even if you are not sure of a policy or guideline that justifies doing so. If anyone wishes to question what you did, then they can do so, but even if they do, and your edit gets reverted, no harm has been done by removing it for a while. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's already been removed. I would have removed it on sight, TBH. Unless there's some liberals around here claiming IP editors make valid contributions... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the help. I don't normally get involved in this sort of thing in Wikipedia, so I was unsure what to do. It's very rare to see that type of comment in Wikipedia and I was quite suprised to see that it had lasted over 3 years untouched, so I thought there might some reason.Seaweed (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm definitely not a liberal. IP editors can and do make valuable contributions. That talk page comment for the Purley article is pretty far from a valuable contribution. -- Atama頭 23:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Tajik people

175.106.48.84 (talk · contribs), most likely identical with Nasirakram1440 (talk · contribs), is removing academic sources from the article Tajik people. Instead, he is posting unsourced POV, some of it factually wrong in all aspects. His explanation: i have done a lot of research on this and it is based on the ground reality [131]. Admin involvment is needed, perhaps by reverting his edits and semi-protecting the article. Thank you. --Lysozym (talk) 16:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

This is completely false. I am not removing anything, Instead i have add additional information for people to give them a better understanding of Tajiks rich culture. Unfortunately in Afghanistan some ethnic groups try to hide other ethnic groups accomplishments, history, culture and their origins to show a specific ethnic group dominant. I appeal to admins to pay an independent attention to this matter and protect the page. What i have posted is ground reality and i have done a lot of research about it. I have talked with Kabul University Professors and other academics who verify this. I again would like to appeal to who ever who has political or racial agendas and who are trying to suppress an ethnic groups accomplishments and ground realities to give up their mean agendas. I would like the Wikipedia Admins to do an independent research in this matter and decide for them selves. I am sure the fee world and free organisations like Wikipedia would take a just decision on this regard. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.106.48.84 (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy regarding reliable sources (WP:RS), your "on the ground reality" is considered original research (WP:OR) which is to be avoided. Every editor must support their claims with independent, secondary, published source not interviews one has conducted. It's the same whether the article was about an ethnic group, chemistry, a political candidate or a movie. No doubt Tajiks have a rich, historical culture, but you still need reliable sources. However, if any of those academics you spoke to have published on this subject, you could refer to their work. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I suspect sock puppetry there also. I have reverted some copyvio. The IP has also been adding to the hatnote a claim that Dan Persian is "a language that came from King Darius (mentioned in the book of Daniel)." This of course is sheer nonsense, as not only do languages not come from a single person, it is extremely unlikely this person ever existed. Anyway, I've protected the article for a week to give time to sort out the possible sock puppets. Two new SPAs and the IP(s). Dougweller (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Anonymous vandalism at High King of Ireland

Having twice attempted to remove everything, sources and all, that contradict or cast doubt on the traditional account of high kings of Ireland (falsely claiming it was "unsubstantiated and unreferenced") diff1, diff2, an anonymous IP (86.188.201.211) is now concentrating on removing one line from the lead, that the high kings never ruled a unitary state, claiming this is contradicted later in the article (which it isn't). I can't revert him/her again without violating 3RR, but this is obviously unconstructive editing. Is there anything that can be done? --Nicknack009 (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Try starting a conversation on the article talk page, let other editors weigh in so it stops being a Me vs. You edit war. Establish a consensus among editors. It usually helps to bring more parties in on disputes like this. Just be sure not to canvass. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If something is vandalism, you can revert without having to worry about 3RR violations. However, this is not clearly vandalism. Vandalism has to be willfully unconstructive editing. It's clear from the IP's edit summaries that this isn't an example of vandalism, but rather it's an example of a disagreement. When an editor states that they are removing material that they feel is unsubstantiated, you need to argue that it is substantiated, and why, not to call their efforts "vandalism" because you disagree with them. Liz is correct that you need to discuss this matter. Oh, and just FYI, you have already violated 3RR (you reverted 4 times in less than 6 hours) and so is the IP. So technically I could block both of you, but I won't, not as long as you stop edit-warring and try to take this to discussion where it belongs. That article talk page hasn't been touched in years. -- Atama頭 19:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor admits to being a blocked editor

The blocked editor Special:Contributions/Kohelet posted at Talk:Rape#Global_view admitting he was the same person previously blocked, he now using the account Special:Contributions/2A00:1028:83CC:42D2:38E8:1612:C0B5:12B2. He is also posting as an IP address at another rape article [132] quoting racist nonsense from a racist website, as he had previously done with his original account before being blocked. Dream Focus 17:06, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

• The IPv6 admits to being a sock, so blocked. The IPv4, though, I would need to see the evidence laid out that it was a sock; the geolocations of the two IP's does not match, either. Courcelles 17:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Long term vandal returned

Today, it was unintentionally brought to my attention that a long term vandal (see here) that I have been dealing with since I pretty much began editing this website came back in the past several days, and has already been blocked twice for making edits that I've noted are indicative of the long term abuser. Just in case Materialscientist doesn't see my messages, I would just like to make a formal request here to have the block on 69.159.39.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) extended beyond the 72 hour period it is currently at because he is very obviously the long term abuse editor that I've identified in past exchanges. His main goal was previously to post long screeds about how much he hates Haim Saban and the Power Rangers franchise (you can see him do that here and attempt to add my name to it) as well as completely whitewashing articles of content vaguely relating to Saban and his media franchise, usually restoring an old and deprecated form of the page that he was previously most comfortable with (example). An edit filter was previously created to prevent him from posting his screed, but he has since taken to adding false information to BLPs across the project, includingHollywood actors Meryl Streep and Michael Douglas, Philippine actors Dianne dela Fuente and Valerie Garcia, video game media GamePro and Fantasia (video game), and for some reason the Charlie's Angels disambiguation page.

In short, someone please increase the block on 69.159.39.121 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), prevent talk page access, and let's find someway to prevent him from vandalizing all of these new targets of his (because he is extremely predictable in what he edits anyway).—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 04:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Cluebot and pp-pc1

Note here, where cluebot properly reverted a vandal, but because of pp-pc1 the page was left with this gem of a first sentence: Freedom Riders were civil rights activists who rode ponies and unicorns around the world. I don't even know where to report this, so I'm bringing it here. Shouldn't cluebot have rollback rights on pp-pc1 pages?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that just Cluebot not being able to see an issue with riding ponies and unicorns around the world rather than having it's efforts foiled by protection ? Sean.hoyland - talk 05:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)