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

Offering cures to Ebola at the Ref Desk

Users User:Wnt and User:Aspro have decided that we should be offering links to unreferenced cures to Ebola at the reference desk, and have reverted hatting of such material. This is not only in violation of WP:RS it's in violation of Wikipedia:General Disclaimer. The material should be deleted, and the editors admonished, if not blocked for obvious violations of WP policy. μηδείς (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Cures? More like comments on the observance of good hygiene practices. The question of references on WP articles vs Ref Desk has come up before. The sun will rise tomorrow- do I need to add a reference to that? Yet μηδείς (who until very recently, has added some very good contribution) recently added Nitrous oxide works largely as an asphyxiant, and regularly kills those such as dentists who abuse it. Google laughing gas death. μηδείς (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC) [1]. I would have thought that that needed a reference, as I myself have had more than one tooth extraction with nitrous oxide and that is not how it works. Oxygen is given with nitrous oxide to prevent hypoxia. Is the pot calling all the other kettles black? This editors appear to have changed of late and wants everybody to dance to thier tune.--Aspro (talk) 22:00, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

My response to this is at [2]. My sources are in my original comment as linked in the unhatting above. To claim that I "violated WP:RS", let alone the General Disclaimer (!) seems very peculiar. The purpose of this discussion should be to encourage people to think about the question and try to bring relevant sources and concepts to bear on it, and I think I've done so. Wnt (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

• Here are a few thousand Google hits on Nitrous Oxide suffocation: [3]. Here are zero hits on curing Ebola with fossils: [0]. This unreferenced and unreferenceable bee ess needs to be hatted, and I suggest an admin do so. Wikipedia:General Disclaimer μηδείς (talk) 00:02, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the CDC's Preparedness 101: Zombie Apocalypse program missed the problem of editing wars breaking out on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 03:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• The OP on that question asked about some quack remedy for ebola. We don't need Wikipedia's ref desk being cited as a potential source for such misinformation. The question had been answered, namely that there is no remedy proven so far, except treating the symptoms and letting the immune system take over. There was nothing else to say about it, and no reason to keep it open. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think Medeis has built a nice straw man here. The word "cure" only appears where Bugs says there isn't one. Wnt was just generally offering related scientific findings, without making any claims of cures. Aspro's response was mostly about disinfectants and information access, and made in response to questions about bleach. There's clearly no false "cure" for Ebola being offered there. Aspro's repsonse did seem slightly WP:SOAPy to me by bringing up the cost of cruise missiles, though I see that as a very minor issue that doesn't need investigation (I also happen to agree with the sentiment re:missiles, so that might bias my interpretation of how serious the potential SOAP issue is :) SemanticMantis (talk) 15:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The information at issue here, while somewhat speculative, was appropriate and well-cited. No "cures" were offered or promised. There was no reason to hat the thread. The stated reason for hatting, "medical something", proves that there was no reason to hat the thread. We have a well-defined and well-applied prohibition against offering medical advice. We have no prohibition against discussing medical information. —Steve Summit (talk) 15:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It would be interesting enough to know if I created this strawman--please do a checkuser on me--I mean it--but, can we please otherwise have an opinion by at least three uninvolved admins?

Is offering treatments for Ebola an appropriate function of the ref desk that doesn't violate Wikipedia:General disclaimer? "If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management) please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area."

Is there nothing one can't just make up there as fact? μηδείς (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Medeis: When I reverted your edit I urged you to discuss at the talk page, where this sort of thing has been done to death in the past. There are general refdesk guidelines, and there is a specific "Kainaw's criterion" that has generally served as the point of compromise. The gist of this is that there's a difference between diagnosing or recommending specific treatment for an individual person, and discussing the general state of biological knowledge. If we discuss whether garlic could protect against Ebola, or whether salt could cause cancer, or whether red meat could cause heart disease, or whether poke berries are poisonous, or whether coffee protects against diabetes, these things are not advice for an individual person, but general state of knowledge questions. Referring generally to the disclaimer for the entire site only adds confusion, since it suggests people looking for specific advice to go elsewhere but does not demand it. It should be very clear that the statement about financial advice does not prohibit readers from looking up the difference between a Roth and a traditional IRA, for example... even if using what our article says is potentially problematic. Wnt (talk) 04:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to support Wnt and Aspro here. The question asked fell clearly on the 'acceptable' side of "Kainaw's criterion" which has been the consensus bright-line criterion that must be crossed in order for a Ref Desk question to be considered to be a request for medical advice. Medeis' has a long history of hatting threads for seemingly personal reasons, using "justifications" that are more imaginary than any kind of Ref Desk policy - nearly everyone on the ref desk would love to see the back of this disruptive editor who has been the subject of many, many complaints in the past. Medeis' rants frequently stay beyond acceptable limits - most recently: [4]. SteveBaker (talk) 05:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Medeis, you made a straw man out of my accusation that you made a straw man! You should get some points for that. That is, you misrepresented my claim that you were misrepresenting Wnt and Aspros contributions, by linking to hoax, not straw man - they are rather different things. I apologize if my usage was unclear, and perhaps I should have linked in my original comment. I certainly don't think you are making any hoax, just that the text responses in question do not offer "cures" for Ebola. To claim that they are is a misrepresentation of a position, aka a "straw man." But sure, we should here from disinterested/uninvolved admins, I too will be curious to see their input. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Request to lift a hastily placed block

Per this incident, Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) was accused of violating his interaction ban between himself and the filer of the report MaxBrowne. First, the evidence given for IBAN is this edit . Ihardlythink so was blocked 12 minutes after this incident was reported, and while Ihardlythinkso and MaxBrowne are under an IBAN to be sure, this post doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne, although he refers to the IBAN itself. Further, this block is contested by Giano, Ne Ent , GoodDay and myself.

As there is no credible evidence that Ihardlythinkso was actually referring to MaxBrowne, I would request an unblock. Obviously, no investigation can be made as to whether or not MaxBrowne actually broke the IBAN by actually referring to Ihardlythinkso, since this would be an exception to the ban. I have notified the above mentioned users about this posting, I have also notified blocking sysop Spartaz and closing sysop Chillum. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 20:01, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. The posting "doesn't give any indication that Ihardlythinkso is talking about MaxBrowne"? Bollocks. He was talking about him, as was crystal-clear from his description of that specific incident – anybody who remembers the incident knows that it was M.B. who was the other party in it. Whether he names the name is completely irrelevant. People who knew the event (and there are many of them out there) know who he meant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:12, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose It was clear that the person who was referred to was MaxBrowne. There is also evidence that this is a repeat offense. - Knowlegekid87 (talk) 20:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
• on the subject of hasty! don't you think it's a bit hasty to raise this here before having a discussion with me first or does your AGF not extend to admins? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:42, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose(I was one of the closers) This was already reviewed and was also closed by 3 different administrators(including myself) with the same conclusion. If the matter is not apparent to you then it is likely because you are not familiar with the case.

  It was not hasty because it was not a ban discussion, it was a case of administrative discretion based on an already existing ban. There is no need to have a protracted debate when the conclusion is obvious to the acting admin.

  There was also a similar incident where IHTS was warned that this sort of gaming would not excuse him. Chillum 20:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am going to ping @Doc9871: as this admin also closed the discussion. Chillum 21:09, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• Please don't make unsupported statements about about other editors, Doc9871 is not an admin [5] NE Ent 22:22, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• I do not think Chillum knew that, it is common that editors close discussions but some have so many info-boxes it is hard to tell if they are admin or not. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• My mistake, thank you for pointing that out. Chillum 00:26, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm no admin and have never claimed to be one. Per IHTS:

"I am unable to tell any of the abusive treatments because any reference direct or indirect will be interpreted as IBAN violation with the offending user, who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed where he used the abusive name-calls. So effectively now, I have a sock stuck down my throat, and am unable to voice any complaint about the incidents without receiving an escalated block."

Who here does not think that the one "who filed the AN request for IBAN immediately after the ANI closed" was Max Browne? Anyone? And is the "immediately" thing meant to throw suspicion on this "offending user" for filing it so quickly? It looks like it to me. Max Browne filed the request for IBAN, did he not? A thread that was then open for 8 days. It's quite obvious that IHTS fully knew he violated the IBAN when he said, "If WP:NPA policy can be ignored, allowing a user to repeatedly be abused with "classic narcissist" name-call, then please tell me a rational/reasonable argument why WP:IBAN policy is to be respected!"[6] This thread is just wikilayering to get a buddy out of the trouble he made for himself. Doc talk 04:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• The IBAN prohibits discussing the other party, either directly or indirectly. You don't have to mention the other guy's name in order to have enforcement come down on you. When it's clear who the guy's talking about, to those familiar with the case, the IBAN has to be enforced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm aware the Ban prohibits direct or indirect discussion. It's not clear that Max Browne is being discussed. Ihardlythinkso mentions his IBAN, but given no detail, nor really any indication that he's talking about MaxBrowne, bear in mind, I'm currently under a TBAN "Broadly Construed" so I'm well aware that a ban typically means no talk to or talking about whatever the subject of the ban is, anywhere on Wikipedia.

Also, I wasn't the sole user that objected, as I noted three others did as well. Spartaz , I've been down that road before. I've actually spoken with sysops and have had consensus in my favor only for the sysop to just flat ignore it, so I no longer think it's the thing to do, to be honest. I believe in consensus, and if consensus says you're fine, then so be it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 21:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of how bans go. If it's clear to those "in the know" that the ban was violated, then the violator and his buddies have to accept the block. Trying to wikilawyer around it is not acceptable. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:29, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this should be closed, it was already as pointed out by Chillum closed by 2 different admins, 3 after this. I think the WP:STICK should be dropped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The easiest way to "drop the stick" is to stop arguing about the close, which is a practice thing, not any sort of policy. So, anyway, it's not unreasonable to conclude IHTS violated the ban because he mentioned the editor who called him a narcissist. However, the context of the comment was replying a post by Jimbo Wales (also an admin) following up a discussion on Wales' talk page, and the primary thrust of the comment was that an admin not-named-Max-Browne whom IHTS does not have an interaction ban with also called him a narcissist, so I don't see it as a violation, especially as IHTS did not mention MB by name. So perhaps a refactoring could have been asked for, or maybe a shorter block. Anyway, the most important thing is IHTS has not posted any sort of unblock request, so perhaps we should wait and see what he has to say about it. NE Ent 22:21, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

There are plenty of ways an editor can slip a hint about another editor hoping to draw attention to that person but thinking that it is not enough to get themselves caught. The point is that MaxBrowne picked something up in it. It could very well be a misunderstanding but seeing the evidence of past things like this that Ihardlythinkso has done It becomes harder to trust the editor. In addition 2 admin have weighed in on the matter and all have considered it a closed discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Baseball Bugs I'm hardly one of Ihardlythinkso's buddies. He doesn't know me from a hole in the ground, to be quite honest, so if that comment was directed to me, it's not true and you should strike it. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 23:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't recall mentioning you by name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support unblock - Much has been made of User talk: Jimbo Wales being a "community noticeboard" rather than an individual user talk page. Much like ANI; users go there to air their grievances, demand action, demand justice or otherwise opine for change. Of late, that has involved extensive interaction with Wales himself, subsequent to a demand (here) for an interaction ban between Wales and an editor. IHTS's comments should be seen in that context - ongoing discussion of an interaction ban proposal while he himself was subject to an interaction ban. He tried to give a full account of that ban in the context of that discussion and went as far as to describe certain things. Did he technically breach his ban in doing so? Yes. Does it serve any real purpose to block him for it? No, not really. Does anyone think MB's editing here was impacted by IHTS's giving an account of how the interaction ban came to be (in his view)? I... (sorry for this in advance) ...hardly think so. The issue here was the technical breach - there was no melodrama on MB's part. I don't think MB or the blocking admin were wrong (they called it as they saw it and I don't think it was "hasty") but a broader reading of this suggests a block is fairly pointless and obviously punitive rather than preventative. It also had the unintentional impact of disallowing IHTS's involvement at User talk: Jimbo Wales which, again, editors have come to accept as a legitimate venue for broader discussions. I suggest the block be limited to "time served". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

• So you are saying he should get a get out of jail free card for breaking an interaction ban on Jimbo's page? No, it shouldn't be okay and it is not okay. I quote the WP:IBAN policy "make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly;". if you want to propose a change to the policy with "With an exception to Jimbo's talkpage" then feel free to do so. Jimbo's talkpage though is a part of Wikipedia just like all other user-pages are. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

In fact the IBAN violation was made on IHTS's own talk page Want to think again? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, you're absolutely right - it was on his own talk page in response to a comment from Wales which was a continuation of an ongoing discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales. And I'm not suggesting an exemption or a get-out-of-jail free card. Only that it should be looked at in context. From memory, I supported the original IBAN, so I certainly endorse its enforcement. I just wonder what point it serves to enforce what looks like policy wonkery given the intention doesn't seem to have been to break the ban but to explain it. My question, which applies equally regardless of location, is whether he would have been blocked had he posted the same here in asking for the ban to be reviewed? I'm thinking possibly not. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Let me ask a silly question. If blocks are supposed to be to prevent disruption (not to punish bad behavior) and the disruption in question is a comment the user made on their own talk page, how is that goal achieved by blocking them from every page on Wikipedia, except for the one page where the disruption (allegedly) occurred? --B (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Under WP:BLOCKDETERRENT I feel that this falls under #2 and #3. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- I'm not sure why MaxBrowne feels the need to patrol Ihardlythinkso's talk page. Whether or not IHTS's comment amounts to a violation of the topic ban, this continued hostile scrutiny could easily be seen as baiting and I'm not sure we should be rewarding it. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • In any kind of limited ban, it is best to take anything connected with that ban off your watch list. In the case of an interaction ban, it is best to treat the other party like the ebola virus - keep as far away as possible. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unblock...but this whole thing is bollocks. IHTS remains rather pissed off that someone called them a "classic narcissist". Personally, I don't consider it a violation of WP:NPA (really, so what if I was a narcissist, it's not a horrible thing to be called)..., but IHTS REALLY believes it was an attack on psychological condition - PERCEPTION IS EVERYTHING in this type of situation. However Bushranger apologized for the statement, right here on either AN or ANI. Yes - apologized. Case-closed, one would have thought. I believe I even said at the time "now we won't have to hear about it anymore". So,

• IHTS perceived the comment to be an attack
• IHTS does not perceive the apology to have occurred
• IHTS perceives that an admin got away with a gross personal attack

This therefore can be easily resolved:

• Bushranger repeats the apology for one, final time
• IHTS acknowledges it, and gets unblocked
• MaxBrowne takes IHTS's talkpage off his fricking watchlist
• Everyone drops their sticks and goes back to bloody editing
• Any FUTURE repeat of this stick behavior can lead to whatever else the community wants

Problem solved. the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

IHTS's failure to acknowledge Bushranger's apology should not require Bushranger to apologize again. As far as this block goes, oppose lifting it early. Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of that incident knows exactly where IHTS was going with it. There are two simple facts here. 1. he violated his ban. 2. He needs to let it go. If he can't do the latter, he will continue to do the former, and will continue to get blocked. The solution here is for IHTS to serve his two weeks, drop the stick, and find something productive to do. Resolute 15:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Resolute: I concur: failure to acknowledge shouldn't be our issue. But we really could save IHTS and the entire community (obviously) a lot of ridonc pain if Bushranger either a) repeats his apology, or b) someone's wise enough to re-link to where it was, get it confirmed, and move on. IHTS deserves formal closure of what they feel to be a "psychological-wellness-based personal attack" and they and the rest of us deserve to move on once and for all. We're just going to continually get jabs about how admins are immune until it happens the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just saying, admins are not immune, there is nothing stopping someone from launching an investigation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure what the fuss is about. There was a consensus that there should be an interaction ban, there was a clear cut violation of that and the community consensus has been enforced. This seems to be a case of some people simply not liking the outcome.

While some people may not like it the fact is that there was an IBAN and it was violated. This issue is resolved. Chillum 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite - there seems to be consensus that the IBAN was not violated ("consensus" in this case would very much be unofficial, since I started this post) and it looks to be 3 to 1. Unless there are more opposes, I;d say the IBAN wasn't violated and thus, the block needs to be rescinded. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect you have not read what others have said. He did refer to the person he was in an IBAN with, anyone familiar with the case can see that. The only way you could not be aware of that is if you are unfamiliar with the case. Drop the stick and let it go, the facts are against you.

This is not a discussion on if an IBAN should take place, that happened long ago. This is a discussion to see if an admin action was wrong. The facts and policy support the block and most people can see that. There is certainly no consensus that the block was wrong. Chillum 16:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, this should be closed now by an uninvolved party. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Unblock Nothing to be gained by continuing this block. Giano (talk) 17:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, there IS something to be gained, as I recently learned from a similar experience. 2 weeks is a good stretch to think at length about what a ban is and to realize the consequences of a violation. An early unblock is just an invitation to more of the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

    But maybe you're just a slow thinker? Eric Corbett 17:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no idea that you had been blocked for two weeks Baseball Bugs, but I'm glad you found the experience rewarding. However, while I thank you for taking time out from your busy editing schedule to share your experiences with me, my view remains entirely unchanged. Giano (talk) 17:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You haven't provided any evidence that the topic ban wasent violated. Then again I would be shocked if you did have support for an IBAN here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@[[Knowledgekid87: are you talking to me, Bugs or Eric? I'm beginning to feel rather followed and threatened by you of late, wherever I am, there you are also two paces behind. Giano (talk) 19:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Im talking to you, and no you aren't followed as you can see I have been posting in this thread since before you were here. Im not here saying the same about you following-wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I see: Well if you check the history of this block here on this page [7], you will see that I started the discussion. Now, if I were you, I would shut up now, before you make yourself look even more ridiculous than you managed last night when pointlessly pursuing me. Giano (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

MaxBrowne originally started the discussion on the admin page which I had not taken any part in, I started commenting when it was reviewed by Kosh here. Please stop trying to accuse others off of baseless arguments. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sadly for you, on this page, diffs speak louder than words. Whatever, I'm not inclined to engage with you this evening. We all enjoyed quite enough of your silly inanities last night. I don't see what will be achieved by prolonging this block - other than punitive self gratification on the part of some. That's my view and I will continue to hold it. Giano (talk) 20:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Furthermore, the consensus is clearly to unblock. Giano (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Oppose As IDHT shows he not only meant to infer max brown but stated how he believes that IBAN should be violated at will by him. He can always appeal it through proper channels, if he believes that it would be lifted but since he can't stop making comments even now I doubt that is likely. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This thread is degrading into nasty comments and wikilawyering. Nobody has refuted the clear evidence that has been presented to support this block, someone please close this one way or another before it festers more. Chillum 20:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• No Chillum, you can't have the thread closed because you don't like the consensus. Now I hope you are not in the IRC Admin channel trying to get it closed because I will find out and be very cross if that's the case. Giano (talk) 20:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• No Giano there is no behind the scenes conspiracy. I have not used that channel in years. Chillum 20:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• The discussion was closed by 2 admins and 1 editor, let it go already. The evidence has not been debunked all I saw from your reason was WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• You really are very tiresome. I'm afraid that consensus is not archived by those who shout loudest, but by common sense. Giano (talk) 20:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Common sense is appealing this in the proper place and not intentionally violating an IBAN. Tivanir2 (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

On hastyness

Interestingly, none of the users accusing me of hastiness have taken time to contact me to establish what due diligence I undertook before making the block. This seems hasty in itself and is yet another example of users assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard but perhaps we can let that slide for the sake or harmony. Just for clarity, I saw the report as it was posted, read the post, the comment and also researched the IBAN and associated discussion as well as IHTS's block log. Only then did I act. Please can someone tell me what part of that sequence is hasty or lacks due diligence? Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Nothing hasty at all :-) the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Assuming bad faith on the part of an admin in favour of stoking drama at a noticeboard is en vogue right now. Chillum 17:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The discussion will soon be bot archived. This happens, naturally, when a thread has outlived its usefulness; and it's an important part of the cycle. Will it be reopened/re-reported due to the "hastiness" of how these threads are archived? Let's hope not. What a waste of time this is. Doc talk 05:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Yankees10

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

---

This user has been stalking me aplenty. I've been editing a TON a sports articles lately and it seems that this user has been eavesdropping or stalking me whenever I edit some articles. For example, I have edited numerous articles like Geno Smith, J.J. Watt, and even Luke Kuechly. Sometimes, when I update these articles, he reverts them, claiming them unsourced, despite that they are up to date and correct so far. And get this; I'm not the only victim to being watch over by this user, he's probably doing the same thing to other sports editors. But luckily, we've never had any edit wars before. So I'd like to give you a head's up about this User:Yankees10. He has a lot of barnstars despite being such a strict editor but does not have any rollback rights, patrolled rights, or reviewer rights. I could use some help if you'd please. Thanks for your support. EternalFloette (talk) 21:34, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Glancing at the histories of the pages you mention and Yankees' contribution list, it looks to me that the both of you simply like editing lots of sports pages. Regarding the example articles you gave, Yankees has performed 6 edits to J. J. Watt and another 6 to Luke Kuechly over the last few weeks, the majority of which don't involve you - looks to me that Yankees simply has these pages watchlisted and keeps an eye on them. I'm also not sure what a lack of rollback, patroller, or reviewer rights implies - not everyone needs or desires these tools for editing. Hopefully Yankees can provide their own input. As for the reverts themselves, they do seem justified to me. It might be more constructive to find and add sources before simply reverting, but additions should be sourced nonetheless, especially for biographies of living persons. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Well, this, for example, looks like a BLP violation, and it makes sense he would revert it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:51, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Now I just revealed the truth that this user, User:The Writer 2.0 is very good at posting references to make the additions sourced and I don't understand why most other sports editors aren't quite experienced at adding referees quite yet. But now I'm starting to know the truth beyond the sheer force of BLP policies. Thanks anyway for keeping me up to date about the truth of all this. I really appreciate it. EternalFloette (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure thing - I posted a few links on your talk page with referencing guides, if you want to take a look at them. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:59, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

@EternalFloette: You say that Yankees10 hasn't "rollback rights, patrolled rights, or reviewer rights", but out of these three rights, he does have autopatrolled and reviewer. Anyway, what does his user rights have to do with this? – Epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any proof of those rights. He doesn't have the templates beyond those rights either. There may be something hideous about him but the admins might investigate it soon. EternalFloette (talk) 22:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI, Here's your proof. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks all for your support. Now I understand what's in potential about him. I guess everything is pretty much clear by now. So I guess we can close this case for now. But if anything happens, I'll let you know. EternalFloette (talk) 18:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removing my earlier comment.--Yankees10 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You should actually provide diffs if you think there is "something hideous" about Yankees10. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Admins please take a look at EternalFloette and PrivateMasterHD edits. They are almost certainly the same person.--Yankees10 02:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who PrivateMasterHD is, and I have nothing to do with him. I understand this stranger is banned and I don't personally think this Yankees10 is telling the truth. I've been in the Wiki wilderness quite a lot and I've ran into many strangers, especially those who are blocked and banned. Could you please close this discussion. No further edits should be made here as I requested once before. EternalFloette (talk) 12:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Aha! Thank you Yankees10, I knew something was up but I couldn't link the account to a master. EternalFloette is a  Confirmed sock of PrivateMasterHD and is now blocked. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 15:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, Yankees10 is pretty good at spotting socks. Out of respect for the ceased, you could honor the sock's last request and close this section. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Close of a stale RFC

Today, I closed a stale RFC at Talk:Ebola virus outbreak in the United States. It was a fairly standard close. Now, an involved editor, Floydian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has reverted the close for the second time. After the first one, I restored it, but as he has chosen to edit war over the close of a stale RFC, I will leave it to an administrator to deal with him. I won't restore the close again, but I strongly think it should be restored, and this editor warned that reversion of an uninvolved editor's close of a stale RFC isn't appropriate. (Note: I have zero edits to the main article there.) LHM^{ask me a question} 00:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• It should also be noted that his last edit summary ("not by a non-admin it isn't") seems to assume that a non-admin closure by a completely uninvolved editor should be given less deference than one by an administrator. There is nothing in policy to support such a view. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am involved at the content at Ebola virus outbreak in the United States but not in the specific RFC mentioned here. The request for the close was made here at WP:AN by SW3 5DL, current status here. It requested a close by an admin specifically. I commented at the WP:AN request that the RFC also included a discussion about possible canvassing, and that needed looking into. While content RFCs can be closed by non-admins, requests to investigate and close possible behavior issues need an admin. Editors on both sides of the aisle, SW3 5DL here and Floydian here, have indicated that an admin is needed. Given that this has become a contentious close with possible behavior issues attached, I agree with both that an admin is now required. Zad68 02:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I had no objection to a non-admin closure. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:12, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

here you said Still need that closure and, obviously, it must be an admin to save further disruption.... I don't know what else to think. Zad68 02:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's very clear that he meant that in the context of Floydian's out-of-process reversion, it should likely be an admin that re-closed it. I was about to post something similar about your misrepresentation of SW3's position as well. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point I need to just let others review the edits and make their own determinations. Zad68 02:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Lithistman, it's not me objecting to a non-admin closure. It's Floydian who reverted the closure twice, demanding an admin. In an effort to quell the disruption, I simply asked for an admin. When Lithistman closed it, I didn't object at all. In fact, I believe I thanked him. I still don't understand the issue. He's not really stated it. He's only reverted. And he's not come here or gone to AN. Don't know what to make of this. And, I'll add, why Zad68 has involved himself at all, makes no sense. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I stand by my actions and statements. This needs administrator investigation, and LHM is not up to the task of looking into the allegations raised. That is all. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 03:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

  You edit warred to revert a legitimate close of an RFC by an uninvolved editor, citing as your "reason" only that I am not an admin. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye, which begs the question, why now? Floydian, if you thought something was amiss, why not go to ANI to sort it? Why wait until the RfC goes stale and then edit war with a non-involved editor? Don't understand any of it. One day you're contributing a template that solves a huge problem, next you're reverting and making sweeping accusations. As far as I can see, Lithistman should close and an admin should let you know that if you revert again, you'll be blocked. As for going on about the RfC, if you've a complaint state it now with diffs or be done with it. End of. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I should mention one of the closures I reverted was performed by SW3 5DL themselves. The whole RfC was a joke, but since the articles have had time to be filled in with trivia and unconcise news events and information already present elsewhere, I fear the damage is now irreversible and we are stuck with a mess that could have been handled so much better if you didn't make so many maverick edits. The diffs are at Talk:Ebola_virus_outbreak_in_the_United_States#This is a joke, where they have been for some time. I wish I had handled this the day the RfC was opened and curtailed the cancer, but hindsight is 20/20. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 04:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

No canvassing done at all. On the contrary, all RfC rules on publicizing the RfC whilst waiting on the bot were followed. The RfC was posted at the Village Pump here, on the talk pages of 10 editors chosen at random from the Feedback Service List, per the RfC rules/suggestions for publicizing, and editors from the immediately preceding AfD were notified, per the RfC page. Only two of the editors chosen at random responded, JBarta and Silvo 1973, and both voted "Merge." I voted "keep." I've not made that many RfC's in the 6 years I've been an editor. The RfC page was most helpful and I followed it. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Would an administrator please handle this close? I know that closing RFCs doesn't require an administrator, but Floydian has edit-warred to remove my uninvolved, non-admin close, and from his angry comments above, I'm fairly certain he'd do it again, if I again closed it myself. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

LHM, it can take a while. Don't worry, somebody will come along. SW3 5DL (talk) 07:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

A suggested resolution

We have:

• Two overlapping RfC's - the first not advertised as an RfC but showing a rough consensus for merging; and the second started before the first had closed and showing consensus for keeping the articles separate;
• a legitimate close of the first and informal RfC by Floydian;
• a legitimate close of the second RfC by Lithistman, but only if considered in isolation from the overlapping first and informal RfC which had a different result;
• with respect, legitimate concerns about forum shopping and canvassing (both linked earlier in this thread). SW3 5DL, you did indeed notify some apparently random editors, per the guidelines. You also notified every editor who voted to keep the separate article in the AfD, in the same order in which they cast their !votes - but not for example, the editor (Floydian) who !voted the other way, or other editors like Gandydancer who had expressed opposing views on this issue on the West Africa page. Let's assume it was an oversight, but it certainly reduces the credibility of the second RfC.
• proposed article merges without the use of merge tags, though this is perhaps okay given the poor intersection between proposed merges and RfC notification rules.

Am leaving this open for the sake of any further discussion but here's a proposal, time-wasting though it may be:

• A new RfC, opened by me as an uninvolved editor, at Talk:Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa, to be flagged on all the other "Ebola in.." pages and via talkpage message to everyone who has commented on either side since October 1.
• No action on the conduct issues except a general admonition that duelling RfCs and the appearance of canvassing are detrimental to collegiate editing, and may become disruptive if repeated. The tools at an admin's disposal are too blunt to be useful here. At the heart of the discussion is a genuine content dispute. It would be great if everyone could offer their opinions in a collegiate forum, and waving big sticks at one side or other doesn't tend in that direction.

Views welcome. If no one objects I will open the new RfC in a couple of hours tomorrow.Euryalus (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd support this. Protonk (talk) 12:53, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I do object. You claimed I did not notify Gandydancer and Floydian. That's not true. I had to individually notify the AfD editors because there was no common board where I could reach them. But the main article talk was a common board for the other editors and they saw it there. The RfC notice was posted on the Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa on the talk page here and

here.

They were holding what amounted to a closed discussion on merging all these articles. Notice, they didn't put merge tags on the affected articles to let those editors know that they were planning to quickly blank and redirect the new articles. They didn't link to their discussion on those pages. They did not communicate their plans to the editors of those pages at all. If you're going to 'investigate' you need to look at the whole picture here. I opened that discussion to the wider community and the wider community has agreed that these articles should exist. I don't know any of those editors who commented, and as you can plainly see, only two of the editors I notified per the RfC rules even showed up. And they voted 'merge' whilst I voted 'keep.'

You'll note also, that Gandydancer, Floydian, and the other editors did appear and commented. It was their choice to not participate at the RfC. They could have participated and made their views known. They did not. Additionally, one of them socked as an IP and made personal attacks, then logged into his account and agreed with himself in the same conversation. He posted on my talk page, the West Africa talk page and the RfC page. His comments had to be rev deleted.

Sorry, but the disruption by a handful of editors who have two involved admins joining them, does not mean the community's decision on this is to be discounted and overturned. Look at the diffs I just posted in this comment. Look at the discussion section I link to. I did notify those editors. I notified everybody who edits the West Africa article. It was plain as day and I included the link to the RfC. No, sorry, this is a valid discussion. Sour grapes does not trump the opinion of totally uninvolved editors who came from the wider community. Also, do not call Floydian's thread on the main talk page an RfC. It was anything but that. Floydian is using disruption to subvert the community decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support keeping the decision of the community on the RfC. The wider community of uninvolved editors have made the decision to keep these articles. That decision should be respected per WP policy. And everybody who commented at the RfC must be notified of this ANI thread. I'm happy to post the ANI notice or an admin can do it. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion on the content dispute. I also think that a new RFC would be unnecessarily time-wasting, but if other editors wish to spend their time in this manner, I have no objection to that. As for this being a "genuine content dispute", I would have agreed, right up until the point that Floydian edit-warred to remove the proper close of an RFC by an uninvolved editor. At that point it became actionable. However, as the issue became stale, and any block would be punitive instead of preventative, requesting one of Floydian would serve no purpose. LHM^{ask me a question} 14:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Alright, first off there was a discussion at the West Africa article about remerging SW3s maverick forks. The discussion was swaying to remerge them, it got quiet, and I announced I'd close it in 24 hours if there were no further comments. An RfC wasn't necessary (and any level headed editor probably thinks the RfCs that keep popping up on the Ebola articles for the most trivial questions are the signs of a lost puppy), and the comments from the editors who have worked on the articles were more than enough. But, SW3 did not like the idea that his articles were gonna be merged back into one succinct coverage of the topic. So, rather than open an RfC on THAT talk page, like any rational person would, he subverts the discussion by opening it on another page, not linking back to the ongoing discussion, and then only contacting the people that held his viewpoint. The claim that he contacted everyone in the AfD discussion is a bold faced lie because I started that AfD and was not notified. None of the editors who voiced a merge opinion at the West Africa article were notified. Next off, the RfC question was posed in a loaded way (and I honestly should have edited it when it was created to be a neutral question), and yada yada yada, this whole thing has become an irreversible clusterfuck of epic proportions. To quote Gandydancer, "This has been an example of Wikipedia at its worst." - Floydian ^τ _¢ 17:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Notification of editors on the main article talk page was made in two places on the day here and

here. The diffs are clear evidence of that. And let me add, that if there'd been an AfD spot where I could post, I'd have used that instead of going to all the trouble of notifying individual editors. That was a huge time sink for me and I'd have much preferred a single spot for them. But no such spot exists. Or if it does, I wasn't aware of it. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Also, admins take note, that these complaints came AFTER the articles already existed. NOBODY put up any objections to their creation. It was AFTER the fact that this began. I'll collect the diffs later. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it has been Wikipedia at it's worst. Floydian's account is accurate. It was my impression that editors at the Africa Ebola article did not object to splits but rather the maverick manner in which it was done with no previous discussion on what we'd include in them, etc. Now we are left Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Liberia articles that truly are a disgrace to Wikipedia. I have tried to edit them but have been reverted to the extent that I am just not willing to attempt it anymore. Almost everyone else is just ignoring them. SW3 has just totally ignored WP guidelines for how we are supposed to conduct things here and now the whole situation is totally FUBAR. And now he is apparently accusing me of something or another - I can't quite figure out quite what it is. I've been here since 2006 and I've worked on a lot of difficult articles, but I've never seen anything like this. It is not at all surprising that we have reached this state where everyone is confused and does not know quite what to do, considering the manner in which this whole thing was initiated in the first place. Gandydancer (talk) 18:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You yourself voiced acceptance of the new articles. You and the others NEVER OBJECTED to them. It was only AFTER the articles were created that you suddenly decided that there'd been no consensus. I'll collect the diffs. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Well please do and hopefully you will find something better than what you've been using such as my "maverick" statement? Has it occurred to you that we did not OBJECT to splits because we are not mind readers and could not foretell the future in which you would ignore WP guidelines and do four splits without discussion? To editors that are not familiar with this ongoing dispute, I have been through this issue so many times with this editor that I am just sick to death of it. BTW, has anyone notified Doc James of this discussion, though he is most likely pretty sick of it as well. Gandydancer (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, Did you or did you not make these comments?

• We are now left with the individual country sections and I'm about ready to agree to separate articles for them. It seems to me that as the epidemic has grown from an "outbreak" to an epidemic, with even a few suggestions of "pandemic" being dropped here and there, the news such as xxx country had this or that happen within it's borders is less important than the overall effort to confront the ever-spreading disease. Thoughts?

• Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think?
• discussing a new article which was later created.
• Suggestion for condensing the article.
• 2014 Democratic Republic of the Congo Ebola virus outbreak was split off, as well.

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Not even one of your diffs suggest that I was in favor of an editor making splits without first finding consensus. Furthermore, it was laughable when you became indignant with Doc and Floyd when they deleted your splits, saying, of all things, that they had not first found consensus to do so. Gandydancer (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Gandydancer, you just said, I have been through this issue so many times with this editor that I am just sick to death of it. Where are your diffs? You can go on all day about this, but where are the diffs to back up your comments? As an admin on an Arb page once said, "No diffs, no case." Shall I retrieve more diffs of your comments? SW3 5DL (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Because this is a developing topic the second, wider, more official RfC should win out, to keep the articles separate. I should note that there's been a bad tendency of editors to rehash half the parent article in the separate articles, which should be rejected -- that stuff should be centralized -- nonetheless, the rules will be different from country to country. For example, Western Ebola survivors fly around donating blood to their compatriots apparently as a personal decision, whereas Liberia as I understand has been suppressing "black-market" donation. The U.S. took an infected dog to a naval facility for ... isolation, while Spain euthanised one. Even though the number of cases is small, they will have a disproportionate impact in demonstrating the unique social and medical situation in each nation. Wnt (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

As an disillusioned editor on these pages, and an African.. i'll throw my few cents worth of comments...

• Sierra Leone - on 3rd oct this page was blanked 4 times, after exsisting since 27th Sep.. (by Floydian and Jmh649)- 1st Blanking (here) 4th (here)
• Guinea - 3rd Oct same story - 1st blanking (here) - 4th (here) .
• Liberia- 3rd Oct same story - 1st blanking (here) - 3rd (here)

• Spain While there was a consensuses discussion going on the Spanish dog issue (Talk:Ebola_virus_epidemic_in_West_Africa/Archive_5#Spanish_Dog), Floydian came in and reverted the section out, as Irrelevant...(here)-- On that day I lost almost all interest in helping "Regionalise" each of the split articles.....

• Popular Culture section which includes mostly cultural issues relating directly to Ebola.. In a region where literacy is low (10-20%), Historically the only method to pass on info, and get a message to the masses is via Music, Jokes and Preaching.. (I've lived in Africa all my life and have traveled in to the "POOR" regions and spent days learning about the culture.) After much discussion, i rewrote and renamed it to Other Works derived from the Ebola crisis, Regionalised as best as i could, sourced reputable refs, as well as some local to the region sites... While many might feel that this is 'irrelevant' it is actually a key part of the local culture. Music and dance, has been used to tell History and some stories in Africa long before written storybooks.

Editors are just too scared to update the individual pages because of the current edit war... i'm slowly getting back into it, but am been very cautious on what i edit..Gremlinsa (talk) 07:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes this has all been rather disruptive. I am supportive of having an article on the disease in the US and Spain. With respect to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone they would have been better kept in the article on Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa. They are three relatively small countries right beside each other. The discussion on the merge of these three article was taking place on the talk page of the epidemic in West Africa when User:SW3 5DL moved it to a completely unrelated page. An usual move to say the least. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This is where it now gets to the crux of it.. if we follow WP:GEOSCOPE; USA and Spain with (3/1) & (2/0) infections/Deaths respectively should be first on the list for wp:merge and not Liberia (4262/2484), Sierra Leone (3410/1200) and Guinea (1519/862).. However Nigeria with (20/8) never got it's own page/article.. why has everyone forgotten wp:RAPID. How would an American Editor feel if someone referred to the U.S.A. as Part of the Slums of the America's, comparing it as a whole to Mexico, Cuba, Honduras, etc... Any country in Africa should have the IDENTICAL WP:WEIGHT as America and Spain... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gremlinsa (talk • contribs) 12:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Gremlinsa for posting the diffs of their disruption. And yet Doc James is still here arguing his position. That's the truth of this matter right there. Doc James doesn't want these articles and that is at the heart of all this disruption and continuing time sink for editors.

Doc James, the community has already said the articles will be kept. If you and your friends would stop causing so much disruption, editors would start improving the Guinea and Liberia and Sierre Leone articles. It's you stopping it. It's Gandydancer and Floydian making disparaging, complaining comments on the talk pages of all those articles that puts a chill on editing there. When an issue is opened to the wider community, instead of confining questions to the WikiProject Medicine group where you hold sway, then a true consensus emerges. Inclusion of the wider community has given a decision you don't like.

The community wants these articles, they will be kept, and perhaps what is needed now is topic bans for you and Floydian and the others who've been wasting the time of all of us since these articles were created. And they were created with prior discussion where you and the others DID NOT object. It's the loss of control, me thinks, that has brought this on.

And the RfC question was neutral, btw, because you added in your version of the question. Fair play then, you can't complain that the question I posed, was flawed. Because editors also saw your "correct" version and yet they said, "Keep." I'll go get those diffs. SW3 5DL (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Posted the RfC here at 21:34 4 October 2014. Doc James posts his ivote: here at 22:49 4 October 2014 so obviously he read the RfC notice posted on the West African article talk page. The RfC question I posted was: Should we keep these newly created separate country articles about the Ebola epidemic, and allow them to continue to develop, or delete/redirect now to Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa?

Next, Doc James posts his own RfC question here which said, The question is "should we keep these three article separate Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone or should we merge them back into Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa were the material can be discussed in the context of the outbreak generally.

The community saw both questions early on, as he'd posted it at 20:26 5 October 2014. The community saw both questions and the majority voted "Keep." Now Floydian comes along to contest the closure of the RfC by a non-admin. Reverts Lithistman twice. Notice, none of these editors who did their best to disrupt the RfC ever came here to contest the RfC. So why now? Why contest the closure of a now stale RfC by a non-admin? What's the point of that? Or rather, what's the goal of that? SW3 5DL (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I notified everyone who ivoted at the RfC unless they'd already commented here as obviously they're aware. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure of this RfC as Keep and Lithistman should be the one to close. No reason for him not to. The community has made it's decision. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: I was notified about this ANI thread on my talk page. I'd rather just say I'd prefer to respectfully defer to community consensus. Whether that be through community consensus from WP:RFC, and/or from WP:AFDs, or both, I'll defer to the judgment of administrators. Good luck all, — Cirt (talk) 16:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure of the RfC as Keep: The length of the RfC was standard, at 2 weeks or so, and it was closed after an appropriate time. We cannot keep having RfCs until the cows come home. We do not have time for that. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Tell that to the editors who create them for every minor issue on the article; also the standard length is a month. The issue here is not the result of the skewed RfC, but the skewing in the first place and the canvassing by SW3. When that issue is brought forth is irrelevant and it seems SW3 is aware of their actions if they are trying to deflect the notions based on the timing of things. I raised the issue on the RfC itself within 48 hours of it being created, and the question was never reframed or posed in a legitimate fashion. Like I said, this whole thing is a farce and only a handful of editors seem to grasp how shoddily this was done and the repercussions of it, both in the future actions of this editor as well as in the state of our coverage of Ebola, which is now in shambles from the great state it was in before late-September, when all these new editors poured in and demanded their changes be made. - Floydian ^τ _¢ 19:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• But still, if SW3 hadn't notified all the editors, you could have told about the RfC to the editors who were not notified. Now that the article is so large, the option provided for in the RfC is not an option anymore. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am looking forward to see these articles cleaned up by the editors who state that they have been prevented from doing so by me and a few others. When we voted them down we were not voting against future splits, we were voting against splits that were far short of even the bare minimum that one would expect to see on Wikipedia. Gandydancer (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the irrelevant reverts stop, and the editors are given enough time to source, write, and clean up, these articles will come up to scratch.. Can I also ask that decisions for these three be made on there own talk pages and not via the "MAIN" page... Gremlinsa (talk) 06:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And before anyone says but where .... Liberia and Siera_Lione..Gremlinsa (talk) 07:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support closure of the RfC as Keep It looks like questions were asked of the community and answered by the community. Time to move on. I don't have all that much free time to edit but I'll contribute to the articles as much as I can. Miguel Pena (talk) 20:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support closure of the RfC as Keep seems logical--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and shenanigans at Molly Ringwald and related articles

Since early this summer, there have been on-and-off efforts to add peacock phrases and promotional content to Molly Ringwald, associated articles, and a few other actress articles, like Heather Langenkamp and Amy Weiss. A few examples are edits like these: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] (The last one is a giveaway that something screwy is going on -- the film's budget is changed to a fabricated low level so the article can claim that the film was a commercial success rather than a money-loser).

There are a batch of accounts involved, with similar behavior patterns -- aside from the promotional tendencies, none have a user page, all rarely if ever use edit summaries, and at least two use screen names matching up to Ringwald characters. But until this weekend, there wasn't quite enough evidence to conclude that we weren't dealing with a cluster of like-minded fans. But in the last few days several of the accounts have been uploading obviously nonfree images for (obviously inappropriate) use in BLPs, and two of the accounts have been using the same defective NFCC rationale -- see File:Molly Ringwald in For Keeps.jpg, uploaded by User:Clairestandish, and File:MollyRingwaldBetsysWedding.jpg, uploaded by User:Darcyelliot. Further evidence of coordination between accounts: once the Clairestandish account had been warned to discontinue the misuse of nonfree images, that account stopped -- but User:AintNoOther promptly resumed the campaign, uplolading File:Ringwald on the cover of Time.jpg and adding a nonfree movie poster to the Ringwald BLP [13]. In addition, User:IAmUnbroken has added nonfree images just uploaded by these accounts to the Ringwald BLP (eg, [14]).

The accounts involved that I've spotted are:

• Clairestandish (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Darcyelliot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AintNoOther (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• IAmUnbroken (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Risetonight (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mendie12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

There may be more.

User:GB fan and User:Dismas have also noted irregularities at the Ringwald article, and have discussed an SPI, looking primarily at the misuse of nonfree images [15]. I think there's certainly enough evidence for a checkuser to act on, and quite likely for a few expeditious blocks. Whoever's behind this (whether one user or several) has become more active lately, and the problems, especially with nonfree images, are spreading to more articles. See, for example, the recent history of Lori Hallier and Tuesday Knight. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: If this is a request for a sockpuppet investigation, WP:SPI is the place - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• SPI and results noted at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Clairestandish.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Ownership issues on Joan Smalls

There seems to be some (semi) long-term ownership issues at the Joan Smalls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article that likely won't be remedied through traditional avenues. Also, the participants are various IPs and the one user involved, Friendlypete2014 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has not edited under that account since July 2014. I edited the article last night in a vain attempt to bring it up to standards. It was full of fan puffery, a questionable source (wordpress), style issues galore and other minor issues. My edit was reverted as vandalism by 208.54.45.145 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) today. I reverted back and, while leaving a note on the talk page, my edit was reverted as vandalism again by 50.12.126.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). After looking through the article history, I decided to bring the issue here as it seems various IPs and Friendlypete2014 have been reverting nearly all changes made to the article by anyone (diffs below).

• 1st attempt to clean up/tag article by Prayer for the wild at heart. Reverted by 172.56.18.29 78/no reason for revert (March 22)
• Prayer for the wild at heart reinstates changes, is reverted by FriendlyPete2014 with the claim that the changes were "unsourced" (March 24)
• Prayer for the wild at heart explaining changes were not content related, FriendlyPete2014 "changing tone" (but not really) and adding fake protection template (March 24)
• FriendlyPete2014 reverting Lowercase sigma bot to re-add protection template (March 24)
• IP user attempting to clean up content, mentions ownership issues/inactive protection template. Reverted by FriendlyPete2014/added another fake protection template (March 26)
• Jdanek007 tagging article for issues. FriendlyPete2014 reverting addition of tags with some minor rewrites to lead (Jdanek007 also left a talk page note which was unanswered - April 2/3).
• FriendlyPete2014 reverting addition of "advert" and "peacock" tags with a edit summary telling people to "Please do not alter or vandalize article" (July 19)
• My edit reverted by 208.54.45.145 as "vandalism" (October 20)
• My edit reverted minutes later by 50.12.126.142 as vandalism

I'll notify the IPs and the one user involved but considering the amount of IPs and the fact that FriendlyPete2014 hasn't edited in quite some time, I have not left them a personalized note about ownership, style guides, what vandalism actually is, blah. Seems pointless really because I don't think the D in BRD is gonna work in this situation as they're determined to keep the article their way. I think some long term semi-protection might force the participants to go to talk or, at the very least, give others a chance to bring the article up to standards for more than a day. Pinkadelica^♣ 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I've done some more clean-up and things have since gone quiet. I will add this article to my watch-list and will monitor. Note FriendlyPete2014 has also been repeatedly uploading non-free images to place in the article, so we need to watch for that as well. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Diannaa. Pinkadelica^♣ 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic-ban request for User:Der Statistiker in Paris articles.

Related: #Proposing topic ban for Der Statistiker after years of flame wars at Paris

- Constant aggressive edit warring, constant disregard for/gaming WP rules and reverting in disregarding (even denying) talk-page discussions, ... for starters.

I could make a long list of events, but I think the present state of the Talk:Paris page is enough of a case. Der Statistiker has some very original views about what Paris "should" be (but isn't), and goes to any length to make sure that they become "reality" in the Paris article, all while remaining just inside Wikipedia rules, of course. Repealing their efforts has always been a headache, and that since almost ten years now.

(edited) This is a mess. I'm withdrawing the meat puppet and sock puppet accusations for now, because I'm now not sure who started what, but for sure at least two few-edits participants are from the www.skyscrapercity.com page where (Google translated) 'troops' were coached how to edit Wikipedia, and both Minato ku and Sesto Elemento are present here (read forward and back for more): [16], and a former 'vote' campaign originated there too [17], but it was not reported by participating contributors. (added) No, wait, yes it was! [18]. Der Statistiker is absent from all these discussions, oddly. And we still don't know who started brought them in the first place. Admitedly, it might have been Minato ku, and Der Statistiker was just jumping on their cause. Neither party spoke up to clarify (or even deny) even after being asked, anyhow. THEPROMENADER 23:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Good example of Der Statistiker's general attitude towards discussion and other contributors: [19]

Sockpuppet case against Der Statistiker: conclusion: Editing another language under another name [20]

Der Statistiker, latest bout of reverts: First revert (diff): 2014-09-23T02:33:20 [21]

contributions: [22]

Minato ku first revert: 2014-09-23T22:23:19 [23]

contributions: [24]

Sesto Elemento first revert: 2014-09-21T17:23:56 [25]

contributions: [26]

Through all of the above, Der Statistiker and at least two of the above participants appear always at the same time for the same 'cause'. I hope Der Statistiker's general bad attitude, unwillingness to discuss anything (except how others are (expletive) and wrong), the general disingenuousity (especially in false/'kettle black' accusations) is evident enough throughout all that... I think it more than is, but I'm hardly looking at this objectively.

Right, so you recognize yourself that you're not sure anymore who started what, you open a case here to ask for my banishment, but then say it's in fact Minato Ku who might be responsible (then why did you open this case about me in the first place??), then post some diffs showing some reverts from myself and two other editors which are similar, but dear Sir, I can also post some diffs from you and other editors which are similar. ThePromander's reverts ([27], [28], [29]), SchroCat's reverts ([30], [31], [32]), Jeppiz' reverts ([33], [34]), Dr Blofeld's revert ([35]), all perfectly the same, reverting to the same photomontage (notice how each guy stops before breaking the 3 revert rule and lets the other ones continue to revert in turn).

You then accuse me of always showing up at the same time as other editors. It's funny because I always see you popping up in the Paris article at the same time as User:SchroCat, User:Dr. Blofeld, and User:Jeppiz, and always, always to block any change in the montage at the top of that infox. So are you guys informing each other of the changes in that infobox to act together? Or are SchroCat, Dr. Blofeld, and Jeppiz your meatpuppets, or are you theirs?

Your accusations can be thrown back at you, and do little to improve the editing atmosphere in the article. For more than a year now I've seen the three of you (ThePromenader, Dr. Blofeld, SchroCat), with the occasional help of Jeppiz and one or two other editors, acting together to prevent any change in the article that you don't like. On that I second what Metropolitan said today: it looks like WP:OWN to me. Der Statistiker (talk) 00:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Ownership? Coming from you, and your staggering displays of ownership so far, that's incredibly rich. - SchroCat (talk) 06:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing anyone can accuse me of is being very bad at arguing. But thanks for insinuating otherwise.

Whether the others show up by your bidding or on their own, you are using them to promote your own POV, which would be impossible without misguided 'like-minded' support.

Actually, it would be great if Minato ku and Sesto Elemento gave their input here. THEPROMENADER 05:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you got some evidence of the sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry otherwise you would be better to strike those parts of the report. Amortias (T)(C) 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. I already withdrew the sockpuppet part (this user may have been condemned in the past for this, but I have to check that). For meatpuppetry, what should I provide? THEPROMENADER 20:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

For meat puppetry you would want to provide links to other contributors providing similar or identical additions or removals of information that have limtied or few other contributions. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Echoing Amortias above. Additionally have other dispute resolution avenues been tried (WP:DRN or WP:RFC)? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that DerStatistiker is a user whose behavior at Paris hurts Wikipedia more than it helps and I could support a topic ban. I agree with Amortias that every accusation has to be supported by evidence and diffs.Jeppiz (talk) 20:18, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Please bear with me, in all my years here, I've never done anything like this before. Isn't the talk page itself a good start? The edit history of all those involved would help, too... okay, I'll go get those. Sorry, cheers. THEPROMENADER 20:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Might be worth looking at WP:D&L for advice on producing the diffs for evidence. Amortias (T)(C) 20:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I should have been better prepared. I withdraw the meatpuppetry accusation (I have yet to sort out who did what first, I may have been wrong about that), so my bad, Sorry. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I must make another correction: I did make a case against the same user, but for sockpuppetry. I added it into the links above. THEPROMENADER 22:38, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

All I wish to say about the matter I have already said elsewhere (repeated in the thread below, as applicable. – SchroCat (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Endorse, And strongly so. You only have to have to look at his behaviour and lack of AGF last July/August and in events since such as recently and forum shopping to make this an appropriate action.♦ Dr. Blofeld 06:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld and User:SchroCat have contacted me off-wiki, asking me to weigh in here as a non-involved admin, so here are my remarks and a suggestion as to how to resolve this.

I realize AN/I is not normally a place to talk about article content, but in this case I can't help weighing in on that first. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a special-interest site, and in the case of an article about a millennia-old city, it is not surprising that the most iconic structures in the city would be ones that have been around for a while. The presumably most iconic skyscrapers of the region, La Défense, sit outside of the city itself. The recent dispute about the infobox image strikes me as an enormous waste of time that could be better spent improving the article. The image is entirely suitable, whereas (for example) the "landmarks" section is frankly an almost unreadable laundry list. And, yes, the article probably needs to say more about modern Paris, and possibly the image isn't perfect, but it would not be on any reasonable person's list of the top 10 things that ought to change about this article.

But on to the process matters that belong here at AN/I.

Wikipedia is not a soapbox and it is primarily about building an encyclopedia rather than about experiments in process. Yes "anyone can edit," but we seem to be dealing with a matter here where all but one of the contributors with significant experience here are on the same side of the issue and, even if none of the people weighing in on the other side are "meat puppets," let alone sock puppets, the fact remains that they are not people who have made any signficant contributions to Wikipedia, nor have they shown any indication that they are coming in here with expertise rather than with an agenda. (I'm all for people who haven't contributed before joining discussions, especially if they have knowledge to contribute, but clearly if a bunch of people showing up at once to weigh in on one side of an argument, some off-wiki canvassing is going on.)

So here is my suggestion. User:Der Statistiker: have the sense to back down when all the other experienced editors disagree with you. And, going forward if you don't do that, yes, I will support a topic ban, which would be a pity because you obviously have more of a clue about the topic than you do about how to collaborate. If you think you can propose some hunks of prose that could be added to the article to take up the topics you think have been neglected, and that there is any chance of actually getting consensus for them, go for it, but bow out gracefully if you can't get that consensus. And if you want to round up people from off-wiki, round them up to work on articles that actually need a ton of work, in areas where they actually have expertise, not to weigh in as useless extra voices. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and when someone comes out of nowhere and weighs in on a disagreement on a talk page, they are not effectively casting votes: they are just wasting everyone's time by obscuring the strong, though not unanimous, consensus that obviously exist among the relevant parties.

And the other people working on this: the article is already protected. Don't feel like you have to answer every point Der Statistiker raises on the talk page if he's clearly proposing something against consensus. You don't have to repeat your view for each time he repeats his, or someone with no contributions to Wikipedia echoes his. And you could put some of the time saved into proposing some edits that would improve the article, especially to remove some cruft and make it the readable overview it should be.

Probably not what anyone wanted to hear from me. Oh, well. - Jmabel | Talk 02:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with that... and happy to finally see some attention and an objective voice of reason. This has been going on since almost ten years already. Thanks. THEPROMENADER 07:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I now gather that there is a related sock puppet/meat puppet investigation that was not linked here. If that comes up positive, obviously I would support appropriate warnings or blocks. - Jmabel | Talk 15:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Update and Comment - The earlier 'kerfuffle' over the Paris Lede photo caught the attention of France's national newspaper, Le Monde [36], and their article brought some attention to French wikipedia. Because of this, this user's behaviour has bled over to there as well, and their battle there is the same (Paris-related articles) as here. They are now posting as multiple anon IP's, and still pushing their 'this photo or nothing' agenda : [37] and [38]. A lengthy ad hominem-filled 'this photo or nothing' argument was posted on both pages [39] [40] by IP 86.195.249.77, later just-as-rude and personal-attack filled comments later came from 86.195.16.25 and 83.204.251.169, yet later 86.195.16.25 and 83.204.251.169 came to change 86.195.249.77 and 83.204.251.169's signature to Der Statistiker [41][42]. What's more, the same is imposing the same photo on the French Paris article (in ignoring the ongoing discussion) as user Pointois [43], the same that surfaced in the Der Statistiker sockpuppet case here. Why not post as Pointois? An admin asked them to disclose this link, but they never complied. Der Statistiker was User:Hardouin here before, too... and with all the single-purpose 'parachute contributors' appearing out of nowhere with every conflict they create, it makes it hard to tell where the canvassing ends and the multiple usernames begin.
  
• Anyhow, I am trying to use the attention the article brought to recruit Paris-knowledgable French-wikipédia contributors to help bring the English Wikipedia up to WP:FA status (I offered to help with the translation), but Der Statistiker's belligerant behaviour, lack of consideration for other contributors (ignoring them or treating them as 'stupid obstacles' if they don't side with him), lack of participation in discussions (if not only to obfuscate them in wordy condescending language, false comparisons and details they know participants won't understand), canvassing 'like-minded' (for their agenda) off-wiki contributors (who tend less to know/care about silly things like 'references' and 'rules' ) to 'support' their 'cause', general use of subterfuge and gaming the system in general, all serve to disrupt the editing atmosphere and to dissuade any new contributors from participating. I wouldn't be surprised if that was exactly their goal. I think ten years of this is long enough.THEPROMENADER 12:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

WARNING This case was closed by an admin and moved to the archives: [44], but ThePromander, who is engaged in a personal feud here, has resurrected this case by removing it from the archive and pasting it here. WP:HARASS? Der Statistiker (talk) 21:31, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Um.... no. It was not closed (pending the sockpuppet investigation related to this case) and it was archived... by a bot. I moved it here again because you've recommenced exactly the same bad behaviour you were warned about earlier in this thread. Thanks for drawing attention to this, though. THEPROMENADER 22:15, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Endorse. A topic ban for Der Statistiker seems to be the only reasonable option. The repeated disruptive behavior (including grossly obvious off-site canvassing by the same user) has gone on too long, and continues to date, on both the French Paris Talk page and the English Paris Talk page. Consensus has been attained (notwithstanding outside help from meatpuppets or otherwise), and yet Der Statistiker continues his/her disruptive campaign of personal attacks while blatantly pushing his/her agenda. Enough is enough. It's time to move on constructively, in the hopes of improving further still the quality of articles here at Wikipedia. Coldcreation (talk) 11:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I was in two minds about it, until I saw Statisker shamlessly canvass on French Wiki for people to vote on the issue here, even though consensus was reached some time ago, as well as to engage in personal attacks on editors on this site. That is a rather shameful stance. - SchroCat (talk) 12:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

a- you were never in two minds about this. You have always been biased against me, and have repeatedly insulted me on the Paris talk page ("fuck off" and the likes). I can provide diffs if requested.

b- I have not "shamelessly canvassed". What's shameless is your unfounded accusation. WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. I have not told anyone to vote in this or that way.

c- all I see here is a rogue group of usual suspects who have resurrected an archived case because they hate me so much they wish to have me banned (not just temporarily blocked or warned or whatever, but banned for life, perhaps eradicated if they could). Probably the article published by Le Monde which talked about my work at Wikipedia has greatly angered them: [45]. None of this is going to improve the reputation of Wikipedia. You guys are not living in a dark box, and the rest of the world is watching you and what you're doing. Der Statistiker (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

a. Yes, I was in two minds, as there had been no additional issues on the talk page, so please do not try and double guess what I may or may not have been thinking;

b. You have canvassed, and it is a lie to claim otherwise; roughly translated you have said: "Your help at all would be welcome to end the deadlock. We cannot accept that a handful of Canadian-English publishers impose their vision of Paris to the world".

c. I'll ignore this: it's not worth addressing. - SchroCat (talk) 12:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

a- Your history on the talk page shows you were never in two minds. In fact your first edit ever in the Paris article consisted in making a wholesale revert of my contributions to the article [46], even though we had never ever known each other or talked to each other before. Did you try to discuss things with me before reverting me? No.

b- There is a handful of Canadian-English publishers who try to impose their vision of Paris, and I'm not ashamed to repeat it here. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise. I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there.

c- You ignore it because you know it's true and have nothing to respond to it. Pitiful. Der Statistiker (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am going to disengage from further comment here. You are not listening to explanations, and are only seeing what you want to see, while denying what can be seen by anyone in your bad faith comments on French Wiki. - SchroCat (talk) 13:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban for Der Statistiker. I generally lean on the side of dispute resolution rather than topic bans but the outright off-wiki canvassing and battleground mentality presented here is too much not to attract a topic ban. Blackmane (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse a topic ban for Der Statistiker. Looking at diffs it is clear disruption going on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Important notice: coverage of the story in French media
The conflict between contributors of the Paris article has already been published in Le Monde newspaper [47]. A story which has also been mentionned on the French major radio Europe 1 [48]. The conflict opposes contributors such as ThePromenader and SchroCat who pushes a WP:POV for a purely heritage/tourist description of Paris against those who want the city to be portrayed in a more multi-dimensional way, emphasizing also its no-less significant role as an important node in the global economic system [49].

In this context, resurrecting a closed file as it's been done here, with journalists starting to follow this affair, is clearly not the good way to calm things down. I should also add that the file is totally empty. Der Statistiker is clearly not the most aggressive contributor in the conflict. He insulted no one, which is not the case of other contributors as shown in these examples: [50] [51] [52] [53] [54].

The Paris article will be unprotected on 25 October 2014. At this stage, the most important thing in my humble opinion is to calm down heated temperaments so that we could bring back a more constructive spirit to the work on the article. Asking admins to choose their side in the conflict, as proposed here by ThePromenader, is clearly not the good way to achieve that purpose. Metropolitan (talk) 14:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Important to who? That article was but a wee appeal-to-emotion blurb about the 'kerfuffleness' of the 'debate' that neither asked nor answered questions... it was anything but 'important', and I was in it. I can provide a link to it if anyone likes.

Metropolitan's 'solution' for 'calming the debate' is letting a few fulfil whatever goal they were summoned here to fulfil in spite of a consensus (that they deny exists) - this is called 'an agenda'. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

What all this is about is a wikipedian (or not) with an agenda off-wiki canvassing others for the sole purpose of 'forcing' one photo. THEPROMENADER 15:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Jesus Christ. This is still going on? It's been well over a year now. I haven't looked into this article since then, but given the same names are involved now as then, chances are that more than one person needs to step away from this article. Resolute 15:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Resolute, plus ca change plus c'est la meme chose. Drmies (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Strongest possible support Please, just do it. Even now he's taken swipes at my work on it and canvassing off wiki. He's annoying and disruptive who ought to be banned full stop.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:58, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Blofeld, you should read again the WP:5PILLARS of Wikipedia: "Since all editors freely license their work to the public, no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed". How could you ask admins to ban someone on the ground that "he has taken swipes at [your] work"? That's against the very fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Metropolitan (talk) 20:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - I've been lurking at that talk page for almost two years now, and when Der Statistiker is not involved, there is essentially no conflict. The user's continued POV pushing and combative attitude is detrimental to both the article and the encyclopedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The Paris article does have a massive WP:POV issue, but certainly not caused by Der Statistiker! As clearly shown on the following table, the POV bias of the Paris article is about a strictly historical/heritage depiction of the city totally ignoring its modern aspects. As far as I know, Der Statistiker has essentially worked on economy and demographics sections, which have been dwarved to nearly nothing over time. If you want to know who pushes for the heritage POV, ask yourself who's attacking him. The table compares the number of words of different sections from the Paris and London articles, which are two similar-sized capitals of similar countries. It just speaks for itself.

Field of interest	Paris		London
	Number of words	% of total	Number of words	% of total
History	3,573 words	22%	2,048 words	17%
Heritage	4,277 words	26%	204 words	2%
Culture	2,545 words	15%	1,661 words	14%
Subtotal	10,395 words	63%	3,913 words	32%
Economy	673 words	4%	727 words	6%
Demographics	852 words	5%	1,605 words	13%
Transport	819 words	5%	1,693 words	14%
Subtotal	2,344 words	13%	4,025 words	33%
Overall total	16,388 words	100%	12,131 words	100%

Those figures cannot lie. If you want to read more about the obvious WP:POV issue on the Paris article, here's a link to the dedicated section on the talk page: Restoring NPOV to the Paris article. Metropolitan (talk) 10:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What the (expletive) does this have to do with anything here, if not distracting from/defending the contributor's behaviour? I don't disagree with your content criticisms, but you do realise that, by stating that "there's a problem" that "needs to be fixed" that "explains the contributors' behaviour", you are just showing your shared 'views' and WP:BATTLEGROUND, right?

Contrary to what your comment here insinuates, nobody ever opposed any such change between those WP:CANVASS campaigns; in fact, the article stagnated. You're presenting yourself as some sort of diplomat/voice of reason here, but you only came for those campaigns. The level of disingenuousity here is palpatating. THEPROMENADER 11:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Metropolitan, it's a bit hard to understand your arguments. Are there problems with the Paris article? Quite likely, and most people agree. Could it be improved? Definitely. Are there other editors who should reconsider their behavior. Almost certainly. But none of that is relevant here. The table above that you copy-pasted above was relevant when you did at the talk page of Paris, it's entirely irrelevant here. You seem to want to continue discussing Paris here, but that is not the topic. You have posted a large number of posts now discussing Paris and discussing other user. Start a thread about users you find problematic if you want, but even if other users have misbehaved (and some certainly have), it's still no excuse for Der Statistiker misbehaving and thus irrelevant.Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I (mistakenly) opened another request for the same topic ban. I support a topic ban as Der Statistiker has been actively edit warring [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], then took the fight to French Wikipedia when the English article was locked [60], [61], and have made repeated off-topic rants ([62], [63]) and personal attacks. The battlefield mentality is well illustrated by the attacks at me. After I defended the consesus, Der Statstiker first called me "one of the biggest POV-pushers" [64], [65]. After finding out I had in fact only edited the article twice ever, suddenly the attacks were turned around and I was attacked for my non-editing and wild accusations of being there for the wrong reasons [66]. This is indicative of the problem. Disagree with Der Statistiker, and personal attacks will follow no matter if you're involved or uninvolved. In this edit today, Der Statistiker even claims openly that "anyone coming to the article to defend the consensus version is a POV-pusher" [67]. It does not get much clearer than that. Calling fellow users who dare to disagree "the most vicious people I have ever seen in my life online" [68] it's not helpful. This battlefield mentality is very problematic and disruptive.Jeppiz (talk) 11:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'll repeat here what I already said in the other request opened by this bellicose editor. Sigh...

You admit that you edited the article only two times in five years, and those were to revert someone else. If you don't see a problem there, I think any admin can see one. You clearly don't care about the article, and only jumped on the bandwagon for reasons that I ignore (off-wiki contact by Dr. Blofeld?). I, unlike you, have added CONTENT to the article (you know, the hard stuff that takes many hours not of sillily arguing on talk pages or AN/I, but of researching valuable information, data, references). I would be more than glad to see you devote your time to improve the content of the article, especially in the categories where it is sorely lacking (economy, demographics, transports, administration), rather than spending your life on talk pages and AN/I, where you and ThePromenader's harassment force me to spend so much time these days. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

And also this:

WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise (and in fact some like SchroCat are making wholesale reverts to protect the content of the article edited by Dr. Blofeld, which is in breach of WP:OWN; for example see SchroCat's wholesale reverts here and here). I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. Your multiple demands for banishment will go nowhere. So perhaps if you tried to compromise instead of hoping for my "liquidation", the atmosphere in the article would improve considerably. All I've seen from some of you in the past year is very uncompromising editors who arrived in the article for the sole purpose of protecting the edits of Dr. Blofeld. That is not constructive. Der Statistiker (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Warning to all involved parties: Please see my posting at the duplicated thread below [69]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Review of RfC close/revert at Neil deGrasse Tyson

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

---

Last night, after spending a couple of hours reviewing the discussion at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson I closed an WP:RFC at Neil deGrasse Tyson. The RfC had been open for 28 days, and the conversation regarding that specific RfC had died out roughly two weeks ago with the last contribution to the RfC being on October 5th. The RfC specifically requested that only WP:DUE weight be considered in the closing, and I closed based on that policy and WP:BLP writing: "Closing this as do not include on the basis of WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE. It is clear that this is a contentious issue, so without excellent sourcing - which establishes the weight of this incident in the context of Dr. Tyson's life and career - the default of non-inclusion applies." The closure was reverted by a !voter in this edit with the summary: "there is no need to close a still active RFC, particularly the way this editor did so." I suspect that the reverting editer may have been referring to one of the four other non-RfC proposals on the talk page: Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#terse_NPOV_proposal, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Alternative_proposal, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#alternative_text, and Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#alternative_text_2 -- none of which appear to be gaining consensus. Could someone please review the close/revert/etc? aprock (talk) 16:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This closure occurred at a time in which there was consensus that "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC." It was specifically requested by me before the closure, that we let an uninvolved administrator preform the closure given how many people had commented on this and the contentious and unclear nature of if we had a consensus or not. No one else had objected to that request as the time of the closure. I still hope that when the full 30 days is complete that it is closed by an uninvolved administrator. --Obsidi (talk) 16:28, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Please link to this claimed consensus: "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC." Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The request for an uninvolved administrator to close the RFC was made before closure here. At the time of closure, no other editor had objected to that request. --Obsidi (talk) 16:48, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I specifically spent time reviewing WP:CLOSE before closing this to make sure I was adhering to policy. Unfortunately, your specific request was lost in the WP:WALL of text. In the future, if you wish to make a request for closure, the best place to do that is at WP:ANRFC. aprock (talk) 16:35, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't ready yet to request a closure (as I wanted to wait the full 30 days), but I did want to make sure that whenever it was done, it was done by an uninvolved administrator. The request was on its own bullet point at the end of the RfC, not mixed into a wall of text (I don't understand the link to WP:WALL which is about walled gardens). --Obsidi (talk) 16:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the appropriate wiki essay is WP:WALLS. aprock (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Huh? There was consensus that "only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC"? This is the first I've ever heard of it. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This editor is not an administrator. This RfC is unusual in it's weight and is high visibility inside and outside the encyclopedia. Closure by a respected administrator is indicated, not an unremarkable average editor. In addition, his rationale for closure is practically non-existant, consisting basically of citing "BPP", "Contentious", citing a couple policies and then saying no. That's the limit of his rationale. We have been debating this issue heatedly for about a month, and to have it closed with two quick terse sentences, without citing examples and rationale using the actual case at hand as discussed is insulting to the amount of time and effort invested in debating this issue. Furthermore, this editor closed the RfC with BLP rationale. This has implications towards it's includablity throughout the encyclopedia. BLP was not the subject of the RfC. WEIGHT and UNDUE were the issues stated in the RfC. To let this RfC stand would be a travesty. Marteau (talk) 16:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec)I suggest that where a closure is likely to be contentious per se, that it is wise to have an admin do the closing. I demur that any substantive BLP concerns were involved once Tyson specifically admitted to the misuse of a quote, (or proper use of a misquote?) Deprecating the !votes weight which relied on there being any doubt as to the events would seem proper here. Once the doubt was removed from the table, the claims cease to be contentious. I would also suggest the !votes based on there being a "conspiracy" to make the charges should be deprecated per common sense. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: Please read WP:CLOSE which states However, requests for closure may be made to an uninvolved administrator for discussions that have been open at least a week and are particularly contentious or unclear. Then look at the edit by @Obsidi: Given the contentious nature of this RfC, I am asking that only an uninvolved administrator close this RfC when the time period is up? Frankly, I think the wording needs to be tightened, can anyone ask for this at any time, but I do not see any objection, or anything at WP:CLOSE to justify ignoring the request. Do you? What should Obsidi have done differently, put it in red text?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You bet. I couldn't agree more. This was an extremely poor choice as a WP:NAC given the contentiousness. Msnicki (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• That close was very short to be the result of a "couple hours" of review. That said, the main problem with it is that the text of the close itself cites no such research, only alluding to ephemeral "BLP concerns" that have not, as yet, been elucidated. And given the fact that Dr. Tyson himself has now addressed this incident in a very public way, such "concerns" are now moot. Any close (admin or not) should weigh the arguments, not just count noses, so-to-speak. This close seems like little more than counting and seeing that there were roughly equal numbers of each, without weighing the merit of the arguments. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:RfC#Ending RfCs clearly states than an RfC can be closed by any editor. Criticizing the closer for not being an admin is basically an ad hominem attack. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Criticizing the closer for being an "unremarkable average editor" isn't just a personal attack, it's also pretty uncollegial and, really, revolting, esp. since the person making that claim managed to rack up around one-fifth of the article edits that the closer collected. Their 177 edits on the NdGT talk page suggest they have a big dog in this fight. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Its possible LHM considers himself an "unremarkable average editor" as well. --Obsidi (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

This is possible, but that's not uncollegial. Calling someone else "unremarkable average" is. Drmies (talk) 17:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I did not use that phrase, but I would not be offended if someone used it in regards to me. LHM^{ask me a question} 17:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I am the unremarkable, average editor who said it and I stand by it as a proper categorization of the closer. Perhaps someone could enlighten me about what makes him remarkable beyond his entry into this affair. Marteau (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I will admit to being uncollegial for I feel the close was a disgrace and reckless and my language reflected that. I will, however, strive to use less contentious verbiage in the future. Marteau (talk) 17:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I appreciate that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 17:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Considering that Jimbo weighed in on this discussion with an opinion the opposite of that of the closing person, perhaps an admin with impeccable credentials should have closed this RFC. This solution is not ideal. Kelly ^hi! 16:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Already getting attention by the people who highlighted the controversy to begin with.[70] Kelly ^hi! 17:03, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, we should be mindful of any off-Wiki canvassing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is Jimbo's opinion more important that any other editor? It isn't. - Cwobeel (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want uninvolved admin eyes on this thing, I can have a look over it; if I find something seriously faulty with the non-admin closure, I might re-open it. However, it is my understanding of policy that closing RfCs is not automatically a privileged domain of admins, and if the closure was otherwise properly done, the non-admin status of the closer as such won't invalidate it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Fut.Perf.. Sure, if a close is contentious, admin endorsement may count for something, though the presence of the admin-abuse crowd has a tendency to render that point moot as well. In addition, that something "was specifically requested by me before the closure" is neither here nor there. Anyone can specifically request anything, but it doesn't always mean anything. In this case, it means nothing. For the record, I don't think I know the closer from Adam, but if they say they spent a few hours reviewing the case, I trust their ability to summarize it in a sentence or two. It's called AGF. Besides, not getting what you want out of the close is hardly a good enough reason to argue it should be overturned, and Jimbo's opinion is just that, an opinion, worth no more than yours or mine--that is, if argued with equal strength. Drmies (talk) 17:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Indeed, there's an entire thread above falsely alleging admin misconduct in this very topic space: Participation by Admin Dreadstar in edit war at The Federalist (website) AFTER fully protecting the article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Fut.Perf., thanks for agreeing to wade into this contentious issue. Just a head's up - the RFC has already been re-opened although I'm not sufficiently conversant with RFC closure process to know whether a non-admin re-opening the closure is proper. I'm sure we'll sort it all out eventually. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 17:21, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have posted my review of the closure at the RfC [71]. It boils down to an endorsement of Aprock's close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm astounded that a non-admin would decide to close this. But the problem may be in the RfC guidance, which doesn't even hint that it would be best for admins to close such a contentious issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:08, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • I agree with Sphilbrick. Permissible according to policy, but poor judgement. Contentious issues should be closed by admins only because a sysop has, generally, community consensus about their understanding of policy.--v/r - TP 19:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I started a discussion Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment#Guidance_on_who_can_close --S Philbrick(Talk) 20:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) ::::This view doesn't conform to the language at WP:CLOSE or the related policy WP:DELETE. If the language there is out of date it should be updated to reflect a new community consensus. Reviewing the talk pages for WP:CLOSE and WP:DELETE, I don't see a lot of discussion of editor vs. admin. Thanks for starting the conversation about closing. aprock (talk) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

See below.--v/r - TP 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

"Astounded" is a very odd reaction - nonadmin closes regularly come to this board and AN, and over and over again - we get back the same result - nothing is done to restrict it any further than it already is (for delete) primarily because there is an apparent belief that admin is no big deal. Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the point is that we cannot write hard rules into this. It has to be a judgement call. And we believe aprock made a bad judgement call.--v/r - TP 20:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we could write hard and fast rules, but we have not done so, even though it's an issue that arises again and again. As for Aprock's judgment, the response again and again has been not to look at the User's status but at the substance of the decision -- here the editor and the admin confirm the same judgment. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• • Why? What admin tool is required to close this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my astonishment.

Extended content

The underlying incident required full protection of the article, not once, but twice. The site associated with the website first reporting the incident was the subject of a contentious AfD, which involved over 100 editors and generated about 30,000 words. The incident spawned a stand-alone article which was deleted after a 6,000 word discussion involving 41 editors The incident spawned discussions at noticeboards including Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_177#.28thefederalist.com.29_Source_directly_targets_Wikipedia_editing._Special_Conflict_of_Interest_concerns_for_this_source.3F RSN, another RSN and a 28,000 word discussion at BLPN The attempted deletion of The Federalist (website) lead to six external articles about the attempt. The incident itself was the subject of 12 external articles The RFC itself has 21,000 words, and roughly 100 contributors More than one participant argued the result were quite close I am a fast reader, but I cannot read the over 85,000 words in a couple hours, much less do any sort of analysis. (My count doesn't include the article itself, or anything on the talk page other than the RfC, doesn't count any of the 18 external articles about Wikipedia or any of the sources used to support the claim.)

Can @Alanscottwalker: point me to some RfC closures by non-admin which are comparable?--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Since you pinged me to respond, what is astonishing Sphilbrick is, even despite your apparent deep involvement in all aspects of the minitua this episode, as made manifest by your laundry list of all the apparently to you, important swirling miasma, you are apparently unknowledgeable about basic process. If you want a special closing regime for some RfC, you need to propose it and get some consensus for it before the close is made in the ordinary course of business. In other words, you are casting blame where it does not rightly belong -- someone just may come along and close it in the ordinary course of business, and you have apparently had a failure of judgement or foresight that you did not propose it be done otherwise, when there was much time to do so. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:58, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I did propose it and not one objected. At the time I had reason to believe we still at a few days left until someone would close it (as the normal time period for an RfC is 30 days, which would end the RfC on Oct 22nd). What more do you want? --Obsidi (talk) 00:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Get some consensus for it earlier. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

How much earlier is enough? --Obsidi (talk) 00:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Often, it's done in the first week, but how about the second week or the third, well before now, at any rate. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So if I had done it in the 3rd week, what is to stop me from being told "well you should have done it in the second week". Or if I did it in the second week being told "well you should have done it in the first week", etc. --Obsidi (talk) 00:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, they can, but it is very much doubtful that that objection would succeed in my experience. But you won't know until you have an actual discussion with others on it, well before now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: You said you are casting blame where it does not rightly belong I placed the blame on the imprecise wording at WP:RfC. Do you disagree that we need to improve the wording?--S Philbrick(Talk) 14:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your initial comment, at least, shared some of the blame with the community for engineering it this way, but unfortunately you started off with criticizing a person for doing the community's bidding, for which "astounded" is rather over-the-top, to anyone who knows any of the history of this particular policy lacuna. It is just plain unfair to cast such blame, after-the-fact. It is entirely and solely the community's fault, it is this way (if anyone's), and if it is anyone else's fault, it is those who failed to propose and get consensus for an alternative closing regime, prior to this. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As for whether we need improved wording, well, we always need improved everything. I will advise whomever takes this on (as with most policy change issues) you should know the history and prempt the previous objections, if you would like to succeed. I can't tell if I really have an opinion one way or the other, about this, I just am aware of what the past has wrought on this issue, as are probably most informed "ordinary editors" who occasionally try to do the service of closing (but irc one of my last closings on divided opinion may have touched on The Troubles and Naming -- for goodness sake -- so what the heck, it's still in place today - I flatter myself that it is because I got it close to a facsimile of "right"). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"I did propose it and not one objected." That's called raising a flag and no one saluting. You made a comment and no one responded. Possibly no one objected because no one took it seriously. We can argue about what exactly consensus means. But, it certainly doesn’t mean not one of the scores of editors on the Talk Page paid attention one way or another. Objective3000 (talk) 00:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Pope Julius repeated to Michalangelo: 'When you will make an end of it?” I can’t believe this discussion continues. How many bites at the apple do you want? So many articles, so little time. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• From the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment, there is a link to a previous RfC which discusses this type of situation explicitly: Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Archive_12#Review. aprock (talk) 00:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• It is a really terrible idea for the precedent to exist for non-administrative closures of RFCs. It is a short step from that to the subversion of the RFC process by closure by sock accounts and POV warriors. Administrative accounts are community vetted, random passersby are not. Carrite (talk) 15:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Bold text== Disruptive editing on ISIL by User:Gregkaye ==

Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has repeatedly reverted or reinserted edits that violate NPOV and talk page consensus. He has been notified of the Syrian Civil War/ISIL sanctions. I warned him on the article talk page the he should not continue to revert, then warned him level on his talk page of 3 for disruptive editing, then level 4 when he did it again. He seems not to get the wp:point. I suggest a block to prevent further disruption.~Technophant (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide diffs for what he has "repeatedly" inserted? I can only see one large insertion. Also, a link to the talk page discussion re the material in question is needed. Thanks, Number 57 17:14, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated warnings have been placed on my talk page as at User talk:Gregkaye#October 2014. Gregkaye ✍♪ 17:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The editor has ferventaly argued against the use of the word "jihadist" in this thread then continued the same to the point of disruption on this more recent thread. The editor has also reinserted previously reverted criticism section which he original inserted here in the lead. I'll continue to look for more diffs. Keep in mind that this article has a strict 1RR policy.~Technophant (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Summary:

1. [72] 16:13, 19 October 2014 - inserted paragraph into lead
2. [73] 22:49, 19 October 2014 - reverted by User:Felino123
3. [74] 08:19, 20 October 2014 - User warned on talk page and on user page of disruptive behavior level-3
4. [75] 16:15, 20 October 2014 - material reinserted without edit summary (2 minutes! after 24-hour limit)
5. [76] 16:21, 20 October 2014 - reverted by myself, user warned level-4

The editor also won't "drop the stick" and has continued to argue on the talk page despite being warned to drop it. I think this is enough to warrant some action.~Technophant (talk) 18:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I actually like this editor and he has made some important contributions (see Talk:Islamic_State_of_Iraq_and_the_Levant#Animated_GIF_showing_territorial_evolution). I don't want this editor topic banned, we just need to see this POV pushing and edit warring to stop.~Technophant (talk) 18:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Like me? I suddenly have a host of "Technophant mentioned you" messages in my notifications. Maybe so. Gregkaye ✍♪ 19:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC) sorry to have placed this out of sequence.

Gregkaye I do value and respect your contributions. If you can just agree to stop the discussed behaviors perhaps this whole thing can be closed without any further unpleasantries.~Technophant (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine. You made very very blunt interventions on my talk page and when I raised query you could not be bothered to reply. I have not found you to be too consistent with your pleasantries. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

On the face of it, this editor seems to be doing exactly what editors are supposed to do. You and he are both very active on both the article page and the talk page, making countless positive contributions to the article and discussions. You appear to have an issue over two things he has done: a single 1RR >24+ hours of a summary of some article material in the lede, and his strong argumentation on the talk page that "jihadist" is an inappropriate label for this group. His reversion without an edit summary is indeed not optimal, but it was after discussion on the talk page. If he is engaging in a non-technical violation of 1RR then so are you by jumping into a revert. It appears that you and some other editors considered the original insertion (which would seem to be simple BRD editing) to be a problem. Am I missing something? The material appears harmless and appropriately sourced, although if consensus is to keep it out of the lead then so be it. As for arguing that "jihadist" is an inappropriate term, again, on the face of that it looks like a reasonable and perhaps correct opinion — I certainly hope the Arabic Wikipedia doesn't use a similarly loaded word, "crusaders", to label every religiously-tinged issue coming from the West. Consensus and sources may fall otherwise, but unless you can show that this has gotten to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and disrupting the orderly flow of discussion I see nothing wrong with discussing the matter on the talk page. If you think that simply continuing the discussion of the point has gotten disruptive, how is that so? - Wikidemon (talk) 18:27, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear it's more like 1RR=24 hours with a +0.14% margin. Also, Felino123 (an editor whom I've no previous interaction) made the first revert and I made the second so I'm not in violation of the 1RR rule. Also the second insertion (#4) was done after he was given a warning not to reinsert both on tha article talk page and user talk page (#3). It show a certain degree of stubborness an unwillingness to respect consensus. Also, it's BRD, not "BRDRD". ~Technophant (talk) 20:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, technically neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things. I'm not accusing you of anything, just pointing out that it's not really clear what the problem is. BR-DDDDDD-RD is probably an acceptable editing pattern even if BRDRR is not: if the intervening discussion establishes either that the revert is for an unexplained or clearly bad reason, or there's consensus for inclusion, then it's fine to re-insert. In this case Felino123 had a well-explained and appropriate reason for rejecting this material in the lede, but I just don't see why Gregkaye was warned against reinserting it, or why any warning not to re-insert it would have any force. Reverting again with the summary "repeted insertion of controversial material" isn't really a good reason, that's saying that BRDRR is preferable BRDR; a second removal based on it being weak content, or against consensus, seems more reasonable. But back to the issue, is Gregkaye really being disruptive here? If so would they agree to take it easy, or is administrative counsel or intervention necessary? I'm not an admin, just passing by. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The material inserted into the in the lead isn't controversial as I stated. It's a summary of information in the Critism section. The reason for removal (clean precise lead) I agree with. This is more of an issue with "technical" 1RR (presumed intent to keep reinserting every 24 hours despite objections). Another user recently received a 3 month topic ban from an univolved admin for just DDDD with no R's without much (if any) warning.~Technophant (talk) 21:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• I honestly don't see a problem of a WP:DEADHORSE. Amongst the dead are numbered Iraqis, Syrians, Sunnis, Shias and a whole host of other people who have either lost life, loved ones or liberty. Horses however aren't among the dead. Problems with jihadist terminologies have also been independently raised by other Wikipedians. See: Category talk:Jihadist organizations Gregkaye ✍♪ 20:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I have actually not been involved in the "jihadist debate" at all. I'm on the top contributors on this page however I am mostly involved with gnomish technical issues and participating in discussions. I was just informed of a user problem and did my best to try to deal with it.~Technophant (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

You have recently been the primary mover in the pushing of the use of "Islamic State" terminology which flies in the face of the example set by great swathes of the Islamic community and world governments. Gregkaye ✍♪ 21:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a completely different topic and isn't relevant to this discussion.~Technophant (talk) 21:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither was there any relevance in your preceding comment nor the surprising gush of the self justifying pleasantries above. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Gregkaye: That was uncalled for. You are just making yourself look bad.~Technophant (talk) 07:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking more like a dispute resolution issue. Perhaps that is a better way of dealing with a content dispute. Still, the edit warring must stop.~Technophant (talk) 21:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have been a regular and active editor on the ISIS page since June this year and have become so concerned about this editor who joined the page recently that I even went to the WP:HD about it here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2014_October_14#Editing_problem. This outlines my concerns. You will see another request on the Help Desk two above mine from another editor on the ISIS page about this editor and one other, expressing the same concerns. Before I say anything else, let me stress that the specific problems I raise there aside, this is a good editor who has contributed much of value to the page. I haven't had time to sort out any diffs yet, and will confine myself to one issue for the time being, which has caused more grief than any other on the Talk page. The debate over the word "jihadist" has been going on for what seems like weeks, getting nowhere, it has taken up an enormous amount of editorial time, and there are at least four editors who consistently do not agree with the editor that "jihadist" should be kept out of the Lead. The editor rejects WP:RS completely, which WP is supposed to reflect. He disputes the use of the word by Reliable Sources to describe ISIL and sets his own views above theirs, which sounds like WP:OR to me. I have lost count of the number of times he has removed the word from the Lead, against consensus, and warnings lately about editing against consensus have been ignored. My basic objection is that the editor ignores WP:NPOV, which I will give some diffs for tomorrow. I am not very happy about this ANI, but something had to be done to stop the edit-warring and editing against consensus. --P123ct1 (talk) 22:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - The only edit warring, disruption, and ganging up is by Technophant and his (very) small local consensus, including P123ct1, most likely via secret e-mails against Gregkaye. Gregkaye is extremely knowledgeable, is doing what is supposed to do, and has tolerated them more than he should. To be fair, this should have a Boomerang effect on them. I no longer edit the article because of the same (very) small consensus that act as if they own the article and drive away editors, but I could not remain silent in the face of this injustice. I will also not get sucked in into this again. All I had to say, I already said it!. Worldedixor (talk) 22:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Note: Worldedixor has an open (stale) RFC/U with a strong consensus for topic ban on Syrian Civil War/ISIL and a strong dislike for P123ct1 and myself for opening it. It has not yet been formally put in place however.~Technophant (talk) 01:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Check the link - I fail to see a "strong consensus for a topic ban" - which goes to the OPs credibility in this action. Legacypac (talk) 10:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I cannot let that biased comment from Worldedixor go unanswered. Please refer to RFC/U and the Talk page in particular. --P123ct1 (talk) 23:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment The RfC/U has been closed because of inactivity (although I think everything that could have been said had been said, so I'm not sure why that was the reason). Worldedixor has been trying to get several editors sanctions/blocked for some time without IMHO grounds. Dougweller (talk) 11:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this looks like a thorny question. I see some pages of discussion (which to be honest I didn't read carefully) but I don't see any clear vote where consensus was firmly established. Stronger enforcement is not a good substitute for a better consensus. Put ANI away for at least a week or two and get some third opinions; my thought though is you just say sources X Y Z call them jihadist and I J K disagree, and move on. Sometimes it really is better not to peek at the pig in the poke (not to argue the underlying philosophical point) when making this sort of decision. Wnt (talk) 23:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support I essentially agree with P123ct1's description above regarding POV and OR. Gregkaye has removed jihadist calling it "terminology as bastardised by western media" in his edit summary. Many of us have shown that reliable sources in all newspapers use this word in a particular sense. He insists that Western sources are wrong and his particular Islamic sources should veto our usage. Stats show that jihadist and extremist are the most used terms. He rejects the former and says he can not "morally" allow its usage. As he has just said above "You stick with your values and I'll stick with mine" when it is a question of applying our common standards and not our personal values. Jason from nyc (talk) 23:55, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Jason from nyc What else is it? You mention a few sound bites and bypass any of the reasoning behind it. Jihad, according to Islamic sources, is a struggle for the ideals of Islam which may cover a has a wide range of meanings but not wide enough to cover many of the activities of a wide range of Islamic extremist groups. The word has deep religious connotations and yet many political and other commentators from around the world have taken up usage of the word to apply it largely to more extreme situations of abuse and violence. One of my comments was: "A further radicalisation of Islam that results from the false endorsement of murderers as being "jihadists" will result in a perpetuation of needless death. Its unqualified and needless use of this westernised wording is not something that I can support. I will not have blood on my hands." One of your comments was, "Jihadists do not follow Wikipedia" which completely misses the point and what "stats show" regarding the reach of this encyclopaedia. Wikipedia cannot be a soapbox for a the misrepresentative western interpretation of jihad. The "personal values" that I am presenting in reference to this murderous group are seemingly shared by the majority of the Islamic world. They want nothing to do with it. It's also worth comment that Worldedixor is one of the few Arabic users that we have. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The reasoning is (a) theological and (b) activist. You have an agenda to change the usage of the word jihadist as in jihadism when used in the English language in a restricted sense of armed struggle. We discussed this over and over: words have many meanings, jihad is not jihadism as Islam is not Islamism, etc. After long discussions you remind us of what you just said above, that in your opinion the common usage in English of jihadism leads to the ISIL's violence and it is your "jihad" to fight this usage even if you lose your editing rights.[77] Jason from nyc (talk) 11:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal - I propose to drop my complaint here if Gregkaye takes his issues to Dispute resolution noticeboard and agrees not to make potentially controversial edits (including furthering talk page disputes) until the DRN is closed.~Technophant (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Jason from nyc's comment. He nails it. RS dictate what we write, not a particular POV favored in some region of the world. We use the terms used in RS, mostly English ones (because this is the English Wikipedia), and English language sources use "jihadist" all the time, and document that these groups use the term themselves, when they encourage jihad. They identify with the term as their prime motive. Gregkaye may need a topic ban. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

In deciding the relevance of the use of Islamic wording in relation to an Islam related topic then Islamic sources may be considered to have some level of reliability - or would you prefer journalists etc. known as they are for the use of a wide variety of sensationalist spins to help them achieve their goals. Gregkaye ✍♪ 05:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If Gregkaye is to be banned from editing then I would prefer it be a ban on editing the article directly; limited to making suggested edits on the Talk page. This may not stop his POV pushing (which is problematic), however it will prevent disruptive editing of the article.~Technophant (talk) 07:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for editing back from "he".[78]

Very politic. Technophant's edit came not long after this constructive edit which somehow wasn't mentioned. Despite misrepresentation above I have not rejected the use of reference to "jihadism" but have stated that it needs qualification and that we cannot speak in Wikipedia's voice to sanction them in this way. I am honestly trying to find routes to resolution and, at any stage, would appreciate help. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Please drop the battleground tactics and consider my proposal above.~Technophant (talk) 07:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you dispute anything I have said then feel free to say what. For my part I dispute your claim of "edits that violate NPOV". All I am saying is that the questionable terminology "jihadist" should be given qualification. Above you claimed that a statement with basis was uncalled for and then added "You are just making yourself look bad". Meanwhile this thread is based on weak evidence with regard to which Wikidemon commented, "neither of you violated 1RR, which is why I called it a non-technical violation, meaning the spirit of things." Despite this my notifications indicator began blinking with rapid and prolonged regularity with "Technophant mentioned you" messages. You failed to mention my last edit. Absolutely I think by now I have every right to be wary but no, I don't bear a grudge. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have no grudge against you. Have you read the comments from other editors here? There's a problem with your approach to editing and resolving disputes and unless you offer up a solution (and quickly) you will most likely face sanctions. I don't want to see you topic banned but that's what may need to happen.~Technophant (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am editing this article since two weeks ago approximately, and I don't know the editors, but I have seen what is happening. It is very clear that Gregkaye is disrupting this article removing the words he doesn't like to read, and messing it up by puting criticism on the Lead, just because of his subjective personal opinion (Jason from nyc nailed it). This is an encyclopedic article and should not be an opinion piece, as Wikipedia is not a platform for expressing personal opinions. Gregkaye has been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. So I think something should be done to prevent disruptions. Felino123 (talk) 12:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Gregkaye has made positive contributions to the article, which makes it unfortunate that it has come to this, however we have discussed the Jihadist issue at great length and the consensus of other editors is clearly against his stance. Ideally we could all WP:MOVEON, however Gregkaye seems to be taking a very strong POV stance on this word usage which is not appropriate. Gazkthul (talk) 21:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose While Gregkaye and I have disagreed on content, in my experience around ISIL articles he has been quite a positive contributor who works to reach consensus. Technophant on the other hand has been pushing the use of "Islamic State" even after consensus decided to use ISIL for the title and the article. I requested he stop so he put me on the Syria Civil War sanctions warning list in retaliation. The users here trying to keep an mention of criticisms out of the lead are just misguided. Darn near the entire world is upset with ISIL - a huge part of the story. Legacypac (talk) 02:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment Legacypac's criticism is based on a false premise. The ISIL/ISIS consensus had nothing to do with the use of "Islamic State". The discussion was over a move from "ISIS" to "ISIL" in the ISIS article's text and nothing more. Secondly, editors have not been against criticisms being in the Lead. The dispute was over what weight to give them and how to present them in the Lead. Sorry to keep chipping in, but there has been some serious misrepresentation in this AN/I. --P123ct1 (talk) 15:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Quick observation This edit [79] shows that P123ct1 has changed their ANI comment after I, another editor, commented on it below, something that is not permitted by policy. This is not an attack. I am presenting to the closing admin a verifiable pattern of conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a dossier on me again, Worldedixor? Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support I am here since only two weeks ago, so I don't what contributions has Gregkaye done to this topic overall. If these contributions are important, then I appreciate them. But unfortunately we can not ignore his continuous disruptions of this article. When I criticized him for this, he answered that the opinion of imams about IS has much more value than the facts stated by the UN and Amnesty on their human rights reports on Iraq and Syria, because "Islamic criticisms" are "of more relevance than anything [...]". After this bizarre response, along with the info stated here by Jason from nyc, I can't believe he's editing objectively and in good faith. He's been warned several times, and he keeps disrupting this article. I think something should be done to prevent disruptions, given the fact that warnings and talking to him doesn't work. Felino123 (talk) 08:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support Persistent POV-pushing, editing against consensus and disrupting the collaborative work of editors all jeopardise the Wikipedia project. I have changed my mind about dispute resolution. I don't think it would work and support a topic ban, in order to protect all Syrian War-related articles. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Gregkaye (talk · contribs · logs) has nothing to support his claims that the islamic state "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", his only argument about how "the muslims are against the islamic state" (the only point of his "arguments") are wrong from its core from few reasons:

1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership that can renounce the islamic state in the name of the entire muslims world and islam itself.

2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates.

3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters.

he choose which muslim is "authority" and gives him the authority only in what he himself agree about(like al qaradawi renouncing of shia, alawites and the islamic state), gregkaye relies on "authority" which relies on gregkaye himself.

this is POV, period. and nobody can't deny it even if he ignore other of gregkaye's "arguments" about the islamic state's "morality" as it has anything to do with being jihadist or caliphate.

gregkaye also have obvious hard feelings about them and i already told him on the argument of me with him that he has too much hate for them and that he can't see them in a neutral way.

there is nothing that can serve as an excuse for his aggressive pushing of his POV, even if it wasn't aggressive at all cause wikipedia should be neutral at all cost. so what about the ridiculous accusations of "secret e-mails against Gregkaye" and the pointless talking about how much gregkaye has contributed to wikipedia?, do you get points that give you the right to push your POV? even if there was some "secret e-mails against gregkaye" that still doesn't gives him the right to force his POV.

and by the way i began editing articles only when i joined the discussion(you can see my ip on my first comments to him) and i know gregkaye's opposers as much as i know gregkaye himself, so you can forget from the "secret e-mails" consipracy.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wheels of steel0, Please don't misrepresent me. You put both phrases, "isn't jihadist" and "isn't caliphate", in quotation marks. They are not found in, Talk:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant.

You say: "1. religions like islam has no absolute leadership..." Thank-you, but when a significant section of Islam worldwide reject this murderous (non-jihad), Muslim killing (non-Jihad), territory hungry (non-jihad) group as being un-Islamic, then that has got to say something.

You say: "2. there is no islamic text(from the quran and other similar islamic texts) that can seperate the islamic state from other jihadists and caliphates." Thank you. They say you "can prove anything with the Bible". The parallel phrase seems to be given a more limited use with the Quran but this does not necessarily place limits on the "interpretation of the quran". Show me a text that says that a Jihadist can be a murderer, a Muslim killer and territorially ambitious.

You say: "3. the islamic state has its own muslim and muslim scholars supporters." Agreed. ISIL has its Islamic supporters and yet their view are very far from being contested within the Islamic world. Please look up Islamic interpretations of Jihad in a variety of sources and hopefully you will see the point.

My conclusion has long been that we can't speak in an unqualified way in Wikipedia's voice and sanction this murderous group as being "jihadist". Wikipedia, as a neutral source of information, can say that the group is described as being jihadist. We might also put the word in quotes or add a footnote to the text so as to present religiously legitimised alternate views on jihad. The footnote is not intrusive and this is now quite literally a case of "to [b] or not to be" which would be mind meltingly laughable were it not for the fact that, without some form of qualification, we will endorse this most extreme of extremist groups by use of the religious, Islamic terminology "jihadist". We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die. You can claim such a statement as "aggressive pushing" if you like but, please, get some perspective. Gregkaye ✍♪ 08:43, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for clarification on Syrian Civil War and ISIL sanctions - warning policy Re: Technophant. Gregkaye ✍♪ 07:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Gregkaye stop writing random mumblings as a comment for what i am saying in order to make it look like you had some argument or anything serious to say:

1.significant section of islam also consider shia and alawites as "heretics", it doesn't mean that you can use it to rewrite the defenition for jihad and caliphate and add new terms according to your own will. almost every caliphate and jihadist group has fought against other muslim groups and each one of them sought to expand their territory as much as they can.

2.show me a text about any kind of jihadist/caliphate that didn't commited murder and wasn't "territorially ambitious". you should also show me the text that appoints you to be the supreme authority in islam and gives you the ability to rewrite and add new stuff to islam as you wish.

3.you already provided an defenition of "jihad" but it has nothing to do with the difference between the islamic state and other caliphates and jihadistic groups, the only "point" in your comments is the new terms that you shove into islam in order to make it fit to your personal feelings on the islamic state organization.

so how you talk about "conclusion" and "qualified"? who qualified you to rewrite islam? who qualified you to dictate the authority of every muslim over islam? you even rewrites history with the way you ignores some parts of it.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Observation: I cannot tolerate injustice especially when I see a pattern of "selective" notification to influence a process. I, for example, was never notified of this ANI even though I was just 'one of the many' witnesses of Gregkaye's insightful contributions and his passionate dedication to the ISIS article. For the record, I am still not convinced of his Jihadist argument, yet I don't have sufficient knowledge or better arguments to convince him otherwise, but I won't just ban editors when I run out of logical arguments or because I don't like their approach to editing, or because he is in the way of my local consensus club of pals. If we want to address perceived disruption, we need to treat all disruptive behavior by all editors equally without any bias, let alone flagrant bias (especially those who bring forth any type of ANI with unclean hands, questionable credibility and a verifiable pattern of falsely asserting consensus and misleading well-meaning admins and editors with half truths).

Most importantly, I just observed something worrisome that is also compromising the normal consensus decision of this ANI process. As per WP:CANVAS, "canvassing which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior." P123ct1 is one of Technopant's (very small) "Local tagteam consensus" club at the ISIS article, and they clearly intend to influence the outcome of this ANI in order to ban Gregkaye and get him out of their way. One example of her intent is her unsolicited and inappropriate attempt to dismiss Legacypac's comment above. So, I am reporting what I saw which can independntly be verified at [80] (Specific Ref: WP:Votestacking), and I ask the closing admin to take it into consideration objectively. Worldedixor (talk) 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Worldedixor should have not been selective in his link (79). The full link to the exchange between Wheels of Steel0 and I shows that this is not canvassing but a continuation of an attempt made by both us, independently and each without knowledge of either having done so, to bring the very matter raised by this AN/I to the WP:Help Desk to get some guidance on the best way to proceed (their answer was inconclusive). Wheels of Steel0 specifically asks me in that exchange how the matter could be dealt with and I told him an ANI had been started. He is an inexperienced editor, as he said in that exchange, and was asking for help. This is really not the place to digress, but I cannot let these WP:PAs by Worldedixor on Technophant and I pass without comment. --P123ct1 (talk) 14:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Worldedixor, why don't just read gregkaye's "arguments"? he has nothing to say other than giving every muslim he wants an authority that no muslim can have over islam and rewriting islamic terms and islam itself as he wishes. just read our argument her and/or on the talk page in the ISIS article.

that line defines gregkaye real point behind his senseless rhetoric: "We will be unwitting participants in the further illegitimate radicalisation of Islam and people will die", he think that wikipedia should join the fight against this organization or else more people will die, and this is obviously not the way wikipedia works and we shouldn't let people to push their POV just cause they think they are helping people by making wikipedia an un-neutral propaganda tool against the IS organization.

so what about stop attacking his opposers as "small group"?, gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 13:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response I will gladly assume good faith as I don't have sufficient information to form an opinion of your conduct. I will also correct you. What you stated "gregkaye(and his one supporter that didn't participated in the discussion and infact has nothing to say on that matter other than blindly backing up gregkaye as a friend) are much smaller group of aggressive and pationate(as other people her has described him) POV pushers that act as if they own that article" is non-factual. You cannot lump me as a POV pusher when I clearly oppose his arguments on this particular matter and he has not yet convinced me, just as I oppose this ANI and banning editors who may be more knowledgeable than me in a certain area. I'd rather give them a non-confrontational, comfortable place to think with a clear mind, and give them the chance to improve their arguments, that may or may not influence me to support their contribution.

The ISIL article is a very controversial and heated article, and I am perplexed that we don't have over a 1,000 new editors contributing their diversified and insightful knowledge to the ISIS article. I have my opinion on this but I will keep it to myself for the time being.Worldedixor (talk) 17:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC) Lol! --P123ct1 (talk) 20:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

response Worldedixor i didn't called you a POV pusher, i talked about Legacypac which sided with gregkaye. and why you think that gregkaye know more than you about the subject? he has no special knowledge, he just pushing his POV aggressivly and count on that that people will just let him do whatever he wants.--Wheels of steel0 (talk) 18:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Response Now, your statement is clearer to me. I stand corrected. Worldedixor (talk) 18:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quick Comment I remember vividly how clueless I was in my first few weeks on Wikipedia when I was a new inexperienced editor, eight years ago. I am extremely impressed how well versed Wheels of steel0, an inexperienced editor, is in Wikipedia affairs. Kudos.

Also, P123ct1 has changed the order of Gregkaye's comment in an ANI without his permission [81]. This is neither an attack nor a grudge. This is a statement of a verifiable fact of P123ct1's conduct. Worldedixor (talk) 16:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive creation of AFDs (again)

Frequent visitors here may recall that User:MayVenn created several disruptive AFDs because they disliked an editor who had contributed to the articles in question. Well now we have a "brand new" account, created just a few days ago, doing something similar. That user is User:Geoffreyofmonmouth and the user who is being targeted by their AFDs appears to be User:MJT21, as was first noted by User:Andy Dingley. I, like Andy, think something is suspicious here, but I'm not sure what. I am requesting admin input regarding whether this is just a coincidence, or a blockable offense, or something in between. Sockpuppetry seems to be the most obvious explanation. Jinkinson talk to me 01:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Pedley
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Coulson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Mansfield Poole

I think this is probably more about Bedford Modern School than about one editor's work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Geoffreyofmonmouth and user:Bristolbottom have similar contributions, both making afd nominations of articles created by MJT21. Reasons for nomination are almost identical; MayVenn is targeting a different user and the style does not match. 82.132.212.9 (talk) 20:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, the style does not match, it's clear that MayVenn is not the same user as Geoffrey or Bristolbottom. Sorry if you got the (incorrect) impression that I thought that. Jinkinson talk to me 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Lia Olguța Vasilescu for redeletion

Or similar. Despite the heartfelt appeals of puppet "Osugiba" in a thread above, in a thread within WP:AN, and in a thread within the Help page, the article Lia Olguța Vasilescu was deleted (not by me). But later it was re-created, first (I think unobjectionably) as a mere stub (by User:Auric), and then enormously amplified in this edit by User:Nick, with the edit summary "expand article with text from external site under CC-BY-SA-3.0 licence".

Nick presents the source as this at Blogspot (which I've archived here). It's stuffed with Mediawiki markup and very obviously either is or pretends to be a Wikipedia scrape. Titled "fgfg", it's in a throwaway Blogspot account. (See the top page, doartest.blogspot.com.tr/.) Even if Nick had no idea of the history of the article, I wonder why he considered this to be a reliable source.

The earlier history of the article shows that it was created by one puppet ("Bagnume") of a banned user and then stoutly defended by another puppet ("Osugiba") of the same banned user.

I find Nick's re-creation of this article extraordinary, in one way or another (I don't know which way). And he's an admin, too.... I'd summarily delete/revert/protect it myself, but it might look as if I have some grudge against the biographee (whom I'd never heard of 24 hours ago), imaginably there's some rationale for copying in an article from "fgfg.html" within a throwaway blog, and so anyway I'll leave the job to somebody else, and also provide an opportunity for the defense of the article. -- Hoary (talk) 03:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The Blogspot page, although allegedly created in 2011, is an exact copy of this last revision made by Osugiba before the Wikipedia article was deleted. Also, if the Blogspot post was really written in 2011 how could the editor have used an image shot in 2013? Per WP:DENY I say the Wikipedia article should be stubbed back to Auric's translation. De728631 (talk) 06:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Blogspot post seems to be an unattributed copy of the recently deleted version of the Wikipedia article, which makes it a copyright violation. Nick may have been unaware that he was inserting text which was itself a copyright violation (though given the source, he really ought to have known better). If he really wants to take responsibility for the edits of the banned user, he's permitted to do so, though in that case he must restore the article history so that all past contributors are properly credited. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you had asked, I'd have fully explained. The article I 'imported' should be the version of the article as created originally by Iaaasi (using one of his enormous number of sockpuppets) which was speedily deleted yesterday as the work of a banned user which nobody else had made significant edits to. There are several editors trying to work with Iaaasi, trying to get him to stop breaching has ban by socking, and trying to get him into the position where he can be rejoin the community. The most recent plan is to try and get Iaaasi to write on a blog (which is what he set up yesterday) making content available to be imported into the project by an uninvolved third party.

This idea comes from a recent post by Jimbo, where he suggested those who can't work with the community but who still wish to contribute should consider setting up blogs, writing there, and releasing their work under the CC-BY-SA licence.

If you insist on the history being restored, I'll happily do that, though I specifically included the correct attribution template at the bottom of the article to properly attribute the author in the manner they had requested. Nick (talk) 10:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

De728631's post implies that the blog post contains the most recent revision by the sockpuppet prior to the article's deletion. If that's true, then your attribution template was not correct, since it failed to credit all the authors of the article other than Iaaasi. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeap, it looks like there's been a misunderstanding on what Iaaasi should have copied over to his blog, he's taken the last edit he made, when he should have taken the last edit he made before any other editors edited the page. I've restored the history of the page to cover for that problem, but it now creates the messy issue of the source text on the blog being a copyright violation and needing to be de-linked, which in turn takes us right back to the issue of the article being by a banned user with no significant edits by any other user. I'll try and get in touch with Iaaasi and get him to remove the offending text from his blog and replace it with the correct revision (which by my reckoning is [82]). Nick (talk) 10:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. It would also be great if he wouldn't falsify the dates of his blog posts, as that causes considerable confusion (as it did in this case) over which version of the text is the original. If he continues to do this, the folks at Wikipedia:Copyright problems may start removing all text imported from his blog(s) as presumptive copyvios. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

He's fixed the date issue too, he tells me he had simply overwritten a previous blog entry rather than trying to do anything sneaky with the date. Nick (talk) 11:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Great! I hope this endeavour at rehabilitation is successful, and that in a few months' time we can all welcome him back into the community. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I find this very concerning. Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Iaaasi describes this user as having been community banned due to nationalistic POV editing and edit warring, and there is a note at the top of User talk:Iaaasi warning that in addition to socking to circumvent the ban, the user has been e-mailing editors to proxy edit for him. Talk page access has been revoked for bias. In a well intentioned implementation of a plan by Jimbo, one of our most out-of-touch legacy admins, Nick overwrote an article that had been deleted under WP:Banning policy and recreated as a rules-conforming stub by another editor with a version posted by Iaaasi on an external site, thereby creating an attribution violation. This version of the article should be revision deleted and either Nick or some other goodhearted editor should use the sources to expand the stub, rather than meat-puppeting for Iaaasi. Or alternatively, someone should take full responsibility for the article expansion as is permitted under the banning policy and has been recently clarified by Arbcom here. Since Iaaasi was banned in part for violations of NPOV and I cannot read Romanian, I don't feel competent to do this; otherwise I would have stayed up late last night and fixed up this article. To simply import a version by a banned editor, especially without checking whether it involved restoring uncredited edits by others, was a well-meaning violation of the ban policy. It's also unfair to other banned editors, or editors whose work gets reverted on sight: for comparison, see this recently archived WP:AN discussion on banning an IP editor whose edits are generally good copyedits, and discussions about article creations by socks of the banned Pumpie and the globally banned Olha. Banned means banned. It is the nuclear option. (Moreover, as Jimbo apparently did not realize if he indeed suggested this, potentially useful edits by editors with behavioral problems, banned or not, do not consist entirely or even for the most part of largely solo article creation. That is not how a wiki works.) Either the community formally decides to unban Iaaasi, or rarely and with extreme caution individual editors explicitly take responsibility for and reinstate his edits, or we modify the ban policy. I would advocate in any case for being very clear in ban discussions that a ban is a total site ban and requires removal of all edits by the editor made after the decision is reached. The AN discussion revealed uncertainty about that, and we may therefore be being too hasty to ban. But end runs around bans are not a good thing. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • This. WP:PROXYING allows for edits on behalf of banned users if it can be shown that such edits are productive and/or verifiable and there are independent reasons for adding them. But an initiative of only a few editors to rehabilitate a banned user runs afoul of this policy and our general principles. Whether Iaasi or any other banned users are allowed to insert their original content at Wikipedia in order to return to good standing is to be decided by the community. De728631 (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm sure that Nick had honorable intentions. But I wrote above "I find Nick's re-creation of this article extraordinary", and after the explanation I still do. I'm not immediately sure of all the details of what Yngvadottir writes, but its general thrust seems right. However, there's also a more nuts-and-bolts question. There is of course nothing necessarily wrong with heavy dependence of an article on sources in Romanian. Unfortunately, I can't read Romanian. Can you read Romanian, Nick? If you can't, did you ask one or more dispassionate reader of Romanian to check the quality, or how else did you check the material? -- Hoary (talk) 23:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues. I'm satisfied that all of the information is correct and accurate, and that the article complies with the relevant policies concerning BLPs, as well as notability and reliability of sources. Nick (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• When dealing with an editor for whom AGF can apply, a quick check with Google Translate can suffice. I suggest that AGF shouldn't apply for a banned editor, and that a quick check with Google Translate is nowhere near adequate. -- Hoary (talk) 01:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• You can suggest many things Hoary but unless you actually can demonstrate a problem with the content, rather than the person who created it, this discussion is pointless, and I'm out. Nick (talk) 11:33, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: reusability of Wikipedia content is infinitely more important than the details of how we might try to deter banned editors. Since Wikipedia ought to be able to take CC-licensed content from other online encyclopedias with practicable attribution, and vice versa, it inevitably follows that we can take CC-licensed content from deleted Wikipedia entries. When this happens the decent way to close the loop is to identify the deleted content that we now find acceptable to keep on a live page, and undelete that content. Because obviously per CC the worst thing we could do would be to delete history revisions solely to conceal their attribution. Undeleting the history, and also undeleting any associated talk page revisions, also has the advantage of revealing what substantive problems people found with the text the first time. Whether the choice is to delete the article or to undelete the history, it should be done rapidly to show that CC is taken seriously; the choice of which to do reflects the outcome of the undeletion discussion or new AfD that would happen anyway. And if a banned user has used this to sneak some acceptable content into the encyclopedia, so what? You know you'll never catch them all! Wnt (talk) 15:13, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• @Wnt: I'm not sure how far removed our points of view ultimately are; and to complicate things, Jimbo has now said at my talk page that his statement on the topic has been misrepresented. Since I don't know where that statement is to be found, I don't know. However, we ban editors to prevent harm to the encyclopedia. In this case, an old one that I am unfamiliar with and linguistically ill-equipped to investigate for myself, at least partly because of non-neutral editing. Letting such a person's edits stand is ill-advised on that basis. Rather, if they can be shown to have reformed, let's unban them. That way we also avoid this kind of ridiculously complicated methodology involving blogs, not to mention the time sink of investigations and AfDs. On the other hand, if they are to stay banned, as Hoary says, they've exhausted the community's good faith and any edits made by their socks in defiance of the ban should be reinstated on an individual basis and with great care, with the person reinstating them explicitly taking full responsibility. It is my understanding that we just had an ArbCom case clarifying that. Part of my concern is that if we devalue a ban by enabling it to be circumvented as appears to be the intent here as a way of rehabilitating the editor, we open the door to more casual banning of other editors (as in my opinion we saw in the AN discussion on the IP editor); part is that it's simply unfair to other banned editors who don't happen to have supporters willing to work with them (and rewards e-mail and other off-wiki canvassing); and part is that it flies in the face of the motivation for their having been banned, which is to protect the encyclopedia. Altogether better would be to unban, since the issue really boils down to: is this editor's work a net gain or a net danger to the encyclopedia. Otherwise we should follow ArbCom's ruling and make reinstatement of such edits rare and very cautious. I believe an AfD to be far too narrow a scope for this. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, the main point here is that when a non-banned editor takes the banned person's text and adds it, they have the chance to put that text up under their own responsibility. Now that means that Nick, making this edit, can be held to account if there are clear BLP violations or something, but you'd have to show that. I think it should be a bedrock principle that when an editor in good standing adds valid content, there is no action that can or should be taken against that - there's nothing more fundamentally what Wikipedia is for than this. We don't rip out all the contributions a banned user has made to our existing articles at the moment of the ban; the text, if acceptable, stands. We can't allow tactical thinking to get so out of control that it attacks the encyclopedia instead of defending it. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

But they've been banned because their edits are deemed to have too high a risk of harm. We do forbid and rip out edits made after the ban. The question with respect to this article is whether what Nick restored was, in fact, ok; and it's a more complex situation than clear BLP violations, since the editor was banned for nationalistic POV editing. The broader question is what to do about this ban-evading editor. To unban him might indeed be best for the encyclopedia. But to bend over backwards to abet his ban evasion is bad for the encyclopedia on several levels, one of them being that his work is to be presumed not good. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually I pretty much agree with the principle "2) Banned editors" under [83] that was debated recently. They emphasize the cautiousness a bit more than I would, but the bottom line is, if a banned editor posts something, even after the ban, you can repost it under your own name, taking responsibility for that content. This is not a bug but a feature - for example, there are article subjects who come on and are contentious and get banned, but we shouldn't have BLPs where we aren't willing to listen to what the subject has to say, no matter what he's like to work with. As long as there's some human condom interposed between him and our content. Wnt (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, OK. But there are two kinds of problem here. One is a copyright problem: the last time I looked, the resuscitated WP article cited a (or the?) page in a throwaway blog, which in turn didn't indicate its authorship. (It merely said that it was posted by "punctul pe j", who later added the comment "fg".) Secondly, the editor doing the reposting strikes me as nowhere near sufficiently cautious about the worth of the material (given that this had been produced and vociferously defended by a banned user and his socks/cronies): dealing with sources in Romanian, he just "did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues". There's WikiProject Romania and WP:Translators available; if an article by a banned ideologue sporting this block log is so important, shouldn't a reader of Romanian be asked; and if a reader of Romanian needn't be asked, is the article so important? (It's interesting that the biographee only rates a stub in ro:WP, and has never had anything much longer.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The check performed here was inadequate for a banned editor, and the whole idea of the posting to a blog is deliberate circumvention of a ban. Either it's time to lift the ban or the blog idea is a bad one (which is why I would have expected Jimbo to say how it had been misinterpreted here). The copyright issue was indicative of the casualness with which this was done, but has now been fixed by undeletion of the previous versions - so we now just have an adequately attributed article that defies a ban and hasn't been seriously checked for NPOV. @Wnt: Very few article subjects are banned (I would hope.) Article subjects not being familiar with our processes and editors who have caused sufficient problems for the encyclopedia that they have been banned are two distinct groups. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The person to check with would be Nick, who added this material. He's an editor in good standing, and we should "WP:AGF" that he checked the content unless and until someone posts an actual reason why there's something wrong with it. Rules wise, it is as if he posted the content himself --- except for the galling ball-and-chain of a CC-attribution link to an external blog, but that's a copyright issue, not a policy issue; one which I would like to see resolved per above. Undeleting a few revisions of one article is not a very drastic thing to do to fix that problem, and is actually unrelated to the banning of any editor. But you can't rightly act to suppress Nick's content unless you make a case against him. Wnt (talk) 15:15, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

On second thought, I suppose I should dive a bit into the fundamental issue here. Suppose we didn't (for some obtuse reason) undelete the history. Well, in theory, we should still be able to cite Wikipedia for the content, provided some admin looks over the history and sees the history of the deleted version. This is because Wikipedia content is theoretically reusable. For example, if I write a book and illustrate it with a photo of the Alps taken from Commons, the publisher should not have to pull and pulp the run if Commons deletes the photo out of some overwrought moralizing about whether some tourists in the photo gave permission to be photographed on private property. Otherwise, most of Wikimedia's resources would be all but worthless for most uses apart from merely running the website, which could be done with far more restrictive releases to WMF for noncommercial use. The theory, as I've heard it said around here, is that Wikipedia doesn't break the freedom of its content with its ever-hungrier deletion processes because the content can still be attributed if you merely email an admin and ask for who the authors were. That is, yes, a nervous-making doctrine, but it's better than the alternative. So in theory you could do that directly, attributing the article to former deleted versions of the article that are unavailable. Now the reason why I don't like this of course is that it gives the impression of breaking attribution deliberately, with the purpose of hiding contributions from an editor you disliked/banned/whatever, which would not look good in a real copyright case I assume (IANAL). But because this principle is so basic to the function of any part of WMF, it really should be acknowledged! Wnt (talk) 15:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

At this point we seem to be drawing further apart. The copyright/attribution problem has been solved by the attribution, but by Nick's own admission he did not check the article for NPOV (and initially posted the content without even verifying that it was the version he thought it was). This does not conform to best practice with a banned user, nor to Arbcom's clarification. It would have been better for him to directly reinstate the version he wished to take responsibility for. It's also not fair to other banned users who don't have friends ready to go through such hoopla to try to rehabilitate their content. I've referred above to Pumpie: recent socks of that user have created stubs on metro stations and several users have complained about their being deleted on sight before others can evaluate and possibly adopt them, but that's the banning policy. Taking responsibility for a banned user's edits is supposed to be a rare and very cautious thing, so it is inappropriate to say we should extend AGF in this case simply because Nick is a user in good standing and an admin. My concern is for the ramifications of such an end run around policy for the encyclopedia - and also, if Iaaasi can indeed now be trusted to write neutrally, the largely unspoken assumption behind what happened with the revival of this article, we're shooting ourselves in the foot by not unbanning him. I think it's time for a proposal to unban him, and it seems it had better be here rather than AN? Yngvadottir (talk) 17:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yngvadottir please point out where I said I didn't check the article for NPOV or redact your incorrect accusation. I'd actually quite like an apology for that. Nick (talk) 18:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Sure. You wrote above in response to a query about how far you had checked the article: "I did a quick check with Google Translate to confirm the material was free from BLP issues. I'm satisfied that all of the information is correct and accurate, and that the article complies with the relevant policies concerning BLPs, as well as notability and reliability of sources." This does not even mention what I understand Iaaasi was primarily banned for—biased editing—you admit that (like me) you are unable to evaluate the use of sources in detail because of inability to read Romanian. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:06, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia has become rather infamous for discarding editors with a long history of productive edits (indeed, many of the names on the list of top editors of all time) based on a few problematic edits. (I have not attempted to determine if this is one of those editors) The logical corollary of that is that a third party who reads their offsite editing will, most of the time, find their writing to be acceptable for Wikipedia. Copying that one piece of writing does not, alas, give any guarantee that they will not say something sometime that could get them banned; it proves one piece is OK, when checked by someone else. I don't say this to dissuade you from trying to unban the writer (I have not developed any opinion about that) but only to emphasize that Nick need not be signing on to anything more than the text that actually passes through his cut and paste buffer. Wnt (talk) 19:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I note I just had to remove a whole bunch of (stupidly repeated) sock posts from another Iaaasi IP sock from this very thread. I'm sure Nick's efforts to "work with" Iaaasi are honorable and all, but if this effort of vandal appeasement is meant as a way to convince Iaaasi to respect Wikipedia rules, it clearly isn't working. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:09, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure they're Iaaasi socks, they're miles away from his usual ranges. I'm wondering if it's connected with the bunfight going on with Eurocentral et al. Nick (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor has little grasp of WP:BLP policy

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

---

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

After being blocked for edit warring to introduce BLP violations, [84], [85], [86], [87] (note misleading edit summaries and this conversation), Monart moved to Álvaro Sobrinho. They removed sourced rebuttals [88] and I warned them about this particular edit. Less than an hour ago he posted this on my talk page. The two sources he posted earlier [89] do not come close to backing up his assertions. Can something be done? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

As for my editing at Wikipedia: I am committed to the truth and no whitewashing. Monart (talk) 06:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I only looked at a couple of the diffs. They're pretty bad. Here, (no edit summary), it seems that he simply removes what he doesn't happen to like. And this nugget: Everybody in Portugal knows that. [...] These are pure facts and every child in Portugal know that. Let me do my edits, I am a profound connaisseur of these things. Uh, no. Neither profundity nor connoisseurship. -- Hoary (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And who is the one that put whitewashing edits in here? Be sure it is the person itself and he knows why! Just ridiculous what you are teling me. Monart (talk) 07:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Monart, let me check if I understand correctly. Knowing what everybody (indeed every child) in Portugal knows, you are a profound connoisseur of the truth. The truth may be unpleasant. If material conflicts with the truth, then it whitewashes the truth. Anything that whitewashes the truth, you remove with no explanation. Have I got that right? If not, which part have I got wrong? -- Hoary (talk) 07:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

ok, I understand what you mean. I am removing those parts in the article telling blablabla, just to confuse the reader and saying him how wonderful this person is. But here in Portugal this person has a negative taste. Like that - without removing blablabla - other important (negative) facts do not become relevant. This what I mean with whitewashing. Telling blablabla to make others mad. Monart (talk) 13:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What you write makes no sense whatever. Read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Nobody's interested in claims that everybody in Portugal knows W, that X is obvious, that Y makes you mad, that you are a profound connoisseur of Z, etc etc. If by contrast you want to write according to your personal experience of the truth, do so on some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 14:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I will do what ist right, and nobody tells me where I have to do it. Do you understand? Monart (talk) 16:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you wish to edit Wikipedia, you will be required to comply with our policies. Do you understand? AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Monart's persistent WP:BLP violations show that they don't understand Wikipedia policy, and their posts above show they have no wish to learn. Indefinitely blocked. Bishonen | talk 21:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC).
  • Good block, Bishonen. -- Hoary (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User Borsoka used sockpuppets

User Borsoka used suckpuppets in the Talk page of the Origins of Romanians, section called "What would be a neutral first sentence?". Name of suckpuppet: Thehoboclown and probably other names. Using suckpuppets Borsoka tried to show that majority of favorable comments. Thehoboclown also made illegal warnings.

Thehoboclown stated a few lines near Borsoka (similar phrases was used formerly by Borsoka):

"You might not realized, but your edits are clearly against the consensus and appears to be a POV push. You also might not understood, but the two theories are on the same level – there's no main view and other views, and shall be present accordingly. It is not the editors' work to decide whether a theory is more likely, "better" or whatever – theories must be present neutrally and it's up to the reader how s/he interprets it. Do not give undue weight to one theory over all others. Also, if you have objections, please raise them on the talk page rather than blindly reverting the widely accepted, consensus based version. In accordance with this, I have to note that you are close to edit-warring – if you continue your disruptive behaviour and go against the consensus instead of participating in the improvement of the article on the talk page I won't be shy to make the necessary steps needed in these cases. Please consider it as an official warning. Thehoboclown (talk)"

An investigation must start because of the weird influence of the Borsoka's suckpuppets in the pages of Origins of Romanians. Eurocentral (talk) 05:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What do suckpuppets suck? Do they suck mental energy out of Wikipedia editors? Do they suck drama out of the drama boards (which might be good)? Or do they just suck the ability to spell a common Wikipedia abuse? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Omigod! An editor who may or may not speak English as his first language, and who spends very little time on drama boards, has misspelled a term of art that has very little use in regular discourse. Quickly! We must rush to ridicule him. Not cool, Robert McClenon; you're usually so much better than that. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Urban DB: suckpuppet - although I don't think this is what OP is referring to. Ivanvector (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to make sure you, Eurocentral, know two things. First, phrases like "consensus", "POV push", "undue weight", "edit warring", "disruptive" are used in Wikipedia policies and therefore quoted by quite a lot of editors. Second, accusing other editors of sockpuppetry without lots of evidence is a personal attack. Considering you haven't presented a shred of evidence besides "Boroska used similar phrases at one point and they share similar opinions" (and you haven't quoted or presented a diff of one of Boroska's comments yet!) I find it hard to take your complaints seriously. --Richard Yin (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have notified the editors you are reporting. Stickee (talk) 06:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, I informed you on my Talk page how you should have initiated the sock puppet investigation against me (by the way, Thehoboclown is not my sockpuppet and I am not his sockpuppet). I would like to ask administrators to investigate Eurocentral's behaviour in WP. As I mentioned earlier (here [90] under the sub-subtitle "WP:NOTHERE: Eurocentral") Eurocentral is not here to build an encycopedia, but to destroy it. Yesterday I reported him for breaking WP:3RR. Interestingly, administrators have applied no sanctions against him either during the previous ANI, or during this last one. If Eurocentral's behaviour is acceptable in our community, I think that I should also change drastically my behaviour because I do not want to stay unprotected against an uncivil editor. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Eurocentral, would you share your experiences when you were used during a long period as a sockpuppet by the banned user Iaaasi ([91])? Borsoka (talk) 06:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is indeed a remarkable diff. Was Iaaasi merely fantasizing? If not, was Eurocentral what's called a meatpuppet hereabouts, and if he was, then how long did the meatpuppetry continue? (We do try to be polite, and thus avoid the term "suckpuppet".) -- Hoary (talk) 06:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral's accusations are blatant lies. I have already expressed my opinion about him, here. Fakirbakir (talk) 08:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Read what Wiki says aboutThehoboclown: Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title!

Eurocentral (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Obvious WP:BOOMERANG. The article was put up for RfC and I put my two cents in – just like 3 or 4 other users. Then, after reaching a consensus and rewriting the lead accordingly, Eurocentral started to restore the version he preferred, for what he got polite but clear warnings, including mine (above).

It rather tells a lot about his approach to wikipedia, that this single contribution of mine led him to accuse Borsoka and me with sockpuppetting. Considering he did not submit an SPI, it pretty much looks like he tries to discredit certain users, even via such kind of personal attacks. Though, it's not unique from him, as he described Borsoka as "A commentator with 2 faces. Of course he will add the aid of his Hungarian colleagues in order to introduce his nationalistic ideas" or "Some hungarians, furious of their nomadic origin, see nomads in old Europe!!", making me to think that he lacks certain competences that are necessary to be a Wikipedian, including factual, social and bias-based competences.

To put up the issue on the ANI noticeboard thus escalating his disruptive behaviour also underlines his battleground mentality – he is not only unable to accept the consensus and unable to work in cooperation, but ready to go the furthest just to discredit and to throw the mud on others. Thehoboclown (talk) 10:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

There were only usual edits:by the way, I asked commentators to put at the Talk page (Geographic space) of the Origins of Romanians, anything they want for a complete space (I proposed Dacia for continuity and Roman provinces for other theories). But there were NO replies. Instead there were accusations ! Again I ask commentators to add something to debate about geographic space. Only debates. I have a lot of references about this topic

Also Borsoka refused phrases (presented in the Romanian history pages) to be added in the Hungarian history pages. He wrote about a lot of disputes between Romanian and Hungarian historians, but he refused to show these disputes in the Hungarian pages. This kind of double dealers are not useful when approaching Romanian and Hungarian history. Eurocentral (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Eurocentral (talk) 12:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, after a consensus was reached by other editors during an RfC, you declared that you want to return to your original version ([92]) and soon opened a new subtitle on the same subject on the same Talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AOrigin_of_the_Romanians&diff=628758492&oldid=628757023). Within six hours I responded you under the new subtitle (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Origin_of_the_Romanians&diff=next&oldid=628758492). Even so, you returned to your version in the article ([[93]]), thus ignoring the consensual text agreed upon by other editors. Eurocentral, as I have times mentioned to you ([94]), you are always abusing scholars' names in order to substantiate your own original research: in the "Origin of the Romanian" article Gottfried Schramm is cited in connection with a debate over the Romanians' ethnogenesis, you copied the same sentence to the "Hungarian Conquest of the Carpathian Basin" article, although Schramm did not write of debates among historians in connection with the Hungarian Conquest. As I mentioned to you, you cannot refer to Schramm in connection with all debates between Romanian and Hungarian historians, because he did not write about (for instance) Gelou which is also subject to scholarly debate between Romanian and Hungarian historians ([95]). Borsoka (talk) 13:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Schramm has a general appreciation of relations between Romanian and Hungarian historians based on political bases ! You

changed the Schramm ideas. Here is an important issue of Hungarian history pages: the lack of objectivity (as I wrote in the Talk pages of Carpathian conquest...) You brought a lot of observations against statements of Romanian historians in Romanian pages but you erased all observations made by Romanian historians in the Hungarian pages. This is a lack of objectivity characteristic to a non objective person. You need to understand that WIKI needs equal politics in all pages. Eurocentral (talk) 05:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, would you verbatim cite what Schramm writes and in what context? Would you demonstrate how I changed Schramm's ideas? Would you also list the cases when I deleted any "observations made by Romanian historians in the Hungarian pages"? You are always making empty declarations and accusations. You are always declaring wars. You are not here to build an encyclopedia, but to destroy cooperation and to harass other editors. Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is falling into a content dispute. Take that back to the page; focus on user conduct here. ansh666 17:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ansh666, why do you think that the above statements about me ("double dealer", "non objective person", etc) can be regarded as a content dispute? Borsoka (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the main part of what you two are talking about is what sources can be used to cite a specific body of content - not an issue that can be dealt with here. ansh666 17:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. So any editor can make any statements of any other editor on this page without consequences. Interesting. I will remember it: "When in Rome do as the Romans do". Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm that's not what I meant, and you know it. ansh666 06:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I do not know and do not understand. If an editor states that I "changed Schramm ideas" or "erased all observations made by Romanian historians", I can only prove that these are empty accusations if I aks him/her to cite examples. This is not a content dispute, this is a dispute about the credibility of editors. And I do not know whether you know it. :) Borsoka (talk) 08:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Back to the subject at hand: Pardon for throwing my hat in the ring, but I've read Eurocentral's comments and edit summaries and it seems obvious to me that he (or she?) is on a personal crusade to assert any edits and arguments that may support his favored ideological narritive; and it seems to me that he sees editors like Borsoka as enemies. You have seen that he is not above making blind accusations of deceit and sockpuppetry or making sweeping generalizations of Hungarian historians or editors. It seems to me that to him, this is a war between him (Romanians) and Hungarians. It seems that to him this is not about historical accuracies or truths. I'm afraid that he won't stop waging edit wars against Borsoka, and it is said that he is collaborating or has collaborated with the banned user and sock-master Iaaasi. It seems to me that his ideological POV needs to be put across and nothing else will do. Well, that's my take on all this.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 09:42, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

User:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit is a very suspect account. It is clear that this is not a wiki novice. Initially blocked as a sock, he was unblocked on [[User talk:TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit] with the motivation that his IP geolocatres on another contient. The motivation offerred by TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbi was that he was until now a "long-time lurker ", a spectator, who was "watching with interest the current edit/conflict wars between Borsoka and User:Eurocentral." and decided now to intervene. TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit should also be blocked as a "single purpose account" created to attack other editors.

Eurocentral (talk) 12:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Eurocentral, were the above sentences suggested by banned user Iaaasi to you? Based on my experiences, I am sure that you could not write the above sentences alone. Borsoka (talk) 13:59, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I have not made ad hom attacks against any editors, but merely commented on your behavior which is apparent to anyone who notices. Yet you're not above making personal attacks, as you made here or anywhere else. Besides, are you admitting that you are waging edit wars between Borsoka and other editors?

NOTE TO ADMINS and Borsoka: If my commentary is not constructive, let me know and I will withdraw.TrixAreForKidsSillyRabbit (talk) 13:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

After being mentioned once again, Eurocentral, would you please share what do you exactly accuse me and the other mentioned users of? Please, don't forget to add evidences that support the accusations. If you would fail to do so, I'd like to ask an administrator or any non-involved user to be so kind and close this discussion as it is a made-up story and leads nowhere. Also, I have to remind you, Eurocentral, accusing others without presenting strong evidence(s) may be taken as a personal attack and as such, it may have consequences. Please, take it as an official warning. Thank you. Thehoboclown (talk) 13:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Admin Gamaliel - alleged misuse of tools

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

---

This[96] is Gamaliel's statement about what happened, left on his talk page.

In what I judge to be most relevant part, G writes:

... my desire to assist the encyclopedia and my fellow editors and to protect living individuals who are written about here has come into conflict with my need to spend less time on Wikipedia. As a result, in regards to ((two very messy Wikipedia conflicts, both driven by outside agitation, the Gamergate controversy and the article on Neil DeGrasse Tyson)), I have made several egregious errors. Those errors, I now realize, have come about through my desire to help Wikipedia in the quickest way possible so I could return to my other obligations. I didn’t realize it at the time, but I took shortcuts to speed up my involvement which actually ended up wasting much more time for myself and other editors. I believe my motivations and the desired results were all appropriate ethically and conformed to Wikipedia norms and policies, but my circumventing or not completely following regular procedures was inappropriate and did more harm than good, to myself and others.

...

At Neil DeGrasse Tyson, the subject of the article has been repeatedly denigrated by a particular editor on the talk page. While I was an uninvolved party with Gamergate, at Tyson's article I voiced my opinion enough on the talk page that I felt it inappropriate to take certain actions like imposing a topic ban. What I should have done was immediately sought such a ban on WP:ANI, but instead I redacted a comment here, warned the user there, all actions that took little time, in hopes that the whole matter would go away on its own. My refusal to take the necessary steps required allowed this matter to escalate, until this editor posted a comment so egregious it required revision deletion, and then that editor came to my talk page to harangue me about it for three days until I finally blocked him for harassing me after repeated requests that he disengage. While given this editors behavior, I believe a block was appropriate and inevitable, at no point in this process did I take the appropriate actions required by process and policy to appropriately deal with this matter. My desire for a speedy resolution led to my taking a number of inappropriate actions and wasting a great deal of time for myself and a number of other editors...

...I ((was)) trying to do as much as possible in as little time as possible, and it has become abundantly clear to me this evening that my attempts to do so have caused me to make these significant errors of judgment. As a result, I think it is time for me to disengage from Wikipedia for a extended period of time, perhaps a month or more... I will continue to edit to fulfill my obligations to the Wikipedia Signpost and the Wikipedia Library as best I can, but I will try not to participate in general editing, administrative actions, or noticeboard discussions.

The "editor ((who)) posted a comment so egregious it required revision deletion", and who was subsequently blocked (and, unmentioned, unblocked) by Gamaliel, was me, the revision deletion[97] is still in effect, and the first action I wish taken is that that revision deletion be reverted.

Gamaliel's engagement in the content disputes at Neil deGrasse Tyson amounted to significantly more than the "voic[ing of his] opinion... on the talk page" that he admits to. In particular, he reverted my second attempt, after more than a week of fruitless discussion, to repair an omission in the text with the comment, "I really don't have time for this bullshit right now."[98] (The "bullshit" facts in question have since become fairly stable on the page, I believe, but you never know.) The significance of this is that is shows he was WP:INVOLVED and that his subsequent revdel of my response to a personal attack on my attempting to insert the material can be fairly interpreted as a violation of the "nutshell" at WP:Administrators, "Administrators are... expected... to use the tools fairly, and never to use them to gain advantage in a dispute."

The revdel was an action only available to an administrator, and as such Gamaliel was obligated to "((respond)) promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about ((his)) administrative actions."[99] I accordingly went to his talkpage and informed him that I would be objecting to the revdel and requested access to the deleted words so that I could properly defend them.[100] (This is a link to a complete transclusion of my conversation with Gamaliel on his talk page which I did after the block as a way of representing it fully, despite his deletions of my postings, for the convenience of potentially unblocking admins.)((addition: Missing my last two comments, but with some Gamalael responses, see here.[101])) He declined to do so on the grounds that "providing you with those offensive comments would lead to... another soapbox to discuss negative, evidence-free theories about a living individual". He initially admitted that my inquiry had been a polite one, but rapidly descended into calumny, mischaracterizing what I had said, claiming that I had repeatedly made "racist" assertions, and "insist[ed] on making blanket racist assertions", while refusing to provide diffs of them, and threatened me with "blocking and/or profanity in multiple languages" if I did not "go away". He "archived" our conversation, deleted my further reminder to him of his "duty as an administrator to [respond] promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about [his] administrative actions" and, after I again reminded him "that 'go away' is an out-of-policy response to a civil inquiry as to [his] administrative actions", deleted that and blocked me for 24 hours. Some time after that he unblocked me with the comment, "Harass away!".

Initially he protected his talk page so thet I could not, in fact, continue to "harass" him about his admin actions and continued unsupported insults, then he posted the text I excerpt above. I had by then decided it was past time to defend my reputation here.

So, (a) I would like my response to this personal attack[102] restored to the record. And, (b) I would like to initiate whatever process is necessary to deprive Gamaliel of his admin tools, until such time as a period of good behavior may indicate he can again be trusted with them. Andyvphil (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I have posted the revdel'd response to a personal attack, here, off-Wiki: http://prntscr.com/4yjo8c .

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to settle scores or kick an admin whom you think has melted down. Apparently you made a reply to a post by Marteau at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson four days ago. The post was this, and your reply was rev-deleted. You raised the issue with the admin (Gamaliel) who deleted your comment in a discussion which can be seen here. The first reply you received included "You have repeatedly suggested that a prominent and successful academic of color was a failure as an academic and only succeeded as a result of affirmative action, despite ample evidence of his achievments in his field. This is incredibly offensive and racist, even if you do not mean it to be, and I find it particularly offensive personally as an academic who is a racial minority myself."

What benefit to the encyclopedia would result from pursuing this issue further?

TP emailed the deleted comment to you, and then removed it from his talk after (apparently) you posted it there. He then requested that you do not post it (diff). Why would you want the comment restored? Johnuniq (talk) 09:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You have picked a remarkably tendentious and misleading path through the facts of this incident. In your quote from Gamalael he asserts I have made racist statements repeatedly. He revdel'd only one posting. If what he says is true it should not have been difficult to find another. He hasn't done so, you haven't done so, it can't be done. And when the revdel is reversed it will be seen that what he describes did not happen on that occasion either. Andyvphil (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• What a nasty section heading. Objective3000 (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you the one that changed it? It's understood, I expect, that that the header is written by the individual filing the charge. I don't see where "possible" has been inserted in anyone else's header. Gamalieal abused the tools. That's what I said. On what grounds and with what authority are you saying that I can't say THAT, either? Andyvphil (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Quite honestly, Andyvphil, you are very lucky to have avoided a topic ban; if this matter ever got to arbitration I think it highly likely that you would be banned from editing BLPs in general, never mind just this article. I've had only a small amount of involvement in the discussions but I've been struck by how aggressive you have been, not only towards other editors, but towards the article's subject, for whom you appear to have a very strong dislike. It's been a textbook example of how not to approach a BLP. For your own sake I would suggest you pipe down or you may find this latest complaint WP:BOOMERANGing against you. If it did it would be well deserved. Prioryman (talk) 12:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"Go away" from Gamaliel, "Pipe down" from you. You and your friend are an arrogant pair. I hope that at least you don't have the admin bit. Andyvphil (talk) 14:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Prioryman is a former administrator and long-term contributor to this site — he's been editing for 11 years as of this month — but that's beside the point. There is a very broad consensus that your edits have been inflammatory. As the saying goes: "If you find yourself trapped in a hole, you might want to stop digging..." Kurtis ^(talk) 02:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• If you think your ridiculous (and frankly racist) BLP violation that was rev-deleted will (a) be restored, and (b) is at all appropriate at Wikipedia, I suspect the only action here will be a BLP topic ban boomeranging back very quickly. I've seen people blocked for less. Black Kite (talk) 13:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Another guy who calls me "racist" without evidence. I've seen comments revdel'd for less. Indeed, mine were. Andyvphil (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Black Kite is pretty clear here: your BLP violation was racist, they say, and I happen to agree. A procedure wonk like you should appreciate the careful phrasing. What this says about you, that's up to you to decide. Drmies (talk) 18:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

To quote a word I've heard a couple times during this incident, "Bullshit". Andyvphil (talk) 07:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• What the heck is wrong with you that you would think that opening this here was a good idea? After everything that you have done, and were unblocked on a legit technicality and the good faith of others believing you were not meaning to make racist claims, you come here with this garbage? I've been following this on the TNG, Gamaliel and TP Talk pages. You have been given every benefit of the doubt but this is too much. If you do not understand that your edit was at the very least a gross BLP violation and can be considered race baiting, then you should be topic banned from all BLPs. Sheesh. Dave Dial (talk) 14:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You possess a copy of what I wrote? Or are you taking Gamaliel's word for it?Andyvphil (talk) 15:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• • I think the editors above are ignoring the issue. What Andyphil did is not the issue. Gamaliel clearly abused his powers as an admin. He blocked an editor for posting on his talk page and then flippantly unblocked when basically forced, finally locking his own talk page. Gamaliel could have easily reported Andyphil for harassing him on his talk page. Admins are given powerful tools. When those tools are misused the system suffers. Thus the question is, "Does Gamaliel suffer any consequence for the misuse of his Admin tools or do the actions of Andyphil justify the misuse of the Admin tools?" I think you have to be careful about justifying the misuse of tools simply because you don't like the other person. Arzel (talk) 14:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Well, very simply because this isn't the venue for any attempt to remove admin tools; that needs to be ArbCom. This page can, however, deal with an editor who from a reading of that talk page is clearly not neutral regarding the subject, is persistently angling for negative material to be included, and on the occasion mentioned above - which has been rev-deleted - went right over the BLP line. Black Kite (talk) 14:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Policy is that what we write be NPOV, not that we are "neutral regarding the subject". Gamalael is not "neutral regarding the subject". Apparently he identifies way too strongly ("I find it particularly offensive personally...", see above) to maintain self-control in his use of the tools. Andyvphil (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So is the issue about not understanding our BLP Policy or that you're angry about being blocked by what you claim is an involved admin? For the sake of perfection I agree that it would have been better to get someone else to do the block, but there has been little disagreement that your block was correct. I think you're beating dead horse at this point and recommend you find a way to move on.--MONGO 15:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The issue is that Gamaliel blatantly misused his tools and shows no sign of recognizing that he did so. As to why at this point he does not understand BLP policy, I have not a clue as to his mental processes. Andyvphil (talk) 15:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

So wait, you're taking a post he made that says "I screwed up, here are the ways I could have done this better" and interpreting it to mean that he shows no sign of recognizing that he screwed up? Something isn't computing here if that's your argument. I agree - and he seems to agree too - that his taking actions himself wasn't ideal, but unless you can establish a repeated history of tool misuse - in which case you should be talking to Arbcom, not ANI - then his acknowledging his mistake, apologizing, and saying how he plans to avoid this problem in the future seems to pretty well have resolved this issue before you ever opened this thread. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 15:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Never mind incivility and the refusal to substantiate accusations of blatant repeated racism, his unreasonable refusal to provide me with the text of my own words so that could defend them, his failure to recognize that policy required explanations of his actions as an administrator that weren't plainly falsehoods... yeah, never mind all that and things are pretty much resolved. Not. Andyvphil (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• I haven't been following this at all; I read a good chunk of the NDGT talk page just now but frankly tl;dr. What I see is that Andyvphil repeatedly and disruptively demanded to frame a BLP in a POV which the sources did not support, despite being asked to stop by a large number of editors, and was blocked after posting an egregiously racist comment (as it's been described here; I can't see it). The blocking admin admits that they did not follow proper procedure, and it's pretty clear they were WP:INVOLVED, but I fully support Gamaliel's action as entirely appropriate per WP:IAR and WP:BLPREMOVE. For their history of negative editorializing on the talk page, and then coming here to demand action against the admin and demanding that the egregiously racist comment be restored, I also fully support topic-banning Andyvphil from this subject or from all BLPs, as they clearly don't understand that NPOV, BLP and WP:NOTFORUM are policies, and their repeated disruption is harming the project. Ivanvector (talk) 15:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This clown fully supports banning me for an "egregiously racist" comment he hasn't seen. Sheesh. Andyvphil (talk) 15:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• My spidey sense is telling me that this thread is going to end with the OP indefinitely blocked...2607:FB90:2408:451E:4C78:7A90:F639:1B63 (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

This guy thinks he has a "spidey-sense", but apparently it doesn't tell him anything relevant to say on the subject. Andyvphil (talk) 16:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I think, from what I saw of the Tyson dispute, that Gamaliel was just at the end of his rope. Bearian (talk) 19:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Gamaliel seems to have snapped a bit under stress, caused in no small part by Andyvphil. An admin in such a situation (I've been there myself) deserves sympathy, not condemnation. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mostly agreed, however, I feel the reporting editor would deserve the same consideration, at the least. I have a general concern of over involved-ness actions being taken recently, and in this situation there aren't many clean hands. Gamaliel has enunciated his mistakes in administration in his talk page statement, so I am confused why Andy seems to be the topic of conversation. Arkon (talk) 01:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban of Andyvphil

I believe I've seen all I need to from Andyvphil, just from this thread, to get the impression that he has absolutely no interest in following our policies on WP:BLP or WP:NPOV. Several editors, above, have proposed and supported the idea of a topic ban, and I'm calling that question. I am not calling for a block or community ban, despite the fact that an editor who fights for the inclusion of obviously racist statements and responds to criticism by calling other names isn't usually long for this project. But I believe the application of discretionary sanctions here is justified. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

"...fights for the inclusion of obviously racist statements..." Diffs, please. Sheesh. Andyvphil (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And, without diffs, or an immediate retraction, you ought to be a candidate for BOOMERANG yourself. Of course, the shameless disinterest in Gamaliel's obvious misuse of his tools on display so far (with one(1) exception) doesn't indicate that "ought" has the big battalions. Shameful, too. Andyvphil (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

See below. I don't know whether Gamaliel's actions were right or wrong, and I made no mention of them. This thread is about your edits, and every single one of them seems to prove my point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

What part of "diffs" for "...fights for the inclusion of obviously racist statements..." is beyond your ken? Or, lets make it even easier, how about quoting one of those "obviously racist statements" (they weren't all in the revdel, were they?) that I've fought to include, so we know what you're talking about, instead of just having dark insinuations? Andyvphil (talk) 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us who don't want to wade through the wall of text upthread, could you please clearly state the scope of the proposed topic ban? —Psychonaut (talk) 16:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the edit is revdel'ed, that would be difficult. Andyvphil posted disparaging remarks about a living person at the talk page for that person's article, and did so without citing sources or proof to support those assertions. The remarks had racial overtones, in that (from my reading) they implied that the subject's success is due to their race, rather than due to any other factor. That's bad, and the kerfuffle that resulted involved Andyvphil being blocked and unblocked by the admin under discussion above. But what cemented the issue for me is the fact that, in virtually every edit to this discussion, Andyvphil has defended his statement. He has repeatedly assured us that it will be restored (spoiler: that is unlikely), and has failed to even acknowledge that BLP might apply to such comments about a living person. Given that he misunderstands our policies so thoroughly, I don't see how he can be permitted to edit any BLP, or on any topic involving a BLP. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:55, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Or you could just unrevdel it, or put it (or authorize me to put it) in my user space or here, for examination. It's not shocking. No possibility whatever attaches of Wikipedia being sued. Andyvphil (talk) 05:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This individuals actions here and this thread plus the rev del comment (discussed above) indicates that he should be banned at least from NDGT or more preferably from BLP in general. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban. I am enormously unimpressed by what I've seen and think at the very minimum, a 3 or 6 month ban would be sensible to protect the project and allow Andyvphil to get up to speed on the policy and moral implications of the BLP policy. Nick (talk) 16:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I defer to consensus on the duration - and would not object to an indefinite topic ban. But 6 months would be the minimum, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, was thinking (but didn't write it down) that it would be indefinite with opportunity to appeal (or the ban be reviewed) after 3 or 6 months, rather than a ban which expired after 3 or 6 months. Nick (talk) 16:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban - I agree with Nick that at the very minimum this should be the result. Perhaps after 6 months if the editor understands BLP policies, the topic ban can be lifted. But I think the editor must understand the violations made here. Dave Dial (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• involved neutral/weak oppose Andy certainly needs an attitude adjustment as the tone of his comments above indicates, but his core complaints are not without merit. There are sources (including direct statements from NDGT [103] [104]) backing the information Andy wants to include (being flunked/kicked out, etc) . He may have crossed a line in the way he discussed those items on the talk page, but I am not sure this justifies an indefinite topic ban. There may be weight or editorial judgement arguments against inclusion for the information about Tyson, but the repeated characterization of anything negative about him being a BLP Violation is weak sauce at this point. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You do realize I haven't had anything to do with that section of NDT since Gamaliel reverted me on October 17? Andyvphil (talk) 17:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - A decent percentage of contributions to mainspace but almost all to highly contentious topics, which is a bad sign. It would be good to see what precise editing has been done to Barack Obama, for example, before conclusions are drawn. Carrite (talk) 17:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Have I edited Barack Obama since 2008? I remember arguing for including the description in the New York Times that his church was "Afrocentric" and being told (this was before the chickens came home to roost) that his religion was irrelevant. Wikipedia being a reality-free zone didn't start in 2014. But it's gotten worse. Andyvphil (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

His religion is Christian. You got a problem with that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeremiah Wright? Chickens? "God damn America!"? You could look it up. Andyvphil (talk) 17:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If you had even the vaguest clue of what black people have had to put up with in this country, and still do, you might understand why Wright said that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Gotta run for now, folks. Have fun. Andyvphil (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Andy you are not helping your situation with those comments. Take a deep breath and relax. Arzel (talk) 17:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I am relaxed. The three-minute hate is amusing and will, I hope, prove instructive. Andyvphil (talk) 00:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Most this is a disagreement about whether Andyvphil actually made acutely racist remarks. Since 2008 he has apparently been editing without any similar accusations, and now because of this the mob is out to burn him at the stake. Granted I don't agree with his approach on this issue, but he does have a valid argument for being upset and simply wants justification for what he feels is an abuse of Administration tools. Put down the torches and try to understand why he is so upset. Arzel (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Hold it Now, I'm not one to support racism - at all. I oppose anything that counteracts equality. That said, we're swirling down a drain here. Andyvphil has repeatedly asked Gamaliel for diffs, and in this thread has asked all of you for diffs. The responses have been:
  • "you may find this latest complaint WP:BOOMERANGing against you"
  • "your ridiculous (and frankly racist) BLP violation that was rev-deleted"
  • "believing you were not meaning to make racist claims"
  • "This thread is about your edits, and every single one of them seems to prove my point."
• I'm not saying we don't topic ban Andyvphil. I'm saying let's do this the proper way so we're on morally high ground even if Andyvphil isn't. We arn't better people simply for having a knee jerk reaction that makes everyone feel good. We are only better people when we follow procedure. If someone would do the work to collect diffs, there could be no opposition. The response to me needs to be diffs, not more talk. Assertions and accusations prove nothing, only diffs.--v/r - TP 17:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I thought the diff had been revdel'd. Tiderolls 17:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It has been. This diff from his talk page seems to sum up the sentiment rather well. Negative assertions about the subject without RS. We don't just throw theories about for fun, especially when the subject is a living person. Surely other diffs exist, and some are discussed below. This is the (un-revdel'ed) one that stood out to me. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The revdel'd diff looked a bit weak to me to call this editor a racist. It amounted to saying that the sources support the fact that NDGT didn't complete his first thesis. And then a question that could be seen as race baiting but could have been a honest question. However, seeing the editor's comments about B.O. above regarding "afrocentric" church - I just give up. This editor is obviously race-minded and I'm not interested in wasting my energy anymore.--v/r - TP 19:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you miss the bit about "afrocentric" being being a quote from that racist publication, the NEW YORK TIMES? And that omitting that entirely demure characterization of the Rev. Wright's church disimproved the article by failing to provide any hint of the fact that Obama was going to a church which featured a pastor who palled around with Louis Farrakhan and Gaddafi and who characterized 9/11 as "the chickens coming home to roost"? Even if you think Wright was perfectly right in his every act and word, what was the justification in hiding the facts from Wikipedia's readers, before reality forced its way onto the page, albeit still through a determinedly hagiographic filter? Andyvphil (talk) 01:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: That's not to say I approve of Gamaliel's involved block. I don't. But I am willing to give Gamaliel the benefit of the doubt that this was an out of character emotionally driven bad judgement call that he can be forgiven for. No pattern of this type of behavior exists for Gamaliel.--v/r - TP 19:38, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban (involved) I have read the removed edit and never want to see it again in an encyclopedia. I find the fact that he wants to defend it disturbing. But, even before that edit, I thought two previous edits appeared racist in nature and asked him to explain them. And ignoring anything to do with race, his constant hostility disrupted an already difficult discussion, likely harming his own case. Objective3000 (talk) 17:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support BLP Neil deGrasse Tyson topic ban. The material Andyvphil wants to add may be verifiable but he insists that the article must use the negative terms he selects, and does so in a way that reveals his racist motivation for framing the subject in a negative POV, and absolutely refuses to drop the stick when numerous editors point out that this is wholly inappropriate behaviour in general, not just on Wikipedia. If he cannot see through his bias then he should not edit BLPs. Ivanvector (talk) 18:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Some more of Andy's negative editorializing: [105], [106], [107] Ivanvector (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It is not true that I insisted on my "negative terms".[108] Nor do I see anything at the diff you characterize as "reveal[ing] my racist motivation" that reveals anything other than a remarkable... or, in this environment, apparently unremarkable... willingness to characterize political differences as "racist". Andyvphil (talk) 01:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Revised: Having gone through Andy's contribs to find those diffs, I find that he's quite capable of editing civilly and constructively, and capable of wading through disputes, and blocking him from editing BLPs would overall be a detriment to the project. However, the diffs show he's got a hate on for NDGT, and he should not edit related articles. Generally he would be well-advised to take a break when the editing gets hot, but he's not unlike a lot of other editors in this regard, and I don't think further sanctions would be of any benefit. Ivanvector (talk) 19:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I plead guilty to having a more negative view of Tyson than is common among Wikipedia's editors. Now, if this had resulted in combat "for the inclusion of obviously racist statements", that would be a problem. Howver, that's just a falsehood. A lie. And there's no basis in policy for the proposition that Tyson's article be entrusted solely to his admirers. Andyvphil (talk) 04:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. First, nobody has even attempted to make a case for a topic ban, they've just put it up for a vote and restated what look like WP:INVOLVED positions both on the substance of the article content and the biographical subject of the article, and also on what looks to be an unwise administrative action. The only obvious misstep of Andyvphil here is a WP:STICK violation, something that's usually cured by ignoring it and waiting a couple days. Second, this looks like a ganging up and hasty advocacy, a zealous application of WP:BOOMERANG to feed the schadenfreude of AN/I, not a serious attempt to protect living people or avoid disruption on the encyclopedia. Missing are any of the preliminary steps of gaining consensus, de-escalating things, calming down, incremental behavioral actions, remedies like bans being a last resort, etc. Third, a BLP ban is effectively a ban from the encyclopedia because every article, arguably, implicates living people. It is a stretch to say that the content issue that brought everyone here falls within BLP; if people will stretch it that far in order to topic ban somebody, they will stretch it again next time they advocate for a block or a full ban. A ban imposed by !vote, without even a clear statement of what the ban proposal is based on, would set a bad precedent for the community and it would not have much legitimacy. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Incidentally, if this concerns a long-term editing problem, the right way to do that is through an RfC/U. If it's about the one allegedly racist comment that was deleted, we can't reasonably judge as a community something we haven't seen. The deleting administrators should have dealt with any behavioral issues at the time, not here. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban For tendentious and disruptive conduct. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban or indefinite NOTHERE block, whichever comes first. I have seen the edit (thank you for removing it Gamaliel, and Andyvphil's continued defense of it is evidence that they have no business editing BLPs. One wonders also why they need the text sent to them--don't they remember what they said? Anyway, TParis asked for diffs--I'll point to a section, Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Tyson_a_.22Washout.22.3F. The obstinate re-insertion of profoundly unencyclopedic language here suggests this also, and I have noted elsewhere that I think the connotations of "wash out", which one typically does to remove dirt, are highly unsavory if not downright racist. Not everyone agrees on that reading, but I find it strong enough to support a BLP ban. In addition, they have 67 edits on that talk page, many of them concerned with what I can only see as an attempt to sully the man's reputation, and others are simply disruptive, such as this one--they edit-warred with three admins (me, Black Kite, Gamaliel) to reinstate some trolling left by an indef-blocked editor. So, what I see is obstinacy, edit warring, disruption, and lack of grasp of the BLP policy; a ban on editing BLPs would be a good start. Drmies (talk) 18:40, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies As always great respect for you and your work here, but in regards to the diff of the actual change to the article - it is directly supported by Tyson's own words in two separate interviews. (see my comment above linking to both interviews) - Tyson himself described this as getting "kicked out" twice. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• No respect necessary, but Andyvphil's preferred phrasing was not "kicked out". I believe that's a huge difference. Drmies (talk) 19:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Your reading of my suggestion of the phrase "washed out" as a better alternative to the "essentially flunked out" and "kicked out" used by the sources as meaning I want to call Tyson "dirt" is imaginative. To assert that I was being "downright racist" and should be banned for saying something so "unsavory", when I have explained my offered word choice in terms that do not involve "dirt" indicates the kind of lack of good judgement and self control that has caused me to suggest previously that you turn in your bit. Andyvphil (talk) 02:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban, despite having my own issues with Andyvphil. I have yet to see diffs supporting the allegation that he "fights for the inclusion of obviously racist statements." That is a serious charge indeed, but one that I have seen nothing to support. With that said, I would strongly encourage Andyvphil to work on the tone he takes during discussions, no matter what provocation he feels merits the combative tone he often takes. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

  Additional comment: The phrase "washed out" is not racist in any way. It is used when someone fails at something, whether it be at a career, a sport, or the pursuit of a PhD at some university. I myself could be considered to have "washed out" as an business owner. It simply describes what happened as a result of not completing something one was attempting to complete. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from Neil deGrasse Tyson. Andyvphil's editing of that article and its talk page has come up here repeatedly. I can see the rev-deleted edit to the talk page, and although I have seen more blatantly racist statements in my time, it was unacceptable and no source was offered whatsoever; and the editor has a history of statements regarding this living person that indicate bias. It is my hope that a topic ban here will serve as enough of a wake-up call that we will not need to broaden the topic ban, for example to BLPs in general, but the disruption at the Tyson article needs to be stopped and the editor shows no sign of stopping it. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. I have not seen ANY diffs suggesting that he pushed for the inclusion of racist language of any kind. Is he a bit aggressive on talk pages, yes (and he needs a good warning about that from the community). But a BLP topic ban is WAY to far (even a Neil Tyson topic ban would probably be too far). I should also note he was clearly blocked by an WP:INVOLVED administrator, that's likely to make anyone angry, so he should be given a little slack for his response. It doesn't seem to have been enough of a (or a serious enough) violation to WP:Desysop but that doesn't mean it was right. So far there have been two things that he has been accused of racism, and I don't think either charge is accurate.

1. As diffed above he inserted language containing the words "washed out" to describe Neil Tyson's early Phd experience. The article he cited used the term "essentially flunking him", and quoted Tyson himself as saying they "kicking me out". One can complain that "washed out" isn't encyclopedic enough, but it cannot possibly be considered racism to use that term. I refer you to [109] which defines the term as: "Having dropped a project or an enterprise or having been dropped from one: a washed-out officer candidate."
2. He has also at times suggested that Neil Tyson got into Columbia University because he is black. Columbia University implemented its first Affirmative Action Plan in 1972. [110] Is it really a stretch to believe that the fact that he is a minority helped him in being accepted in 1988? Now maybe he could have been accepted anyway (entirely possible, we don't know). But it is not racist to comment on what, in reality, seems likely to have occurred (that his race helped him in getting acceptance). That doesn't take away from the many accomplishments that Neil Tyson had after he was accepted, but just what is at least likely to have occurred (as with many minorities).

Lastly, as to #1 above, this was already litigated against User:Andyvphil in arbitration enforcement and with the result that it was "Not actionable". We do not have jurisdiction in this forum to overturn the decision made according to the processes of Arbitration Committee. If there is a disagreement that what was inserted in that case was actually actionable, it should be brought up before the Arbitration Committee, or as a part of arbitration enforcement.

In summary: 1) Neither of the things he is has been accused of (with diffs) are racist 2) He is being accused of things already litigated in arbitration enforcement which we don't have the authority to overturn at this page.--Obsidi (talk) 19:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding your #2: We don't know. We don't have a source that says he was accepted because of Affirmative Action, or that it contributed to his acceptance. Andy's (and now your) assertion "that his race helped him in getting acceptance" "seems likely to have occurred" "as with many minorities" is WP:SYNTH, for one thing, but also definitely racist and a horrible thing to say about someone, and definitely in violation of WP:BLP. Please don't repeat it. Ivanvector (talk) 19:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree we don't know, and we don't have evidence of it. I would also oppose inculcation into the page as WP:SYNTH, but that doesn't in and of itself make the comments on what reasonable seems likely to have occurred to be racist. It may not be encyclopedic, and it shouldn't be included in our articles because we don't have verifiable information that it actually helped him getting enrolled, but it isn't racist. --Obsidi (talk) 19:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(ec) It is in fact racism to assert that for any given black person, it is more likely than not that that person's achievements were a product of affirmative action. On the other hand, if there's evidence that a specific black person's achievements were a product of affirmative action, that would not be racism. Dyrnych (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Is being accepted by Columbia University really even an achievement? Graduating from Columbia University is a clear achievement (on in which there seems no doubt he accomplished all on his own). But being accepted is just being given the chance to try. As to what the odds that affirmative action occurred, we have no idea. --Obsidi (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. We have no idea. And therefore to suggest such is not only synthesis, but a BLP violation. Black Kite (talk) 20:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

But is it racist? I don't disagree that it shouldn't be included in the article, but that is different then racism. --Obsidi (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It sure is. It's taking one characteristic of NDGT (race) and supposing that it is the most likely reason why a particular outcome occurred, with no evidence at all for that supposition. Look at it this way: it's exactly the same principle as seeing a black woman and saying "she must be on welfare" or a black teenager and saying "he must be a thug." Dyrnych (talk) 20:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe, if I remember right, that he said it was a "contributory factor" to his acceptance to Columbia (different then even "most likely reason why" he was accepted), and as such, if it is as I remember it, different then your analogy. "must be on welfare" says what is the case without knowing it to be so. Far different then even saying "likely" (which assigns a probability to the situation), even "likely" may be racist if it is unsupported by facts that make it likely. In this case, Columbia seems to have chosen to add race as a factor in considering admission of students. Maybe that didn't matter in Neil Tyson's case (because he had other great work that got him in), but can you really say that race wasn't a "contributory factor" that Columbia considered in deciding on if to admit him or not? --Obsidi (talk) 20:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I strongly disagree. You suggest it's reasonable to assume that the subject's acceptance to a program of academic excellence must have been aided by the colour of his skin, rather than based on the merits of his application, such that it's reasonable to assume an equivalent application from a white person would not have been accepted. It's a terrible thing to say, and posting it as an editorial to a talk page here is awful. It could easily be a slip, nobody's perfect here, but Andy's history of negative commentary about this subject makes me think otherwise. Ivanvector (talk) 20:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Even assuming he was given affirmative action bonus, that doesn't mean he wouldn't have gotten in without it. Its reasonable to assume that he got an affirmative action bonus to his application (given we know he is a minority and that the school in question had an affirmative action policy at the time). Its unreasonable to assume that he couldn't have gotten in without that bonus (because we just don't know). Andy's should have been told that without evidence that he couldn't have gotten in without it (which if we had verifiable evidence of that, would change things), then we cannot include it. That doesn't make it racist to comment on the fact that he likely qualified for the affirmative action bonus, just that it isn't verifiable that it mattered. --Obsidi (talk) 20:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

If the article is about a white person, would you repeatedly suggest that it was nearly certain that he got into Columbia because his father was rich and sent him to a private school – with zero evidence of either? Andyvphil asked how a wash-out could have been accepted to Columbia, and said race must have something to do with it. Not, for example, that he was a Harvard grad. Of course this is racist. Objective3000 (talk) 20:36, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I disagree, it would be more like having evidence that he went to private school and was rich, and then saying that contributed to his being admitted. That shouldn't be included in the article without evidence, but it is not offensive. --Obsidi (talk) 20:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban - at a minimum. We need to call out tendentious editors. Bearian (talk) 19:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• This came up at AE recently. The accusation of racism were made there, as were allegations that Andyvphil was conducting a campaign to discredit the subject of the article. I asked for evidence of either, and got only a repetition of the allegations without any further evidence. What it seems to boil down to is an edit war other the term "washed out" (to which some editors appear to attach, no doubt in good faith, a connotation I simply don't see), a RevDel'd diff (that was, yes, beyond the pale, but not enough to justify this sort of sanction on its own), and an attitude problem bordering on a battleground mentality (as perfectly exemplified by the original post here). The attitude is going to piss people off, and if Andyvphl doesn't rectify it, is likely to get him sanctioned, but none of it is proof that there is any intent to discredit the subject. If anybody has more diffs which show a pattern of deliberate abuse of Wikipedia in the way being suggested, I'd have absolutely no qualms about indef'ing him. But nobody has presented a shred of evidence that that's the case. Like I say, there's evidence of misconduct which may be sanctionable if it continues, but not of the sort malice that is being suggested. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Weak oppose BLP ban. Like many others here, I have serious issues with Andyvphil's hostility towards other editors and with his tendentiousness. As I understand it, that's not what's being discussed here. I haven't seen the offending statement that precipitated this and generally agree with Lithistman's view that despite Andyvphil's strident advocacy of the probably-non-NPOV phrase "washed out," that advocacy itself does not rise to the level of advocating for the inclusion of racist material. Dyrnych (talk) 20:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Topic ban from Tyson as a minimum. In no way can we have an editor continue to work on this article when not only do they have a hugely negative view of the subject, but believe that it is OK to push completely unsourced BLP violating accusations that the subject's achievements were due to their race (apart from the egregious rev-deleted edit, the comment "Anyway, your speculation on how Tyson recovered from his failure is a nice story, but painfully pc in what it chooses to omit as a possible, indeed probable, indeed almost certain contributory factor." still exists on the talkpage). The fact that he refers to those disagreeing with him as "hagiographers" will give you an idea of how entrenched this is. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose It appears to me from reviewing the comments and allegations that this sanction is unwarranted. That this stems from a block by a WP:INVOLVED admin who has a history of taking actions while involved makes this look like an attempt to silence a critic of admin abuse.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support BLP ban. Andyvphil's approach to the Tyson BLP issue has been quite simply appalling; it's obvious that he has a very strong dislike for the subject of the article and has been relentless in pushing negative views. He has also been relentlessly antagonistic towards his fellow editors and has done much to poison the atmosphere on the talk pages concerned. I would support a topic ban from Tyson as a minimum, but quite honestly someone with his approach to BLPs has no business editing them. If this ever got to arbitation I've no doubt at all that he would be topic-banned. Prioryman (talk) 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support BLP ban. Comments like the revdeled edit and this demonstrate an apparent inability to work on the Tyson article constructively. Edit warring over BLP matters of the type seen here[111][112] further support that conclusion. His comments about other editors in this discussion[113][114] show someone with no interest in behaving by the expected standards. How much more evidence do we need to channel editors away from areas where they're demonstrably disruptive?--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't that suggest a topic ban (that he had an "inability to work on the Tyson article"). And as for the two reverts, if you want to classify that as edit warring that's fine. But as to BLP matters I'll just quote the admin User:HJ_Mitchell when this was reviewed in WP:AE, as to the claimed BLP issue: "This appears to me to be yet another absurd interpretation of BLP, and an example of editors invoking BLP as a first resort in a content dispute rather than just editing the contentious material or starting a discussion." [115] Aand I would also note that at least some of the ArbCom has expressed that if an explanation isn't given when requested that the normal rules around reverting BLP claims may not apply:Ambiguity regarding explanations in the BLP policy (in this case it took multiple prods by the admins just to get the explanation in WP:AE). Are you sure a BLP wide ban is more appropriate then a topic ban in this case? --Obsidi (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I would support a ban on articles related to Tyson as a minimum. However, the seriousness of his edits, his edit warring over sensitive BLP material, and his statements here in this discussion point to an individual who isn't going to abide by the standards we expect of people editing articles on living people. It's time to channel their energy away from areas where they're being disruptive, hopefully into areas where they won't be.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite BLP topic ban with option to appeal after six months. Like many others above, I've read the revdel'd post that Andyvphil and a couple of supporters keep calling for diffs for, with what sounds like some sense of triumph at being secure from that particular diff. Andy, all admins can read it, and you yourself surely remember it. (No?) UltraExactZZ, Nick, TParis, Drmies, Black Kite, Bearian, HJ Mitchell, and Cúchullain are admins, and me, and we have seen the diff in question before opining. Also, the diffs given above by Ivanvector, Drmies and Cúchullain, especially these diffs here (thank you for taking the trouble to collect them, Ivanvector) convince me that Andy should not be editing BLP articles. And his demeanor in this thread convinces me that, as Cúchullain puts it, he has no interest in behaving by the expected standards. Bishonen | talk 22:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC).
• Support, not just for the one revdeled edit (admins only) but as part of a pattern posted by Ivanvector. This editor should not be going near a BLP. No comment on the block, and no admin action needed unless that too can be shown to be a pattern. --John (talk) 22:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. As others have noted, I want to see some diffs here for what he was trying to stick into the article which was a BLP violation. The diffs I'm seeing are extremely weak as evidence that the user needs to be banned. He probably needs to be a bit more careful about stuff like this, but calling someone a racist because they asked a question about affirmative action and seeking a ban on them is way, way overboard, and figuring out the best way of wording "failed and left" is a legitimate discussion to be having wording-wise. If he is making problematic assertions in the article, that's one thing, but I'm not really seeing it here. It seems like this could have just been answered with "if you can find some reliable sources on this, please bring them to our attention; I can't find anything with a quick Google search, and you should be careful about asking questions which might be interpreted as unsubstantiated accusations per WP:BLP", rather than a big war over it. That being said, I have no history of interaction with him, so I can't really tell you if he is in fact problematic on a systematic basis. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No one is calling them a racist, and Andyvphil didn't so much ask a question about affirmative action--they posited that a very notable and prominent person got into a graduate program only because of their race. And they did make "problematic assertions" in the article, as I indicated above. But suggesting "well at least they didn't to it in article space" makes me think whether you know our BLP policy, and where it applies (everywhere). Drmies (talk) 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What is this "they", "them" business? I'm not a plural. The difference between "you insist on repeatedly making blatantly racist edits"(Gamalael,fair concatenation) and "you are a racist" is insignificant. The italicized "only" is something even Gamalael walked back when I challenged him on it, that you've nonetheless resurrected it is shameless. Andyvphil (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• • • That is not a fair summary to say that he said only. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
• Topic ban from Tyson, per Black Kite. I've seen quite enough diffs. I suspect that Andyvphil would soon transfer his passionate interest to some other BLP and with similar effect; but unlike some editors, I'm not easily convinced of that which I don't have compelling evidence is true. If some other BLP did then get the same treatment, then move on to a BLP topic ban. -- Hoary (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support BLP topic ban. I have no comment on whether Andyvphil is correct in his assessment of Tyson ("It is of course virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race (and maybe political connections).")—the point is that such an approach to an article is not suitable for Wikipedia. The diff includes the assertion that Andyvphil is merely asking whether reliable sources exist to support mention in the article that affirmative action, private or public, played an important role in Tyson's career—that may have been a defensible position if the statement in the diff were made once. However, it was made at the article talk, pursued at Gamaliel's talk, and then at TParis' talk, and now here where Andyvphil hopes the comment will be restored. All that attention to a problematic comment shows insufficient judgment for working on BLPs. Johnuniq (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from Tyson and any other current or future target of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Edits elsewhere have similar bias, and since August 2014 he's edited exclusively at a handful of topics all related to U.S. right-wing politics. --NE2 23:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you joking? How could that ever be a proper topic ban? How would he know which topics he could even talk about? --Obsidi (talk) 02:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Believe me, he would know. Other editors might not, however, so a general ban on U.S. political topics "broadly construed", including related fields like global warming, would be easier to enforce. --NE2 03:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've looked at the diffs available, and it seems like the only "evidence" of "racism" is Andyvphil saying he believes that Dr. Tyson likely benefited from affirmative action in getting a second chance at his PhD after failing to attain one at UT. How is that racist? Many people benefited from affirmative action. While I doubt that Dr. Tyson was one (it's not terribly uncommon to get a second bite at the apple on a PhD), there's a difference between being "wrong" (which I think Andyvphil is about that issue) and being "racist" (which I don't think he was being in that diff. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• This particular claim of "affirmative action" does not appear in any reliable source that I've seen. However, if you Google for "degrasse tyson" and "affirmative action", you will see that it's a meme that has been circulating in right-wing blogs for some time. The bottom line is that Andyvphil appears to have been trying to use Wikipedia to promote unsourced or poorly sourced blogosphere memes about living people, and this seems to have been going on for some time if his comments above about Barack Obama's religion are anything to go by. This clearly isn't something that can be tolerated, as it's the antithesis of what BLP is supposed to be about. Prioryman (talk) 06:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction I've read all the comments of this section, and this is seeming to be relating to a dispute that revolves around NDT getting into the school because of his skin color, also the relation to how NDT got dropped of his school. That's an implication that should thrown out in favor of BLP and OR policies, but stating that there are 'no sources' represented when NDT's own interview and two other sources, which I don't appear to have their reliability questioned on this page is representing the former fact, but not the latter. Of course, he should be let off with a stern warning, but otherwise be let off the hook. I also offer no comment on the racism stuff. His conduct is not worthy of any kind of sanction at this time, and I hope even this WP:ANI will scare him into being more conservative with this kind of stuff. If there's a second noticeboard discussion about his conduct, I may support such an action, but not for this time. Tutelary (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • His problem is that he's too conservative. Get it? --NE2 00:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not political ideology, more of a physical approach, taking it slow, easy, non offensive end euphemizing certain things in relation to this type of stuff. Given that his edits will be under a microscope after this, this is a good idea anyways. Tutelary (talk) 01:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. I was making a bad pun. You didn't see me put on sunglasses? --NE2 01:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban based on an unambiguous pattern of problematic editing established here and here. In what can only be a "coincidence", both incidents, spaced six years apart, concern allegations of racism. When I recently asked Andyvphil where he's made the most contributions to mainpsace lately, he responded the Shooting of Michael Brown.[116] There seems to be an overarching pattern at work here. Viriditas (talk) 01:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  Is passively-aggressively insinuating that another editor is racist acceptable now? Because there's a lot of that going on in this thread, and as much as I don't like Andyvphil's tone, I have a big problem with that. This is not just about Viriditas's post here, it's about the pattern I see of posting diffs, and claiming they show racism, when that is, at best, a very debatable proposition. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

  I'm sorry you see it that way. I specifically referred to "allegations" for that reason. Personally, I like Andy, but I don't like his comments or edits about BLPs. Viriditas (talk) 04:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from the Tyson BLP at a minimum. Pretty clearly a POV warrior with blocks showing for edit warring and disruptive editing; was hauled to ANI for pointed editing of the Obama page [117]. Clearly drawn to "hot" contemporary political topics. Taking him off the Tyson BLP seems a minimum step. Keeping a close eye for possible future NPOV violations would be highly desirable. Those who war over political content need to be shown the door expeditiously. Carrite (talk) 02:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That was 6 years ago. Outside this issue his history over the previous 6 years belies your assentation. Arzel (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's just say that — after several years break in editing — a return to WP to dive into Ferguson, MO and the Federalist website, etc. does not inspire confidence that the leopard's spots have changed. Carrite (talk) 03:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

And while combativeness is not disruptiveness, he has seemed a combative fellow. ¶ That aside, "assentation" is a cromulent word. -- Hoary (talk) 03:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban. The evidence points to a problematic history of edits to articles on BLP subjects. -- Calidum 02:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban I have a pretty high threshold for supporting topic bans, but the problematic history of BLP edits especially the Tyson article is way over the top. Bishonen sums up the case well. I am One of Many (talk) 03:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - This stuff was being debated at least 5 years ago. Hard to believe it's still going on. It needs to stop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I note that Andyvphil is now saying on his talk page that if he is topic-banned he "may want to seek attention to it outside Wikipedia" [118] and that the problem is not his own conduct but that "the denizens at ANI" are "hostile" to "editors who don't share their political views".[119] There seems to be no recognition whatsoever that anything he has done might have been problematic. I think this pretty much confirms that he is treating Wikipedia as a political campaign rather than being here to build an NPOV encyclopedia. This is clearly someone who should be kept well away from any politically sensitive BLPs. Prioryman (talk) 07:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Um, no. I said that if I am banned it may help me get outside attention on this sick craziness, going on in Wikipedia. It's a bit late for you to get credit for a discovery. I've long since posted my letter to Sean Davis, above, since it has the revdel text in it. Andyvphil (talk) 13:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban at a minimum, due to the editors long history of troublesome talk-page behaviour at BLPs at the intersection of politics/current-events and race; endless wikilawering; and constant assumption of bad faith. I find his recent suggestion that admin Gamaliel is being protected due to Gamaliel's lack of "white privilege" pretty disgusting, and unfortunately representative of Andy's attitude towards wiki-"adversaries" (previously he had labelled admins who had enforced his block for disruption at the Barack Obama article as belonging to the mullah class of Wikipedia). A BLP topic ban will at least ensure that our article subjects are safe from such tarring. Abecedare (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The exact quote from my talk page is, "He seems quite determined that Gamaliel's lack of "white privilege" should protect his bit..." and refers to an admin writing, "... we're approaching this front a life experience of white privilege... Our perception of racism is entirely different. Gamaliel may legitimately have seen racism but he feels that he cannot demonstrate it in a way that our life experience would allow us to see. We also don't want to undermine his feelings whether there is legitimate evidence or not."(emphasis added) This is actually from an editor who who is one of the better admins in my experience, dedicated and generally fair-minded, but he is here falling into the racism of low expectations, IMHO. If you're disgusted by the truth, that's on you. Andyvphil (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban per WP:NOTHERE. I do not have confidence that Andyvphil is capable of adhering to NPOV and BLP policies on biographical articles. Looking through his edit history, one can recognize a pattern of tendentious editing on political topics of the day, especially those that are racially charged. As with his behavior here, too often his engagement on talk pages involves using it as a forum to vent his beliefs[120] which then devolves to thinly-veiled attacks directed at editors who disagree with him.[121][122] gobonobo ^{+ c} 13:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP topic ban per Gobonobo above. The edits on the Michael Brown page clearly indicate that Andyvphil holds the project and community in quite low regard, as evidenced by this comment: "I must have forgotten that Wikipedia talk pages are a reality-free zone in which the conclusions derived from an ordinary human capacity to recognize patterns is to be ignored at all costs." That has to be one of the more extreme characterizations of WP:V, and WP:NOR that I've ever seen. If a topic ban is introduced, I think it should only be lifted upon review, and only with the demonstration from Andyvphil that respect for core policies are central to productively editing here. aprock (talk) 16:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban - I'm familiar with Andyvphil's work at Shooting of Michael Brown, where on the talk page he makes comments like "Not every law enforcement agency is as lawless as Holder's DOJ." and "Obama's DOJ has a record of being repeatedly unconcerned with the law, so this incident is not uncharacteristic of it.". That, combined with the evidence presented above lead me believe that Andyvphil has an agenda other than improving BLP articles, and is likely to edit them in a way that is harmful.- MrX 18:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Is this comment racist, and if so, what outcome?

I actually cannot tell which part of the deleted comment, from Andyphil's offwiki post referenced above, is supposed to be racist: either:

…I'm told I "fit right in" with "climate change deniers" (notice the smell of "Holocaust denial" in that one)…

— or — 

It is of course virtually certain that [name omitted] got special consideration on account of his race…

Okay, I disagree vehemently with accusing successful people of benefitting from programs designed to reduce inequality and counter the legacy of historical oppression and discrimination. But what about this subject is so sensitive and offensive that we cannot even talk about it in the context of establishing consensus on article content — or even worse, that this leads to banishing a long-term, if contentious, editor from the project? Am I missing a different statement that was more offensive than this? - Wikidemon (talk) 08:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

See my comment at 23:43, 21 October 2014 above for my view. Johnuniq (talk) 08:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I see your comment, where you criticize me for defending my response to personal attacks at what you consider too many places, all along my path of pursuing unrevdeletion. But that doesn't answer Wikidemon's question, which seems to be: Is this[123] the "comment so egregious it required revision deletion"(Gamaliel) or is there another? Andyvphil (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's racist. You said in your deleted edit that it was "virtually certain that Tyson got special consideration on account of his race". You also said explicitly (of Tyson) "Is there any evidence this guy is actually smart, or has he gotten where he is solely through affirmative action?"[124] You had no evidence for that whatsoever. It certainly hasn't been in any reliable source that I've seen (and I note you've presented none). On the other hand it does seem to be an ongoing meme in the right-wing blogosphere (see [125]). The assumption behind the meme is that a prominent person of colour owes their status not to their achievements but to a helping hand from white people, i.e. affirmative action, as you said explicitly. I've seen this kind of thing being expressed many times, especially with regard to Barack Obama and other prominent non-whites. What makes it doubly unacceptable in your case is that you not only promoted a racist meme without any evidence whatsoever, you actually sought to edit this BLP to promote the racist meme, as your comments here make clear. In short, you've repeatedly used the talk page of that article to openly denigrate its subject in racially charged terms, in total disregard of WP:BLP. Such complete disregard for BLP rules and your complete failure to admit any errors means that you need to be prevented from editing BLPs in future. Prioryman (talk) 10:00, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In the circles you travel in it may be assumed by everyone you know that "right-wing" and "racist" are equivalent terms. As far as I know that is still not official policy at Wikipedia, and my "right wingedness", if that's what it is, does not disqualify me from editing anything. Andyvphil (talk) 11:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• • You can't tell? Honestly Wikidemon, you can't tell? Only a person of privilege that never had to fight through racist bullshit like that would ever make such a claim. Sheesh. To go along with all the other diffs posted in this thread, the freaking animosity against people of color smacks you right in the face. Dave Dial (talk) 10:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    • No, it is not obvious. It is clear that he has an objection to race-based affirmative action, but so does the majority of America these days, for better or for worse. If discussing the matter merits a ban from Wikipedia, then we would have to ban the majority of Americans. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:28, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Wow...Dave Dial (talk) 10:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you flopping, or do you mean that seriously? Is this subject so toxic that we cannot discuss it? Accusing a person of bigotry and kicking them out of the community because they express a particular viewpoint basically shuts down any discussion, it appears to be extreme. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you might be missing the point, Wikidemon. This isn't about whether someone approves of affirmative action or not. Disappoving of affirmative action is a legitimate position. Repeatedly asserting an unsourced claim as a "virtually certain" fact and campaigning to make a BLP reflect is an illegitimate action and a fundamental violation of WP:BLP principles. That would be true whether the claim was about affirmative action or anything else. And yes, it's patently racist to repeatedly denigrate a living person of colour as owing their position to affirmative action rather than to their own achievements, without any source for such a claim. We shouldn't tolerate that kind of behaviour. Prioryman (talk) 11:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"...it's patently racist to repeatedly denigrate a living person of colour as owing their position to affirmative action..."

Repeating something I've already said to Gamalael, if you'd bothered to look, I've made no such assertion. It is the case, I learn upthread, that Columbia had an "affirmative action" program. You may wish it were true that this raises no question as to whether reverse discrimination played a role in Tyson's admission to Columbia, but it's just a fact, a non-racist fact, that it does. As I've said repeatedly, if there's nothing about that in the RS there's nothing to put into the article. But I don't trust the resident editors to have told me whether there is or not. If their behavior were less tendentious I'd trust them more. But it's not. Andyvphil (talk) 12:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In what other way could "It is of course virtually certain that ... got special consideration on account of his race" be taken? The existence or otherwise of an affirmative action program is irrelevant. Consider, for example, that an editor says "After politician X was elected, he gave a top job to politician Y, with whom he went to school". And then compare it with "Politician Y got a top job with the government, because he went to school with politician X". See the difference? One is neutral (with perhaps a minor insinuation of impropriety), the second is a BLP violation. Your comment is of the second type; and since it uses race as the differentiator, is therefore also racist. Black Kite (talk) 13:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

He said it was "virtually certain that" he "got special consideration". "special consideration" == "affirmative action". Are you really saying that it isn't very likely (one might say "virtually certain") he got an affirmative action bonus on his application? Now maybe that didn't matter because he would have gotten in anyway, and as such we should not include it in the article (without verifiable evidence that it did matter). But I don't consider it racist to talk about things that most people would say are true. Just because its true doesn't mean that it should be included in the article, but banning people from making true statements on the talk page seems to go too far. It would be different if he had actually tried to insert it into mainspace, but that didn't occur here. Or if he had done this on multiple BLP pages (again not this case). --Obsidi (talk) 13:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

BLP applies on all pages. Quite apart from that, Andyvphil's other pronouncements about Tyson both here and on his talkpage (not to mention his email to the Federalist) make it very clear that he should be kept as far away from the subject as possible. Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Clearly BLP policy applies to all pages, but there are differences between how mainspace and talk pages are treated. We work through trying to find sources and argue about sources and debating if something is or is not a BLP violation on talk pages. --Obsidi (talk) 13:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Or maybe someone should make an 'affirmative action' template, and all Negro scholars/scientists can be tagged. One template with sourced affirmative action claims, and another with 'possible beneficiary of affirmative action' tag, and then we can ask editors to 'prove' that the negro in question didn't benefit from affirmative action on their article Talk pages. After we get done with all the negroes, we can move to other minorities and women. Dave Dial (talk) 11:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

So, you want me blocked for playing a role in your fantasies? Andyvphil (talk) 12:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Is it true that you have at least threatened to take this dispute off-wiki? Hence, canvassing off-wiki? If so, that's sufficient reason to block you just in itself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you want to make a separate charge of canvassing, that's fine, but please don't mix it into the arguments about if this is racism.--15:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not charging, I'm asking. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"It is of course virtually certain that [name omitted] got special consideration on account of his race", if uncited to a valid source, is a POV violation and also expresses the standard white-supremacist viewpoint about affirmative action and the like. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've said it before, but I'll say it again. There is a vast gulf between a comment that I believe is wrong, and one that is racist. Voicing an opinion that a given person of color may well have benefited from affirmative action falls, in my view, well on the side of "wrong", but not "racist." LHM^{ask me a question} 15:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• There's a huge gap between discussing whether someone may have benefited from AA, and stating it, without any evidence, with the insinuation that they wouldn't have gained that qualification had they not been black. See also AVP's talk page, where he calls Tyson a liar and a number of other things. See also AVP's previous "interesting" views on race. Get rid, it's the only way. Black Kite (talk) 17:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• Andyvphil also added: “'... Columbia's graduate school is one of the finest in North America, with rigorous standards for degree candidates.' Has anyone seen anything in the sources which would explain why a washout from UTA was adjudged to have met those standards?” He says it’s virtually certain race had something to do with a washout's acceptance. Not, for example, the fact that Tyson had already graduated from Harvard or that he already had a Master’s degree from UT. Add to that "Is there any evidence this guy is actually smart, or has he gotten where he is solely through affirmative action?" He is opining "solely". Does that mean Harvard just looked at the color of his skin and handed him a degree? What do some people have to do to get a bit of respect? Objective3000 (talk) 15:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Battling over such stuff suggests an agenda on the part of a user. I recall five or six years ago when we were flooded with agenda-pushers, and it was a nightmare. Most of them ended up indef'd. If the editor in question continues down this path, he'll be thrown onto that same Wikipedia trash heap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

How long until Andy starts going after global warming and other non-living person targets? --NE2 20:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• If he does in a tendentious way, then an extended TB or a block is available. Black Kite (talk) 20:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

More WP:OR immediately following a block

Kkm010 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Following this discussion only two weeks ago, Kkm was blocked for edit-warring and for unapologetically adding his own original research and "analysis" to various corporate articles. Even while the discussion was ongoing, Kkm continued to make the same sort of edits. He was blocked for that and for edit-warring to keep his original research in various articles.

Immediately following his return to editing, he added exactly the same type of original research (raw financial data, disingenuously cited with his own interpretations) to two different articles. I reverted both edits and warned him for those. My reverts were reverted, but with the addition of slightly better sources. But Kkm is at it again, adding the same Google Finance data, calling it an "annual report" and using the raw data to extrapolate year-on-year financial results.

There was a commitment from Kkm during the last ANI discussion that he would discontinue his OR spree. That commitment was obviously as disingenuous as his sourcing. I really don't know what else to do - I've tried warning, discussing, reverting, discussing again, discussing here (for which he was blocked) and more warning. What is it going to take for this disruptive behaviour to be stopped? St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:42, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty well established that adding (or subtracting ) numbers together isn't OR. He can show where he got the numbers from, and unless the contention is that google's unreliable, he's doing nothing more that basic addition or subtraction. This doesn't appear to be OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

You've lost me. It was established that what he was adding was original research in the last ANI discussion and he agreed to stop doing it. The block was for original research. But he's back at it. It's not simply a matter of "adding (or subtracting) numbers". He's posting raw financial data, extrapolating results and claiming the data is in fact an annual report from the company in question. Completely false. The reliability of Google isn't in question - it's not a source published by Google at all; it's the raw search results Kkm got when he plugged the stock exchange code into Google. The issue here is not the acceptability of the edits themselves (it was established they were completely unacceptable and even Kkm agreed as much while at the same time pleading ignorance). The issue is that the IDHT attitude has continued beyond the original block. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111, looking at the page he linked to shows the numbers he says are there, and where he says increase or decrease, it's obvious that that indeed is what it is. He's not making up numbers, nor is he comparing source a to source b and coming up with C. He's reporting the numbers on the website (which is google finance) and stating if it's an increase or a decrease. That portion is not OR. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps this shouldn't be qualifies as the "Annual Report" which is an actual document likely produced by the company and Google Finance does not (as far as I saw) claim to be directly reproducing that report. There may be an issue of if Google Finance is an RS for this type of thing, but assuming it is, the increase/decrease stuff clearly falls within WP:CALC Gaijin42 (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As Gaijin42 said, it is also disingenuous to call the Google finance search an Annual Report. Anyone who is familiar with financial parlance would know that an Annual Report is released by the company and includes far more than just the numerical data for cash flow, etc. As it is now, the labeling is misleading to the reader as to the true provenance of that source. Blackmane (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said on Kosh's talk page - I have no real interest in re-prosecuting the case against Kkm. That was well established in the last thread about exactly the same behaviour. There is no "annual report" - that's an invention of Kkm's who is trying to pass his interpretation (or calculation) of financial results off as the work of the company itself or Google Finance. The sources in question are not either of those things. The issue here is an editor returning after a block and thumbing his nose at the community by immediately re-starting the same sort of editing that got him blocked in the first place. If consensus has changed in the last two weeks and Kkm's actions are no longer a blockable offence (which seems strange without considerable community discussion) then I'll move on and stop putting effort into stopping what is obviously disruptive behaviour. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Err, "There is no annual report...." What's the link he's referring to ? The link shows a report on google finance for that company. It's not an invention by Kkm , unless you want to claim that he put together an OR report, then somehow got google finance to carry it ? KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What? Where is the report? Annual report means something specific - something a long way away from that which Kkm calls, "2014 Annual Report". ZTE. Retrieved 2014-03-19. Besides the obviously wrong date and wrong attribution, the link isn't to an "Annual Report" at all - it's to a set of google search results - a raw Google Finance data sheet for the company that you get by plugging the relevant stock exchange code into google and hitting "search". It's not an "Annual Report" by any stretch of the imagination (it's not even a published "report" in any sense of the word) and includes specific disclaimers (from Google) that it's not what Kkm claims it to be. You'd get the same data by walking into a stock exchange and copying down the numbers from the board. There is not a single part of that citation which is honest and genuine - every part of it is false. Kkm knows this, has been warned about this and has edit-warred to keep this sort of thing in article to the point where he was blocked. And he's at it again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

That link actually has the quarterly and annual data for that particular company, and he's accurately reporting what the numbers say in that annual report without any calculations. Time to drop it Stalwart, there's no OR here. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 13:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source". As on your talk page, I genuinely can't work out whether you're just trolling to get a rise out of people or whether you don't understand what's going on. Right now, your are the ONLY person suggesting these are acceptable sources and edits (even Kkm has given up on that ridiculous line). Do you actually think Kkm's conduct (which even he has vowed to discontinue) and editing (which even he has reverted) is acceptable? St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As with his editing, your calling it a "report" doesn't make it one and search results with not hint of WP:RS doesn't qualify as a "source" ' Stalwart, I'm hardly trolling. On the page in question I see a link to google finance, which is not some fringe blog, nor is it a forum, nor is it a user-supplied reference, it appears to be reliable as well. I also see KKM reporting what the page says, without attempting to combine source and with source b to create c, nor do I see him attempting to analyze data, he accurately reports what the annual numbers are (they're actually there on google finance ) , whether it's advancing or declining is obvious, so no, there is no OR. You've offered no evidence of such, so , once again, time to drop it and move on, it's not OR KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 11:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Just. Plain. Wrong. Nobody suggested it was a "blog" or a "forum" and that's a pointless straw-man. Calling it a "link to Google Finance" is disingenuous - they are just raw search results. Of course its user-generated - you get the same by plugging any stock exchange code into Google or any other word into Google and copy-pasting the URL after hitting "search". It's not even a "source", let alone a reliable one. Google didn't "publish" the content - a search engine tool automatically extracts the data and presents it in that format. If I type "Harry Potter" into Amazon's search engine, the results wouldn't constitute a "report" or a "source, published by Amazon". And again, you're the only person here who thinks its a legitimate source - you're still digging; alone in your hole. Even Google warns against using the results in the way you're advocating. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• As with the last thread, Kkm has refused to explain himself either here or on his talk page (last time we got broken English contributions demanding we explain what he had done wrong, even while he undid his own edits). Nothing here at all. But again, Kkm has quietly acknowledged the issue, reverting himself and replacing the "source". Surely fortnightly ANI reports is an inefficient way of preventing disruption? Can we get some admin action here? Dare I ping DP whose warnings Kkm is ignoring? St★lwart¹¹¹ 13:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• As I said earlier I will use original company source it could be either annual report or fourth quarter results where financial results are mentioned.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 04:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you made that commitment "earlier" and then you were blocked. And you've done it 3 times since your block. We obviously shouldn't have believed you last time. Why should we believe you now? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

That is why I need your help. Just remind me where I have failed to put original source I will immediately replace it. Don't worry to much about it, just relax take it easy brother.--♥ Kkm010 ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪} ߷ _{♀ Contribs ♀} 06:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is, nobody should need to remind you. You've been blocked for it before, isn't that reminder enough? (I don't have firsthand experience, though, so maybe not...) ansh666 06:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart, that corpse is beginning to stink, please back away from it. |google finance is not user-contributed data, it's the financial data available in any 8K report (I work in the fiance industry ). It's not a search engine, it's a report. Yes it's reliable , if you believe otherwise prove it otherwise stop beating the horse, it died a long time ago. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Socks

Recently, a rotating IP was commenting at WT:MOSNUM. It was clear he was a sock-puppet of someone, potentially banned-editor DeFacto. As such, that page was semi-protected. Now new IP addresses of the same ilk are following me around. It is time this charade stopped. Would someone care to do something about this IP jumping disruptive somebody? It shouldn't require an SPI. This guy is a clear sock-puppet of someone, and his IP-hopping is familiar. RGloucester — ☎ 17:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I caught RGloucester trying to conceal their bad faith removal (see the edit summary) of an 'oppose' to their proposal on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. They have decided to try to retaliate by throwing unsubstantiated socking accusations about a worthless ip editor. WP:SPI is the place to get sock allegations investigated. This followed his similarly bad faith request on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection which was accepted at face value by an obliging administrator. RGloucester is getting too big for his boots, and throwing his weight around unchallenged, it seems. Please look at the background and the facts behind this action before jumping to any conclusions on it please. 94.196.87.132 (talk) 18:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Spare me, please. I removed that "oppose" because it wasn't really an "oppose". It was off-topic disruption that was retaliation for my previous support for administrative action against that editor, rather than anything having to do with the general sanctions proposal. Regardless, it is quite clear that you are not just "some IP", so please give up the act. RGloucester — ☎ 18:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It was an "oppose" to your proposal you had no right to remove it. You took it off topic, threw allegations, and then thought better of it and tried to conceal it. You should have gone to an uninvolved party to get it challenged, not just revert it with a misleading edit summary. I am an unregistered reader of Wikipedia, dragged by you into your mire. 94.196.87.132 (talk) 18:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Rather than removing the whole thread, it would have been wiser to have left it or ask for it to be collapsed. When I, or any other ANI gnomes, see threads that aren't germane to the overall discussion we collapse them to keep the discussion on track. As for the IP hopping, I'm somewhat dubious that it is DeFacto. DeFacto has a fairly strict MO that makes it pretty easy to pick them out, which I won't detail per WP:BEANS. SPI isn't for fishing and a case would have to be pretty strong (even per WP:DUCK) to block (or range block) them outright without an SPI. Blackmane (talk) 21:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)striking through latter comment as the DUCKishness is rather strong.

That's fine, and if you'd like to reinsert it and collapse it, please do. I'm not sure what you meant when you struck out your remarks. I think the case is pretty strong that this fellow is a sock of some sort. I would not be surprised if it was De Facto, given that he has been doing the exact same thing with imperial units, and is now attempting to torpedo an attempt to bring the discussion over units in UK articles under control. His rotating IPs, which he has used at MOSNUM and now at AN, are all connected. What's more, it seems that De Facto used similar IPs early on in his sock campaign. RGloucester — ☎ 23:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

• Well, if this is who y'all think it is, a range block is in order. I blocked one IP since I do not approve of edit warring with an administrator on an admin noticeboard, but they were very polite to me, for which I thank them. Drmies (talk) 00:21, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: Take a look at the SPI archive for DeFacto. IPs from the same ISP were associated with DeFacto and blocked way back in 2012. Specifically, the connection is quite clear in these accounts created by DeFacto. RGloucester — ☎ 01:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but there's nothing I can do with any of that information. Even if I learned it and decided it was DeFacto, I'm still not capable of placing a range block and that's what you need. I'd probably deprive all of England from editing Wikipedia--Manchester included. And where would that leave us? Drmies (talk) 02:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least we wouldn't need to argue over miles and metres anymore! RGloucester — ☎ 03:12, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I've opened a new SPI case, given that that seems necessary. RGloucester — ☎ 04:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I struck my latter comment as I hadn't read through the linked diffs thoroughly. The IP's "tone" if you will at MOSNUM was distinctly similar to DeFacto. Blackmane (talk) 04:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat?

For fucks sake, I don't care if anyone wants to argue this matter until the sun goes supernova. But don't annoy the crap out of everyone else with the nonsense. No one is going to block Giano or Eric. That's only going to make a bigger mess. Maybe if someone else was threatened. But Jimbo is more than capable of handling a real or perceived legal threat. He's done it before. There is no practical and productive end to this. No admin is going to commit project suicide just because the beurocracy insists on enforcing WP:NLT mindlessly without regard for how it will blow up on the project. We're expected to use the tools judiciously and to be smart about how policies are applied. So, take it to Giano's talk page if it's really bothering anyone. Don't waste our time.--v/r - TP 22:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Giano recently posted to Jimbo Wales' talk page with a comment that, IMO, crosses a line into WP:NLT. Giano: "In the meantime, His Majesty might like to note that Eric Corbett uses his real name here, and UK law is changing, so continued defamation and harassment of that name on this page could land some people in Brixton - no legal threat intended of course." Does, "no legal threat intended of course" remediate the fact that Giano is implying that Jimbo Wales could be sent to prison for "defamation and harassment" of Eric Corbett? Rationalobserver (talk) 21:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) It's certainly a possibility that he could, but neither Giano nor I are making any legal threats, or indeed any kind threat at all. Jimbo has simply been reminded of UK law, the legal jurisdiction in which he lives. Eric Corbett 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC) And why did he have to be reminded about that in a thread about a proposed admin pledge again? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Perhaps because he is apparently unaware of the law on harassment in the jurisdiction in which he lives? Eric Corbett 21:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC) It had nothing to do with the topic though is what im saying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Aren't the laws of where you live irrelevant? I thought that only the laws of the server location are applicable. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Think again. Eric Corbett 22:03, 21 October 2014 (UTC) So, given the context, we can take that as a legal threat? AnonNep (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC) You may take it as a simple correction to an apparent misunderstanding about legal jurisdiction. Eric Corbett 22:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC) So it wasn't a legal threat but it is maybe, kinda, coulda been one, you want to make sure they know what legal jurisdiction was being referred to? Oh yeah, that makes sense. AnonNep (talk) 22:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I saw that and agree that it went a bit too far. Not only does it imply a legal threat but it also went off topic about Eric. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Its not a threat, unless he is making the threat of prosecution/suit himself. Our entire WP:BLP policy is essentially a similar warning. It may be inappropriate for other reasons Gaijin42 (talk) 21:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I agree with Eric and Gaijin. Giano's basically saying "watch what you say, because someone else might make a legal threat". Nyttend (talk) 21:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I really can't help but feel, Rationalobserver and Knowledgekid87 that you are both totally ridiculous. Giano (talk) 21:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Oh come on, the topic was about an admin pledge and you felt the need to troll and place something in that was totally off topic and un-related to the discussion. If you want to launch a probe into Jimbo feel free to do so there are venues for this, what we don't need are snarky remarks in every damn thread. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC) It does seem to transgress the 'Perceived legal threats' in WP:NLT in 'refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion'. AnonNep (talk) 21:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Why on earth would anyone want to probe Jimbo? I just feel that with the UK laws changing and becoming far harsher towards internet trolling that change should be mentioned on a high profile page, where Wikipedia's intelligentsia, respected admins and rulers hang out. Surely you're not suggesting that Jimbo or any of his followers are internet trolls? I'm actually quite shocked. Giano (talk) 21:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Again this has nothing to do with the topic you posed in if that was your intent then why didn't you just start a new topic about UK law? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:39, 21 October 2014 (UTC) But I strongly support the idea of an administerial pledge; it could be taken in front of a flag, with one trouser leg rolled up and a hand on a iPad. Anyway, I don't need to start a new topic now, you've started it here for me. In my experience, the best conversations are always those that spur off at tangents. Giano (talk) 21:44, 21 October 2014 (UTC) It's hard to know which is more absurd: Giano's and Eric's burbling about harrassment or the OP's claim questioning whether this is a NLT. Can someone please close this and save us all from yet another dreary round. DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I didn't really claim that this was definitely a legal threat (see the question mark), and I don't think that someone seeking clarification should be characterized as absurd. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:59, 21 October 2014 Yes, you did. It's no use trying to backtrack now that you think you've made a fool of yourself. Giano (talk) 22:01, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Not everyone agrees with you here, and she did provide a question mark at the start. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC) That wasn't a question mark it was weasel mark, and well you know it. Here's a tip for the future: If one is going to try and cause trouble, it's always best to play on safe ground. Giano (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Well, I won't lower myself to your trolling and baiting, but if you thought the statement was perfectly and obviously acceptable, why did you feel the need to qualify it with a disclaimer, i.e., "no legal threat intended of course"? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:11, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Obviously in an effort to head off at the pass a stupid thread like this one you created nevertheless. And if you have a point to make about women's participation please have the courage to do so openly rather than in an edit summary. Eric Corbett 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I cant think of any good that could have come out of the comment Giano made here other than a reaction which he wanted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict) I can't think of any good reason why this report was made by Rationalobserver. A few bad ones, but no good ones. Eric Corbett 22:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC) If the comment weren't made we wouldn't be here in the first place... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC) The OP did indeed claim that it is a legal threat: "...with a comment that, IMO, crosses a line into WP:NLT". No question mark. In my view this is not a legal threat but a good faith warning about the possible consequences of a certain course of action. Of course it would be far preferable if the community could solve this ourselves; User:Jimbo Wales ought to desist from making unevidenced complaints and allegations on their talk page and should face a block for disruptive editing if he fails to do so voluntarily. But perhaps that is a matter for another discussion. --John (talk) 22:17, 21 October 2014 (UTC) So you agree, John, that this warning might affect how the warned party chose to edit if they took the supposedly possible legal consquences seriously? How does WP:NLT recommend that we act on editors that try to chill others' speech in this way? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Exactly! This was not a good faith warning that was delivered out of a genuine concern for Jimbo; this was a veiled threat that if Jimbo doesn't stop talking about Eric there might be legal consequences. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC) It was simply a statement of fact. Nobody was threatening anyone with anything. Eric Corbett 22:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC) No, it was another comment in the war against Jimbo that implied legal action. Everyone knows that there is a group of editors that hate him and want him gone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Just as everyone knows that there is a group of editors Jimbo hates and wants gone, But that's irrelevant as nobody has threatened anyone with anything, legal or otherwise. Eric Corbett 22:43, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Again if Giano wanted to make a topic about UK law he could have, I see it as intimidation which is covered in WP:NLT per above. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:46, 21 October 2014 (UTC) John, per Wikipedia:No legal threats#Perceived legal threats: It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I find it odd that editors are asking this to be closed so fast, even if you are wrong Rational in no way do you deserve the treatment you get from it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC) A "statement of fact" about the likely legal consequences (in someone's fevered imagination or otherwise) of a Wikipedia editor editing in a certain way, likely to discourage that editor from editing how they normally would, falls precisely under WP:NLT. User:John should know this, and he should be ashamed of himself if he does not. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC) That's not how the law works. Any such prosecution, were it considered appropriate, would be brought by the UK police. It's entirely up to Jimbo whether he chooses to conduct himself in the same way he has or not, nobody else. And whatever he decides, nobody has threatened anything. Eric Corbett 22:49, 21 October 2014 (UTC) The comment cannot be reasonably interpreted as a legal threat. Some here interpret any use of the term "defame" in relation to another editor's behaviour as a legal threat or an attempt to intimidate rather than warn, so it is always prudent to point out that there is no intention to sue when you use that term. Would someone please close this thread? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:18, 21 October 2014 (UTC) What an extraordinary edit summary. By playing the sexist card in that way, you do yourself no favours. Giano (talk) 22:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Oh and your edit summaries along with Eric's are full of roses? Please.... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC) I'm glad there are no hard feelings; that's really kind of you to say that. Giano (talk) 22:22, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Or how about this one: [126] Any reason for that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC) That's not an edit summary - it's my opinion. Giano (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Well what you quoted was Rationalobserver's opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC) Amusing as it is talking to you; I'm afraid here it's time for bed - so you'll have to continue without me. Giano (talk) 22:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Socks on my userpage

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

---

I appear to have been invaded, would someone mind helping? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Quickest thing would be to request page protection. Would stop IP's and non-confirmed users editing it.Amortias (T)(C) 23:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Already done. RGloucester — ☎ 23:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

And its protected. Amortias (T)(C) 23:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to those who helped. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It's no problem reverting userpage vandalism. It helps when you have rollback. I've had to fight off vandalism by a proxy IP on my talk almost single-handedly. In any case, that's all I really have to say about this. Dustin (talk) 23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Group of editors engaging in harassment, censorship and cyberbullying

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

---

A group of editors has been heavily harassing, censoring and cyberbullying innocent newcomers and those newcomers are paying the price. Over at Weekly Shōnen Jump, good information added is being reverted without reason [127][128][129][130][131].

This is obvious censorship and these editors obviously are very biased and wish to remove all criticism about the article. They have claimed all editors that disagree with them to be "sockpuppets" to make their censorship seem legit. They protected the article therefore censoring it and now they have protected the TALK PAGE too. They block all accounts that disagree with them as "sockpuppets" so they will not be questioned. These editors are obviously cyberbullying.This needs to stop. Knappilicious (talk) 05:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

1) New account's first edit is to ANI. Second and third account are to blue link their signature. This is not a legitimate use of an alternate account. Please return to your main account - this one will shortly be blocked.--v/r - TP 05:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm afraid if I return to my main account, those editors will start harassing me. I'm afraid that will happen, as I'm a user with 10,000+ edits! Knappilicious (talk) 06:10, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat

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

---

This has gone from bad to worse. User:Jaime-Ordonez-Victoria (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Someone else deal with him! please.LeadSongDog come howl! 05:56, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This is unacceptable. I've blocked indefinitely pending a clarification and retraction. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Inappropriate posts on porn/wanking/jerking off left on my talk page

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

---

Can an admin do something about this [132] and this [133]? A warning needs to be given to inform both Dr Blofeld and Cassianto to tell them that their behavior is not acceptable. Could an admin also please tell User:Cassianto to leave me alone, to stop harassing me, to stop stalking my edits and to stop bullying me around? I have told him multiple times to stop posting on my talk page and he still does anyway. I'm fed up with him. He and I have clashed many times on the Peter Sellers talk page and that is where all his abuse comes from. Caden ^cool 20:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

He should be obligated to stay off your talk page per WP:NOBAN, and I'm assuming that an administrator may enforce such a request. Tutelary (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

PMSL. I suspect the humour of the situation is probably missing you here, but if you have the 'I like pornography' use box on your page, people are going to comment on it! – SchroCat (talk) 20:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break schrocat. You very well know that your buddy cass has done that shit before to me. He's not joking around. Caden ^cool 20:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, is this a joke? Cassianto^talk 20:59, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Caden, but whilst you've got that userbox on your page, you can't in any way complain about people joking about it. I'd remove it if I were you. Black Kite (talk) 21:01, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Whilst your there, why don't you remove the homophobic one as well? Cassianto^talk 21:03, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What one would that be? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

The "this user only believes in marriage between a man and a woman" box. That to me suggests that the user has homophobic tendencies. Cassianto^talk 21:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of users who have that infobox though it doesn't mean they are homophobic it could just be their beliefs. For example someone can believe in traditional marriage and still have gay friends. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Marriage is traditional for some gay people, what are you suggesting? Cassianto^talk 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Not my best choice of wording, If you ask someone to stop smoking do you think they are going to listen to what you have to say? Things take time. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It can be seen a making fun of the person though for their likes. Nobody should have to get rid of user-boxes for that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Most people like porn, but they don't advertise it on their fecking user page! If he liked Arsenal Football Club, people would banter him about slipping down the premiership table. I doubt he would bring that to ANI. Cassianto^talk 21:14, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, if you insist in parading your opinions across your userpage, you shouldn't be surprised if someone disagrees with you. When you've got a userbox that actively invites ridicule, what should you expect? Black Kite (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't care, I mean to each their own right? I am not going to go judge people by infoboxes they have here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't judge either. But wanking and pornography go hand in hand (so to speak) lol. Cassianto^talk 21:22, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Cass has done this before [134], [135] and its not joking on his part Black kite but harassment. I can't find his one that was deleted by Chillium because it was that bad. Caden ^cool 21:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Telling someone they deserve to be made fun of for their userboxes either indicates that the userbox is inappropriate or else is a social equivalent of "she wore a short skirt." As much as my grandmother would be offended by the pornography userbox, a box "This user likes pornography" is not in itself pornographic, much less harmful to the site. As utterly wrong as I think the marriage userbox is, I can't say that it's inappropriate in itself. (Now, if a hypothetical user was trying to argue that some contested edits they made to articles like Marriage or Civil Union were not part of an anti-LGBT POV, the userbox could be taken into evidence, but no one has claimed that's the case).

Dismissing someone's argument (whatever it is) by pointing to one of their userboxes and indicating that it represents diminished capacity is generally an ad hominem. Calling someone a wanker is absolutely a personal attack (and if anyone wishes to argue with me on that latter point, they should have no problem to me preemptively calling them either a jackoff or a hypocrite).

Might interaction bans might be useful here? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you for real? Cassianto^talk 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What might be far better is to close this before it becomes even more embarrssing for the OP. Black Kite (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, Black Kite. I'm sorry, but you are so wrong on this one. There is no excuse for intimidation and harassment.--v/r - TP 21:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither of which this is. I remember the userbox wars, I'm afraid. It was made very clear then that if you want to parade your likes and dislikes across your userpage, you must be prepared for people to use those to disagree with you. Whilst I wouldn't personally have used the language that the two users mentioned above did, I can't see any way of sanctioning them for it, given the situation. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is harassment black kite. Check the sellers talk page and mine and cass' and schrocat's then you will see the truth. Caden ^cool 21

45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Within the realms of NPA. Saying "Of course you support capitalism, your userboxes say you are a Conservative" is legitimate use. Saying "You're a wanker" because someone has a porno userbox isn't at all appropriate.--v/r - TP 21:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you go away and get your facts right. Cassianto^talk 21:36, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a fact that you called someone a wanker. It is a fact that that is a personal attack. Quit trying to hide/distort facts. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to get your facts right; Dr. B made a comment about Caden's porn user box and joked that he needed to stop "jerking off". The English term is "wanking". The descriptor for wanking is "wanker". Where did I call him a wanker? Cassianto^talk 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ahh, so you're going down that road, eh? Attack any sysop that takes a remotely dim view of your behavior so they become WP:INVOLVED? Note to any other admin, this user will try to make it personal.--v/r - TP 21:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)@Cassianto:: Yes. You made a personal attack. If you can't see that, you should probably not be talking to Caden, if not others.

@Black Kite:: First it was "she was wearing a short skirt," and now it's "why do we need to embarrass/believe the victim?" Real progressive on your part. Hope you don't have daughters. Do you not see how calling someone a wanker is a personal attack? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:34, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Do you not see how comparing annoying comments to rape is a minimization of real rape? --NE2 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What do my daughters have to do with this discussion. I didn't call him a wanker. Another one who needs to get their facts right. Cassianto^talk 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually Ian, I do have two daughters, and in the course of my work I also see how pornography affects young women. So you'll excuse me for not giving any leeway whatsoever to people with pornography userboxes, won't you? Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 21:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Y'all really fail to see the connection between rationalizing making personal attacks based on someone's userboxes and the "she wore a short skirt" comments I keep making? Cassianto, you're really saying you did not make this post? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is a pathetic circle jerk. --NE2 21:27, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's see:

• Caden has the user boxes: enjoys sex, enjoys porn, is a smartass, says no to political correctness. He also believes: "there is no acceptable form of censorship".
• Cassianto posts politically incorrect smartass remarks relating to sex and porn on Caden's user talk.

I'm inclined to agree with NE2. Both users have earned a WP:TROUT. aprock (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

In other words "she was wearing a short skirt and is always talking about how women should embrace their sexuality." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Caden is a male Ian, and doesn't have any skirt infoboxes. aprock (talk) 21:47, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

"Wanker" is a word having a dual definition. From the wiktionary article [136]:

1. (obscene, vulgar) A person who wanks.
2. (UK, Australia, New Zealand, slang, pejorative, vulgar) An idiot, a stupid, annoying or ineffectual person.

The posted sentence can be interpreted in two strongly different ways according to the definition we choose here. And I believe it wouldn't do harm if people here would only recognize it could also be interpreted by its second meaning. Metropolitan (talk) 21:45, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• First time I've disagreed with Black Kite in quite a while, but... regardless of the userboxes, the two linked comments went to far. So, @Blofeld and Cassianto:, please knock it off. I can't support an interaction ban unless I see something more substantial than a diff-free accusation of harrassment and stalking. If Caden wants to pursue that, it should be documented. But Cassianto, please stay off Caden's talk page unless it is necessary, per his request. Anyone mind if I close this? It's already gone on too long, and now we're comparing it to rape, which is only going to make it worse... --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

• At no point did I call Caden a wanker. Diffs please. Cassianto^talk 21:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Proposing topic ban for Der Statistiker after years of flame wars at Paris

Related: #Topic-ban_request_for_User:Der_Statistiker_in_Paris_articles.

Update I apologize for having started a thread without seeing another one was open. I strike this thread and add my support to the the topic ban in the existing discussion. An admin can close this thread Update ends
Since several years already, Der Statistiker is involved in never-ending flame wars at Paris. The content of the disputes are always trivial (in my view) but the behavior of Der Statistiker is locking the article. Quite literally, after the latest rounds of edit wars this article has been locked. My own involvement in editing the article is limited to twice restoring the consensus (my only two own edits ever to Paris, I think) but I have followed it and taken part in discussions. There is a lot of policy violations on all sides, but I'm afraid Der Statistiker has now passed the line. While the content issue (which picture to have in the infobox) is trivial, there is clear that there is a consensus for one version and that Der Statistiker refuses to accept this consensus. Before the lock, Der Statistiker edit-warred extensively and should probably have been blocked [137], [138], [139], [140], [141]. Instead of letting matters rest after the article was blocked, Der Statistiker has only been increasing a highly disruptive behavior aimed at targeting people who disagreed with them. This includes the bizarre move to go to Paris on French Wikipedia with the only intention to start a discussion there about another user and myself, accusing me of being "of the worst POV pushers". While I found it amusing to be called a POV pusher for editing an article twice in five years, it's still a violation of WP:NPA and to go to French Wikipedia just to rant about other users, and to WP:CANVASS French users to stop the "Canadian-English" at English Wikipedia is bizarre [142], [143]. Now, back at Paris on English Wikipedia, other users have just started a constructive dialogue about how to improve the article overall, and Der Statistiker is immediately there to continue with rants about other users, not contributing anything to the discussion, and effectively polluting the atmosphere. [144], [145]. When the user says about those who disagree with him (again, all over a photo) "We are faced with the most vicious people I have ever seen in my life online" [146] it's not helpful. The user also says the people he dislike "request banishments against whoever disagree with them". Well, I am requesting that "banishment" in the form a topic ban. But not because of disagreement (my main concern in this dispute has always been behavior, not content) , but because of the WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality of this user which all too evident in the diffs here provided. Because of these never-ending conflicts, one of the most visited articles on English Wikipedia has now been locked down for almost a month.Jeppiz (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

There already is an active discussion about topic banning the editor in question above. I would suggest it you instead add your comments to that discussion (unless you have already done so) to avoid splitting the discussion.--69.157.253.160 (talk) 21:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

They probably think that by multiplying the number of sections asking for my banishment, they will increase their chances to have an admin eventually ban me. It's a good example of WP:HARASS if there ever was one. Der Statistiker (talk) 22:48, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, User:Der Statistiker. You call people who disagree with you "The most vicious peole ever". You create an account on French Wikipedia just to attack there some persons disagreeing with you on English Wikipedia. You call me an "aggressive POV-pusher" for editing an article two times in five years. And after that, and much more, you say I harass you by reporting your multiple policy violations to ANI?Jeppiz (talk) 23:18, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What's vicious is to make wholesale reverts without even discussing it with other editors beforehand. What's vicious is to repeatedly open files here to have an editor banned (and, surprise surprise, not the other editors involved in the dispute who have used insults and ad hominem on the talk page). What's vicious is to come to the Paris article to quarrel and not to actually contribute to it (most of you guys have never edited the Paris article and have landed in the article only to protect the edits of Dr. Blofeld). What's vicious is to insult me on the French Wikipedia and call me a "sockpuppet" there even though you don't know who I am. Finally, and most importantly, what's vicious is not to assume the good faith of another editor. No work at Wikipedia is possible if you don't assume the good faith of other editors (sentences like "you're trying to portray Paris as NYC" are NOT assuming the good faith of other editors). If you actually care about Paris (you know, the subject of the article), feel free to spend hours, as I've done, to look for information, data, references, and put them in the article. That will be way more constructive than endless reams of angry messages on the AN/I or the article talk page. Der Statistiker (talk) 23:32, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm getting lost, who are you talking to? I'm talking about your actions. You seem to mash all people you dislike into one. I've never called you a sockpuppet. I've never gone to an article to quarrel. I've opened this report on you, not any other one. I've never made any wholesale revert to Paris without discussing. In short, none of what you say applies to me. I cannot help get the feeling you're just throwing mud hoping some will stick to get away from the discussion about your repeated personal attacks.Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Several points:

1. Der Statistiker is obviously not the only one involved in this old conflict and a topic ban would only make of him a scapegoat.
2. In the latest days, the discussion is indeed getting constructive again. Asking to ban someone could only be a new spark to launch yet another conflict. We must do with all editors.
3. It's been agreed to postpone the photo conflict and focus on the article's content. This is clearly not the right time to put that question on the table again.
4. The multiple topic bans request can be interpreted as WP:HARASS. Launching a new topic when there's another one which has already been re-opened while it had already been closed is not a smart idea.

Yours faithfully. Metropolitan (talk) 22:16, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

1. Had I seen there was an ongoing discussion I would have added it there, my bad for not checking. That does not change that the behavior is disruptive and aggressive.
2. I agree that the conflict involve many editors, I'm not claiming all the others are behaving exemplary. I do believe what Der Statistiker is behaving worse, and I believe the diffs show it. It's not about making a scapegoat, it's about a user whose behavios is disruptive.
3. Please re-read my post. Once more, the content dispute is irrelevant, the problem is the behavior and the personal attacks.
4. The discussion is at Paris may be better, but still once more, I'm talking about Der Statistiker, not Paris. In the last days, Der Statistiker has made several very strong personal attacks (calling other users "among the most vicious people online" today).Jeppiz (talk) 22:49, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

No, he wasn't the most aggressive in the discussion. That title goes to Blo&Schro with their multiple "stupid", "Fuck off", "FFS", "complete twat" and other "Go away" [147] [148] [149] [150] [151]. DerStatistiker has indeed complained of other contributors' behaviours (as we did all for the matter, including you and me), but he has never posted direct insults.

Now that you're aware that there is another open discussion, do you agree we should close this one and give some rest to these poor admins? Metropolitan (talk) 23:05, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Those diffs are appalling, I agree. You're quite right that that behavior is also highly troublesome and should be checked. Not sure it matters here, though. If other people are speeding, we aren't allowed to speed. That other users clearly have been uncivil is no excuse for the strong personal attacks by DerStatistiker. But no, I don't think this discussion should be closed as it has many diffs that are relevant, though the discussions could well be combined.Jeppiz (talk) 23:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Those Blofeld & SchroCat behaviours have already been checked and this has led me to a 3-day block for WP:BOOMERANG, a decision cancelled on appeal. This is a past story really. You don't do yourself good in insisting this way. Metropolitan (talk) 23:24, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you insist on distracting from the central issue by pointing fingers, a gentle reminder that the 'not the only ones' of the most recent episode were summoned (by we-still-don't-know-who) to impose one photo on the Paris article. In any case, Statistiker, plus these 'parachuters', plus you, Metropolitan, were all on the same tag-team, fighting in a concerted effort to impose that one photo (and no other). This happened not only once, but twice in the space of one year, in exactly the same way, with exactly the same 'off-wiki and Co.' photo-pushing team. This was not only disruptive, but calculatingly against Wiki rules, and you supported each other knowing this full well. THEPROMENADER 23:31, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

By all of them, do you also imply Blo, Schro, Jeppiz and you? If so that could be interesting ;). Come on Promenader, move on. Metropolitan (talk) 23:39, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

What does this even mean? Blo, Schro, Jeppitz and I were not part of any canvassed tag-team. In fact, those events were a clear indicator of who has a POV to push (and what they're willing to do to 'get it through'), and that is what's causing disruption in the Paris article. And no, countering a POV-campaign is not POV in itself, although you and Hardouin have tried hard to make it seem so. And your answer to every criticism here is a 'don't look here, look over there' comment... how can you even defend such behaviour, and why? THEPROMENADER 07:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As there have been recent calls on the Paris talk page for the image question to be raised again, and as Der Statisker is happy to canvass on the French Wiki, I'm not sure who the "move on" question should be addressed to best. I've stepped away from the article as I find him an incredibly divisive editor who must take a large share of the blame in making the talk page toxic. Sadly, the bully has won on this occasion. – SchroCat (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a "past story", just as you say, but then Der Statisker canvassed on French Wiki in an attempt to re-open a very recently closed debate. It's that battleground mentality that is the problem with which people are pissed off at. As for the diffs you posted above: I stand by the ones I made. When people mindlessly edit war without discussion it leads to friction and frustration. When one side of a debate sinks to meat puppeting and socking, it only leads to people becoming increasingly pissed off with such low and despicable tactics. On top of all that, not long after the consensus has been settled on this point, Der Statisker tries to buck that consensus with exactly the same tactics. Guess what... People are pissed off again. - SchroCat (talk) 23:35, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not Der Statistiker who put the discussion on the French Wiki but Supermangaka who posted it on the French bistro [152] after the story was published in the French newspaper Le Monde [153]. It's been then suggested to continue the discussion on the Paris talk page. I have the feeling to be Bill Murray in the Groundhog Day, constantly living the same day and repeating the same thing. WP:HARASS? Metropolitan (talk) 23:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ? I didn't say he opened the discussion: I said he canvassed "Votre aide à tous serait bienvenue pour sortir de ce blocage. On ne peut pas accepter qu'un quarteron d'éditeurs canado-anglais imposent leur vision de Paris". This isn't harassment. He has badly breached policy and guidelines and once again we see the same pattern of behaviour. Several people complaining about the same point isn't harassment: it's a bloody great big red flag that someone is going well beyond the boundaries of acceptable behaviour. - SchroCat (talk) 00:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As already explained in the file opened above by ThePromenader (opening another file to request my banishment when there is one already opened is a neat case of WP:HARASS), WP:CANVASS explains clearly that "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions", which is exactly what I have done. All I've asked is for knowledgeable French editors to come to the Paris article and express their opinions about this, because there is indeed a deadlock since none of you is willing to compromise (and in fact you, SchroCat, is making wholesale reverts to protect the content of the article edited by your friend Dr. Blofeld, which is in breach of WP:OWN; see your wholesale reverts here and here). I have not told the French editors what opinion to express, in fact it would be rather counter-productive given how independently minded the French usually are. All I've said is they should air their views to see if we can move from there. Your multiple demands for banishment will go nowhere. So perhaps if you tried to compromise instead of hoping for my "liquidation", the atmosphere in the article would improve considerably. All I've seen from you in the past year is a very uncompromising editor who arrived in the article for the sole purpose of protecting the edits of Dr. Blofeld. That is not constructive. Der Statistiker (talk) 10:34, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Metropolitan: Who is harassing whom? User:Der Statistiker call people who disagree "The most vicious peole ever". He creates an account on French Wikipedia just to attack me and others. He call me an "aggressive POV-pusher" for editing an article two times in five years. In response, I have filed one report at ANI, and that is all. Tell me, am I harassing him or he harassing me?Jeppiz (talk) 00:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You admit that you edited the article only two times in five years, and those were to revert someone else. If you don't see a problem there, I think any admin can see one. You clearly don't care about the article, and only jumped on the bandwagon for reasons that I ignore (off-wiki contact by Dr. Blofeld?). I, unlike you, have added CONTENT to the article (you know, the hard stuff that takes many hours not of sillily arguing on talk pages or AN/I, but of researching valuable information, data, references). I would be more than glad to see you devote your time to improve the content of the article, especially in the categories where it is sorely lacking (economy, demographics, transports, administration), rather than spending your life on talk pages and AN/I, where you and ThePromenader's harassment force me to spend so much time these days. Der Statistiker (talk) 10:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the battlefield mentality I'm talking of. First you accuse me of being "one of the worst POV-pushers on the article". After finding out I've only edited it twice, that is now a problem and you accuse me of "jumping on the bandwagon" after off-wiki contact. Both accusations are false, but the funny thing is how contradictory they are. It's the classic "damned if you do, damned if you don't". It just underlines how it's the never-ending personal attacks that matter for Der Statistiker. The problem with me is not that I've pushed a POV (2 edits), nor that I've edited only two times (hardly unique) but that I've expressed support the for consensus. That "justifies" all the personal attacks on me and on others. It's for that battlefield mentality Der Statistiker is problematic on articles related to Paris.Jeppiz (talk) 10:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Someone who comes in the article solely to defend the "tourist" edits of Dr. Blofeld is a POV-pusher. Yes, I think it matches the definition neatly. And there was no consensus about this photomontage at the time when you made yours reverts. It's beyond me how so many editors who had never edited the Paris article simply came there to make some reverts. It's not only suspicious, but also against many guidelines of Wikipedia (the goal of being an editor at Wikipedia is to expand the articles by adding valuable content, not to roam the site to make some reverts in articles you never otherwise edit). Der Statistiker (talk) 11:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

This all needs to stop, now. Here's my temporary solution, which I will gladly enforce with blocks at any moment (pending the outcome of the topic-ban debate above): from this moment on, the talkpage of the Paris article (as well as all related discussions elsewhere, edit summaries etc.) are under a strict, no-exceptions, "comment on content, not on contributor" rule. You can all continue to discuss what content should be in the Paris article, but until further notice, no contributor with a prior significant involvement on the Paris discussions is allowed, in any context, to engage in any negative remarks about any of the others. This includes, in addition to the usual forms of incivility and personal attacks: any complaints or accusations of wrongdoing, speculations about the other person's motivations or POV agendas, reminders about (real or alleged) past misbehaviour or allusions to such, talk about somebody's behaviour off-wiki, ad-hominem arguments about somebody's lack of qualifications or of editing merits, "tu-quoque"-types of responses to accusations from others. Anybody who engages in any such behaviour, on either side, will be blocked, immediately, without further warning, for substantial periods of time.

This also entails that you should all stop, immediately, to fight with each other on this noticeboard. This goes for everybody who has, let's say, five or more contributions to Talk:Paris within the last six months. Just stay out of here for now and leave any further measures to uninvolved people to decide on; !votes about banning from involved voices are usually useless in such threads anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:41, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Temporary page review

Requesting admin assistance in reviewing the article rewrite after a claimed copyright infringement. The new article is entirely original and includes reliable citations and sources. The article in question is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Schiller

new article written as directed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Harvey_Schiller/Temp 2602:306:CE71:E330:904C:D6B0:9B3F:E577 (talk) 21:52, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Bullying/Owning

What can I do in regards to one user privately e-mailing other users to have my edits undone without a paper trail leading back to the original user? It's all speculation on my part (based on far too many coincidences) and I have asked the other users, who have not denied it. This, if true (which I'm sure it is), is obvious bullying and owning on these users parts (one is even a site admin). Thanks in advance to any who reply.Cebr1979 (talk) 22:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Usual way of handling meatpuppet accusations is the same as sockpuppet accusations: link to edits demonstrating that the accounts are acting together. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:04, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll compile it and do just that.Cebr1979 (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

If you need any help filing the SPI, leave me a message. NativeForeigner ^Talk 05:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I'm going to get on it sometime tomorrow.Cebr1979 (talk) 06:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

List of Iranian people by net worth

Hi, I have come across one editor who makes unfounded personal attack against other editors and reverted his edits here. I also left a note on his talk page to tell him why. He/she is one of the two editors who had edit wars in the past on the talk page of the same article. Now they edit war thru IP edits and disrupt Wikipedia. Please check and block them as they have already been warned by admins in the past for their repeated disruption. Thanks. 85.218.103.97 (talk) 23:02, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, hopefully it's stopped. It looks like the vandalism is removing Ali Khamenei and Babak Zanjani from the list. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor needs an intervention

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

---

Would someone have a moment to look at User talk:Dragonrap2. This editor appears to be well meaning, but makes a lot of work for others who need to clean up their sloppy edits. Several messages of support have been left, but this editor hasn't responded. I'm in the process of cleaning up "Category:Cities in Little Rock–North Little Rock–Conway metropolitan area" which this user created (without any definition of what to include in it), and then randomly added a bunch of places in Arkansas. Thanks for your help. Magnolia677 (talk) 00:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I see the user has been reported here before. Maybe one more set of warnings, for disruptive editing and failure to communicate, could be posted? – Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh. It's the same reason. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Competence is required; the bottom line? -- Hoary (talk) 02:46, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User J Greb harassment

The user: J Greb has constantly been reverting any edits I do simply because they were done by me. An example is I created a redirect for the Caitlin Snow version of Killer Frost, like we do with all alter egos of most other comic book characters (Clark Kent being a prominent exception). And he deleted it, the reasoning being "sigh" (here). I seriously hope that isn't considered a proper justification by Wikipedia standards. Also note that there is no other Wikipedia page called Caitlin Snow, so there was no unstated disambiguation reasoning.

Another example is I created a redirect to The Flash (2014 TV Series) page called Flash 2014, and he deleted that. My reasoning behind it was that not many fans would want to type such a long title to search for the show, so I thought this would be helpful. But he didn't even talk with me about it- just deleted it right off the bat.

Now, I might as well talk about what I posted on his talk page since it'll no doubt be brought up. I was going through a tough time and I happened to see we'd had a conflict of interest in the past on my own talk page. I regret doing this, but I posted on his talk page that I hated him and that no doubt convinced him to start watching my edits. He looked through my edit history reverted a bunch of redirects I had created. I'm not complaining about those b/c he did post on my talk page why they violated the rules, but it does add to the point of harassment.

I'm not complaining about all the decisions he does because some of them are reasonable, like when he told me I had messed up changing the Dances with Wolves and General Zod page pictures.

I doubt I'll be successful in this since he's an administrator, but let me just say this. All the edits I do as of late are done in good faith. I hope you don't see these minor additions/redirects as vandalism because I swear that is not my intent. And I do make mistakes like every other user, but that doesn't mean I deserve a watchdog who just deletes anything I do, and only occasionally talks about it. I beg you not to see this as vandalism and assume good faith. Thank you for your time.--Valkyrie Red (talk) 03:47, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

You give a single example of a reversion (indeed, deletion) that you don't like: having "Caitlin snow" (small "s") redirect to one part of a longish article. If I understand right, "Caitlin Snow" (large "S") appears in two issues of one comic, so it's not obvious that the name is very important, though I'll grant that "sigh" is an inadequate comment for the redirect's deletion. Anyway, without the redirect, looking for the name shows people where to go. How about your creation of, say, The bike thief (a redirect to Bicycle Thieves, subsequently deleted); why did you create it? -- Hoary (talk) 04:40, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Not being able to see deleted contributions, I can't judge all of VR's created redirects (J Greb's log - I can see the titles, but not where they linked to, nor who created them, I'm assuming they're all VR's until told otherwise). The two given as examples here make sense, as well as many of those in the log, and I would likely have made some of them had I thought of them first. R3 certainly does not apply to many of them - IIRC from a prior discussion about it, generally if at least one person genuinely thinks it's "obvious", R3 shouldn't be used (WP:CHEAP and all). The deletion rationales aren't exactly good, either: R3: Recently created, implausible redirect: Not so much "implausible" but thourolghy unneeded (which isn't R3 at all); Unneeded implausable redirect (doesn't mention R3, but that's nitpicking, I know); Really? Again?, Sigh, Same, and a blank one, which only make sense when viewing the user logs. Just my take on the situation, as an outsider. ansh666 07:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

@Ansh666: here is a list of all VR's pages, including deleted redirects. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Without being able to see where they used to link to, it's still kind of useless. I mean, most of them are guessable, but still. ansh666 16:53, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

• For whatever reason the link given by GS Palmer doesn't actually have ALL Valkyrie's deleted redirects, and is missing such gems as Harry potter 7 1. Having looked at the deleted redirects and spot-checked a few, they appear to be pretty illogical and unhelpful to say the least. For example, Twilight 1 to Twilight (2008 film) (the movie, not the book, which would have made at least some sense). Since there are dozens of redirects of similar quality, some going back years, I can understand some exasperation on J Greb's part in having to deal with this, especially as your actions toward them range from sniping to all-out personal attacks, the latter of which occurred on an IP's talk page! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
  • You say pretty illogical and unhelpful, but I disagree. I think many of them (the two you mentioned, for example, though the point about book vs movie is valid) make sense. ansh666 19:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Possible threat in deleted article

Please review the deleted content at Review Request For The Blocked Article By Third Party and determine if it contains an actionable threat. In particular the statement: "I am requiring that now the guy 'must' make it to be unblocked and unprotected article immediately. Otherwise, likely, but it not to be limited, if no response of this request, all will be a consequences." Thank you.—John Cline (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't perceive the threat as being one that requires any sort of worry. Nonetheless, I do see an SPA (who is most likely not a new user) with obvious WP:CIR/WP:NOTHERE issues, so the only action I feel that needs to be taken at this time is a block on those grounds. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree.—John Cline (talk) 04:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz

A few days ago I posted the following but no-one responded. I have brought it back here. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 07:25, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Raymarcbadz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been removing content from "nation" at the XXXX Olympics articles. Here is a summary of his disruptive behaviour:

1. [154] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
2. [155] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)
3. [156] - Benin at the 2008 Summer Olympics - (20/10/14)
4. [157] - Vanuatu at the 2008 Summer Olympics (20/10/14)

• Older examples:

1. [158] - Congo at the 2008 Summer Olympics (10/3/13)
2. [159] - Indonesia at the 2008 Summer Olympics (9/3/13)
3. I can spot seven here

• Warnings:
• I gave him a 4im due to the amount of content removal ([160]) which s/he reverted quickly ([161])

Raymarcbadz has made 35000+ edits and he has been a great service to WP:OLY. I just think he has gone a bit far. Maybe a official final warning saying: "If you remove content again from WP:OLY articles, you'll be blocked without warning". Just a suggestion though, as it is up to a sysop. - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 08:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to see here a reasonable explanation by Raymarcbadz as to the reason for removal of sourced material. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

I do have a reasonable explanation for removing chunks of content in most of the articles that I edited.

• The intent to nominate an article for a GA category - When you are creating an article for a nation competing at the particular Olympic Games edition, you do not need to expand lengthy information for each athlete and his status in the competition in order to nominate an article. There are multiple approaches to polish your article in order to nominate an article. Since the nations article contains data and results, I do not have any problem if you're describing about the status of the sport for a particular nation, but putting petty and pointless details (e.g. born in etc.) is not the main target to nominate an article.
• Background - Is this an appropriate manner to set up historical information about the nation from the previous Games? Better if you place some of them in the Olympic nations article without mentioning a year of the nation's participation, because this is a direct approach to examine what happens to the particular nation during the Games regardless of the edition.
• Sports Reference as a source material - I do not know which source material should I rather cite to describe the status of the competition and to narrate the life of an athlete if I am clearly using Sports Reference. There are numerous variations to cite data using the Sports Reference, but through uncertainty and questionable fact, which one is effectively official?
• Useless information - Some of the information that I observed for each article do not directly focus on the athlete's performance at these Games. For example, born in the city of Santa Cruz, Bolivia (referring to the athlete in the article Bolivia at the 2008 Summer Olympics). Is this better if you should not mention the athlete's personal facts on the article? This would have been done in the article of the athlete itself. If you're aiming to focus on the athlete's performance, why cannot you put everything there in someone's article. If you wish to put a qualitative content on each section of the nations article, just provide the description briefly. No need to put too much petty information on the article. Another way to polish the article with enough content (not on the tables) is to create a section that summarizes the performance of the athletes of each nation during the Games. From my discernment, nations articles do not rely solely on the quantitative techniques (e.g. results tables for each sport), but rather analyze the outcome of the athletes before, during, and after the Olympics.

If you want to clarify something, please leave me a message. Thank you! Raymarcbadz (talk) 15:38, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Scottperry at WP:NPOV

[162] [163]

Warned: [164]

And about this ANI discussion: [165]

Sought input from WP:FTN: [166]

As far as I can see Scottperry refuses content discussion at Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#Must all "fringe articles" now be weighted so as to implicitly "oppose" the fringe topic?, just "vote-counting", accusing me of not following due process etc. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Francis Schonken (talk) is attempting to catch some admin by surprise here. He has a long history of blocks, has already made two reversions compared to my one, and seems to have posted this here right after I let him know I was going to work. Well I read Wikipedia at work too Francis, surprise! Specifically, he has already reverted this one WP:NOV policy twice, inclucing his July 30 reversion. He originally inserted the policy in early July without any "clear consensus". He first reverted it on July 30, in the apparent hope that he would "catch other editors off guard" by waiting until that time, still making the first reversion without any "clear consensus", and when asked how he achieved consensus, all he could do was to point to a talk-discussion where his edit was first reverted by User:Flyer22 in which Flyer22 had reverted his edit. How is that "consensus"? He seems to me to be the disruptive one, so far making two reversions, trying to "force" his will upon Wiki policy via irresponsible behavior, and not actually caring about first achieving "clear consensus" before making edits to our policy. Yet repeatedly claiming that he "did" achieve consensus, before his attempted changes to our policy. He has been editing Wikipedia for 9 years I believe, and I would guess that he must have at least a reasonable understanding about what "consensus" really is. Why he repeatedly claims that he had consensus for his edit, I cannot understand. It appears to me that he may be attempting to "game the system". If he makes a third reversion, I would ask that he be blocked for 2 weeks. I am beginning to think user Francis is a real "system gamer", and may need a block simply due to his request that I be blocked here. In fact I would like to request a 2 week block of him right now, due to his obviously "bad-faith" edit here. (this comment first posted at 12:30, 23 October 2014 (UTC). Last revision:Scott P. (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no disruption here. Scottperry has ample participation on the talk page although his accusation about Francis hoping to catch other editors off guard is very questionable. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you kindly Neil, very kindly. Scott P. (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Scott, you're adding to your post after I replied. Please don't do that. No one should be blocked yet. Just drop the stick and continue calmly discussing on the talk page. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:29, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, you are right. Sorry and twice now, thank you kindly. Scott P. (talk) 13:35, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Francis, I've asked you essentially this at the NPOV talk page:exactly why do you feel that your edit has consensus behind it? Your answer over there was to provide a link to a discussion between you and User:Flyer22 where she had simply reverted your attempted policy edit. If you might still feel so strongly that your edit had a consensus behind it, is there any other "proof" that you might have that a consensus amongst multiple editors approving the edit was arrived at before you made the edit? I would not have reverted your policy change if you had been able to provide such proof. Still I offer, if you could just provide some real evidence of such a consensus behind your edit, I would still be happy to let you keep the edit. Otherwise, why do you still seem to feel so strongly that you had consensus? How would you define consensus? Maybe that is what needs clarification here. I don't know. Scott P. (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Request resolution of ANI thread

Hello, could an administrator(s) please resolve the issue in this current ANI thread? It will go a long way to helping the articles move forward. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)