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

Sam Harris (author)

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

---

Note: Previous AN/I thread

Could an admin please visit this article and determine if temporary page protection is necessary while a BLP dispute is resolved? One editor appears intent on repeatedly re-inserting contentious, negative "opinions" about the living person simply because those opinions were found in blogs, op-eds, books, etc. Over the objections of several other editors, the editor keeps reverting any attempt to bring the content into BLP and NPOV policy compliance. When the problematic content was moved to the Talk page for discussion and dispute resolution, he re-inserted it again without addressing concerns. The subject of the article is a vocal critic of religion, most recently of Islam, so it doesn't help that this is a current event hot topic. This one editor has spent the past week inserting various forms of insinuated racism, bigotry, warmongering, Islamophobia, Jewish tribalism, academic dishonesty, right-wing ideologue fascism, etc., with no regard for impartiality or balance.

Disclosure: I'm one of the involved editors at the article. While there have been no technical violations of 3RR, there is still edit warring, and the ratio of productive discourse—to—reverting is not encouraging. And now there appears to be personal sniping. This matter is also related to the above open issue, but since no one reads the top half of this noticeboard anymore, I thought I would renew attention by requesting a single specific action: temporary page protection. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:03, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

I also want to point out that concerns have been made about that user's behavior just this morning in that previous thread. Despite being warned just a few days ago the personal attacks and defamatory comments have yet to cease and an administrator hasn't responded. You can view those concerns in the update section.LM2000 (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

• Bulleted list item

I've noted this WP:FORUMSHOPPING thread and have no qualms about indicating that it is yet another iteration in a continual string of disruptive, POV pushing WP:GAMING in relation to the content dispute described by Xenophrenic.

This is increasingly looking like something I'm going to have to bring up with ArbCom.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, it's kind of ridiculous for you to accuse Xenophrenic of WP:FORUMSHOPPING when you brought the current debate on the Sam Harris article to this noticeboard first, don't you think? With regard to Harris article, I see one editor pushing a biased POV and one editor being disruptive by working against consensus and making spurious claims of bad behavior by other editors. That editor is you, Ubikwit. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:40, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jweiss11:} Don't you think one thread is enough?

You and I are obviously on the opposite sides of the content dispute, and you and Xenophrenic have been editing that page since long before I arrived (not the case for LM2000). Accordingly, you and Xenophrenic might be partially responsible for the promotional bloat of primary sourced text in the article, but you are certainly responsible for excluding critical material while including all sort of vacuous praise from like-minded atheists, etc. That is an inverse form of POV pushing, because the end result is that you and Xenophrenic and other people trying to exclude reliably sourced criticism in violation of NPOV are skewing the article. Remember, it was you that deleted a Political section including RS material related to characterizations of "right-wing neoconservative policies" and "the national security state" and replaced that section with a "Social and economic politics"[4]. I have already indicated to you in a very civil manner that you have a competence issue with respect to the article, yet you persist in trying to push your ill-informed POV at me while conflating religion and politics, disparaging academic sources and professors of history and theology, etc. I'm through talking to you per WP:DENY. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, I've made a lot of edits to the Sam Harris article, but they have be mostly of the maintenance, copy-editing variety. I'm not responsible for any of the bloat in the article, nor am I really reasonable for writing much, if any, of the substantive content.

Xenophrenic made it clear that he has created this thread in an attempt to renew attention to the issue since it may have been buried here. Whatever the case, you are evading the hypocrisy of your WP:FORUMSHOPPING accusation. Your claim about my competence is ridiculous. I am very well-versed with Sam Harris's work and its criticism. I understand that some people like to treat religion and politics as if they are two entirely different animals, but it is a fact the religions in questions here are political and that the politics of religious people are informed by their religious beliefs. More generally, just because different departments on a college campus tend to reside in different buildings, that doesn't mean the things they study are actually disparate. And we're not beholden to honor that academic silo-ing in every section of every article on Wikipedia, particularly when the subject is a person who has made criticisms of religions that focus in large part on the real-world, political impact of religion. I deleted the "Political" section because it was a poorly-defined, redundant concoction that you designed to serve as repository for an unbalanced assault on Harris that includes defamatory commentary. The consensus of involved editors at the article seems to agree with my assessment and action.

If anyone lacks competence, it's you with regard to your poor understanding and application of various Wikipedia principles, e.g when you claimed that my talk page commentary constituted original research—an utter contradiction in terms—or just now with your FORUMSHOPPING accusation, of which you either lack the sensibility to understand or the intellectual honesty to admit your hypocrisy. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I had NAC'd this because a request for arbitration was opened, but since that seems to be headed toward being declined (5 decline votes at this time), I've re-opened it for further community comment. BMK (talk) 01:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: I've withdrawn the request for arbitration. Is there any way to combine this thread with the related thread that preceded it[5]?
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 02:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't think there's any need to cut and paste that very long thread here. Links should be sufficient. BMK (talk) 04:25, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed another disturbing comment by Xenophreic that I missed

Wikipedia policy will not allow you to advance your "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" narrative in that manner. By way of example: suppose I found a source on a blog who claimed Ubikwit traffics in child pornography, and I placed that information into a BLP about Ubikwit. When you inevitably complain and deny it, I assure you "the source was used as opinion and the statement attributed" so you must leave it in your biography. I'll even supply another source who agrees with the first source. But you are welcome to insert a denial after it, of course. Sounds like there should be a Wikipedia policy against me being able to do that, don't you agree?[6]

That kind of analogy is simply unacceptable. It is uncivil and represents a battlefield mentality. The fact that there was no BLP violation in the quote had already been determined on the relevant BLP/N thread[7], and the assertion that I was advancing a narrative of "Harris hates Islam because he's Jewish" is a personal attack.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

If you found a source which said "Willis Warf says George Gnarh is a pedophile" - would you find it remotely usable as a source for a claim in Gnarph's BLP "Gnarph has been called a pedophile"? Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:57, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Do not presume to speak for me in your edit summary. Your hypothetical scenario is not analogous, so it is curious that you would repeat the personal attack in order to try to defend Xenophrenic's grossly insulting and offensive post, which needs to be revdeleted.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

As I did not "repeat the personal attack" but you were the only one who "repeated the personal attack" I m a tad bemused by your post supra. And I believe if you want something revdeled which you iterate, there is a logical disconnect. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

My question to you, Ubikwit, was absolutely civil and in no way a personal attack. If you find the analogies disturbing, then they have served their purpose in conveying to you how offensive some of your edits and proposed edits are. You have repeatedly argued to insert the caustic opinions of a few critics into a biography of a living person, with disregard for Wikipedia policies:

• On the other hand, do you think Hussain claims Harris is racist? We could easily add that back based on statements like (insert opinion piece calling the subject a racist) [8]
• The Aljazeera article does include a fairly detailed examination of the indirect implications of racism, though, in terms of discourse analysis. (insert opinion piece in which the writer says he doesn't want to discuss the subject's racism, but his bigotry and irrational anti-Muslim animus). [9]
• The article in the Independent is a definitely news piece that serves as a secondary source for all of the above. and yes, Hussain characterizes Harris as promoting "scientific racism", as is emphasized in the article in the Independent. (insert quote from The Independent saying that someone accused the subject of racism) [10]
• Reliably published statements of both Hussain and Lears support the association of ideas espoused by Harris with scientific racism. ... It really doesn't matter if you don't like that. It is not a BLP violation to include those characterizations with proper attribution. Retract your personal attack accusing me of smearing, etc. [11]
• As I've pointed out, since Harris is not published by peer-reviewed academic presses, which are generally considered the highest level of sources on Wikipedia, when he makes outlandish, bigoted, war-mongering statements, he is likely to be subject to severe criticism by bona fide scholars in the fields that his popular works relate. [12]

You inserted the contentious opinion that Harris is Muslim-bashing because he is Jewish here, and simultaneously edit-warred to categorize the avowed atheist as "Jewish". That's not a personal attack, that is substantiated fact. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:40, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

I am upset over the ArbCom forumshopping exercise and other examples of tendentiousness from one editor at this point. 40,000 characters cumulative edits on Sam Harris' BLP alone (much of which is essentially refusing to admit he has no support for his edits, so he keeps adding them in, over and over and over). 24,000 characters on noticeboards in 3 days. Over 60,000 characters on the SH talk page in under one week. When an editor hits over 120,000 characters in under a single week without apparently managing to get any support from other editors, I suspect "tendentious" is applicable. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom as forumshopping, that's funny.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:15, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

That is exactly what it was. Collect (talk) 15:39, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Does an administrator want to touch this issue? DGG expressed surprise that this has been able to go on as long as it has. Ubikwit has already been warned in the previous AN/I thread but the behavioral problems have not subsided. Just to recap: we have now had two threads on AN/I, two RfCs, one declined ArbCom case, one BLP/N thread and nobody has voiced support for Ubikwit's edits. He edit-warred and attempted to reinsert contentious material into the BLP 16 times. There is a detailed account of Ubikwit's bad behavior personal attacks in the subsection of the thread linked at the top, this was compiled after Robert McClenon warned him. Ubikwit has failed to interpret basic policy correctly; besides the obvious DUE, BRD, CONSENSUS and NPOV issues, he accused Jweiss11 of WP:OR for critiquing his comments on the talk page. He has also claimed that practically everybody on the talk page is lacking WP:COMPETENCE. After previously being warned here that this was a content dispute in the first thread, he took this to ArbCom where it was declined for (among other reasons) being a content dispute; then he projects his WP:FORUMSHOPPING onto others.LM2000 (talk) 18:30, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

The topic involves current events involving religion, violence and a bit of contention. That alone will ward off a lot of volunteers from getting involved, but it isn't as bad as some of the issues above. Anyone? Xenophrenic (talk) 18:54, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Misrepresenting sources and other editors

First of all, I was not warned in the above-linked AN/I thread, so LM2000 is simply repeating the lie to that effect from his statement at the request for arbitration statement[[13]]. @Robert McClenon: suggested that the thread be closed with a warning to me before I responded to the concerns and posted more details about a couple of problematic editing issues. The thread was not closed, and calls for a BOOMERANG ignored. Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit[14] reverting to his preferred version including [[WP:PEACOCK|peacocky}} paraphrasing based on a one-off comment in a non-mainstream source, and a self-serving one-off quote from a primary source. The mainstream view is obfuscated by the text. Jweiss11 (talk · contribs)'s disposition toward advocacy on this article is revealed by the contradictions in his statement at the request for arbitration[15], which I briefly characterized in relation to his repeated removal of criticisms based on the political ramifications of Harris statements[16] because he doesn't like them. Regarding Collect's allegation of forumshopping at ArbCom, note that @NativeForeigner: has indicated that he would be willing to look at this in that forum should the community processes fail to resolve the dispute[17]. So I'm back here at AN/I working through the community channels, but the request was not seen as frivolous, just premature. I should hope that there would be some input from uninvolved admins here soon on this second AN/I thread.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 23:44, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Three uninvolved users told you that you brought a content dispute to AN/I, Robert McClenon described your behavior as a "tantrum" and suggested you receive a strong warning. He also gave you a warning on your talk page regarding your behavior on BLP issues. You acknowledged the warning but denied any wrongdoing and continued to edit war and dump massive amounts of contentious material into the BLP.LM2000 (talk) 00:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

You are arguing semantics. That first AN/I thread should have been a wake-up call and unfortunately it was not.LM2000 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The statement I made in requesting arbitration is here.

@LM2000: An alert regarding discretionary sanctions is not a warning. Your comment at ArbCom read, "Robert McClenon described the scene as a "tantrum" and ended up giving Ubikwit a warning", which seems to link the comment in the AN/I thread with the "warning" per the recommendation made early in the thread.

Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context. First, Jonotrain inserted the Sayeed quote, as follows.[18]

According to Greenwald, Harris relies on this view of Islam to justify torture, anti-Muslim profiling, and the Israeli occupation. Greenwald sees the double standard in Harris' writings as a symptom of Islamophobia: "...he [Harris] and others like him spout and promote Islamophobia under the guise of rational atheism." Theodore Sayeed, another critic of Harris, also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

Second, When I moved the quote to the Political section, it was prefaced by the following text, which presented a balanced view of the debate in accord with NPOV.

Writing for Truthdig, Harris stated

It now appears to be a truism in foreign policy circles that real reform in the Muslim world cannot be imposed from the outside. But it is important to recognize why this is so—it is so because the Muslim world is utterly deranged by its religious tribalism."

On his blog, Harris states

I don’t think Israel should exist as a Jewish state. I think it is obscene, irrational and unjustifiable to have a state organized around a religion. So I don’t celebrate the idea that there’s a Jewish homeland in the Middle East. I certainly don’t support any Jewish claims to real estate based on the Bible.

He then says "if there were going to be a state organized around protecting members of a single religion, it certainly should be a Jewish state".

Third, I replaced the text with the following quote[19] after the BLP/N thread, even though that thread found no BLP issue with it.

In a Mondoweiss article praised by Greenwald, Theodore Sayeed stated, "Any review of Sam Harris and his work is a review essentially of politics".

Fourth, it was me that removed the racism allegation from the lead[20], even though there are a number of sources supporting the allegation with respect to statements on profiling, etc. that Harris has made. The I started this thread[21] and commented on Steeletrap (talk · contribs)'s UT page[22] after Steeletrap re-added it to the lead[23]./br>--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:08, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Attempts to dismiss peer-reviewed history book

Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.[24]

@Second Quantization: does same, making incoherent claim about paraphrasing, misunderstanding NPOV and RS.[25]

Refusing to get the point, SQ continues to push ill-informed POV; apparently, he couldn't take the time to check the links I provided to Palgrave’s website, asserting that the title of the book was “controversial”[26]. [27] [28]

Finally, SQ falsely accuses me (“No offence”) of BLP violations, because he doesn’t like what the RS say (aside from the fact that he mischaracterizes my edits), but refuses to take claims to BLP/N. WP:NPA. [29]

Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi, attempting to dismiss another source by an professor of history, and grossly misrepresenting my edits at the same time, while also stating

That is fine information for the Positivism article, and I don't disagree with Lears' assertion that there were elements of positivism at the core of social Darwinism, scientific racism and emperialism in the nineteenth century. I'll work to paraphrase it if I ever edit that article and see a need to introduce that information. [30]

An RS/N thread had to be opened to prove that the book is a peer-reviewed monograph.[31]
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 03:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't mind so much having to repeatedly correct Ubikwit's misrepresentation of sources, it's part of the job as a volunteer editor. I should not, however, have to keep correcting his misrepresentations about what I've said or done:

Xenophrenic continues to flaunt WP:SUMMARYSTYLE with respect to the lead, as can bee seen in this edit

Yes, check the edit and see that it was a simple BRD revert with a note directing you to the Talk page where that text was already being discussed - no flaunting involved. You are welcome to criticize my edits all you want, but you need not outright lie, Ubikwit.

Xenophrenic continues to attempt to divert attention from his disruptive POV pushing by making false allegations about long-ago resolved content disputes, but here is further context.

No "false allegations" cited by you in your comment, I see. That is typical. The issue you partially described was indeed long-ago resolved when it was discovered that you had taken a Harris quote out of context by cleverly omitting his disclaimer to the reader that the quote you repeated would sound "paradoxical" and that he was actually still "undecided" on that issue. And the BLP/N thread did not support your use of the Mondoweiss text.

Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss a peer-reviewed book by a career academic published by an academic press.

You need not outright lie, Ubikwit. Anyone who reads my response, which you linked, will see that rather than dismiss the source, I asked: What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here? I did point out that the book was a critique of atheism written by a priest, and had never been cited, but rather than "dismiss" the book, I urged you to continue with your proposal to use the source.

Xenophrenic comes back and insinuates that Lears was calling Harris a Nazi...

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? That one is so blatant, you didn't even attempt to substantiate it. Your Lears piece does the insinuation. Here is exactly what I said about it from the article Talk page:

here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, positivism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law.

Lies don't work, Ubikwit. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I think your statement about what I said is utterly bizarre (you do know that people can click and see what I wrote right?). This has been your approach in some of the things I have noticed:

1. You get a book that agrees with your point of view.

2. You don't mention it's written by a priest (in the discussion or the article) or that the book is just published. The book is also clearly for a popular audience as anyone can see from skimming it, it is not a normal academic monograph, even if it is peer reviewed (books for a popular audience are peer reviewed too).

3. You choose to include the most inflammatory statement you can find in the book and provide no context at all in the wikipedia article.

Further,

4. ... and accusing someone of denialism (rather than say just being bad at history) in your title is controversial.

Also, separately, what's most bizarre is that you seem to see no issue with adding statements which attempt to link someone with racism by association. Including that quote by Lear is clearly problematic. Second Quantization (talk) 19:46, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Second Quantization: The book is a peer-reviewed publication by an academic press by a career professor of history (forty years).

That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians", a group to which he specifically refers in the opening paragraph of the Intro and which includes Jackson Lears.

The title of the book and the statements it makes are not inherently "controversial" among mainstream historians. There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception. The book is a monograph on a very specific topic, your baseless assertion that it is "for a popular audience" is only indicative of the fact that you are a member of the so-called "popular audience", and your attempt to dismiss the per-reviewed book because of its author's religious affiliation is tendentious. I have mentioned competence to you for these reasons, as I see your training is in the applied sciences. Note that neither you nor any other supporters of Harris have produced a single peer-reviewed source supporting any of your groundless opinions. I, on the other hand, happen to have an academic background in history.

Linking the ideas espoused by someone with an ideology that "gave rise to" scientific racism and imperialism" is a fully valid criticism made by more than one RS and supported by mainstream historians. Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack. Next time, raise the issue at BLP/N, per policy. Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence. I would never do the same on an article dealing with physics.

And this is a personal attack.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 07:17, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

"Your crying wolf about BLP is a personal attack." That's a bit rich coming from the guy who is claiming I'm incompetent because I'm not a professional historian. Are you claiming to be a professional historian? Do you think we all need to be professional historians or else we are automatically incompetent? Does merely disagreeing with your use of sources make someone automatically incompetent? Does having studied history mean you are suddenly bias free? "Do not disruptively delete text sourced to peer-reviewed publications from fields outside of your scope of competence" You might want to look before you blab away about incompetence, because I haven't actually edited the particular source under discussion one way or the other.

" There have not been any reviews of the book or citations yet, so we'll have to wait to gauge its reception." That's what you are meant to do before trying to stick a source in an article. Your problem is you are trying to stick the sources in before we've seen it's impact, which is what I stated from the very beginning, Second Quantization (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

...and FYI on another point you keep ignoring. You say "That means that the statements in the book have been vetted by other "mainstream historians"" but you simply aren't using the book for any historical fact in the article at all. You are using the source to insinuate that someone is a denialist without bothering to put in any reason why that conclusion follows at all. You are defending the reliability of the historical content of the book but you aren't using any of the historical content of the book. Second Quantization (talk) 14:02, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

You should quit while your ahead. Don't misrepresent my edits, even if you don't understand them. Painter is a secondary source for Lears (on Harris), first of all. Both of them are "mainstream historians", academics. Note the quote from Harris; Painter is also a secondary source on Harris. You are correct that I don't use anything more specific from Painter, because I would want to read the book first, but he is useful for prefacing and supporting statements by Lears on Harris, and putting those in perspective.

Borden W. Painter turns to Lears critical analysis in his book The New Atheist Denial of History, stating that Lears “had raised significant historical points” overlooked in the historiography of Harris and other New Atheists. Painter cites a quotation from Harris at the opening of the Introduction to the book

“ If history reveals any categorical truth, it is that an insufficient taste for evidence regularly brings out the worst in us.
--Sam Harris ”

and then states that

his [Harris’] abstract appeals to history and evidence-based reasoning fail when measured against the concrete conclusions of mainstream historians concerning the topics he addresses in making his case against religion throughout all history.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:38, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit. You are battling away with multiple editors and then tell me to drop the stick. You should step back and maybe get some perspective. I made some pretty normal observations (some of which you appear to concede such as the book lacking critical response while not admitting I raised it in the first place) and your response was to become completely unreasonable and start attacking me, Second Quantization (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Nonsense. You started the attacking, and tendentiously insisted that the book was not a monograph, it was not peer-reviewed, the author is a priest, etc.

The peer-reviewed academic book does not require "critical response" before being used.

You have continually attempted to substantiate one groundless objection after another. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

"insisted that the ... the author is a priest". Eh? Are you claiming that the author is not in fact a priest? The fact is, it isn't a academic monograph as is obvious to anyone looking at it except you seemingly. User @Xenophrenic: [32] already rang them and they didn't confirm it was peer reviewed. Why was that do you think, if everything they do is peer reviewed as you claimed? ... and yes, we do wait for critical response to literature often, particularly where controversial so we can judge due weight. You said you were ready to ring Palgrave to see if the book was a monograph or not before Ubikwit, so maybe it's best if you do that for your own sake, Second Quantization (talk) 18:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OK, now you misrepresent the RS/N thread in which you finally admitted that you
"have no doubts the book is peer reviewed for it's historical content", insisting that you "simply doubt it's an academic monograph", despite the fact that Abecedare, an uninvolved admin, had concluded that is was a monograph, and that and @Margin1522:, also uninvolved, had weighed in positively as well.

Xenophrenic also ignored Abedcedare's initial statement and continued to insist that the book was not peer-reviewed, to which Abecedare replied

...some of the other issues being raised, such as whether or not the book is a "monograph", or whether the concerned editor at Palgrave still works at the company (?!) etc are non sequiturs not really relevant to the issue of reliability on wikipedia. Most of the sources currently cited in the Sam Harris article are newspaper/magazine articles that aren't always written by specialists; aren't peer-reviewed; and don't receive post-publication reviews. Yet, barring exceptional circumstances, they are generally considered reliable sources on wikipedia for such contemporary biography articles. Of course better sources should be used whenever available, and this book as a lengthy review of Harris/Dawkins/Hitchens work by a history professor and published by an academic press is one such preferred source. I am not sure why novel standards are being invented in judging this particular source.

And I never said I would call Palgrave, but it seemed that was what you were tendentiously demanding.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:44, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. You do realize everything you say can be easily looked up and checked, right? I have never ignored a statement of Abecedare's. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

The Nazi allegation regarding Jackson Lears article

He did so in a misplaced comment, here on the RS/N thread[33], so I missed it.

this book is being used primarily as a vehicle to usher in Lears material as a credible source. Objections have been raised to that because Lears has tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science (see positivism)

Content disputes are content disputes, but misrepresenting a source[34] in that manner, invoking Godwin's law, is extremely tendentious, and so I'm going to post the relevant passages from Lears.

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.”
…Two world wars, the systematic slaughter of innocents on an unprecedented scale, the proliferation of unimaginably destructive weapons, brushfire wars on the periphery of empire—all these events involved, in various degrees, the application of scientific research to advanced technology. All showed that science could not be elevated above the agendas of the nation-state: the best scientists were as corruptible by money, power or ideology as anyone else, and their research could as easily be bent toward mass murder as toward the progress of humankind. Science was not merely science. The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. Eugenics had become another tool in the hands of unrestrained state power.

Incidentally, I've already referred, at Talkhere and here, to this response by Harvard professor Steve Pinker[35], who quotes almost the exact same passage that I did above, in its entirety in his article, with the preface

This passage, from a 2011 review in The Nation of three books by Sam Harris by the historian Jackson Lears, makes the standard case for the prosecution by the left.

There are more secondary sources on Lears than Painter, but Painter, like Lears, is an academic and a mainstream historian.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:13, 27 February 2015 (UTC)--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:12, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Have a couple of gallons of tea, please. Collect (talk) 22:01, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not the one that needs the tea.

Xenophrenic's repeated attempts to dismiss these sources (both Lears and Painter) against policy and across multiple forums is the height of tendentiousness.

Pinker's characterization makes it eminently clear that Lears' presentation of the "standard case" is a mainstream view among academic historians, such as Painter.

Invoking Godwin's law against a mainstream scholar to dismiss a source that has cites in multiple high-quality secondary sources blatantly contravenes core policies. Xenophrenic should be blocked for his personal attacks (accusing me of "lying", etc.) and topic banned for this continuing string of offenses, including violations of WP:TALK, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:38, 15:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. Cite just one instance where "Xenophrenic attempts to dismiss sources against policy and across multiple forums", rather than discussing the sources in the context of how you plan to use them, as policy dictates. Your Lears source brought up Nazi's (see Godwin's Law), Ubikwit, not me; I just quoted him. Lying doesn't work, Ubikwit. You know I will call you on every instance of fabrication. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Again with the lies, Ubikwit? Lying doesn't work here, as everything you say can be easily looked up and checked. A quick review of Lears book review shows that he has indeed tried to tie Sam Harris with "scientific racism"/"Nazi eugenics" based on the commonality that both rely on science:

Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism and pop-evolutionary notions of progress, as well as for scientific racism and imperialism. These tendencies coalesced in eugenics, the doctrine that human well-being could be improved and eventually perfected through the selective breeding of the “fit” and the sterilization or elimination of the “unfit.” Every schoolkid knows about what happened next: the catastrophic twentieth century. [...] The crowning irony was that eugenics, far from “perfecting the race,” as some American progressives had hoped early in the twentieth century, was used by the Nazis to eliminate those they deemed undesirable. [...] The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, injected positivism with a missionary zeal. [...] one cannot deny that [Hitchens] embraced, from a safe distance, the “war on terror” as an Enlightenment crusade. He was not alone. Other intellectuals fell into line, many holding aloft the banner of science and reason against the forces of “theocratic barbarism.” Most prominent were the intellectuals the media chose to anoint, with characteristic originality, as the New Atheists, a group that included Hitchens, Daniel Dennett, Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris. [...] As in the golden age of positivism, a notion of sovereign science is enlisted in the service of empire.

Would you like me to now quote the insinuation you proposed to introduce into the Harris BLP from that source for good measure? Xenophrenic (talk) 16:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

As I said at the Talk page[36], it was you that invoked Godwin's law, as a false pretense to dismiss a source.

Quote away, by all means.

Xenophrenic stated

you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did.[37]

which misrepresents the source as well as my edit.

Xenophrenic stated

Collect, here is my understanding of Lears' assertions in the most basic terms: New Atheists demand reliance on science instead of religion → this strikes Lears as a form of "positivism" → and by the way dear reader, posivitism also played a part in "social Darwinism", "scientific racism" and "imperialism" in the nineteenth century, and resulted in the 20th century Nazi use of eugenics → (cue ominous music here). Lears deftly avoids directly accusing the new atheists of racism and imperialism, but still manages to execute Godwin's Law<small(underlining added).[38]

Xenophrenic falsely claims statement used from Beattie was "defamatory"[39] in an attempt to dismiss policy-compliant text based on a source by an academic with many citations in the secondary literature.

Xenophrenic asserts that Painter's book was ["not peer reviewed" and "by a lay priest". Those are two inapplicable assertions, one simply being wrong and the other irrelevant, aimed at dismissing a higher-quality source than anything the advocates have produced. Since the text I'd proposed had already been deleted (with the Political section) and was known to Xenophrenic, the query pertaining to that was a diversion. If not,the specific text should have been addressed, not the false assertion that the text was not peer-reviewed or the fact that the academic historian was also a lay priest.

Your misrepresentation of Eskow has already been diffed (previous ANI thread).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 01:56, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Ubikwit, you still appear to misunderstand the nature of the disagreements here. As a result, you are doing a lot of arguing for or against things which aren't in contention. Perhaps it would help if we cleared a few things up first. While Harris may be considered a "new atheist", not everything written about new atheists automatically applies to him. There is a whole separate article for generalizations about New Atheists. Likewise, when writers like Lears say that the atheist's plea to rely on science instead of religion sounds like "positivism", and then further goes on to say, "Positivist assumptions provided the epistemological foundations for Social Darwinism ... scientific racism ... imperialism ... eugenics ... Nazis ... yada yada", you don't then mangle that through synthesis into "Lears states that Harris and other New Atheists have adopted a strain of positivism that includes the assumptions that gave rise to Social Darwinism, scientific racism, and imperialism." No. Lears. Did. Not. Ubikwit did. And if you want to discuss positivism, there is an article for that. Using a three-step synthesis to justify inserting "racism" into an article about a living person is a violation of BLP (as well as WP:SYNTH, WP:V and others). Thirdly, you asked, "If it is POV, then where is the countervailing material with respect to which you seem to be claiming I am being non-neutral? The burden is not on me to provide such material." -- No. You do not get to insert "Professor QQQ said Harris beats his wife", just because you found it in a book, and then demand editors add "countervailing material" to the contentious claim. It simply does not get added to the article in the first place. You also do not get to insert the allegation into a separate section you made when other sources (or Harris himself) already refute the allegation elsewhere in the article. If you'd like to add information of legitimate encyclopedic value to the reader, propose the text and source. Xenophrenic (talk) 10:45, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Have you listened to yourself, Ubikwit? Your lying isn't working here because these past discussions are recorded in the edit history for all to see. And repeating your lies over and over again will not make them truths. I see you are now retrying the "Xenophrenic invoked Godwin's Law to dismiss a source" ploy again. Readers already discovered that it was your source that mentioned Nazis and the Holocaust, and I merely quoted your source. Perhaps you are now aiming for a less perceptive audience whom you hope will not review the actual discussion? How's that working out for you? Next, you say I misrepresent your edit and your Lears source, but you can't hide the discussion which reveals your deception. Anyone who checks can see that your Lears source first asserts that "positivism" resulted in Nazi eugenics and scientific racism, then Lears immediately follows that with the assertion that Harris (and New Atheists) employ positivism. Now look at your edit. No misrepresentation at all; and to date you have failed to address the concerns of editors about that material. If you are so determined to paint a living person as a racist, don't you think you should produce more substantive sourcing for that? Next you claim "Xenophrenic falsely claims statement used from Beattie was defamatory". No, Xenophrenic did not. That was Jweiss11. Your lying doesn't work here, Ubikwit, because all of these discussions are recorded in the edit history. Remember? All I did (as shown in the link you provided but you hoped no one would click) was correct your false assertion that once you "attribute" a defamatory statement, it magically ceases to be defamatory. Next, you claim Xenophrenic "aimed at dismissing a higher-quality source", which is false. Anyone who reads the link you provided discovers that rather than "dismiss" your source, I qualified it and engaged you in discussion over how to use it: "What content, specifically, were you intending to use from the book to improve the Sam Harris article? Could you propose some text here?" Your lies don't work here, Ubikwit. Why not spend just a fraction of that energy on collaboration with your fellow editors? Xenophrenic (talk) 10:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:NPA: Accusing someone of making personal attacks without providing a justification for your accusation is also considered a form of personal attack. Xenophrenic (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Xenophrenic, your posts should enable others to more readily comprehend the situation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

deliberately violating an apparent RfC consensus

Talk:Sam_Harris_(author)#RfC appears to me to show a clear consensus. Six editors !voted against using a source which was used for: Theodore Sayeed also sees a dichotomy in Harris' treatment of the world's religions: "For a man who likes to badger Muslims about their “reflexive solidarity” with Arab suffering, Harris seems keen to display his own tribal affections for the Jewish state."

This edit re-added the source [40] and added claims in Wikipedia's voice (changes bolded).

Some commentators have asserted that Harris's criticisms exhibit prejudice and intolerance, while others have praised his unapologetic directness as long overdue. After the attacks on the World Trade Center, Harris broadened his critical focus on Islam, which has resulted in death threats. Some critics equate his focus on Islam and advocacy of policies such as profiling of Muslims and support for torture with Islamophobia. Harris and others have said his critics misuse the term in an attempt to silence criticism.<ref>[http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/aug/08/religion-atheism] "Sam Harris, torture, quotation", Andrew Brown, The Guardian, August 8, 2009</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-mungai/sam-harris-profiling-muslims_b_1466349.html]End of Profiling: Letter to Sam Harris, Letter to Sam Harris, Michael Mungai, Huffingtong Post, July 1, 2012</ref><ref>[http://mondoweiss.net/2012/09/sam-harris-in-full-court-intellectual-mystic-and-supporter-of-the-iraq-war]Sam Harris in full: court intellectual, mystic, and supporter of the Iraq war, Theodore Sayeed, Mondoweiss, Septemeber 4, 2012</ref><ref>[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chris-stedman/sam-harris-racial-profiling_b_1472360.html] Sam Harris, Will You Visit A Mosque With Me?, Chris Stedman, Huffington Post, July 2, 2012</ref>

Note the fact references include the disallowed Sayeed source which we had a specific RfC on, an Andrew Brown commentary labeled as such, a HuffPo "blog letter" from Michael Mungai, and a nice screed by Chris Stedman also a HuffPo blog letter. The other refs added are [41] found through a google search for "Sam Harris" and "bias" but which unfortunately does not make the claim the editor wished for, and [42] (Aside: I love the really useful quote in it "Last question, Chris. Something on a hopeful note. You’ve been a reporter who actually has lived in the Middle East and actually talked to Muslims and seen them first hand. You have this rich tradition of learning Christianity, Christian morals, Christian ethics and seen the rise of the American Christian fascist movement. What can be done, on a global scale, perhaps, for Muslims and Christians – well intentioned ones – to wrest away the control of their religiosity and religions by self interested political individuals, like the ones you’ve mentioned. What can be done to reclaim the faith?") a pure blog post by Wajahat Ali. Patheos fails RS as it is specifically " the premier online destination to engage in the global dialogue about religion and spirituality and to explore and experience the world's beliefs." Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_182#Patheos.com, Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_167#Patheos_blogs each finding that the blogs are not RS, but depend on if the persons are notable. In the case at hand, the answer is "no".

So we have deliberate violation of apparent consensus, and use of a source specifically disallowed, and use of sources for contentious claims made in Wikipedia's voice using "commentary" and editorial opinion columns. I suggest that we have a problem here. Collect (talk) 14:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

References

• The RFC is specifically centered around the quote from Sayeed, which Ubikwit did not restore in any form. What's the problem? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:32, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Sayeed was not notable per most (5 of the six) opinions at the RfC. Collect (talk) 15:09, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • If you want to achieve consensus to leave out the citation, you should start a new RFC that asks that question. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
      • If you wish to start a debating society as to whether when 5 out of 6 people say the person is not notable whether that conversation is not actually part of the RfC but should be made a separate RfC to establish that it is the opinion of 5 out of 6 of those people, then that is a wondrously byzantine argument. Cheers Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It's readily apparent where the byzantine arguments are coming from. What is the policy for people that know the rules but feign ingnoramance?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:05, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yet another revert at [43]:

Retains blog post from Patheos for which the apparent quote from a notable person would be "I mean Sam Harris, in his book The End of Faith, asks us to consider carrying out a nuclear first strike on the Arab world. He has a long defense of torture. Christopher Hitchens is an apologist for pre-emptive war and also speaks in the crude, racist terms that Harris uses to describe 1 billion people – one fifth of the world’s population." which is used as a cite for an apparent claim of fact "After the attacks on the World Trade Center"(ref). As a source for that phrase, the blog fails, but it seems primarily centered on a quite inadmissible opinion of Hedges which would not be allowed in any BLP except absolutely cited as the opinion only of Hedges. It offers no actual support to the phrase for which it is used as a cite. It also reinstates the two HuffPo blog posts which do not actually support the claims of fact made. Adding specifically problematic sources to any BLP, after one has been told they are problematic, I find troubling indeed. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC) Cheers. Collect (talk) 15:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Collect, you took Sayeed to BLP/N, receiving a "no BLP violation". Now you are asserting that it is not RS?

And the column of Andrew Brown (writer) (also on the editorial board) and the individuals with official blogs on Guardian and Huffington Post are not RS for opinion?

You failed to wikilink Chris Hedges, who is also (block)quoted by Greenwald in the Guardian

"They're secular fundamentalists. . . . I find that it's, like the Christian right, a fear based movement. It's a movement that is very much a reaction to 9/11.[44]

. Hedges' book (academic press)[45] might be a good source, and here's another interview from Salon[46].

And the Patheos interview was not used to source "bias". I eliminated "bias", using "prejudice" instead, because there's a peer-reviewed source by an academic, quoting "Dr. Peter Slezak is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of New South Wales".--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:47, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Violations of WP:TALK, non-stop tendentious reverting and gaming

Please check this thread in the Talk page, and the related edits/reverts.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:15, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

4RR - and the complainant Ubikwit above is the blatant Edit Warrior - will someone take action finally?

Note: [47] 15:48 25 Feb clear revert [48] 3:49 26 Feb clear revert [49] 8:56 et seq 26 Feb clear reverts [50] 11:49 26 Feb clear revert Making absolutely clear 4RR within 20 hours when he is making complaints here about the edits of others!

Will someone finally stop this edit warrior - this is well beyond risible behaviour. He wants this dealt with at AN/I per a number of posts <g> so he can not assert he does not know his own behaviour here is fully actionable. Collect (talk) 13:21, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you serious? The first diff is me deleting my own insertion of a source because you objected to it.

The assertion that that is a revert would appear to be another attempt to game the system.

The last two diffs are removing promotional, primary-sourced blocks of text and general cleaning up of bloat and copy editing the article, not reversions. I suggest you read the edit summaries, for starters: "remove excessive amount of primary source-based material", "ce, removed primary-sourced UNDUE material and quote-mined phrase from Independent article".

I, too, would be interested to hear an admin's assessment of these edits regarding the revert policy.

--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:28, 26 February; 09:14, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

OTOH, you appear to keep altering your posts here. Hare to reply to an ever-moving target. Collect (talk) 12:46, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it's the other way around. Your constinual string of diversionary tactics, that is, require continual responses; thus, copy editing hastily typed replies.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

and yes there's more!

Project for the New American Century is in Category:9/11 conspiracy theories.

Ubikwit has repeatedly made major edits and reverted after his edits have been questioned. The last such edit is [51] which re-re-adds a "table" which had been removed as WP:OR in the past, and remains WP:OR. It is also violative of WP:BLP although the editor asserts that WP:CRYBLP is his policy reasoning. The "table" even wikilinks people already wikilinked in the article, makes claims about them which are not sourced in the article, makes a connection by use of a table which is not warranted, and asserts that the people are involved in a conspiracy to involve the US in a war, where the article also includes the theory that 9/11 was deliberately sought by the group.

I consider allegations that people are involved in any conspiracy require exceedingly strong sourcing. That any article which includes any assertions that the group deliberates sought out the 9/11 events is contentious. And that use of a table to make "connections" is improper, SYNTH ,and violative of WP:BLP and WP:NPOV.

Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive217#Project_for_the_New_American_Century shows a prior discussion. Thanks. Collect (talk) 09:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for saving me the trouble by posting the link to the BLP/N discussion where consensus was against you and you demurred to respond to the final question and defend your baseless assertions of SYNTH. That was the first of two BLP/N string related to that article with respect to which the policy-based consensus was against you. Yes, now you have two simultaneous threads in parallel at NPOV/N #1 because I have cautioned you about crying BLP and raising the same claims again, but you did that anyway at NPOV/N #2.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:53, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Weird -- I suppose your Wikipedia edition is on a different server than mine. I find, alas, that people who insist they "won" a discussion anywhere have an interesting Weltanschauung. I, alas, find that linking living persons to wishing genocide, even cautiously worded, is an affront. Collect (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is consensus when it's in accord with policy.

As for the rest of your comment, I'll leave that for others to analyze.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Close this now?

". . . blatant Edit Warrior - will someone take action finally?" — Collect. Someone did: Collect has now been blocked for edit warring; also Ubikwit. So perhaps there's no longer any need for an admin to decide about page protection at the Sam Harris (author) article as requested by the OP, and this can be closed. Writegeist (talk) 23:22, March 2, 2015‎ (UTC)

Based on his WP:ANEW comments, Swarm may have thoughts to share here, so I would hold off closing for now. But I do think if no one else comments here in the next 12 hours or so, a non-Admin can close this if an Admin hasn't already... --IJBall (talk) 02:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Am I alone in thinking we should discuss an interaction ban between Ubikwit and Collect? They seem to have a very long and very hostile relationship that certainly doesn't benefit the encyclopedia. I think it's not only warranted but overdue. That was the main thing I took from my review at ANEW. Swarm ^X 03:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So far as disruptive edit warring is concerned, the blocks are all that's needed pro tem—it's implicitly clear what will happen if C and U get into it again. There's no pressing need for an IBAN. If others want to discuss it, perhaps they could wait until the blocks have expired or been appealed and lifted. C and U might want to give voluntary undertakings that would allay possible concerns about future disruption. Come to think of it, they could do that at their talk pages. Writegeist (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Hmarskiy II

• Hmarskiy II (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) 1. Malicious editing with a long past history of outright vandalism to the article of Bad Boys Blue - a musical group - the ongoing activity spanning several years now; 2. Most recently, the user copies and pastes my own editing/restoring remarks at the end of his persistent reverts, and continues to insert controversial and unsubstantiated information into the article, despite being advised not to on numerous occasions; 3. The user may be a paid member with a conflict of interests, as the his past edits attest to persistent inclusion of promotional material into the band's wiki page; 4. MOST IMPORTANTLY: this is a former anon user who created a userid with the sheer purpose to circumvent the protected status of the page in order to continue his disruptive editing. Please intervene. Lionscitygl (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: Please notify the user in question on their talk page using {{subst:ANI-notice|thread=User:Hmarskiy II}}. Thank you! -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

That was attempted long ago. Intervention is requested. Lionscitygl (talk) 20:29, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Before I placed the notice on their talk page, the only other content of the talk page was a welcome. No deleted notices either. Nothing on the talk page of the article in question. As well, the accusation that the account was created for the purpose of circumventing the protection, just look at the earliest contributions of Hmarskiy II. They are from 2010, hardly a recent issue. And, after the protection was lowered, their edits to the article did not start until a few months later. I do not see any current attempt to contact the editor at all, except in edit summaries, which is not acceptable.

I just found this AIV report on Hmarskiy II. Please have patience, though, from my knowledge of AIV, it will be turned down quickly.

All and all, this just seems to be a content dispute mixed with ownership issues. -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:04, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, thank you for looking into the this. Prior to alerting you of the matter, I've had an ample of opportunity to familiarize myself with the contributions from the said user. So, let's be clear on that. Also, please re-read what the word "recent" refers to in the context. With all the due respect, if you have multiple individuals/accounts trying to push absolutely the same controversial line of thrust both in style and presentation (which alludes to their "possible" association), are you honestly going to be expected to address every single one of them... anew? After all, one does not have to begin editing right away after a certain implementation took place on the page... especially if its "predecessor" was working in the exact same venue. And if I didn't follow certain wiki guidelines - no such oversight was intended on my part. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:09, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

1. Look at your fix other people's edits (not just mine) without argument - an impression that you are a real vandal. 2. My information is confirmed by the source to which you deliberately do not pay attention. 3. All sources that you're not interested perceived as advertising. 4. Where argument that I am a former customer? Empty words and no more. Hmarskiy II (talk) 10:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm really expected to address the above... creativity, but I will do so this time as a matter of courtesy - something that I do not expect reciprocity on. 1. I think this isn't the first time I've been accused of being "a real vandal" for dealing with a member of that pack. Defense by means of aggression is not the newest invention these days... 2. That is exactly the point of it: "the source", as in conflict of interest. 3. No, not all, but it is heavy on advertising nevertheless. 4. It's a great day today. Sure. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Can we have some more opinions on this please? -- Orduin ^Discuss 20:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I would suggest formal warnings be issued, most likely for edit warring. Then, if offenses continue, blocks may be properly issued. Any other ideas here? -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Orduin, while you're waiting, looks like somebody does not waste their time on that page. Since he is back to his usual ploy, I'll revert it this time, but unless some measures are taken, this circus is likely to continue on. And that's exactly why I requested assistance - to intervene in this flaccid idiocy. Lionscitygl (talk) 14:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Facepalm I forgot to check the sources he cited in the changes.... They are completely unacceptable. I will add a long term vandalism warning to their talkpage, as this has been going on for awhile. -- Orduin ^Discuss 18:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Lionscitygl: If you see further disruptive behavior from this editor (and please be sure the edits constitute as vandalism; this counts, this does not), notify someone through this thread, or report to WP:AIV. If you report to AIV, please be sure to note the final warning that was given. Thank you -- Orduin ^Discuss 19:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Catflap08

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

---

(Retitled from accusatory, non-neutral "Catflap08 ignoring what I say and abusing RFD, and seems to have serious CIR issues", per wp:TALKNEW --doncram 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC))

Revert. WP:TALKNEW is for article talk pages, where, indeed, threads about particular users are generally a bad thing. ANI is for repirting user problems, and the assertion that it is inappropriate to give another's username in the title of a tread about that user is ridiculous. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

wp:Talknew includes: "Never use headings to attack other users". --doncram 05:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08 (talk · contribs) has been displaying serious WP:IDHT and WP:CIR issues on the Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai articles. After trying to cite the fringe theory that Kenji was a nationalist in the lead of that article and being soundly undone by his own RFC last summer, he recently started trying to add the words "he was the member of the Kokuchukai" to the lead with the expressed purpose of readers clicking the link and reading his unbalanced and poorly written article that describes the lay Buddhist group solely in terms of the politics of its nationalist founder.

I recently noticed that in fact his article on Kokuchukai was factually inaccurate regarding the founding date. I removed the earlier refs because I assumed Catflap had consulted these sources and got his factually inaccurate information there. He readded the sources without changing the dates and then explicitly stated on the talk page that the sources actually had no connection to the material they were attached to. He has also violated WP:RFC's requirement for an accurate, neutral summary on three separate occasions in this dispute.[52][53][54]

But now he has gone a step further by explicitly adding sources to the Kenji article unrelated to the material, solely to troll me.[55] I'd like to request a TBAN on Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, although given that this user has admitted to attaching sources to statements they don't support on purpose, and doesn't seem to understand why that's wrong, a CIR block might be appropriate.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:02, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Since I filed an RfC on both cases I will wait for the outcome of that. Please also note in the case of deleting references WP:CENSOR. Some of the comments you left are close to personal attacks btw. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:10, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the original title by Hijiri88 was itself a personal attack, in my opinion, which got repeated in every edit summary from edits in this section so far. I just retitled this section per wp:TALKNEW. --doncram 22:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Which comments? ―Mandruss ☎ 13:13, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Being called “stubborn”, Clumsy, having a “plan”, “sneaking” information into articles, unable to listen, “poorly-written article”, this tone in my mind is aggresive and close to personal attack - not there yet but close. Please note that nobody denies (including mentioning the Kokuchukai issue in Miyazawa’s translations) the guy’s membership in the organisation. I originally reverted the deletion of the user in question that made reference to Miyazawa’s membership in Kokuchokai – as the lede is also about summarising the context of the article. He then went on in the article on Kokuchukai. The issue about Miyazawa being called a nationalist was settled in June 2014. --Catflap08 (talk) 13:25, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Note the lack of diffs. Catflap wants to hide the context of those quotes because it portrays him in an even worse light than my diffs above. Note also how I've had to indent Catflap's response to User:Mandruss for him; this is another recurring pattern and adds to the impression that he is ignoring people. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Well in my books your comments are out there in the respective talk pages including your “plan”-theory. I made my point clear more than once. A) your deletion of mentioning the guy’s membership in the lede. B) You questioning the article on the organisation he was member of c) The nature of the organisation today is irrelevant to what the organisation was like when he joined c) continuously deleting references. Secondly due to experience I tend to seek a RfC these days first.--Catflap08 (talk) 14:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I already provided the diff above -- and I provided it elsewhere too -- but here it is again. Please, someone block this jackassjerk for this WP:IDHT skullduggery.

Okay, I'm getting kind of sick of you just ignoring the fact that I have provided clear and concise evidence that you explicated your own plan in December when you said The term ‘Kokuchūkai’ has an interwiki link. The average reader should be allowed the intelligence to press that link and find out what Kokuchūkai is all about. This cannot be interpreted any other way, so I really wish you would start showing some courtesy and stop acting liking I'm spouting some crackpot accusation against you. You specifically said you wanted readers to click your wikilink and look at the article, and only a few days earlier you had removed the POV tag from that article, obviously for the same reason. As for questioning the article on the organization -- your wording implied it was formed from a merger of two previous organizations, but all the sources I can see say those two were just non-concurrent previous names for the same organization now called Kokuchukai, and the dates were also wrong -- I asked for an explanation, and you completely ignored me. When you say the nature of the organisation today is irrelevant to what the organisation was like when he joined you are all but admitting that you are even now trying to continue to misrepresent Kenji as a "nationalist" just because he was a member of that group, even though no reliable sources make this claim, and you were roundly opposed by everyone who weighed in. The only sources I deleted were unnecessary because other, better sources were already cited, and in the case of the Kokuchukai refs there was also the problem that you were (mis?)quoting those sources as saying something that wasn't accurate -- if I leave in refs after changing the material to which they were attached, that's a misrepresentation of sources, which is a serious no-no on Wikipedia. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I see nothing in this thread or complaint other than perhaps vindictiveness on the part of the original filer and perhaps a bit of harassment of the person agaibst whom the complaint has been filed. It appears that RfC, which is one of the suggested ways to deal with such complaints is being used. On that basis, I suggest that this thread be closed as requiring no action except, perhaps, a trout slapping to the original filer for apparently abusing ANI for no good purpose. John Carter (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@User:John Carter: The user in question filed an RFC on whether the subject should be referred to as a "nationalist" because he was a member of the group Kokuchukai last June, was opposed by seven other users, and dropped out for a few months. In December, he came back and tried to replace "he was a devout Buddhist" (wording used by virtually every reliable source on the topic) with "he was a member of the Kokuchukai" (wording that is hardly ever used outside of English Wikipedia as edited by Catflap). He explicitly stated on the talk page that he wanted readers to click the link to his own poorly-written, mostly OR article on the group (it appears he pulled a significant portion of the specifics "facts" out of thin air and attached sources that say something else). He stated himself that he thinks "a member of the Kokuchukai" is coterminous with "a nationalist". Therefore, his most recent RFC on the topic "should the lede call him a member of the Kokuchukai" is the same as his previous RFC on the topic "should the lede call him a nationalist". He has outright ignored any attempt I have made to discuss any of this material with him on the talk page over the last eight months. He has also been grossly misrepresenting sources. I provided all the necessary diffs in the post above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:59, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Was I just called a "jackass" [56]?--Catflap08 (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Maybe "jackass" was the wrong word, but you've been trying my patience about this issue (SERIOUSLY, WHY THE HELL CAN'T YOU READ OTHER PEOPLE'S TALKPAGE COMMENTS AND RESPOND RATIONALLY WITHOUT IMMEDIATELY RUNNING TO AN OR RFC!?) every time it's come up over the past year. You need to stop NOW. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 17:52, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 An RfC means a request for comment. It is up to my discretion when I fell that another opinion is needed. I do not plan to debate this for weeks on end. I reported your insult within this very discussion here [57]. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

You are not free to constantly reopen closed RFCs on the same topic and slightly alter the wording each time so they look like new RFCs. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:51, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Catflap's AN thread is boomeranging but ANI is where blocks are user behaviour complaints are supposed to be made. Over there User:JzG said that he was behaving like a jackass and deserved to be called one, Special:Contributions/207.38.156.219 said that worse epithets were called for, and User:John Carter said that my use of foul language was not actionable but an IBAN might be called for. I don't think a mutual IBAN would be appropriate, since in this case I have not done anything wrong, merely tried to force Catflap to edit within the consensus that he himself brought about with his last RFD. A TBAN on the area in which Catflap has been editing disruptively (Kenji Miyazawa and Kokuchukai, both broadly construed) would solve the immediate problem of his disruptive editing and violation of WP:CANVAS and WP:FORUMSHOP, but his failure to understand how English Wikipedia sourcing works in general is of broader concern. Now that I know Catflap edits contentiously in a broad range of articles I don't usually edit, an IBAN would prevent me from catching them. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) This is ridiculous. The discussion on these articles have apparently been at RfC in the past, Catflap listed both discussions at WP:3 (and incorrectly, because each discussion involved more than two editors), I removed the entries for that very reason...and finally, after I suggested on both talk pages to not forum-shop ([58] [59]), Hijiri took this to ANI anyway? Maybe both of y'all need to stay away from the articles (or even the subject) for a while. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:45, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

...AAAAAAND it's also being done here. (Forum-shopping in the same forum? Really?) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:06, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert:: This is not a forum shop. I'm not asking for content input (the issue was firmly resolved last June/July). I'm asking for Catflap to be TBANned or blocked for tendentious editing (outright refusing to engage in discussion with users who disagree with him, posting a second RFC a few months after the first one on the same topic didn't go his way, violating WP:CANVAS by presenting inaccurate summaries in all three RFCs, misrepresenting sources...). I apologize if it looks like forum-shopping. I'm not the best at formatting ANI complaints. But any detailed analysis of the dispute will show Catflap violating consensus and engaging in what would uncontestibly be blockworthy behaviour if it was targeted at a Wikipedian more articulate than myself or an article on a well-known Hollywood actor or contemporary American politician rather than the niche area it is in. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

As I said being insulted in not usual conduct here maybe times have changed. I personally do not see it forum shopping to seek an RfC. In the end I hope to get external input by experts on the matter. Additionally I find this [60] due to the short history odd and this [61] here even more strange it reminds me of WP:Votestacking a bit – but maybe I am wrong. At any rate I will see what the RfC does.--Catflap08 (talk) 10:24, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ Hijiri 88 Actually I find the advice by Erpert to stay away from the articles for a while quite reasonable in order to let things cool down and give others a chance to have an input. Why do you continue to edit within the article then? --Catflap08 (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I never said an RfC in itself was forum-shopping, but going to RfC in the past; then 3O; then another RfC; then here (twice) is forum-shopping. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 14:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(EDIT CONFLICT -- first part of my comment might be redundant given Erpert's above response.) @User:Catflap08: What do you mean? You have posted on the talk page just as much as I, and if you are referring to refraining from editing the article itself then (1) I think that's a misinterpretation of Erpert's original advice (he was clearly talking about dropping the issue entirely and going off to edit in other areas for a while, something neither of us seem to be willing to do) and (2) I assume you are referring to this edit I made to the Kenji article? Because I had thought that increasing the usage of the word Kokuchūkai in the article five times over, and providing a complete overview of how the subject is viewed in reliable scholarly sources that aren't particularly interested in Kenji's religious affiliation, sources linked to the specific organization in question, and sources that take your view that Kenji's affiliation with the group makes him a nationalist, would have qualified as a compromise on my part. I could blank the two paragraphs about the Kokuchūkai, if that would suit?

Anyway, this thread has ventured into WP:TLDR territory without any meaningful input from outside parties, and Catflap has rejected my attempts to find common ground and compromise. I think we can safely assume that (given the hot water certain admins appear to be in further up this page for actively stepping in, clicking on all the links, and unilaterally working out solutions) this thread will probably be archived without result. I'll keep trying to discuss on the talk pages after that, and if after a few more days things haven't improved we'll probably wind up back here. (I would ask any third party who happens to be reading this not to make the same mistake as User:John Carter and User:Erpert apparently made in assuming that this was a content issue involving several users on two talk pages. It isn't. The content issues were resolved months ago, and now the one user who didn't get the content solution they wanted is behaving tendentiously. So it most certainly belongs on ANI, not DRN or RFC or any of the relevant WikiProjects...)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

The problems here can and I think reasonably should be resolved through the dispute resolution process, possibly at DRN. I would suggest that those involved make more of an effort to get other individuals involved in the discussion, as there could perhaps be questions of bias, pro and con, among those editors who have been involved in the long-term on any disputed topic. An RfC is one of the first, and lowest-level, ways of approaching that, and as per WP:CCC I am less than sure that an additional one could not be considered justified. I propose closing this thread and either allowing the RfC to conclude and, perhaps, at that point, taking the matter further up the dispute resolution process, possibly at DRN or maybe through some other form of mediation. John Carter (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter I filed two RfC’s concerning two articles, the current ANI was not filed by me. I call for an RfC not to forumshop but to get others involved. I am honestly sick of being called names and abusive messages for days. If this all is about “winning” then I am out of the game as stated in the section below. I thought editing in Wikipedia is about content. I hardly consult en.wikipedia these days anymore as it just seems anyone is being able to dump their opinion. Discussions can become heated as we all care about the subjects we edit on, but being insulted and threatened with bans is a thing I surely did not come here for. There are articles I would surely like to expand on but here I am dealing with this and my day only has 24h too.--Catflap08 (talk) 00:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter: As I have stated before, the previous consensus was a whopping 9-1 (including the IP who independently tried to revert Catflap earlier) after an RFC that was open for a month and a half. WP:CCC of course applies, but unless new evidence is brought to the table, the same user disruptively opening multiple RFCs despite unanimous opposition cannot reasonably be seen as anything but disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another example of possible forum-shopping

I went away for ten days while there were issues started by Catflap08, and there continue to be Catflap08 issues. Another example that appears to me to be forum-shopping, and appears to show inappropriate selection of forums, involved Daisaku Ikeda. Catflap08 filed a dispute resolution noticeboard thread, primarily demanding actions not within the scope of DRN, such as no more "threats" and no more "censorship". (Claims of "censorship" may be merely a personal attack in a content dispute, but threats, if they are threats, are a conduct issue.) At the same time, Catflap08 filed a WP:ANI thread alleging administrator abuse by User:Hoary. The ground rules of DRN say that other dispute resolution mechanisms should not be used at the same time as DRN. Maybe Catflap08 didn't read the ground rules in detail before pursuing both approaches in parallel. I only offer this as a comment to the effect that Catflap08 appears to be a very contentious editor who seems to be willing to use multiple vehicles in parallel. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

It is beginning to look as if Catflap08 should be topic-banned from that article. It's fine to advocate for certain content, b ut when it is continually advocated long after consensus to exclude it is apparent, then it becomes a problem. Guy (Help!) 19:47, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

For your information the issue discussed in June was about calling that guy a Nationalist or not – it was decided not to. Why should it lead to a topic ban to mention in the lede to what Buddhist organisation he belonged to though? In one of the talks I then was accused of having had some sort of absurd plan to write the article on Kokuchokai – this is a rather adventurous conspiracy theory. I wrote the article on Kokuchokai as it along with other issues is the very reason why Nichiren Buddhism as whole is regarded by some authors to be nationalist or fascist as whole. As I am quite familiar with the historic development of Nichiren Buddhism I found this article to be missing. I called for an RfC as I saw no ways to reach consensus on the Kokuchokai issue with the editor in question. I can absolutely agree to the fact calling Miaysawa a Nationalist may be a matter of opinion. What I do find irritating that mentioning facts about his life/biography in the lede to be off topic. Secondly a reference to his work which mentions the Kokuchokai involvement was deleted too. I understand that interpreting and making conclusions on facts may be disputable, but if referenced facts are being disputed then we all might as well dump refrences. The audaciousness to the say that I wrote an article to defame that kenji guy is irrational – I refrain from calling it anything else. --Catflap08 (talk) 20:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert, Guy, to be fair, it was Hijiri who brought the situation to ANI this time, not Catflap (not that Catflap's hands are entirely clean, however). BTW, Hijiri, full-on admitting that stepping away from the article you are in a content dispute over is "something [you don't] seem to be willing to do" could be tendentious editing in itself. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 21:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not in a content dispute. I "won" the content dispute 8 months ago when consensus was clearly established against Catflap's proposed additions. By accusing me of tendentious editing just for not being willing to back down and let Catflap have his way, you are asking me to abandon consensus-based editing. Catflap is just trolling. I came to ANI to request a block or a topic ban as a result of his disruptive behviour. RFC is not the place to request a block or topic ban. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I have no intention dragging on about this forever. To be honest I find calling him (Miyazawa) a nationalist and referring to his membership in Kokuchukai to be separate issues – even though related. Having said that I did not insist him being called a nationalist afterwards (June 2014). After me and the editor involved clashed on the Miyazawa issue he quite swiftly questioned the Kokuchukai article, where to my mind I originally summed up what sources have to say. I might be wrong but I have an inkling that at some point the references made to Kokuchukai might leave the article full stop – especially when looking at edits being made just recently to the Miyazawa article. I did post a message to the editor involved on his talk page containing an alternative wording, my feeling what the current wording looks like and the “plan” theory. The editor involved decided to delete it from his talk page – I saved it on mine thereafter. I do work on issues quite on the fringe, debates can become heated. I do at times lose my head especially when I get the feeling that issues are being brushed under the carpet – I admit to that. What bothers me most though is that advocates of issues do get their way quite often. Very rarely do I delete references whether I like them or not, as I trust the reader to make up his/her own mind. I am simply tired of “fighting” for references and links any longer. To my mind the attention of the reader should also be made aware of critical issues as I trust the reader being able to form an opinion. Withholding information is something I find hard to understand. Ban me if you like but I am at any rate not willing to fight windmills either. The work on en.wikipedia has become growingly tedious. If all this is about “winning” then I am out of the game. I just might as well use my time creating a webpage on Nichiren Buddhism. Citing Hijiri88 “RFC is not the place to request a block or topic ban” … Yeap right, RfC it’s the place to get others involved who are objective on the matter - as both of us are seemingly not anymore. So carry on place a halo on the Kenji man you won. --Catflap08 (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

At one point I was told that the lede of the article should sum up the article’s content. It might be a good idea to correct guidelines to the effect that the lede’s content should also pass the filter of the one who seems to own the article. Please also note that I just use ONE user name. --Catflap08 (talk) 00:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the lede should summarize the article contents. Your last attempt to edit the lede made a claim that did not appear anywhere else in the article, and your current proposal would place grossly undue weight on his relationship with an organization with which he was actively associated for maybe a year of his life. You tried to remove all reference to "Buddhism" from the article because of your personal, unsubstantiated belief that Kenji was not associated with any Buddhist temple (why is he buried in one?) and was attracted to the Kokuchukai because of their "dubious nationalist agenda". If BLP applied here you would have been indefinitely blocked months ago for engaging in defamatory OR. Because the subject died in 1933, though, you have had to settle for "losing" in your "battle" against me. Please note that I put "won" in quotes above because I don't see this as being about winning and losing; I only referred to it because several users have misread this as an article content dispute, and I wanted to specify that as far as specific article content is concerned that dispute was resolved months ago. If it was an article content dispute and not an issue of tendentious user conduct, then yes it would not belong on ANI and I would be guilty of forum-shopping, misuse of a noticeboard, and escalation, similar to when you didn't agree with me last June and decided to complain about me on AN rather than using the article talk page, or the other day when you forked this discussion onto AN and were told by several other users that "jackass" was a milder epithet than you deserved under the circumstances. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

There does seem to me to be a willfully and rather counterproductive, if not even possibly disruptive, attempt to overlook that there is a difference between what was being proposed in the first RfC and what is being proposed in the second RfC. For us Americans, it might, maybe, be like the difference between saying "X is a racist," which is not necessarily good or acceptable here, or "X is a member (of some sort) of the Ku Klux Klan," which is verifiable, more objectively provable or disprovable, and depending on the depth of involvement that individual has in that group, maybe even one of the most prominent things about that individual. Like I said before, in the above section, I think that this issue is probably best closed here and the discussion taken to some other more content related area of the dispute resolution process. John Carter (talk) 00:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

@ John Carter: As far as I am aware, neither myself nor Catflap is an American. I argue based on Japanese sources while Catflap argues based on no sources. All our reliable sources state that he was a devotee of the Lotus Sutra. No sources describe him as a nationalist, and very few even mention the Kokuchukai, with those that do almost universally implying that it was a brief, shallow flirtation. The KKK comparison is flawed, since that organization was all about the racism, whereas the Kokuchukai is mainly known as "that religious group that Miyazawa Kenji was briefly associated with". Catflap has been interpreting all of Kenji's existence in terms of his (brief!) relationship with the Kokuchukai, and has specified on the talk page that he wants readers to click the wikilink and read his poorly-written, poorly-sourced and heavily tilted article on the group, so they can interpret it the same way he does.

But none of this is relevant to the issue at hand, which is that Catflap has been refusing to discuss with me on the talk page (seriously, read any of his "responses" to me and try to figure out how they relate to what I said!), misrepresenting sources, abusing the DR process, ignoring consensus, and generally being unpleasant to work with.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:18, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Also it should be noted that last June (his last edit related to the issue before the current flame-up in December) Catflap made a dismissive and sarcastic remark regarding the then-new consensus: Ahh I see now that that guy can not be called nationalistic the nationalistic organization he was a member of is not nationalistic anymore … interesting to say the least that is. That is why references on that organisation are given. He then waited six months before coming back and immediately attempting to justify his current dubious adding of the claim that he was not a "Nichiren Buddhist" but a "member of Kokuchukai" by giving this statement: The term ‘Kokuchūkai’ has an interwiki link. The average reader should be allowed the intelligence to press that link and find out what Kokuchūkai is all about. [Kokuchūkai is an organization] with a dubious nationalist agenda - why is that a problem to mention?.

Does anyone seriously still think this user is not engaged in tendentious, anti-consensus editing?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:01, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Propose closing of this thread to allow the DRN process, which has been on hold since the 17th since a volunteer handling it had to leave for some reason, to continue as it was intended to. The lack of any attention at DRN has almost certainly exacerbated the emotions of all those involved, and it is not unreasonable to think that may have contributed to this filing. But, with that interrupted process now reopened, I think it makes sense to allow the DRN process to do what it is supposed to. John Carter (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Seconded, about closing. Wise words, here and above, by John Carter. Just about the discussion here, Catflap08 seems polite and constructive, and I regret he/she is feeling abused and feeling it's possibly he/she may be further abused by an unjustified ban/block. In contrast to pretty shocking verbal abuse here, by Hijiri88, undermining any legitimate point he/she might have. Alternative to closing: some block or ban of Hijiri88. --doncram 23:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It's worth noting that John Carter clearly hasn't looked into this case at all, as he is clearly getting it mixed up with the unrelated case of Talk:Daisaku Ikeda on DRN, which involves Catflap08, but not me, and I was completely unaware of it until User:John Carter's above comment caused me to go to DRN and figure out what on earth he was talking about. This problem has not been brought to DRN because it is not a content dispute. In all of their comments both he and User:Erpert have insisted that this is a problem with article content that could be solved by RFC or DRN. Anyone who actually looked at either article talk page would quickly see that the problem is Catflap08 violating consensus and generally being disruptive/unfriendly and forum-shopping, and could not possibly be solved through DRN. The assertion that I came here and reported Catflap08 on ANI because a DRN discussion I had never heard of had become stalled laughable. Please retract all your comments, John Carter, and refrain from commenting on (and particular requesting closes for!) ANI discussions you haven't actually read and haven't the foggiest idea what is going on in.

Per the top of this thread, Doncram clearly not only didn't read the discussion and click the diffs, but is completely ignorant of how ANI works, and should refrain from refactoring others' comments in general and posting on ANI in particular until he/she has a better grasp on how these things work.

Now where are all the sensible users?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

A few things, Hijiri88:

1. You need to calm down. Typing things in all bold print doesn't necessarily help to get your point across harder.
2. You can't make anyone retract their comments just because you disagree with them.
3. While I don't recall ever crossing paths with Doncram, s/he has been here for ten years and is an admin hopeful, so I'm pretty sure s/he isn't "completely ignorant of how ANI works" (btw, enough of talk like that).
4. Finally, I wholeheartedly agree that this thread should be closed. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 03:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Erpert::

1. I have been trying to be calm on this subject for nine months in the face of constant IDHT and personal attacks from Catflap. Clearly when users like John Carter read my calm, non-boldface comments they just ignore them, so I tried something new.
2. I don't "disagree" with JC's comments; I think they are ridiculous and should not be taken into account in the final result of this thread, based as they are on an apparently flawed assumr that I am an ethnocentric American and that Kenji Miyazawa and Daisaku Ikeda are the same person.
3. I see that, and I think blatant abuse of guidelines is unbecoming of such an experienced user.
4. Could you please comment on the fact that the close proposal from John Carter was based on a misapprehension of the situation (that there was an open DRN discussion of this topic and that this thread was a spinoff of that) before backing up this close request? Because it seems like you didn't actually read my above response before commenting on it...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Break for convenience

Okay, I don't think my strategy up to this point has one me any friends in User:Erpert, User:John Carter and User:Doncram. The tone that I have taken has been aggressive and presumptuous, and I apologize. WP:AGF tells me that I should assume third-party users don't possess malicious intent even if evidence indicates that they do, and in this case the bulk of evidence actually supports an assumption of good faith.

Apologies all 'round. Sorry everyone for the aggressive/condescending/jerky tone I have taken in responding to you. This dispute has not brought out the best in me, and I wish to see it finished as soon as possible -- now can we all work together to achieve that goal?

Erpert came to this dispute as a result of a misplaced 3O request by the other user in the dispute, and was clearly confused on looking at the massive fustercluck on the talk page, assumed there was forum-shopping going on (Erpert was actually right in this assumption), and so when the issue showed up on ANI Erpert was only right to assume it was just more forum-shopping on what appears on the surface to be a very complicated content dispute, but a content dispute nonetheless. In John Carter's case, my OP comment on ANI apparently wasn't clear enough as to what the substance of the dispute between me and Catlap actually was. I had tried to keep article-content material to a minimum (TLDR kills so many good ANI threads these days...), but this obscurity apparently caused John Carter to go through the edit history of the user about whom I was complaining, and, seeing what certainly looks like the same or at least a related discussion on DRN that had been stalled because of how DRN tends to work (one of the reasons why, back even when this was technically kinda-sorta a content dispute, I tended to avoid DRN). Given this background, assuming I was involved in a DRN discussion with Catflap that had been stalled, got frustrated, and decided to report Catflap on ANI for the same exact content reasons while the DRN discussion was still open. This would of course have been highly disruptive behaviour, and I would probably deserve at least a WP:TROUT, if not a WP:BOOMERANG, if that was actually what had been going on. However, as I hope I have now demonstrated, the DRN discussion John Carter had noticed has absolutely no relation to Miyazawa Kenji and the Kokuchukai (the area in which Catflap and I have our disagreement), and I have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the DRN discussion -- which I hadn't even noticed until today. Doncram apparently misinterpreted WP:TALKNEW's prohibition of "attacks" against other editors to imply that ANI threads complaining about the actions of other editors can't describe those actions as they appear, which is an odd interpretation of that guideline, and is hardly a valid excuse to alter someone else's wording except in extreme cases. It was particularly frustrating for me since I monitor these things by clicking the edit summary links to section heads in my contribution list, and this action essentially broke every one of those links and initially led me to briefly believe the thread had been prematurely archived. But it was, ultimately, an honest mistake, and there is no permanent damage done, so I apologize for my aggressive and somewhat condescending tone in my response above. As for the substance on Doncram's response: by the time Doncram arrived not only the relevant article talk pages that apparently confused Erpert and John Carter, but this ANI thread itself had become a massive fustercluck, so no one can be individually held responsible for misunderstanding the issue, especially when other users had already misunderstood the issue and commented based on that misunderstanding. Good faith mistakes all around -- I not only assume so but I can completely sympathize given the circumstances.

Okay, as to the substance, this dispute is basically over whether Kokuchukai (a fringe-y Buddhist group that, at least before 1945, was also nationalistic in its nature and rhetoric) should be mentioned in the lead of the Kenji Miyazawa article. Kenji was apparently an active member of the group during his eight-month stint in Tokyo (he lived the rest of his life in the far north of Japan), and was registered with the group for somewhat longer than that. The group still claims him as its most famous member. 12 years after effectively ending his activity as part of the group, he died, and was buried in a more mainstream Nichiren school temple in his hometown, which has no connection to the Kokuchukai. Most sources discussing him either don't mention the group at all, or brush over it and imply that his relationship was brief. Virtually no sources imply that he shared the political ideology of the group.

About a year ago, Catflap called him a "nationalist" in the lead of the article, not citing any source. A few months later when someone else reverted him, he reverted back and gave and gave as his edit summary "Memeber of Kokuchūkai". Clearly to Catflap "nationalist" and "member of Kokuchūkai" are co-terminous. A few months after that I removed the word again and simultaneously posted my reasoning on the talk page. I criticized the sources Catflap had cited after first being challenged as actually saying the opposite of what he claimed (one said, essentially, "I think Kenji was a nationalist, but no one else in the academic world agrees with me"). Catflap reverted me and ignored my argument about misuse of sources entirely. There was an edit war, in which I pointed out that per WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD the material had to stay out as the default, and Catflap kept ignoring my talk page comments and reverting me.[62][63][64][65][66] Catflap's next step was to bring this content dispute to AN, where he was promptly told to discuss it with me on the talk page (which he not done up to that point at all). He then posted an RFC with an unbalanced OP comment (that misled at least one user into supporting him until, when told the whole story, turned around[67][68][69][70]). Then when the RFC started turning against him, Catflap added the word "nationalistic" to the article body and called the edit "minor" even though it was already the subject of a dispute and an open RFC. Twice. I requested on this board that he be TBANned for this disruptive behaviour, and was told that it wasn't serious enough yet and that as long as consensus was against him he wouldn't be able to re-add the material anyway, even without a TBAN. He snarkilly "accepted" this.

Summary of recent content dispute that was poorly described in my opening comment. Sorry about that.

Six months later, after the RFC had been closed as an 8-1 consensus against calling Kenji a nationalist, Catflap came back and replaced "Buddhist" with "member of Kokuchūkai". He was opposed in this by User:Dekimasu. A brief discussion took place on the talk page in which Dekimasu cited numerous reliable sources that refer to him as a "devout Buddhist" (all of which either don't mention Kokuchukai at all, or don't mention it prominently), and Catflap ignored them completely, reiterating his personal opinion that Kenji wasn't a "Buddhist" but a member of "a lay organisation, not affiliated to any Buddhist school and with a dubious nationalist agenda". Since then (and I posted the diffs in my OP comment) I reverted, Catflap posted irrelevant comments on the talk page about how this source or that source mention briefly that he was a member of the Kokuchukai. None of those sources describe either him or the Kokuchukai as nationalist, but Catflap's poorly-sourced article on the group makes this claim, and he explicitly stated that he wanted readers to click the link and read all about how cherry-picked sources discussing pre-1945 nationalism only talk about the Kokuchukai as a nationalist organization rather than as a religious group. Maybe they were mostly political, but all our sources suggest that even if they were Kenji wasn't aware of that, so putting emphasis on the group in the Kenji article, when his relationship with them was peripheral at best, is problematic.

The above was mostly a content dispute, but then Catflap08 repeated the same behaviour I had complained about in the past (refusing to discuss with me on the talk page and immediately turning to 3O and RFC, posting biased RFC openers that were guaranteed to unbalance the discussion). And worst of all it is very obviously an attempt by him to again get around the consensus on calling him a nationalist -- first he was told that the noun "nationalist" was bad, so he moved to "nationalistic", and then when User:Dennis Brown told him that too was out, he waited a little while and switched euphemisms again to "member of Kokuchukai", removing reference to the subject's Buddhist beliefs so that the reader would be forced to conclude that he shared the political beliefs of the group and religion was peripheral, rather than the other way around, which is what all the sources say.

Most recently, I offered him an olive branch and explained that the RFCs would both fail if we didn't work together to craft a comprehensive, easy to understand and neutral summary, because no one would respond. He outright rejected on this offer to cooperate. He also reiterated that he wanted "neutral" third parties to comment, even though on reading his OP even good-faith users couldn't help but be inadvertently biased (like User:Prasangika37 in the previous RFC).

I'm not here because of the content dispute. I'm here because this user has repeated the same pattern of problematic behaviour over and over again, and if he isn't TBANned or blocked, it's going to happen again even after the dust settles on the two RFCs. He might also be engaging in similar behaviour elsewhere, but at the moment that doesn't concern me: what concerns me is the flagrant disregard for constructive discussion and user consensus on this one article where he has tried to get around consensus three times already and has faced unanimous opposition. Hence the renewed request for a TBAN.

Sorry again for a very long post, but I hope that clears up all the previous misunderstandings.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Please stop beating on the dead horse. This seeming refusal on your part to continue to belabor your reservations about the conduct of others, while at the same time seeming to ignore or attempt to justify your own frankly inexcusable incivility in all likelihood makes the possibility of you personally being sanctioned for misconduct much more likely, and, if anything, may reduce the possibility of sanctions against others, based on this tendentious misconduct. There is now, as has been said before, an apparently open DRN didscussion regarding this topic. I think you would be very well advised to spend your energy in a more productive way there than by tendentious possible harassment here. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: What dead horse? You keep saying the Kenji Miyazawa-Kokuchukai issue is under discussion on DRN, and I keep telling you it isn't. I already apologized to you for my aggressive tone, but you clearly ignored this apology, as you have ignored every other post where I specified that the topic on DRN is completely unrelated and has nothing to do with me, and is (at best) further evidence that Catflap is a confrontational user who is at any given time engaged in three or four different disputes that to outsiders can look like the same issue. I have never edited the Daisaku Ikeda article and have absolutely no idea what that dispute is about. AGF can take me only so far, and being repeatedly accused of being involved in a dispute I have connection to even after I have given an angry, aggressive, but clear explanation, apologized for my aggressive tone, given a calm and clear explanation, and then reiterated myself is taking it a bit far. I don't why you are choosing to ignore everything I say to you. Have you and I conflicted in the past? If I have offended you at some point you have my sincerest apology. But you need to stop telling yourself and others that the dispute Catflap is involved in with User:Hoary, User:Starrynuit, Elemential1 and User:Ubikwit on the Daisaku Ikeda article has any connection whatsoever to the present problem. It was clearly a good faith mistake at first but now is beginning to become seriously disruptive. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hijiri, are you seriously calling someone else's behavior disruptive? This nonsense needs to stop now. (SN: Catflap hasn't edited in three days.) Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 09:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Move to close Catflap is guilty of gross abuse of the dispute resolution process, and is very obviously violating consensus on the Kenji Miyazawa article, but this thread has become such a fustercluck that the chances of anything good coming out of it are slim. Given that Catflap's current proposals have no chance of staying in the article, it's not a problem in the short run. I'll wait until the next time he tries to violate the consensus to ask for sanctions again, I guess. It's worth noting that I assumed good faith the whole way through, and even apologized for taking a somewhat gruff tone with some uninvolved but clearly uninformed third parties. Doncrum graciously accepted my apology, but Erpert and John Carter responded by continuing to post personal attacks against me. I want John Carter's repeated accusations of ... I don't know ... sockpuppetry? Which other account does he think I operated that is involved in the Daisaku Ikeda dispute? Why did he think this? Erpert is wrong, but I wasn't offended by his wrongness; John Carter owes me an apology. Close this thread now so good faith editors can tell Catflap that his article edits are crap and need to be reverted. If he keeps up his current behaviour after being told this for the third time, I will ask for a TBAN again, but until then farewell ANI. (Unless of course JC doesn't give me that apology. False accusations of sockpuppetry and/or forum-shopping can't be allowed to stand.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Proposal for topic ban of AliAkar on Jews and Judaism

(Retitled from non-neutral "Really need to topic ban AliAkar from Jews and Judaism" per wp:TALKNEW. --doncram 04:59, 2 March 2015 (UTC))

• AliAkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• User:AliAkar/Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question)
• Previous ANI discussion

User:AliAkar has recreated (for at least the third time) an article draft for a 368 page Antisemitic canard by white supremacist David Duke, which takes Duke's asinine claims at face value. It includes lines like "...the authenticity of the book cannot be doubted. This exceptional style of writing gives the book edge over any other books with different style of writing." Its citations are either promotional sources (such as David Duke's website), or do not mention the book at all, the exceptions being a single ADL article, and a user generated Goodreads.com page.

We need to topic ban AliAkar from Jews and Judaism. Either he is intent on pushing a racist and antisemitic POV or else he has WP:CIR issues with NPOV. Multiple users have explained that Wikipedia is not the place to push antisemitic conspiracy theory bollocks, and he has not paid any attention. The previous thread was given a non-admin closure, stating that the suggestion of a topic ban would be worth suggesting again if the behavior continues. It has continued.

TL;DR: AliAkar keeps trying to recreate an article that promotes an Antisemitic canard by a KKK grand wizard, has been told to stop, and needs to be topic banned from all pages relating to at least Judaism. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Non-admin support as per Ian.thomson. Obvious case, really. The user has been warned several times, the previous ANI said a ban could be put in place if this was repeated, and it obviously is repeated.Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Ditto the above. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 10 Adar 5775 19:44, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• So why isn't he blocked yet? Looks like he's abusing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

If he was an WP:SPA, I'd be asking for a block instead of a topic ban. I haven't digged too deeply into his other edits, but he seems to do other stuff like fix ref formats, add images, and create redirects. I'm totally fine with an Iran-article WP:WikiGnome, and don't even care if an editor is an Anti-Zionist (we all have our own POVs), but pushing any POV (especially one that is both hateful and completely out of touch with reality) is something I can't support. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:07, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

He is one of a couple of editors with a particular pro-Iranian revolutionary bent who persistently makes articles and edits in this specific "revolutionary" spirit. I agree all must have their POVs, but he does not seem like a user who is going to adjust or is in any way interested in making an encyclopedia. (My main run-in with him was here: [71].)--Anders Feder (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Very well then, if others want to present a case for a block, I'm not opposed. I've only gathered evidence for this, however, and those articles are areas where I wouldn't know where to look or what to look for (so someone else would have to provide the evidence and draft the proposal). Ian.thomson (talk) 20:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• I have already warned the user that the article wasn't acceptable in this form, as it constituted promotion of the book and its ideas. (His edits to the article Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam were also problematic.) Support topic ban. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:08, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • See below for further development. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Is this about his multiple attempt to have a page on this David Duke book, or his editing the article to be so extremely promotional? Thank you. Ism schism (talk) 20:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
  • The article about the book doesn't currently exist; the title redirects to David Duke. Rather, the problem is his repeated attempts to create an article promoting the (anti-Semitic) book and ideas therein, initially in article space, later as a user draft. See User:AliAkar/Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question). - Mike Rosoft (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It's not either/or in my mind. He didn't just edit an existing (and salvageable) article to promote the book, and we have (non-promotional) articles on Mein Kampf, The Turner Diaries, and Metapedia. AliAkar has repeatedly created the article to promote the book. I would not be opposed to an article on the book, if it meets WP:GNG and WP:NPOV. However, AliAkar has demonstrated either unwillingness or inability to write such an article that does not violate WP:NPOV by promoting antisemitism. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. If not a ban, period. Not a difficult determination, based on the evidence. Based on previous ANI discussion[72], support ban. Topic ban insufficient. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• I've looked through another article created by the user Ahmad Motevaselian, and it looks to be propaganda. I checked a source that is used repeatedly in the article, the book "Hezbollah: A History of the Party of God", and it tells a very different story than the Wikipedia article
  • From the Wikipedia article: "he went to Syria to help the Lebanese people". The cited source says that he headed an Iranian commando unit.
  • "They disappeared in Lebanon during civil war and were delivered to the Israel military after interrogation." The cited source says "Since then, directly or through the voice of the Hezbollah, the Tehran authorities have proclaimed that its nationals are being held prisoner in Israel. But, according to an Israeli report, these men were killed by the Lebanese Forces. That was confirmed by Robert Hatem, known as “Cobra,” for- mer bodyguard to Hobeika, who added that three hundred Lebanese Shiites met the same fate in the headquarters in La Quarantaine."

I would recommend checking this user's contributions carefully.GabrielF (talk) 21:01, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• • Also, lots of copying of sentences and phrases from sources and close paraphrasing. GabrielF (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Non admin support of topic ban. I've worked on articles created by this editor, he has clear POV problems. I would hope, in short time, that he learns more about neutral point of view. He has been somewhat constructive in editing and creating articles related to the Shia religion, and Iranian soldiers from the Iran-Iraq War, but at times shows he very clearly doesn't understand NPOV. A topic ban would allow him to continue to contribute in these areas, and hopefully learn more about WP:NPOV. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:15, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban - as Ian has articulated above, the account is not an SPA. Perhaps he just can't handle editing in this area. If so, let's solve that problem. If the problematic editing transfers to other areas then a broader block/ban might be in order. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:20, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support site ban as preferred action, topic ban as second option. This editor is clearly here to push a certain point of view, not to build neutral articles. Editors such as this have the potential to seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. Deli nk (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support topic ban as proposed by Ian.thomson. The user is not a SPA and may be able to contribute constructively in other topic areas.- MrX 01:17, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Please think about your comment in above. You know that the Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that several people can contribute for improvement of it. I write a article about a book in my userspace draft page but they show hypersensitive behavior. I think there is a personal problem with this topic and if any user write about the topic you create this debate.AliAkar (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I published the article in mane space and you can contribute for improving it according to wiki rules. If delete, you show that you have problem with topic, the book, and writer.AliAkar (talk) 07:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You presented David Duke's hateful and insane lies as truth, and you're putting it into mainspace. Notice that most people here supported banning you from editing articles relating to Judaism, and that no one has defended your draft. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Have to say, supported a topic ban but comments like that suggest a site ban might be in order. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Moving the draft to mainspace after seeing this thread demonstrates either WP:NOTHERE or WP:CIR on AliAkar's part. Ian.thomson (talk) 07:56, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Since he has deleted the userspace draft, I'm withdrawing support for the site ban, but not the topic ban. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Nothing else to add here really, but this is another example of his/her POV-pushing agenda. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 08:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• I want create a page for introduce the book and this book is about Anti-Zionist idea. We must introduce all idea in Wikipedia and censoring idea is wrong. If an editor is an Anti-Zionist can contribute on and contribution for improvement of the book according to Wiki rules is better than topic ban or speed deletion. Also the book translated on 7 languages and published and sold in several countries and needless my promotion. Please say the article mistakes and help to solve them. We all have our own POVs but we must help each other.AliAkar (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The idea of creating an article is not bad by itself. You are just doing it wrong. Read everyone's comments. Those people are not the problem. Your bias is the problem. Everyone has a POV, but they are supposed to hold them back when editing articles. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Absolutely nothing has changed since the last WP:ANI report. Yes, the article has a POV, but that in and of itself does not merit a ban. Let him finish the draft and move it to article space. The POV will get mercilessly stripped, and the article might even get deleted if the subject isn't notable enough. The usual process of creating and editing articles will therefore have succeeded. If AliAkar engages in edit warring or other disruptive behaviour to preserve the POV, then we can consider blocking or banning him. (If he has no intention of moving the draft to article space, though, the page should be deleted as we're not a free web host, particularly for stuff like this.) —Psychonaut (talk) 09:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

He did move the article to mainspace, and about the only thing that would remain if the article was rewritten to meet WP:NPOV would be "Jewish Supremacism (2003; ISBN 1-892796-00-8) is a book by David Duke." Ian.thomson (talk) 09:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Only the laziest of rewrites would result in cutting it down that much. Much of the existing material on the book's structure and content is fine, except that it's written in a sort of "in universe" style. To fix this all that's required is to couch the existing claims in language which makes it clear that they are reporting Duke's worldview rather than commonly accepted facts and opinions. Likewise there's much to salvage in the section on the publication of the book. The claims about the translations are primary-sourced but easily verifiable and not unduly self-serving, so permissible under WP:RS. Regarding the text about the Russian reception, he seems to have misinterpreted the Anti-Defamation League article he cites (or possibly he's relying on a further uncited source), though the crux of the matter—certain Russian legislators' attempts to have the book banned—is essentially correct. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The gist of what you're saying seems to be: "POV-editors, rejoice! Have fun filling Wikipedia with as much POV as you can. If anyone has a problem, the burden is on them to clean up after you." That is just a really damaging attitude, and at odds with WP:NOTREQUIRED.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

No, I am saying that we don't generally block or ban users for creating a single, salvageable POV article, particularly when they have a history of constructive editing. Instead, we point out and correct the problems and hope they learn from their mistakes. Blocking and banning are for editors whose larger pattern of problematic editing demonstrates them to be incorrigible. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I've just uncovered and fixed three instances of apparent copyright violations by AliAkar. I see he's been warned for copyright problems before, but I haven't had time to check whether the ones I just found post-date these warnings. If they do, then I'd have no objection to him being blocked until such time as he demonstrates an understanding of copyright and an intention not to violate it in the future. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:33, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• Everyone claims that these are false, Please help improve the article and add another idea.AliAkar (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • You should have known by now that the article wasn't anywhere near acceptable; still, you moved it to article space. I now support a lengthy block, and a ban on making any edits whatsoever related to Israel, Jews, Judaism, anti-Semitism, or the like. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 10:34, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know about the rule that you say. You read my article in my user space draft and said your idea about it and you want ban me for this article in user space draft. So I moved it to main space. If you think the article have problem you can contribute for solving the problems.AliAkar (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

OpposeIf his writing is biased, he should not be banned, but you can help to balance his article per WP:BALASPS. Do you think that the writers of all biased material should be banned? But Wikipedia has rule for biased articles as WP:WEIGHT... it means that the writers would not be banned. Salman mahdi (talk) 12:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I think he might be unaware of Wikipedia rules and policy. If he will delete the page, for now, and learn a little more about these rules and policies, that would really help this situation. I would be glad to help him learn more. He has made some good contributions to Wikipedia, particularly related to the Iran-Iraq War. Taking a bit of time to learn more about Wikipedia policy would really help him, and he could make an even better contribution in the articles he creates. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 12:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Another update: Removing the article and the article draft is a step in the right direction; the nonsensical message on my talk page accusing me of bias is not. And no, I don't think you can claim ignorance. At least three users (including me) have warned you on your talk page that the article was unacceptable in this form. When you re-created the draft, you have been warned that a discussion has been started seeking you banned from writing on this topic. What did you do? Moved the draft into article space. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

With regards to the user's message on my talk page, it appears that he has confused me for User:Ian.thomson. That said, I don't support an indefinite block, but still believe that a topic ban is in order. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite block Give anti-semitism the red card. I'm arguing for an indef rather than a ban because I think a TBAN isn't far-reaching enough given what happened here, and I'm of the school that SBANs are for people who engage in sockpuppetry after being indefinitely blocked. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:29, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• Update I explained to the editor that he needs to learn more about Wikipedia rules and policy. I asked him to delete the page - and he has deleted it. I will work with this editor so that he understand these rules and work with him on his contributions (Iran-Iraq War articles). I think we need to be a little merciful concerning a complete ban here. A topic ban would allow him to contribute towards better Iran-Iraq War articles. Thank you for considering this. Ism schism (talk) 12:47, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
  • He deleted the page? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 12:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
    • He deleted what he could and asked how to delete the userspace. I sent just sent him the tag to use. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• The editor has placed a userpage speedy delete tag on the page. See Creating User:AliAkar/Jewish Supremacism (My Awakening to the Jewish Question). This demonstrates a good faith effort on the part of this editor. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
• You deleted the main page and I deleted my userspace draft page. But I think nobody write about this book. If anybody write about the book, I check the POV of article.AliAkar (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

The best thing to do is to take a break from this subject for a while. You have made good contributions in your articles on the Iraq-Iran War. Put your energy into those articles until you have a better understanding for rules, policy and such. This will work to benefit everybody. Thank you for showing your desire to work with other editors. Ism schism (talk) 13:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have started a draft on the book that cites sources from the University of North Carolina Press, ABC-CLIO, Walter de Gruyter, IOS Press, and the Anti-Defamation League. Now no one can make the claim that it is the topic that's the problem. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I read your page and become sure that you have POV problem more than me. You write "Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question is a 2003 book by former Klansman and white supremacist David Duke" in the first sentence of article while you introduce him as a racialist. I am sure that you have POV and write the text with your idea.AliAkar (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I started with that because that is how the sources describe him. Wikipedia is not censored to make racialists look better.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is why AliAkar still needs to be topic-banned from Jews and Judaism: he doesn't get that David Duke is a racialist. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• My arguements against a site ban - Today, I started a dialogue with this editor on his talk page. After explaining a bit of Wikipedia guidelines to him, he put a deletion tag on his userspace, had it deleted, and agreed to only work on Iranian military biographies. Assuming good faith - it is possible that a missed opportunity occurred where nobody reached out to him before to try to actually work with him. He has made contributions to articles related to the Iran-Iraq War, after learning about our guidelines, he could continue to make a constructive contribution there. I hope other editors will drop their request for a site ban, a topic ban is understandable, but a site ban seems rather extreme to me. I would be for a site ban if he were to continue such efforts, against guidelines, in the future, but as it stands today, this seems rather extreme. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:04, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

 Note: On fawiki (Persian Wikipedia), fa:User:AliAkar was recently blocked[73] for sockpuppeting per checkuser on meta. Can that user be assumed to be identical with the AliAkar here?--Anders Feder (talk) 17:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Central authority confirms that it's indeed the same account. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
  • If those CheckUser results are correct, then he's socking on English Wikipedia as well with the accounts User:Hananeh.M.h, User:Srahmadi, and User:M.Sakhaie. I suspect there are further accounts and have just opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Srahmadi. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
• Indefinitely blocked per all above, especially User:Ian.thomson. Racism gets a red card, and posts like this and this are enough for me. Then of course there's the multiple accounts. I'll block the known socks User:Hananeh.M.h, User:Srahmadi (currently the oldest of the known accounts), and User:M.Sakhaie. Thank you, Anders Feder, Mike Rosoft and Psychonaut for figuring them out. Bishonen | talk 16:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC).
• Given the above, no reason to assume good faith anymore. A block is appropriate. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks guys for discovering and dealing with the sockpuppetry. I thought I'd go on ahead and move my draft out to article space, just to help wrap up one more loose end (even if a small and disgusting one). However, when I tried to create Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question, it told me to log in to create the article ("... I am"). Since I was logged in, I tried to create it at Jewish Supremacism, and move it to Jewish Supremacism: My Awakening on the Jewish Question, but then it finally said I don't have permission to create that article.

I wouldn't mind leaving it at the shorter title, but I'm guessing it goes against the manual of style. Could someone move it over to the longer title? I only bring this up just to try and resolve any loose ends left from this fiasco. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Edwardjones2320

Edwardjones2320 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A contributor who seems to be under the impression that Wikipedia articles are an appropriate location for original research and personal opinion regarding the appropriate organisation of churches under Christianity. Specifically, this newish editor (first edit February last year, and with 95 live article-space edits) has repeatedly added content to the house church article with his own (questionable) Biblical interpretations combined with what amounts to sermonising on the subject. Sources cited, such as they are, consist of Biblical passages (cited for the use of the word 'house', which Edwardjones2320 choses to interpret in a literal manner, ignoring the obvious issues involved), and clearly-partisan cherry-picked websites of individual Christian commentators of no obvious expertise or repute, along with websites for places of worship. As evidence of Edwardjones2320's complete disregard for appropriate encyclopaedic neutrality, consider this passage:

"Many traditional churches fall into a pattern of establishing ever-increasing quantities of church programs that detract from the core basics of Christian life within the church. The pastor and other elders can often be seen as the cause of this problem, however, the demand of the congregation and community seeking a variety of church programs tends to facilitate the creation of more and more nonessential church activities. The result is a program driven church which drifts away from the biblical model of church found in the New Testament. To reverse this process, the church leaders need to be resolute about the purpose of the assembly and come to grips with the fact that a certain number of current church members will leave the congregation and attend elsewhere. The church should be an extension of Christ's kingdom and not a collection of people following a particular business model which has the goal of ever-increasing expansion at the price of quality. [74]

Some search long and hard for proper church fellowship but then fade out of the picture when the search proves unsuccessful. People are looking for Jesus but instead, often find programs, guilt and Smalltalk. Those looking for fulfilling church experiences might find "fog machines and Five-Simple-Steps-to-Spiritual-Growth and fill-in-the-blank Bible studies" instead. After giving up in disappointment, many sleep in Sunday mornings or go to the farmers market. Other social gathering places, such as taverns, don't ask people to get "plugged in" or ask them to serve in nursery duty for an eternity of Sunday's. They can just sit down and feel like they belong which is how the church should make them feel. [75]"[Diff: [76]

Both paragraphs cite a source (of questionable merit by Wikipedia standards), but neither even attempts to do anything other than deliver a personal lecture on what Edwardjones2320 considers to be the correct form of organisation for a place of worship. The contributors sole response when asked to comply with Wikipedia standards consists of accusations of 'vandalism' (see edit summary for diff above). It is apparent from Edwardjones2320's contribution history [77] that similar problematic behaviour has occurred in regard to other articles: an edit to to the King James Only movement article consists solely of the contributor's personal opinions regarding the benefits of usage of the text [78], and likewise he has added content to the astrology article [79] citing a source [80] which not only fails to support the content, but amounts to a blog on an individual's take on the subject - with no discussion whatsoever as to whether this opinion is widely held. While I have no doubt that Edwardjones2320's intentions are sincere, and have no wish to prevent him expressing his personal opinions regarding his faith, I have to suggest that Wikipedia policy, along with long-established community consensus, is that Wikipedia articles are not the place to do it - and that accordingly, if he is unwilling to voluntarily comply with the appropriate standards regarding article content, he should be obliged to do so. Perhaps some form of mentoring might be appropriate, if a volunteer can be found, but otherwise a topic ban may be necessary, at least until such time as the contributor comes to accept that his personal objectives and the aims of the encyclopaedia (which caters to those of all faiths, and none, and certainly does not express opinions on the merits or otherwise of particular forms of worship) are incompatible, and that he will have to edit within the constraints imposed by the community if he is to do so at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hmm... has anything been tried so far? As you say there's no reason to doubt that his intentions are sincere, so TBANning if no other options have been tried and failed is definitely off the table. But isn't WP:RFCU a better place to discuss options like mentoring? Sorry I might be a bit biased because I've also edited Japanese Wikipedia where "ANI" is named such that it is literally only meant for requesting blocks.

(Note that on the article substance I agree with you completely, but I also understand that for a lot of Christians who don't know a lot of non-Christians, the problems with the above edits would not be readily apparent.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:OccultZone has informed me that WP:RFC/U is no longer active. I'm feeling very old now ... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:21, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I suspect a lot of Christians might also have problems with Wikipedia accusing preachers of "authoritarian styles of leadership that abuse Christ's authority over the flock", and of "becom[ing] a surrogate deity." as the edit in the diff provided does. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:28, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Hey, I agree with you. My question is what to do about it. Has anything else been tried already, other than this, this and this? He's being disruptive, yes, but it's not clear exactly what admin-action you are asking for. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I am asking that admins, and other contributors, take a look at Edwardjones2320's editing behaviour (and accusations of 'vandalism') and then decide the appropriate course of action. That is what WP:ANI is for. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I see a mention of accusations of 'vandalism'. I don't see diffs to support the claim that he calls opposing edits vandalism. If he has made that claim, I suggest that he be warned that the claim of vandalism, in a content dispute, is a severe personal allegation. "If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. In any case, has he been advised to read the dispute resolution policy? Also, since this isn't a request for admin action but a question about what to do, the Help Desk would have been a better forum, but I think that the question has been answered here. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have linked a diff where Edwardjones2320 describes my reversion of his edit as "vandalizing this article" in the edit summary. I have linked his contribution history, which contains another edit summary saying the same thing. And no, this isn't " a question about what to do" - it is a question as to what the community and or/ admins consider to be an appropriate course of action for a contributor who clearly fails to understand the purpose of Wikipedia, and repeatedly violates policy by adding editorialising personal opinion to articles. This is not an issue for 'dispute resolution' - we do not 'resolve' repeated policy violations, we deal with them. Through means which will if necessary involve administrative action. I have suggested that a topic ban may be necessary, though it is possible that if a mentor could be found, and if Edwardjones2320 agreed to mentoring that this might be a possible alternative. What is not however an option, if the articles concerned are to adhere to policy, is for Edwardjones2320 to continue to ignore reasonable requests to comply with said policy - which he shows every sign of wishing to do. Accordingly, I would appreciate it if contributors would stop trying to fob the issue off elsewhere, and instead offer some practical advice as to what we are going to do about this contributor, before it reaches the point where he has to be blocked entirely for misusing the encyclopaedia as his own personal pulpit. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

You provided a lot of diffs, most of which were not relevant, some of which were actually external links. You didn't make it easy for us. Which diff refers to vandalizing the article? I agree with User:Hijiri88 that it is not clear what admin action you are asking. It still appears that you are asking for advice rather than for admin action. Where does he refer to vandalizing the article? There hasn't really been enough of an effort to reason with him in order for admin action. Also, why are you saying that dispute resolution is not applicable? It does appear that there are conduct issues, but sometimes attempting dispute resolution makes the conduct issues more obvious. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I have not provided 'a lot of diffs'. I have provided three, all illustrating the contributors problematic editing behaviour. I have also provided two links to the sources being cited, to illustrate further the problems with this contributor. This is ANI. We are supposed to present evidence when making complaints. When I state that a diff shows the contributor describing my reversion of his edit as "vandalizing this article" I expect people commenting here to understand that, and look at the evidence - not ignore it, complain that I haven't provided the evidence, and at the same time complain that I have provided too much evidence. So if you have nothing constructive to add here, how about leaving the topic to people who actually can? AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:27, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

If you didn't find it easy, I don't see how he could have made it much easier. The diff with the vandalism claim in the edit summary is the one marked "diff" [81]. Yes, the other two near to it are links to the sources used as refs. That's a lot "easier" for page users than sticking ref tags in that typically create a mass of citations at the bottom of the page. The edits of Edwardjones2320 are clearly deeply problematic, with ex cathedra pronouncments about what is and isn't appropriate in churches. Mentoring would be highly desirable. Paul B (talk) 20:00, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's break down the accusations and review each statement for its validity:

original research and personal opinion – the information on the house church article was heavily sourced and did not merely contain my personal opinion.

Repeatedly added content to the house church article – I made a number of sequential edits over a period of several weeks which allowed time for the page community to respond to the individual edits one at a time. Since I was the only one editing the page, it makes sense that the series of edits were all from me. One member of the community did revert several of my edits which I allowed to be deleted.

Biblical interpretations combined with what amounts to sermonising on the subject – since the house church article is about church, it makes sense that biblical interpretations would be used. I may be guilty of some sermonizing since some of the text is of a bold nature. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy to be bold?

Questionable biblical interpretations – I have studied the Bible quite a bit, and the sources used, although websites, represent groups that are recognized as authorities in the area of Protestant Christianity. Is using sourced content considered original research, because all of my additions to this article were sourced except grammatical modifications of existing text?

Sources cited, such as they are, consist of Biblical passages (cited for the use of the word 'house', which Edwardjones2320 choses to interpret in a literal manner, ignoring the obvious issues involved – the sources cited are not John Doe's blog but major Christian websites. Christianity today is a Christian magazine with a wide circulation, and the source is included in one of the Andy's samples of text derived from questionable sources. It is pretty obvious that when you are talking about house church, the word house is literal. What do you think house stands for in the phrase "house church?" I am not sure which obvious issues I am ignoring except for the fact that I may have been too bold with some of my text.

clearly-partisan cherry-picked websites of individual Christian commentators of no obvious expertise or repute, along with websites for places of worship – being a fairly new editor, I tried to find the most authoritative websites possible, perhaps books would have been better. One of my sources is from Frank Viola who has written 5 books on the subject of house church, and he is considered arguably the foremost authority on the subject. I am not sure how Frank Viola is classified as someone of "no obvious expertise or repute." Does Andy even know who the house church experts are? I appeal to the administrator community to review this article to see how much text Andy has contributed to this article. Anybody can just delete a lot of text. As far as cherry picked websites, I selected websites that were in alignment with the subject that provided a variety of views outlining the strong and weak points of house church to provide a balanced point of view. Doesn't Wikipedia promote describing multiple sides of an issue?

As evidence of Edwardjones2320's complete disregard for appropriate encyclopaedic neutrality – I made every attempt to provide multiple views on the issue of house church to support the neutral point of view Wikipedia policy. With the exception of perhaps being too bold with some of the text, I don't understand how I have a "complete disregard" for this policy. How does Andy come to the conclusion of "complete disregard" in the very short amount of time he has interacted with my posts?

I believe the issue started when I attempted to add a single paragraph to the Astrology article which was reverted by the community. I did undo the edit once or twice, but then allowed the voice of the community to prevail and moved to the talk page as instructed by the community of that article. From there I suggested that underneath the section describing the Catholic view of astrology there should be a Protestant view of astrology. One commentator agreed that if properly sourced text was found, it would be acceptable on this article. From this point on, all editing was done on the talk page to try to arrive to a level of consensus for a small amount of text to be added to this article to show the Judeo-Christian point of view on the subject of Astrology.

Very shortly after Andy got involved with this attempt to add text of this article, he must have queried all of the articles edited by me to locate the house church article. At that point he went into an article which had about 10,000 characters and in one swoop, deleted around 4600 characters. This is why I made the accusation of vandalism. To top it off, below is the text that Andy put on my talk page:

Please note that if you once more abuse Wikipedia articles by engaging in personal sermonising on the subject as you have been doing in the house church article, I shall report the matter - this is an encyclopaedia, and we do not include editorialising personal opinion in articles. Ever. This is an encyclopaedia, written for people of all faiths, and none. It is not your personal pulpit. If that is what you are looking for, you will need to find it elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Is the use of sourced material considered personal sermonizing? Is it inappropriate to represent the Protestant Judeo-Christian worldview on an article about church? Is representing the Judeo-Christian perspective which has a history of centuries considered personal opinion? Is being an encyclopedia mean that only the atheistic worldview is to be represented? Should a fairly new editor be told to put his information elsewhere because it doesn't agree with a particular editor that holds to a different worldview?

Let's look at another post that was added to my talk page today to examine the quality of neutrality, and I will let the community decide if such a post on my talk page is appropriate:

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk: House church. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The allegation that an experienced editor has been vandalizing an article, when there is in fact a content dispute, is a serious personal attack. ANY further false claims of vandalism are likely to result in a block. If you have been editing long enough to know what vandalism is, you have been editing long enough to know what is not vandalism. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks in edit summaries, which cannot be deleted except by administrative redaction, are even more serious than personal attacks on talk pages as such. Do not make personal attacks, such as "vandalizing", in edit summaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

So according to Robert, I now need to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Is this the stand that the community takes on somebody that holds to a different worldview? I deleted text on the house church talk page that referenced discussions around 8 years old that have long since ceased being relevant. I was unaware of the archiving feature that should have been used instead. With this in mind, are Roberts comments appropriate? Are they even accurate? Let's talk about personal point of view here. It seems that a number of those that are opposed to my worldview engage in extremely aggressive accusations without offering a hint of advice on how to make improvements to the edits. I appeal to the administrators to look at this type of text and ask yourselves if this is the type of community you want to promote on Wikipedia?

Again, my accusation of vandalizing comes from deleting almost half of an article in one single edit. If I were to delete half of the Astrology article in a single edit, the community would be screaming in opposition, yet Andy seems to be getting away with this aggressive deletion of text. I won't try to reverse it, but perhaps someone else monitoring the page will in the future. Perhaps one of the administrators will see fit to restore the house church page to its original version so that's those that want to contribute meaningfully to the subject can make appropriate changes.

Let's review the final post by Robert on my talk page:

Please do not assume ownership of articles as you did at Talk: House church. If you aren't willing to allow your contributions to be edited extensively or be redistributed by others, please do not submit them. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

My edits on the house church talk page were merely to clean up old discussions and nothing more. My edits to the house church text were performed over a period of weeks, so I am at a loss to understand how the community did not have time to review them, especially, when one editor reverted about 25% of them throughout the editing period. I appeal to the Wikipedia administrators to note the hostile nature of the actions of Andy and Robert in regard to this matter and not block my account. Edwardjones2320 (talk) 06:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This classic example of an almost unreadable wall of text combined with a "persecution" view of criticism is clear evidence that Edwardjones2320 is a problem. Paul B (talk) 11:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I will repeat to User:Edwardjones2320: "If you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is vandalism, you have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Deleting a large part, even half, of an article in a well-documented content dispute is not vandalism, and the claim that it is vandalism is a personal attack. More generally, characterizing a content dispute as vandalism is characteristic of ownership behavior. Some editors, including myself, originally asked what admin action was required. Unfortunately, the subject isn't listening, and so now admin action may be in order. I see three options. First, close the thread with a very strong warning. Second, block for a personal attack. Third, indefinitely block as not a constructive editor. The third seems too extreme. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Okay until I saw the above wall of text I was leaning mentor, but given that no one was asking for a block until the editor in question posted, and he responded with a scree that was 1/6 the length of my undergrad thesis that appears to be attacking the ATG's very polite and tolerant description ... well, I think the Wikipedia community would be better off without him. Block per WP:CIR. I think WP:NOTHERE doesn't really apply here: the user has a POV that comes across in all of his/her edits, but plenty of others do to and they can still contribute to an encyclopedia. The cluelessness that led to a 1,500-word attack on a user who went out of his way to say "I think this user should be allowed to contribute but needs some tutoring" makes me think that the user should be blocked in the short term, and encouraged to appeal the block with a (concise) explanation of why they are here and what they can contribute to the encyclopedia, and a promise that they understand what kind of language is appropriate and inappropriate for encyclopedia articles. (I'm not opposed to users who tend toward verbosity in their talk page comments, though the above is clearly problematic as well.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:06, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me that Edwardjones2320 has failed entirely to understand why I removed (as a normal part of the WP:BRD process inherent in an 'anyone can edit' project) his edits to the house church article. It is a simple fact that they weren't describing the subject of the article, they were expressing opinions about it - and it should be obvious to him that as an encyclopaedia, aimed at a broad readership, it is inappropriate for Wikipedia to be expressing opinions regarding what does or doesn't "detract from the core basics of Christian life", what "church leaders" need to do and all the rest to be in the article. Opinion, when include in articles, is attributed - to appropriate sources. And when such attributed opinion is included, it is done in a manner that preserves the neutrality of an article - which would clearly include other contrary opinion where appropriate sources exist. And as to my comments about using the Bible as a source, again Edwardjones2320 misses the point - I'm not suggesting that modern house churches don't meet in houses, of course they do. I'm suggesting that the assumption within his edits that the word 'house' as expressed in the Bible has a one-to-one relationship with modern usage of the term isn't one Wikipedia should be making - we leave such interpretations to Biblical scholars and similarly qualified persons, and cite our sources when doing so. It might possibly surprise Edwardjones2320, but Wikipedia doesn't consider the Bible a 'reliable source' in our terms - not because it is a religious text, but because it is (as centuries of Biblical scholarship have amply demonstrated) open to many interpretations, and having our contributors decide for themselves when and where to cite passages as evidence thus constitutes original research. Even an apparently simple word like 'house' may not always mean what it appears to (I presume Edwardjones232 is familiar with differing translations of John 14:2, and the rather confusing rendering in KJV) and using Biblical passages to argue for house churches, while it is of course entirely appropriate in the context of a debate within the Christian church, is thus not something an encyclopaedia should be doing. Personally, I rather doubt that early Christians, as a frequently-persecuted minority, often met anywhere but in private, and in all likelihood in their own homes - but I wouldn't cite the Bible to argue the case, and I wouldn't express my opinion on the subject in a Wikipedia article. We leave that to the experts - and cite them. Along with other experts who hold contrary opinions where appropriate. As an encyclopaedia, it is our duty to inform our readers about a subject (in this case house churches). It is not however appropriate to suggest to them that they are the only proper form of Christian worship because of what it says in I Corinthians. If Edwardjones2320 is really incapable of understanding why, I would again suggest that he needs to accept mentoring regarding contributing towards Wikipedia - and that if he won't accept that, and contribute in the manner required of a neutral encyclopaedia, he must accept that as a community we have the right (and indeed duty) to take steps to preserve such neutrality. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Ownership and personal attack issues with editors

Ever since creating this account last year, I have often faced deep hostility from Bangladeshi Wikipedians, especially User:Nafsadh, who is blindly against me. I am not a nationalist and I always back up my edits with reliable sources. I have been singled out for aggressiveness, false charges of edit warring and often harangued for days in talk pages- Talk:Bangladesh, Talk:Dhaka#History revert, Talk:Dhaka#Culture and Talk:Divisions of Bangladesh. I was personally attacked on several occasions. For simply suggesting Bangladesh's divisional administrative centers be also termed as divisional capitals instead of the usual headquarters, I was dubbed "ridiculous". For adding images to an article, I was told I can't go "a far way". 

My background and exposure allows me to contribute significantly in certain areas, especially politics, history and foreign affairs. But my fortunes have taken a turn for the worst in the last two years, so much so that I am not being able to pursue my university degree. I am stuck at home in Dhaka and Wikipedia offers an opportunity to utilize my time and improve B'desh related issues. On three/four occasions, I did lose my temper and made personal attacks. My response came only to their hostility. However I apologized or removed those attacks every time. 

The blind hostility I face is simply overwhelming and extremely stressful. What ever happened to Wikipedia:Assume good faith?  How can anyone engage when they're faced with so much blind aggressiveness. It seems several Bangladeshi editors have ganged up against me and they have a habit of making sweeping remarks without any basis, with a deeply hostile personal undertone.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 15:49, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

I fail to see how this has anything to do with the nationality of Nafsadh. We can't forget WP:AAGFAAGF. I don't think there is some bias against you, just a conflict. These happen all the time on the wiki. This can be solved with civil discussion. Weegeerunner (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course it has nothing to with nationality. But if Nafsadh has made up his mind against me it becomes really hard to bring major improvements. If he is going attack me for the most simple reasonable accurate edits, that's just a waste of time. If he wants to genuinely engage, he's welcome to question me politely. Why does he have to bring edit warring charges every time? What's the point of them? They haven't produced any different results. My edits don't merit these aggressive accusations. Instead so many times some editors make sweeping personal remarks.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AAGFAAGF. And can you post the diff of all these personal attacks that you are talking about? Weegeerunner (talk) 22:48, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

Fine, but they don't assume good faith. It's they who begin edit warring over minor details. You can look at these pages Talk:Bangladesh, Talk:Dhaka#History revert, Talk:Dhaka#Culture and Talk:Divisions of Bangladesh.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:55, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Rainmaker23 keeps making personal attacks on several Bangladesh related talk pages. Let's focus on what's actually material. I would like to cite his "record" to show a lack of a pattern of good behavior:

• to User:Kmzayeem

.....You're like a Bangali version of Sarah Palin .....He's a hardline supporter of the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. So WP Neutral point of view comes into question

• to User:Noq

......My openness is just fine. You again prove yourself to be dishonest.

• to User:Samudrakula

........User:Samudrakula obviously has a very poor view of history and most other things. ........I think you're a terrible POV pusher

• to User:Nafsadh

........You manipulative user

He has been recently reported for attacking a specific editor but unfortunately the editor leave Wikipedia! His verbal aggression and non cooperative attitude on Talk pages often disturb other editors. It is an appeal to administrator, please calm him down before wikipedia lost another editor—Samudrakula (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

• I should have reported User:Samudrakula first. He has a habit of pure chauvinism. He began an unnecessary edit war over images in Bangladesh, attacking me that I won't "go a far way". In Talk:Mohammad Ali Bogra, he is chauvinistically pushing arguments which fall on their face. The problem with most of these editors is that they have utterly partisan views. They do not contribute significant content to the articles I edit. But they will make a fuss over pictures and minor issues. They will begin an edit war, instead of amicably raising any issues they have on the talk page. I still think it was unjustified for Noq, Nafsadh and Kmzayeem to harangue me out of the blue for expanding the History section in Dhaka.

Another example of Samudrakula's chauvinism- User:Soewinhan did not leave because of me. He even thanked me for an edit of mine 3 days ago. He's a very sophisticated editor, although we have our differences.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 23:32, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

It seems to me The pot calling the kettle black! You have already confirmed that you made personal attacks! and Doing it again and again. ″Apologized or removed those attacks every time″—— Then what about Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. You are trying to move an Article about Mohammad Ali Bogra against Citing sources like Encyclopædia Britannica n Government of Pakistan website and Wikipedia:Naming conventions (royalty and nobility). I am requesting the administrator to read the talk page discussions- if anyone find anything like so called ″chauvinism″ then i will quit wikipedia forever. My question is, how long and how many editors should tolerate such kind of comments and insults? I have no enough time to write a huge paragraph due to my studies it doesn't mean i have no right to correct a mistake.

″User:Soewinhan Note: I hate receiving personal attacks from users who contributed nothing when I wrote almost entirely of an article. I won't spend more time on endless Wiki disputes. I am leaving Wikipedia for some time″—Samudrakula (talk) 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Sometimes Rainmaker23 becomes highly bewildered about how to talk!. Lets have a look at three different version of his last response: (1) latest, (2) blaming me of not assuming good faith, and blaming WP:OWN. He even changed original ANI several times. This is just another instance of his Talk page behavior. He is prone to removing comments of other users from article talk pages and blanking whole discussion: [82], [83], [84], [85]; partial changes of own remark here and there [86], [87], [88], [89] -- often minor, but sometimes really confusing.

Rainmaker23 makes remarks that are not always polite -- towards a single editor or in general (all other editors): [90], [91], [92], [93], calls other editors dishonest, tells not to participate, makes gross PA and looks down upon other editors: [94], [95].

Rainmaker23 is admittedly hostile, doesn't want to "seek any consensus", but thinks he faces ridicule and attacks.

Rainmaker23 removes discussion from other users' talk and makes indecent remark (on talk and edit comment): "f***", [96], calls Zayeem and Aditya's work f*ing nonsense,

Sometimes Rainmaker23 just blanks a whole article. There are many more incidents.

Just while I was compiling this comment with some of his activities, I was wondering, does Rainmaker23 do more harm than he does good? – nafSadh did say 00:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Interestingly, Rainmaker23 blanked his talk page and declared his retirement, yet keeps editing (also probably while logged out). – nafSadh did say 01:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Another thing I think I should note: Rainmaker23 posted this ANI right after Samudrakula discussed with me about putting him to ANI. – nafSadh did say 01:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I can see that Rainmaker has complains. But, it is impossible to judge his complaints, because he has furnished no proof, no evidence, nothing. Rainmaker, can you post some evidences that support your complaints? Otherwise this discussion is quite useless. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 03:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

No Aditya, the discussion has use. Plaintiffs undergo investigation too. – nafSadh did say 03:46, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Aditya don't try to hijack everything. This was a personal attack you made last year. I noted this in my first para. All the talk pages I've listed have the evidence.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nafsadh I would have brought you to ANI much earlier. I don't condone my talk page behavior. But my edits are not controversial.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was looking into the histories of several Bangladesh related articles and I found a stunning similarity between behavior of Uck22 (sock of Bazaan) and interestingly, Rainmaker23 emerged soon after Uck22 & Co. got blocked for sock-puppetry in June 2014. – nafSadh did say 05:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

and you say you're not personal? I'm not engaged in sock puppetry.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

You said it!

So, you are saying 203.112.78.254 is indeed Rainmaker23? – nafSadh did say 05:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Of course that's the IP I get from my internet company.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Considering my own experience with Rainmaker23, I think he is allergic to any sort of criticism of his edits or difference of opinions. On 17 February, I made this comment somewhat criticizing his changes in Dhaka which resulted in all those outrages against me, as shown in the diffs given by Nafsadh and Samudrakula. I'm quite surprised to see that he started this ANI against Nafsadh who has remained perhaps the calmest and the most benign editor to him despite all those personal attacks. Also, I would like to know what made Rainmaker23 think that I am personally or professionally connected to the subject of Bangladeshi nationalism that he added this template. He didn't raise a single concern about any POV or promotional content in the article. --Zayeem ^(talk) 11:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not allergic to criticism. You're probably allergic to anyone and anything against the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. As I said I should have brought Nafsadh to ANI much earlier. He has attacked me over the most minute details through edit wars and false accusations, which could have been easily resolved through a proper discussion. When after more than six months, I see the main WP Bangladesh editors are personally against me, and will obstruct me in the most reasonable and simple changes, I obviously had enough.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I was asked to look at this discussion because I sometimes try to improve Bangladesh articles. It is a distressing situation, but unfortunately a common one in articles related to Bangladesh (and the reason that I do less work there than I would like to). The allegations of "personal attacks" are a mixed group of really personal insults and other material that has been mislabelled. To say "ridiculous edit" is not the same as saying "ridiculous person"; only the latter is a "personal attack". We all make mistakes; any of us can made a ridiculous edit. I suggest that it is time to close this ANI, and for participants to take a break until they are ready to come back to divide each contentious issue into the smallest possible components so that potential small changes to articles can be discussed individually. If there were a way to set up all WikiProject Bangladesh pages so that only small edits can be made, and no more than a few per editor per day, that could be very helpful (but I doubt that such a mechanism exists in wikipedia). Sminthopsis84 (talk) 22:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Small edits -- is a good idea but limiting numbers is not. Generally, well experienced editors engage in discussion before making massive changes in high-traffic articles. You were notified because, a diff presented here was from your talk page. – nafSadh did say 23:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

One last point for Kmzayeem. If you thought the version I placed in Dhaka gave undue weight to a particular time period, you could be more specific on what changes you wanted to see. Or better you could have easily deducted my content or made changes yourself. You're very much capable of doing that. Instead you love to throw your opinions around without any constructive suggestions as if you're in parliament.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 06:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Rainmaker23, look, I'm not a supporter of BNP or any other political parties in Bangladesh. I don't know if any of my edits have hurt your political or ideological orientation, if it really did, then I'm sorry but I'm just doing my bit as an editor in Wikipedia. If you really spotted any POV edits by me then you should have raised your concerns in the respective talk pages before throwing such illogical remarks. If there's undue weight in any article, the only changes to fix this up are trimming the texts or increasing the coverage of other parts, that's simple commonsense. I thought you have good knowledge about the history of Bangladesh and you would increase the coverage of the earlier periods in the history section of Dhaka to fix the undue weight, however, I left that to you to fix in whatever way you like. Yeah, I could have made some changes myself but then the way you were practicing your ownership and edit warring in the article, it would discourage any editor to make an edit there. And lastly, stop living in a paranoia that everybody here is conspiring against you, all of us have far more important things to do. --Zayeem ^(talk) 09:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that is common sense. Instead of hostile commentary it would be better if you can just get to the point. You're in paranoia, to think I own articles or pursue edit wars. The evidence is clearly there to show who's responsible for that. Finally, I never said anything about a conspiracy. Your lot is just too stubborn that's all.--Rainmaker23 (talk) 12:00, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Can someone please close this ANI? Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 02:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Having read through this a couple times, I'd like to ask: What exactly is being requested of admins here? Blackmane (talk) 03:06, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing. Please close this ANI. Rainmaker23 complained that "I (Nafsadh) and other "main(!)" WikiProject:Bangladesh editors are hostile towards him". – nafSadh did say 15:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Requesting a block of a user

Hello. I am requesting a permanent block of Zzaxx1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This user has consistently gone against consensus on Marvel Cinematic Universe related articles in adding information regarding the upcoming 2017 Spider-Man film. This user has been warned by many (see this most recent diff from their talk) and has completely failed to positively contribute to any discussion on this matter. Many users have approached them to contribute to discussions regarding this content (after a consensus against their view was formed), but that was just met with uncivilty (ie here and here) or blanking talk page content because the consensus does not suit their personal opinion (ie here and here). I'm not going to provide specific diffs regarding the actions of this user, because their contribution history can speak for itself. But if anyone would really like them, I'll gather some up. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm on the fence about a full-on block, but I would support a topic ban on Marvel Comics-related articles. There's just too much WP:IDHT going on from this user. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Zzaxx1 only has one current time edit displayed at Talk:Marvel Cinematic Universe and a few edits that were wiped in her/his blanking of content. Major issues here are the disregard to other editors in regard to this blanking of content and the obnoxious responses to apparently well intentioned edits.

I support the block request. GregKaye 10:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

He isn't a bad editor, he just refuses to go by consensus so maybe just a topic ban until the issue is resolved.--Ditto51 (My Talk Page) 14:05, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support a topic ban as well. Which I suspect for this user would effectively be a block, since it appears to be their primary topic of interest. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Attract and Repel ‖ 14:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would support the topic ban, but as Ebyabe pointed out, it is effectively a full block on them, as their primary editing topic is Marvel Comics and its related articles. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Weak support as I was in the discussion and they don't seem contempt with much conversation on the talk page. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

@Weegeerunner: not quite sure what you mean there. Either way he was directed to the talk page and has also tried to blank the talk pages of the various articles involved of all topics that discussed the topic and linked back to the main discussion. Can you actually block someone from editting ceartain pages or is it a trust thing? If it is a trust thing then a full ban may be better suited.--19:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

To whoever commented above, yes, users can be topic banned so they do not have the ability to edit those pages in that topic. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Would you mind examining this situation and providing an opinion and/or action against the user if you deem it necessary? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 23:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

conflict of interet and fraudulant editing

I ask the panel here to take administrative action against editor Formerly 98 .

I first encountered him in the article Herbert L. Ley, Jr. (Head of FDA 1969) he removed very biting criticism againts big pharma, on the reason of copy editing.ok. so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later. But he also inserted a bogus sentence not in a citation in order to white wash criticism: "Dr. Ley stated that companies had not pressured him regarding decisions about specific products during his tenure". [11] It is just the opposite of Leys position.

He deleted another post about Ley in Criticism of the Food and Drug Administration, this time with a bogus reason of not being relevent anymore. A clear criticism from a previous head of the fda not relevent! Lol.

I have looked at the editor's contributions; he is clearly on a crusade to delete criticism of big pharma all over wikipedia. This is when i decided to open this ANI. I think it is very evident, his motivations and actions on wikipedia.Bigbaby23 (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry and all that entails. There is little you can do about it on this noticeboard. The best thing you can do is do the research on Wikipedia's bias and have your findings published in the media. Don't bother with a medical journal because they are in bed with big pharma as well. Because this is the accepted "house bias", it is seen as acceptable. Therefore, I move to close this thread. Viriditas (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

If biased POV can be established then I would support a topic ban on chemistry related topics on Formerly 98. This may present a loss for Wikipedia in some ways as this editor presents himself as a scientist. More specifically he says, "This user is a chemist. He gets cranky sometimes. If this happens, please try to ignore his bad behavior until he recovers his senses". As simple response to that, no! Please address your behaviour and, if you think that you may be in a cranky mood, don't edit. Stay away. Wikipedia is here to present non-biased content according to the standards presented at WP:NPOV. No other standard can do. User:Bigbaby23, who knows more about the situation may also know of reasons why this editor should be watched or why an admin, preferably with an interest in chemistry, may beneficially act as a point of reference if further issues of dispute may be raised. GregKaye 10:17, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Viriditas (talk) 10:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there a specific criticism here other than content disputes? Are there policies that have been violated? Edit warring? What exactly is the concern here other than disagreements about content?

• The editor who lodged this complaint restored hundreds of words of WP:COPYVIO that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable".
• I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably WP:COATRACKED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes.

I fail to see when looking at the edits how Formerly 98 has violated any Wikipedia policy. In fact, claims of "conflict of interest", "fraudulant editing", being "in bed with big pharma", and "Wikipedia and its active editors are biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry" show instead the clear bias of the complainants here. Deli nk (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Close and consider boomerang per WP:NPA. Primarily a local content dispute. Larger issues - OP is a newish editor who mostly edits martial arts articles, but has occassionally edited health-related articles with a strong bias against the medical mainstream and has, in good newbie-with-an-ax-to-grind fashion has liberally made personal attacks - charges of COI and bias - against editors who work to maintain NPOV content that gives weight to mainstream views - the very inappropriate title of this thread is an example, ditto this edit note: "revert formaly98 for conflict of interest, and blatant criticism removal." For examples of Bigbaby23's fringe-supporting edits on content related to health, see here for a rant about mainstream v homeopathy and "systemic bias" in WP; and here for a discussion about his/her edits to Water fluoridation controversy). And the present content dispute, where Bigbaby23 restored content that was COPYVIO in his quest to rip on mainstream medicine. Bigbaby23 will eventually learn to edit appropriately or will get angry and leave the topic or the project altogether, or will get topic or site banned. Seen this tons of times on articles related to health. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Jytdog that this seems to be a boomerang. I initially felt Bigbaby23 was probably mostly wrong but since it appeared to be a content dispute, it wasn't worth mentioning here. However upon looking more closely, I noticed that Bigbaby23 called "reason of copy editing", was actually copyvio as several people have noticed. (I haven't looked in to the details to confirm it is a copyvio, I don't see much point when there's no one explicitly disputing it, since Bigbaby23 doesn't even seem to understand what's wrong.) The fact that Bigbaby23 would readd a copyvio for any reason, is quite concerning. Bigbaby23 may still be relatively new, but they really need to quickly learn what a copyvio is and why they shouldn't be reverting for any reason other than it being clearly established by someone who understands what they're doing that it isn't a copyvio, if they want to continue to edit here. Nil Einne (talk) 15:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I've been proven right, not to engage with Formaly69 directly, and bringing it here; see how he is totaly dishonest and doing his best to manipulate the system: Quote:

• The editor who lodged this complaint restored hundreds of words of WP:COPYVIO that I had removed. This complaint seems to be mainly his retaliation for my reversion if this action. Even though I clearly stated that I was removing COPYVIO in the edit summary, his edit summary for restoring it was that its removal was "inexplicable".

He is linking to my revert on the fda criticism article, that has no copyvio issues, to which i did call "inexplicably ". He gave a bogus argument there, because it looks bad if head of fda said these things. Quote:

• I believe the correct reference for the disputed statement by Ley was 8 and not 11, but 8 is now behind a paywall. In any case, if I were going to try to change to the tone of this remarkably WP:COATRACKED article, I wouldn't do it by making up quotes.

Complete bullshit. Ref 8 is not "now" behind a paywall. It's in NY times archive. It has been behind paywall for years. He's been caught red handed, so desperatly he's trying to feed you something to keep you off track.Bigbaby23 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So there may be some confusion on the issues here. Bigbaby, part of the material you restored is shown below and in this diff:

"Another major event in October 1969, was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Dr. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of Generally recognized as safe (GRAS) ingredients, was criticized for the delay.That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Dr. Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals. Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food.

The source language is

"One major event was the FDA's handling of tests on artificial sweeteners containing cyclamates, which an agency scientist said caused birth defects in chicken embryos. Rats given high doses also were found to develop bladder cancer. Cyclamates had been used for years but came under renewed scrutiny after a few human deaths related to the food additive. Ley, who eventually removed cyclamates from the list of safe ingredients, was criticized for the delay. That public setback was compounded by testimony in 1969 before a Senate select committee on nutrition in which Ley said that monosodium glutamate (MSG) was a safe flavor enhancer for processed baby food. Some studies showed MSG caused eye and brain damage in some animals.Afterward, consumer advocate Ralph Nader said two of the four studies Ley cited did not exist and two others were preliminary. Ley said he made an "inexcusable" error, and leading manufacturers soon announced that they no longer would add MSG to baby food."

Do you see the problem here? This is not allowed and creates liability for the Foundation. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Nice try side tracking the issue. Indeed i said the copyvio, should be rewritten. What raised alarm about Formally98, is that he specifically went after the hard criticism, trying to use different tactics to remove them. Here's a nice one: Formaly98 blanketed this paragraph, with the remark "Paragraph does not accurately describe the material in the source" :

Employees of the FDA recognized the agency had problems. in July 1969, the FDA released the “Kinslow report”[7] commissioned by FDA commissioner Dr. Ley, the study concluded, “the American public’s principal consumer protection is provided by the food and drug administration, and we are currently not equipped to cope with the challenge”. In total, the panel submitted 45 recommendations to the commissioner. Dr. Ley did not have time to implement any suggestions.[8] The New York Times in January 1970 reported in an article that "the HEW has done little to implement the report's suggestions, except to oust the man who set up the panel in the first place, Dr. Ley, Jr., and two of his top aides".[9]

There is nothing complex about this paragraph, and there is no ambiguity in the sources. But this looks bad for formally98 Coin PovBigbaby23 (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It does not belong here. That being said, the material in the article did not capture what is in the source. The article quotes the Kinslow Report in Wikipedia's voice. But the source says that the Kinslow Report was bunk and was repudiated by Kinslow himself.

"Regrettably, as the Chairman of the committee and the author of the final draft, the report became known as the Kinslow Report. I can assure you that the last thing I wanted was to have my name associated with that report. But regrettably that's what occurred. I find it almost beyond belief that, over thirteen years later, there are people who still dredge up that report." (page 45-46)

So this is the substance of your evidence that I'm here as some sort of industry shill? Did you read the source before you reverted? Or did the fact that the source says that the quoted report was bunk seem like an irrelevant issue to you?" Formerly 98 (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

you are deliberetly clouding the citations. The text describing the Report in the paragraph are 2 secondary RS sources. And are represented accurately. You are quoting a primary source.

you are only very strict to wikipedia guidelines when you wikilawyer.

Again, we are discussing a report that was repudiated by its own chairperson. And you felt that rather than going to the Talk page to discuss the content dispute, the best approach was to revert and then to come here and attack my character and accuse me of being a shill. This is not how we do things here. If you are going to be an editor long term, you need to read the rules. I'd suggest starting with WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS. Formerly 98 (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The fact is, that you restored COPYVIO content which is a serious violation of policy. That is a "period, end of story" kind of thing - it doesn't matter what you intended to do later. And I don't see you discussing the content dispute with regard to WP:PAG (e.g. WP:UNDUE, BLP, etc), which is what we do here, per WP:TPG and WP:CONSENSUS. What I am seeing is an inexperienced editor with an ax to grind, creating dramah and personalizing a content dispute in violation of WP:NPA and WP:TPG. That you continue to make unsupported allegations of COI, even here, is even more of a sign that you are WP:NOTHERE. I am getting close to proposing a short term block. Jytdog (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Concur entirely. Or to put it a different way, if you agree it's a copyvio, why on earth did you add it back to the article, and then come here and complain about it? And why did you say in your reply just before that "that has no copyvio issues"? The fact that you did suggests there's a serious issue that needs to be dealt with but it's on your part Bigbaby23, not on the part of Formerly 98. The reason this discussions is getting "sidetracked" is nothing to do with Formerly 98 but instead because you yourself Bigbaby23 have basically demonstrated serious problems with your behaviour here on wikipedia, but are igoring the plenty of people telling you it is a serious problem. And until you can give a good explaination as to why you did so (but I don't think there is a good explaination), or at least show an understanding of why it was wrong and undertake never to do so again, I don't think anyone is going to really care about whatever other problems you claim to have. Nil Einne (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I see I was slightly confused here. The section Bigbaby23 linked to above, does appear to have no copyvio issues and does seem to have been linked, I guess mistakenly, by Formerly 98 as an example where Bigbaby23 readded copyvio. I apologise for confusion due to my above statement. But the point Bigbaby23 seems to have missed is that even if Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section, since Bigbaby23 did restore copyvios, it would be fine for Bigbaby23 to point out Formerly 98 linked to the wrong section. But thy have no evidence of dishonesty instead a simple mistake. Particularly since Bigbaby23 seems to acknowledge clearly below they were aware they did restore copyvios, so they must know they did restore copyvios. (As I said below, Bigbaby23's repeatedly downplaying and ignoring of the copyvio issue, instead bringing up irrelevant stuff doesn't give confidence that they understand the seriousness of the issue.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Close and suggest a boomerang. I don't see anything provided the violates policy or is otherwise problematic with Formerly 98, and this posting appears retaliatory. Editors that edit in articles where companies are involved shouldn't have to deal WP:ASPERSIONS about being in bed with companies, shilling, etc. whenever a change is made that someone appearing to have a stereotypical "big bad corporate company" POV doesn't like by calling it whitewashing, etc. It's too common of an attitude that pop ups, especially with new editors, and shouldn't be entertained here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support boomerang For violations of WP:GF, for restoring content that violates WP:COPYVIO and for edit warring. Bigbaby continues to make unilateral edits to the article while this discussion proceeds.Formerly 98 (talk) 18:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

that is another lie that you are fabricating. Anyone can see the time stamp, and that i reverted you on that article prior to me opening thid ANIBigbaby23 (talk) 19:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose block of User:Formerly 98. When you come to ANI you need to have decent evidence. None is provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Boomerang proposal

OK, that's it. Propose two week block on Bigbaby23 for violating COPYVIO and NPA Jytdog (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support per reasons previously listed in section above. Doesn't seem like it's getting across that this behavior is problematic or is going to stop. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:04, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

So an editor (formaly98) that his whole contribution history on wikipedia is only deleting criticism of big pharma under a plethora of wikilayering, even if copyvio, his intentions are against wikipedia's rules intentions. I have demonstrayed that he fabricated a sentence contrary to citation. But nobody seemed to comment on this serious offense so far. This ANI is supposed to replace all the potential tedious editing and arguments in all the articles he "sanitizes"Bigbaby23 (talk) 20:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me say this one last time. It doesn't matter why Formerly 98 removed a copyvio. If Formerly 98 says they are removing it for copyvio reasons, it's unacceptable to add it back for any reason, except there being good evidence it's not a copyvio. Adding back a copyvio is far more serious than anything you are claiming Formerly 98 has done. So even if your claims are true, it's completely normal and unsurprising people are largely ignoring your claims, when you are ignoring the people telling you your behaviour there was quite unacceptable. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I reverted Formaly98 cart blanch deletions in one revert in the Ley article, because it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony . his reasons for deletion there were a mix of reasons, and after he reverted me back warning me about the copyvio, i did nothing more in that article (so only my initial general revert). I am not ignoring anything in this ANI; In my first paragraph here, i state "so i plan on redoing those paragraphs later". No fighting on this on my part. Copyvio is clear and next time I'll be more careful . Now on the other hand, editor jytdog has done nice work to try to delegitimise me from the very onset of this ANI. its a tactic ive seen in the past to try to make others not take seriously a newer editor complaints - especially valid ones. but im happy to see that new contributers on this ANI, are focusing back on the ANI subject itself. Bigbaby23 (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I know I said that would be my last comment, but it sounds like we may be finally moving forward even if only slightly. First let me repeat again, no one really cares why Formerly 98 removed the content if it was copyvio. If it was copyvio there is zero justification to add it back unless you have good reason to think it isn't copyvio. Even if it was only part copyvio and way more content was removed than needed to be, it still wouldn't be okay to add it back except perhaps if you very quickly then removed the actual copyvios. Heck even if Formerly 98 was a highly problematic sockpuppet who kept violating their ban, it wouldn't be okay to readd content remove for copyvio; except that it's possible in that case sometimes you can safely assume it isn't a copyvio without further investigating. And it doesn't matter that much what you plan on doing with those paragraphs in the future, provided you aren't planning to re-add copyvios. What is much more important is that you understand you should never have reverted a copyvio removal, no matter why you believe it was removed, unless as I said, you had good reason to think it wasn't copyvio. This is the first time you seem to have properly acknowledged you shouldn't have done so, but unfortunately it's still not enough for me since you still seem to be insisting on talking about why Formerly 98 removed it, which as I've said is largely irrelevant if it were copyvio. P.S. I don't think blaming other editors for your own mistakes is helping your case. The reality is you continually failed to acknowledge the copyvio problem. If you had accepted that you made a major mistake in re-adding the copyvio and were able to sufficiently allay concerns that you would do it again, perhaps at least me and others would have been more willing to look in to other aspects of your complaint, even if to be honest, there were a lot of other things suggesting it was without merit. But this didn't happen, and you only have yourself to blame. Nil Einne (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

The copyvio judgement mistake i made was in GF and due to my inexperience, and certainly i will not repeat it in the future. I did not say anything before about it, because i was sure it was evident that this is my position. Now that this is clear beyond doubt. It's time to deal with a malicious error done by Formely98: falsifying text. 99% of his contributions on wikipedia non other than coin pov pushing. His wikilawyering and abuse of the system is in practice on this very ANI as i presented above, and how he is reacting to another editor below. Make him the perfect candidat for a topic ban at the bare minimum.Bigbaby23 (talk) 11:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

So per your reasoning, its completely acceptable for you to re-add anti-corporate material that has been pointed out to be a misstatement of the content of a cited source, but if I make a bad edit that is tilted in the other direction, it is prima facie evidence of being a shill, of "whitewashing", of "malicious editing", and "coin POV pushing".

You're still not understanding the issues here. Outside the provisions of WP:GF, Wikipedia becomes a circus in which we all fight out every difference of opinion by attacking each other's character and motivations. I could equally well suggest that your re-addition of the Kinslow report material was a deliberate effort to mislead readers in support of your political viewpoints. But in the final analysis, that sort of personal attack does not help us move the articles forward. There needs to be a laser like focus on content, and not speculation about others' motives. This is a big problem and you need to change it. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It's good that you've finally said that. However by now I have no interest in looking in to any more of your allegations. Beyond the fact they don't seem to be well supported, your attitude here suggests to me it would be a waste of time. Plenty of people pointed out the copyvio problem here. You persistently ignored them despite the fact people kept saying it was a problem, and instead kept bringing up irrelevant stuff like the reasons Formerly 98 may have removed the copyvio content. Remember that Formerly 98 made it clear the first time around they were removing it for copyvio reasons. Now even when you've finally acknowledged the problem, you claim it should have been always clear, despite the earlier outlined facts (i.e. you persistently ignoring the concerns repeatedly expressed and bringing up irrelevant stuff). Not to mention the problems Formerly 98 outlined above. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Nil Einne:, I'm going to disagree with your remarks that Bigbaby's more recent comments are a step forward. He continues with his unsupported bad faith editing accusations which I see as equally problematic with the COPYVIO restorations. To quote

"it was clear to me it was nothing but coin POV sanitizing especially after i detected the fraudulant sentence he made - GF was out of the window and i suspected all of his edits were balony "

Even here at ANI, we move forward and make decisions based on proven violations of policy and guidelines, NOT on the basis of assumptions that anyone making edits that we disagree with is editing in bad faith. What Bigbaby is admitting to here and doing so without any sign that he realizes its a problem, is that he saw edits he disagreed with and immediately assumed bad faith. Neither I nor any other editor should be subjected to these unsupported personal attacks just because we had the temerity to make an edit that was out of accord with some other editor's anti-corporate viewpoints. It needs to be made clear that accusations of bad faith editing as an argument of first resort are simply unacceptable.

I made a bad edit here and I still can't figure out how it happened. But that does not justify the personal attacks and bad faith assumptions that BigBaby feels free to spout as if they were proven allegations. Its really inappropriate. [User:Formerly 98|Formerly 98]] (talk) 11:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Well I would disagree with you on that. I'm not saying Bigbaby23's behaviour doesn't show problems because it does. But it's not as serious as the copyvio issue. Ultimately the harm that editors showing the behaviour you outlined is rarely as serious as editors who add copyvio material. Editors who do so can easily waste many, many hours of time, tracking down their contributions, making sure none of them are copyvio, and deleting those which are copyvio, remembers that it isn't unheard of that months or even years have passed since the material was added and it's been worked on by many different editors, efforts which will all go to waste because the material has to be deleted. While editors showing the behaviour you outlined do often waste time, it's often not as serious, in particular because it's unlikely to be something people will only notice years later, and even if it is, it usually just means some of the articles they worked on may be unbalanced. In terms of making other editors feel uncomfortable or reluctant to edit, I agree it's a serious problem, and one which has to be dealt with, but the question is how. It isn't always the case this should be a straight indef block, sometimes there may be an attempt to work with the editor and see if they can change while offering support to those who feel their are being unfairly maligned. (I'm not saying this is the case here, simply it can be.) By comparison, if an editor does seem able to understand what a copyright violation is, or that they shouldn't be re/adding them, I don't see there's much choice but an indef block to prevent harm to wikipedia. Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support I and others have really tried to explain the rules here about WP:GF and WP:CONSENSUS but he is simply defiant. Not generally a big fan of sanctions, but sometimes they are an important learning tool. Personal attacks and unsupported allegations are not acceptable as an argument of first resort, and knowingly restoring WP:COPYVIO material is not acceptable under any circumstances. BigBaby has not communicated that he will refrain from either behavior in the future, and has in fact given every indication that he plans to continue in the same vein. Formerly 98 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support based on Jytdog's reasoning. Blackmane (talk) 23:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

* Support frankly I'd be willing to support an indef (which remember is not a permanent) block since they've not only given zero indication they understand why reverting a copyvio is unacceptable, they've also given zero indication they even are trying to understand despite multiple people telling them. Nil Einne (talk) 03:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC) Support 2 week block. Now that after so many attempts, Bigbaby23 has finally properly accepted that they should never re-add copyvios, no matter what they feel is they were removed (when they may genuinely be copyvios), I no longer see the need for an indef. But I do agree their behaviour as shown here is highly problematic. Even to get them to come around to the copyvio issue, it not only took way too long, but when they did their claim is they were always saying that. Despite the fact it's easy to see that several people brought it up, and they largely ignored it, instead keep talking about how Formerly 98 allegedly removed the copyvio for bad reasons. And continued even after I repeatedly point out this was irrelevant if the content was indeed copyvio. A short block will at least stop further such problems for now. Hopefully it will also make them realise they need to learn to collobrate better. (A long through their talk page history is also instructive. They've repeatedy removed people discussing problems with them which is their right, but have done so with uncivil edit summaries suggesting there is no problm, not exactly a sign of someone who is interested in collobrating and learning from their mistakes.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• BigBaby is an inexperienced and new user on Wikipedia which should be taken into context when looking at this situation. However, this isn't the first time that Formerly98 has antagonized a new users on Wikipedia. Issues have been raised about him about half a dozen times in the past year and they are generally calling out the same thing. They suggest he is 'whitewashing' negative comments about the pharmaceutical industry. It is easy to point fingers at a new user when they are unfamiliar with the customs of Wikipedia but Formerly98 needs to be called out for this as well. I have yet to see him constructively approach editors with whom he disagrees to try to reach a compromise and a real consensus. Many times he brashly reverts edits without adjustments which in and of itself is against Wikipedia policy. The organization Rxisk has even covered his editing patterns independently. http://wp.rxisk.org/post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-wikipedia-falls/ I have personally asked him if he is a paid editor - a fair question since this is not an activity that is prohibited by Wikipedia - and he simply refused to answer and got aggressive with me. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? Doors22 (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
• Support Lots of issues with this users work. May need longer block if issues continue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

:::I'm just going to point out that Doors22 is a WP:SPA editor who has engaged in a campaign of retaliatory editing since my removal of material not supported by WP:MEDRS compliant sources from the Finasteride article last year, and his comments here should be interpreted in that light. The current edit appears to be in retaliation for my comments on his proposed article on the Post-Finasteride Syndrome Research Foundation, which consists of 3 part time employees investigating a proposed syndrome for which there are no WP:MEDRS compliant sources for the existence of.

• Over 90% of of Doors22 edits are on the subject of finasterside, Merck (its manufacturer), or baldness experts who have endorsed finasteride
• Over half of the remaining 10% are retaliatory edits, in which he reverts my edits or jumps in on the other side of a debate from me on an article he has never shown interest in before
• Diffs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are rapid fire reversions and votes on the other side of the issue from me on Electronic cigarette, which occurred shortly after I removed some improperly sourced material from Finasteride. Diff1 is a quickly written rebuttal to a comment by me in a discussion on the talk page. , Diff2 is a reversion of my edit, and in Diff3 he takes the opposite side from me in an RFC. Note that he had never before edited the article, and this came immediately after the dispute on the Finasteride page.
• Ditto 2 weeks later, in which I become involved in a dispute on Pharmaceutical Industry. In Diff1, Doors, who has nearly zero history of editing any non-Finasteride related article, jumps in to rebut my comments in a Talk page discussion here as well. In diff2, he jumps in in a bizarre way to muddle the discussion after I have asked for clarification of a point from another editor. Again, in Diff3, more of the same. Again, once the controversy dies down, he shows no interest in the article or making any edits. Once there is no longer a controversy that he can join sides against me in, he loses interest. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Support Problematic editing/begaviour in evidence. A cooling off period may help. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 17:34, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed 1 week block for Doors22 for retaliatory editing

Per the comments immediately above, I propose a 1 week block for Doors22 for engaging in retaliatory editing. Formerly 98 (talk) 05:04, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I am not retaliating for your recent edits. I saw an incident was raised about you on the noticeboard and since I have a lot of experience with your editing behavior I decided to contribute. I hope you appreciate the irony in that you are trying to get me banned for retaliatory editing, simply because I contributed my opinion about your editing history. Many others have complained about you in the past year and some have even filed formal complaints. Speaking of editing history, 90%+ of your edits are for removing or toning down side effect profiles of a variety of drugs or removing criticisms of multinational corporations. This editing history is suggestive of somebody who is a paid editor. Are you in any way receiving money directly or indirectly for your edits on Wikipedia? This is not a strictly prohibited practice per Wiki policy but you would certainly be required to fully disclose this. Doors22 (talk) 05:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Because this is ANI and not an article Talk page, I am going to say this once (and only once). I do not have any COIs with respect to the content of any pharmaceutical product or company, and have never performed paid editing. You've made these accusations repeatedly on article Talk pages, in violation of multiple guidelines, and without any supportive documentation other than that you disagreed with the particular edits. The issue here is not COI on my part, but your retaliatory editing and non-stop violations of WP:TALK and WP:GF. Formerly 98 (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Striking - I over reacted. I do work a lot on articles related to drugs, pharma, the FDA, etc. A lot of these articles have what I find to be an anti-pharma POV and I have done a lot of work over the past year to bring more NPOV (as that is defined here) to these articles as well as adding content that makes these articles more complete (well-sourced content on their uses, their impact, and controversies (yes, I add negative information too). Along the way I have come under attack by lots of anti-pharma advocates, or as in the case of Doors, editors who lock in on their perceptions of side effects of drugs and give them UNDUE weight here (you would be surprised... or maybe not when you think about it) how much of that is. And many of them are quick to fling charges of COI. And sometimes the accusations of bad faith get under my skin. I lost my cool there, sorry. Formerly 98 (talk) 14:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

These comments specifically relate to your most recent ANI and even earlier ones since this issue keeps coming up. If you want me to extend the "supportive documentation" I am happy to do so. I can easily locate 50+ incidents of you removing, diminishing, or countering statements of litigation, criticisms, or controversies of various pharmaceutical companies or products. In fact this represents the large majority of your work. The remainder is more of the same for other companies like Coca Cola, Mallinckrodt, Dow Chemical among others. I will go ahead and begin to compile this list if other editors would find this helpful. At the very least, please review WP:BITE because you should be assisting new editors rather than driving them away and trying to penalize them. Doors22 (talk) 13:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I see that you struck your comments as soon as I offer to compile a list of supportive documentation, which would be so long it would take hours if done exhaustively. I honestly have yet to see you offer "negative information" and your editing history at the very least has a very strong POV and possibly suggests you are an editor with undisclosed conflict of interests. You also answered you do not have a WP:COIN with respect to the "content of any pharmaceutical product or company" but I noticed this does not fully answer the question if you have any COIs to disclose relating to any of your edits. Again, this is not a problem so long as the WP:COIN is disclosed to give other editors context. I ask other editors involved in this ANI if it would be helpful for me to begin to compile this list of supportive evidence. Again, this is not an unreasonable discussion and I will be willing to find multiple other recent instances where it was believed Formerly98 had a POV or COI related to his editing.Doors22 (talk) 14:18, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Please provide your list of supportive documentation. Honestly, Doors, lets have the discussion here on the ANI page where it belongs. It is time to put an end to unsupported allegations on the Talk pages. But simply striking poorly sourced negative information is not evidence of COI, anymore than your singleminded focus on criticizing finasteride, Merck, and baldness gurus who have endorsed finasteride is evidence that you work for tort lawyers engaged in litigation against Merck. If you have credible evidence that I have accepted money in exchange for editing services, or that I work for any of the companies whose pages I have edited, that woiuld be appropriate to include in your list. Otherwise you are just speculating in violation of WP:GF Formerly 98 (talk) 14:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Doors, that is yet more assuming bad faith. Editors who react emotionally and then strike shouldn't get punished for acknowledging a mistake and your connecting the strike, to what you wrote, is yet more bad-faith sloppy conspiracy thinking. Likewise, your continued charge of COI against Formerly is without foundation and if you continue to make that charge, I will take action against you for WP:NPA. COI is a very serious issue in WP and I work a lot on it; but ax-griding editors like you, and like BigBaby, reach for that irresponsibly and use it as a weapon in arguments about content. You ~may~ have a case to bring related to WP:ADVOCACY but without actual evidence of COI (and you have none), you must stop making clams of COI.. I am dead serious about that and I will move to bring action against you if you continue. You are warned. Jytdog (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

And Doors, you have a bad history of making personal attacks on the Finasteride article - this is just some of it:

• Back in 2011, when Jfdwolff, an admin, was working on that article with you, you called him a Nazi and accused him of editing in bad faith and claimed he had a a "very strong bias" among other bad behavior. He warned you even then that your account was a [{WP:SPA]] and that if you kept being uncivil, you risked a longterm block.
• In Oct 2014 Jfdwolff noted noted: "I'm getting a sense of deja vu. Didn't we agree that we needed to be very selective about sources in this highly disputed area? Doors22 isn't anything if not persistent." and later told you "my comment about "persistence" relates to the fact that you've been editing Wikipedia as a single-purpose account since February 2011. During that time we have had repeated discussions about using Wikipedia to promote awareness of a phenomenon that has been very poorly studied." Doc James was involved in those discussions as well.
• In Oct 2014 you turned another content dispute in the article into a personal attack, now against Formerly, where you wrote: "I added another meta analysis draws the opposite conclusion. They both look at a similar number of studies, but one journal is of a higher quality than the other. Formerly 98, are you getting paid to edit Wikipedia? It seems to be a full time endeavor for you since you are editing at all hours of the day. The majority of your edits involve reversions about side effects or information that is not favorable to pharmaceutical companies" and later you pushed it harder, writing " I also noticed you live in San Diego, where a lot of pharmaceutical/biotech companies are located and you have referred to yourself as an "industry guy". For all I know, you could simply own Merck stock and nothing more. Do you have any conflicts of interest that would affect your edits on this article? "
• You followed up on that, with a post on Formerly's page, again accusing him of COI.
• I warned you then to back off the personal attacks and irresponsible accusations of COI.

So really Doors, you are WP:SPA (per your contribs), dedicated to emphasizing the sexual side of effects of Finasteride in WP. You make personal attacks all the time to further your agenda and seem to believe that editors who uphold Wikipedia's NPOV policy and MEDRS guideline must be on the take from Big Pharma. As I did before, I suggest you stop making personal attacks to further your agenda here. Jytdog (talk) 15:33, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

These examples are taken out of context and are very dated, going back to 2011. Some of your comments are factually inaccurate too. I do not see how anything I have posted in this incident is a personal attack, visit WP:NPA and please tell me how my behavior fits any of those categories. I have stuck strictly to Formerly98's editing behavior. I am not a complete newbie in Wikipedia but I am also far from a seasoned editor. Will you please provide some guidance on what kind of "proof" is required to demonstrate a COI? I am not as familiar with whatever standard is generally accepted and this can be somewhat arbitrary. What you are suggesting to me seems like it is literally impossible to show evidence that an editor has a conflict of interest if he/she chooses not to disclose any but showing POV or advocacy (which would result from paid editing or some other COI) should be no problem. Doors22 (talk) 04:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

COI and edits by Formerly 98

I specifically request that @Doors22: presents the list of evidence that he feels proves that I have a WP:COI for evaluation as part of this ANI review. I further request that the list be evaluated by the other editors here, and that he be asked to stop making these accusations on article Talk pages in the event that the evidence is not found to be supportive. Formerly 98 (talk) 00:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I will certainly oblige you but it may take me some time to get to this. I will be away beginning tomorrow evening and may not be able to respond fully until sometime next week. 04:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doors22 (talk • contribs)

User:Formerly98 has received attention off Wikipedia regarding alleged COI / POV editing. The website www.rxisk.org features an article specifically about User:Formerly98 [97] It shows a previous version of user page, discusses his deletion nomination of an article on Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction, and inquires: “Do we expect Wikipedia posts to be more conservative than the label produced by the pharmaceutical company?” which is apparently referring to Formerly98’s work in “toning down” the side effects on the Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin articles.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Formerly explicitly says there, that he has no COI. More bad-faith editors crying COI - and you have now joined the ranks - doesn't any more real. BoboMeowCat, that if you continue making unsubstantiated charges of COI I will seek action against you. You are warned. COI is not something to throw around in a content dispute. And you, like Doors, have POV-pushed on side effects of drugs. (in your case, asthma as an effect of acetaminophen. You are another editor who has tried to violate NPOV and MEDRS and made personal attacks as you pushed your POV. Jytdog (talk) 02:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I request that we just play this out without threats of disciplinary action and have these arguments evaluated by the communityFormerly 98 (talk) 02:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

What is going on here is a witch-hunt by a newbie angry editor (OP), and two well-known POV-pushers. I don't think going down the "throw down" path is good for anybody or WP, but as you will. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

We have 3 editors here making the same accusation in nearly every interaction I have with them, and several others who have not yet posted on this thread. I suggest we ask the community to evaluate, and then we will have a consensus one way or the other. At some point we need a clearly voiced community decision, either that I am allowed to edit in peace and without constant aspersions, or that the overall community believes that I need to change my editing practices. I don't see that as a "throw down". What I don't want is to be back here next month. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:01, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining that. Put that way, this makes a lot of sense. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

In my experience here, it doesn't seem like warnings get the point across that this behavior in inappropriate to editors that do this (often with an ax to grind). I wouldn't see interaction bans for certain users completely unwarranted depending on how the conversation goes. I'm not seeing anything right now that shows a legitimate COI or even POV concern on your part Formerly, so it's still looking like these accusations against you are aspersions at best. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Bob. The Post-SSRI Sexual Dysfunction Article was nominated by me for deletion, but was deleted by community consensus, so that may not be the best example. But here are the Diffs for Ciprofloxacin and Levofloxacin before and after I rewrote both, removing about about half of the total content of each and adding new material. I'd request the community to examine these for POV, as I am overwhelmingly responsible for the current state of these articles, though some of the work was performed as an IP editor and some under a previous username.

Ciprofloxacin Diff

Levofloxacin

It really isn't very helpful for you to provide your own examples of how you are a balanced editor. Others would have to independently look through the history of your edits to verify for themselves. They will see the overwhelming majority of your posts involve toning down side effect profiles and criticisms of large corporations.Doors22 (talk) 04:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Those weren't my choices they were BobMeowCat's. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:41, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Basically we follow WP:MEDRS for medical content. While he and I may occasionally disagree, User:Formerly 98 uses high quality sources nearly all the time and thus I have not significant concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand that he uses what is deemed to be high quality sources for what he adds but this alone does not make a NPOV editor. Removing material that you don't want on an article does not require you provide any sources at all. There is the famous quote, 'there is no such thing as truth, only the presentation of facts'. One can easily finds one reason or another that fits some kind of policy to remove unwanted material and create a desired perspective. All the while avoiding providing any sources if one wishes.Doors22 (talk) 04:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

My 2¢: basing a COI argument relative to a manufacturer's Rx info (the label) is a a bit asinine, as these vary by country due to regulatory/approval processes for the document. E.g., a Therapeutic Goods Administration approved label by Aspen pharmaceuticals lists suicidality, aggression, and homicidal tendencies as potential adverse effects of amphetamine in spite of the fact that it acknowledges elsewhere in the document that these are just isolated aftermarket reports w/ no comparison to placebo (these events could in fact occur less frequently vs people on a placebo).[98] The current USFDA-approved label by Amedra pharmaceuticals is thankfully much less hand-wavy and doesn't list suicidality or homicidal tendencies as "potential adverse effects" and further notes that there is no systematic evidence of any relationship between stimulants and aggressive behaviors (this is a comparison between arbitrary conjecture [TGA label] and evidence-based medicine [FDA label]).[99]
So, with all that said, it raises the question: which label are we comparing the WP article to, an evidence-based label or one which would better serve as toilet paper than a wikipedia citation? The way we at WP:MED resolve issues like this is to apply WP:MEDRS, which is something I know Formerly does based upon my interactions with him in every article we've both worked on.

TLDR: arguing that Formerly has a COI simply by comparing his edits to the adverse effects on an arbitrary label is completely retarded. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Both Formerly98 diff and Jytdog diff joined in to remove referenced COI statements on the Glaxo Smith Kline article. Formerly98 and removed the claim from the Johnson and Johnson page diff AlbinoFerret 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please Formerly 98 (talk) 04:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

It is late so I don't have time to pull up specific diffs but Formerly98 was very active on the e-cigarette page until it was temporarily frozen. I initially thought it was so strange that he was more or less exclusively involved in making pro-drug statements while being anti-e-cigarettes. But then I did some very quick research and saw the pharmaceutical industry was strongly lobbying against e-cigarettes because it threatens their existing products (ie Nicorette). In the example above, Formerly98 removed this mention from the GSK article because it lacked 'notability' which is a very common page from his playbook. At the very least, it is suspicious and certainly indicates a strong point of view.Doors22 (talk) 04:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs please. thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:40, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff Here is one example from Mallinckrodt where you reverted another user's edit that discussed the company's history of illegal waste dumping and justified this by saying the company had a "complex series of takeovers and spinouts" so that historical actions are no longer associated with the current company.

Thank you, I assume then that you disagree with this edit. How does it establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff2 In another example, you deleted 2 sentences on sleep talking caused by Ambien because you arbitrarily deemed them to be too rare.

I reduced the number of sentences from 6 to 4. I understand that you disagree. What is the basis of your belief that 6 is the correct number? How does this establish COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff3 Here you edit David Healy's article (who is the doctor who independently brought attention to your edits off wikipedia) and you felt the need to replace a neutral tone with a more aggressive tone.

I see that I attibuted a statement made by Healy to Healy instead of stating his conclusionhs in Wikipedia's voice. I understand you disagree. How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff4 Another example of a separate editor believing you to have a bias and POV which you correctly decided to strike. Notably this is on the e-cigarette page.

This appears to be a Talk page discussion, so maybe off-topic. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff5 Here you completely erase discussion of regulatory capture on the pharmaceutical industry page, despite it being a widely accepted topic of controversy that generates substantial discussion in the outside world and academic circles.

I'm not seeing "completely erase", what I see is a reduction from 4 sentences to 2. I assume you believe that 4 was the correct number of sentences? How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff6 This one is quite telling. You deleted well sourced but negative facts about Merck that discussed unethical actions they took during past controversies. You wrote the article should "tell the story and let the readers decide", but really you just erased the negative evidence which was really descriptive and not judgmental.

This was probably not my best edit, but it is one of many that I made to the article, including restoring a section describing the company's products, which one editor had deleted as "unimportant". How does this establish COI? Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

diff7 Here you completely remove a section from the pharmaceutical industry about "me-too" drugs which is another very commonly discussed issue that obviously belongs on this page in some fashion.

True, but the section was actually pretty balanced and not all that critical of the industry, and as the edit summary notes, it was based on out of date refs. How does this establish COI?Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

This is just a very small sample of what look like POV/advocacy editing to me and there are hundreds of more examples. I strongly suggest other users take a look through his contribution history because his contribution history looks like it was written by a PR professional (at least to me). Doors22 (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I second this recommendation. I described what I saw in their editing, specifically with the Depression and Astro Zeneca articles circa May 31 and early June 2014, here. Seeing just a few day's worth of this person's edits (spindoctoring on steroids) was the final straw for me before throwing up my hands and ending my editing here at WP. petrarchan47tc 07:45, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi Petrarchan, could you please provide actual article diffs? Thanks. Formerly 98 (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think merely providing diff's is the best way to go about this because other users who don't have history discussing matters with Formerly98 will completely miss out from seeing the whole context of his edits which is very important. Do any more experienced editors have any suggestions for how to best proceed with this COI/advocacy issue? I mentioned I will be away for the next few days starting tomorrow and would like to contribute to this conversation so please don't interpret my absence as though I am finished with the discussion.

I do think it is pretty telling that Formerly98's 'spin doctoring' drove away the editor above and when I have more time will be able to point out examples where he proactively drove other editors away. I also think it is telling that he tried to get me banned because I tried to contribute to this discussion and he attempted to backed down when he was concerned the issue might escalate to an investigation of his behavior.Doors22 (talk) 12:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Doors, I think what you need to do here is to establish some criteria for "COI" and "POV editing" that don't measure POV by the distance between the viewpoint expressed and your own opinions.

I think your statement that I "backed down when he was concerned that the issue might escalate into an invesigation of his behavior" is hard to reconcile with the fact that I invited the exact discussion we are having now. And so far, all you have brought to the table are content disputes. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Taken as a whole; formely98 contribuion history is that of a duck, his edit/delete arguments are that of a duck, and his tactics even on this ANI are that of a duck. Formelly98 is a duck.

lets not forget, that his initial response here to the fraudulent statement he added to the Ley article "oh it was a different reference i cited, but now its behind a paywall" a.k.a we cant verify his claim now, i easly demonstrated was a total lie ; it was a NY Times archived article that has been behind a paywall for years. He felt comfortable because due to jytdog theatrics, they went after me and let him slide. But the moment i reached some kind of understanding with editor niel, and editor doors was also accusing him, formely98 felt the shift in the tide, paniced and changed his tune, first he erased his attack on doors and then also changed his story about the fraudulent statement he added "im sorry i don't know how that happened". He should be banned just for lying and manipulating the ANI panel.Bigbaby23 (talk) 13:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, I obviously disagree with this for reasons cited above. Importantly, I never claimed that the source was in the paywalled article only that I thought it might be but could not check it for myself. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:42, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Reporting personal attack by KazekageTR

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

---

KazekageTR (talk · contribs) has appeared on my talk page after i listed him as a suspect in a sockpuppetry case, calling me a retard.[100] This is a clear violation of WP:NPA as per section one of WP:WIAPA. Krakkos (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Warned.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Viktorengström's SPA campaign on Stalinism?

Viktorengström (talk · contribs) did his first edit on 3 January 2015 to remove a category that Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia were show trials. Curiously his next edits were to an American historian to has been accused of trying to rehabilitate Stalin, which relates to the issue at hand which is very narrow editing area related to Stalinism, communism and a bit to Nazism as well.

He removed category Holodomor perpetrators from Vyacheslav Molotov despite that the article has sources that he was personally related to the origins of the famine. He removed a notorious Nazi judge from the "See also" section of Czech communist judges [101] [102], only to add the very same judge to a present-day US Republican prosecutor [103] and Joseph McCarthy [104] articles! He likes to remove all mentions of "repression" in the Soviet Union and "Stalinism": [105], [106], [107], [108] [109], [110], [111], [112], [113]. A part of this campaign included renaming the category Functionaries of the Stalinist regime in Poland in articles despite the fact that his category did not exist, for which Poeticbent notified the user. While "Stalinism" shouldn't be used as an epithet, clearly the user has a problem with it even when it simply refers to Stalin's regime.

Apparently he went even as far to POV-push that the Great Purge didn't include show trials.[114]. Lastly, he removed propaganda category from East German state political journalist [115] but added it to two anti-communist advocacy groups [116], [117]. Classic.

You can go through all of the users edits, there's not much. They just consist of that kind of small POV tweaks and categories, never using talk pages or edit summaries. Is this WP:SPA or just business as usual? --Pudeo' 15:27, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Well, in looking, on the first edit, "Holocaust trials in Soviet Estonia" he did remove "show trials" with a note explaining that there wasn't any references to back up that claim, and he's right about that.

I saw no discussion on the talk pages about that particular revert, but did see talk about "show trials" with one user claiming "common knowledge" as a reason to add it in, which , even if it is, doesn't square with Wikipedia's insistence on reliable sources, so I'd say that revert is correct. The other removals of "show trials" was pretty much the same thing, with the judges, yeah, it was a dumb move to move a judge into a spot that says he's a current judge, that fails reliability, so while his reverts aren't all vandalistic, some are definitely wrong , but not all are, some are helpful. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:08, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That's true. But what makes it impossible for me to assume good faith are cases of that kind of dualistic "retaliatory" POV-pushing: so there's this notorious Nazi judge in "See also" of communist regime judges, better remove it and moments later add it to articles about right-wing judges in the US.--Pudeo' 18:52, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I quickly checked a few their edits. Some are definitely POV and hardly supported by RS. Others amount to vandalism. For example, this edit links an article to a category that does not exist. My very best wishes (talk) 21:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Territory war 3 pwner and User:SPIKE SPIKE BAD

Editor Special:Contributions/SPIKE SPIKE BAD, who appears to be a young, enthusiastic editor, has been causing problems with their NPP work for a week. I noticed this morning that they "retired" [118], and I wondered how soon before they were back. The answer turned out to be... 60 seconds.

Last edit from SPIKE_SPIKE_BAD: [119] First edit by new editor User:Territory war 3 pwner: [120]

Special:Contributions/Territory war 3 pwner is editing almost identically to how SSB did:

• Cryptic edit summaries in reversions, like "WHY" or "WHAT", from SSB: [121], [122], [123], [124], [125]
• Same from TW3P: [126]
• Abusive edit summaries from SSB when reverting vandalism (or perceived vandalism): [127], [128], [129], [130]
• Same from TW3P: [131], [132]
• Completely wrong CSD rationales from SSB: [133], [134]
• Same from TW3P: [135], and an inappropriate db-g3 on Block TZ Entertainment, for which I didn't get a diff, and it's now deleted A7.

Also note the oddly stilted English used even in the milder edit summaries, and on both editor's talk pages. Now I'm all for fresh starts in life, but this isn't a fresh start, it's the same behaviour using a new account to avoid scrutiny and a possible block: SSB was warned repeatedly about WP:BITEing new users, and about creating unnecessary work for other editors cleaning up the mess, and kept promising to straighten up, and failing to change their behaviour one bit. Also note that a lot of the repeated warnings given to SSB were deleted: see contribs. I asked new editor TW3P if this was a new account from the same person, and the reply was no: [136]. I don't know if this is technically sockpuppetry, so I haven't opened a SPI. But a checkuser would be useful here. Can an admin advise please. on how to handle this? Thanks, Dai Pritchard (talk) 16:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It's obviously the same editor. For further evidence, incorrect warnings that users can't remove warnings from their talk pages SpikeBB here, Territory here. Distrust of ip users Spike BB here and Territory here. At first I appreciated Spike's enthusiasm for NPP and RCP, but in the end I came to see them as a net negative as they refused to get the point, spurned offers from more experienced users to help them out and continued the same mistakes that numerous users had informed them about over and over again. There's no point in someone doing NPP and RCP if they make so many errors that they need to be patrolled themselves and are constantly biting new users. Regardless of how the alternative account use is dealt with, Spike/Territory need to be banned from NPP and RCP for now, as they are doing more harm than good. Valenciano (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I looked at Territory war 3 pwner because they edited a blocked sockmaster's talk page. Yes, even though they have denied it on their talk page, they are the same as SPIKE SPIKE BAD. —DoRD (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I noticed that Territory war 3 pwner also used swear words in a couple of edit summaries when reverting vandalism. The only other editor I've seen do that is SPIKE SPIKE BAD, and the general aggression combined with very similar error (like the G3 on Block TZ Entertainment, which I saw, was going to change to A7, but someone else had already done it). IMO, they have to be the same user. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth I noticed Territory after he made this reversion. Being that it was only his 9th edit and he was already making reversions and seemed to have a working knowledge of Wikipedia, I immediately suspected a sock. And I swear to you, I have no reason why, but the first person I thought of was Spike. I had also noticed his "retirement" and I suppose the fact that Territory was just jumping in with vandalism fighting, much the same as Spike had, raised my suspicions. Come to think of it, I always half suspected that Spike was also a sock of an earlier user. He seeemed to know how to do much more than someone brand new to the project would.  DiscantX 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I also thought that Spike had to have been here before, as they leaped in and started immediately doing reversions and their 11th edit was to report someone at WP:AIV , that at a time when their account was supposedly a few hours old. For a genuinely new editor that's unheard of. Also, while the editor is writing in stilted English, the mistakes are inconsistent, sometimes they use more difficult things like articles, modal verbs, conditional structures and past forms correctly, sometimes not. If someone genuinely has problems with English they'll make the same mistakes, so that is more typical of someone who speaks English quite well and is pretending not to. It's the same with their editing: a mix of good and bad edits without consistency. This leads me more towards suspecting deliberate intent i.e. pure trolling rather than simple incompetence. But all this is a moot point, they'ŗe clearly socking and have clearly been given enough warnings to change their behaviour and the same issues are being repeated, so I'm afraid that it's time to say goodbye. Valenciano (talk) 08:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. I was reluctant to break WP:GF with Spike and I feel that the same may be true with other editors who encountered him, but I feel he knew/knows exactly what he's doing.  DiscantX 08:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I do also feel it is worth discussing if his behaviour is intentional, as it turns the case from a good-faith editor who may have created a sock in order to continue making what he views as constructive edits to one of an experienced user who is intentionally disrupting Wikipedia.  DiscantX 09:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

User:Territory war 3 pwner has now also "retired", [137], so we'll need to look out for the next sock. This may need to turn into an SPI after all. Dai Pritchard (talk) 10:37, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

If a new one emerges, I would support a SPI, because that would be the third (maybe more, if there was some before Spike) account that they're using. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

He implied that there were/are earlier accounts in that last message. —C.Fred (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Since he's offering taunts like that, it's clear that his sockpuppetry is both intentional and ill-purposed. Is there any reason why we shouldn't open an SPI now? Dai Pritchard (talk) 14:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I've presumptuously created an SPI here. Blackmane (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Following up We all missed DoRD's comment above where he confirmed that these two are the same person. He didn't find any other accounts. Blackmane (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for block - IP disrupting a course with students, no rationale given

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T91416

Hello. I have a group of students in a course. Some IP has said that our course promotes vandalism by posting on the course page and deleting our course page. They give no further explanation. This is a disruptive harassing stalker. Can these IPs please be blocked?

• User:72.68.239.80
• User:70.121.211.218

I am happy to talk with anyone but this disrupts a group of people and this user obviously knows enough to engage on Wikipedia, because they know how to disrupt many people at once. I did not notify this user on their userpage per WP:TROLL. I requested page protection at the protection board. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The 70.121 IP has no edits, and the 72.68 IP has not been active since 27 February. I don't think a block is in order at this time. However, if the problem recurs, then protection (if not already done) or blocks can be undertaken. —C.Fred (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Is there anyone else that gets their own IP listed on the history page of the course? Known bug? Rettetast (talk) 17:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• The answer to that question is yes. I have that exact same issue - Bluerasberry, are you thus sure those aren't your own IPs? Very weird bug. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Yeah. My own IP also shows up as well when I saw the page. Epic Genius (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Me too. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
    • Me six. I philed a bug on Phabricator[138]. Keegan (talk) 18:14, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note that the proper IP in question is 72.68.239.80 (talk · contribs), as found in the database by a developer at phabricator. Mamyles (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

WorldCreaterFighter and copyright violations

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

User has previously been warned about copyright violations.

They just copied and pasted material from the source they cited into the Huns article. Previous violations (that I'm aware of) included this and this. He continued to plagiarize here, here, here (distinct from the previous Hazara people edit) here. These are also his most significant edits since he was warned: most of his activity since he was warned was to continue copying from sources, and shortly after he was warned.

While looking for those edits, I found this non-copyvio where he quotes someone who is not named in either source. Indeed, the quote doesn't appear in either source. WP:CIR issues may be involved.

Again, WorldCreaterFighter has been previously been warned about copyright violations, and he indicated that he would quit copying material. He did not stop doing copying from sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note:User is also under investigation at WP:SPI. TheMesquito^buzz 18:31, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

WorldCreaterFighter claims he "forgot" that he should paraphrase sources instead of plagiarizing them. With the repeated and varied explanations he was given last time, plus his promise to paraphrase from now on, for him to forget just ten days later is a bit hard to swallow.

We cannot assume both competence and honesty here.

If he is a sock of Tirgil34, he'll be blocked. If he's not a sock of Tirgil34, his edits are still problematic. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I have placed a final warning on his talk page and will monitor his contributions. Further copyright violarions will result in an indefinite block. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:06, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Legal threats on my user talk page

User blocked by Chillum after refusing to retract threat of legal action. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

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

---

JOE SWEENEY 1961 (talk · contribs) has issued a legal threat on my user talk page regarding my reversion of his edits to Abandoned Shipwrecks Act that violated WP:NPOV. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:37, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that User:JOE SWEENEY 1961 has posted a legal threat at User talk:WikiDan61, appearing to be caused by disagreements on Abandon Shipwreck Act. According to WP:LEGAL, I feel obliged to post about it here, note I have have not been involved with either users/the page itself, I can across it by chance. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:38, 3 March 2015 (UTC) (combined reports)

The user continues to edit Abandoned Shipwrecks Act in violation of WP:NPOV. Until such time as this present ANI is resolved, I don't feel that I should continue to revert his edits, but I would request that the page be restored and protected until the matter can be sorted. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Since user has not been advised about WP:NLT, I just left the {{uw-legal}} message at their talk page and advised that they must retract the legal threat to be allowed to continue to edit. —C.Fred (talk) 17:44, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Looking through Sweeney's contributions reveals an WP:SPA with an axe to grind. An indef under WP:NLT would just be hurrying the inevitable. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:45, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

That said, the user does have a point about the information and a WP:RS issue. I've removed the sentence in question from the article; it may be found, with my full reasoning, at Talk:Abandoned Shipwrecks Act#Removal of Mel Fisher mention. —C.Fred (talk) 17:51, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Having seen C.Fred's edit on the page, I agree that there was a valid point about singling out one person as a violator. If Joe Sweeney's edits hadn't flown so flagrantly in the face of WP:NPOV and had he taken my advice to open a discussion at the talk page, we probably would have come to an agreeable conclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:59, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Second legal threat on User talk:C.Fred. This one says they've referred the issue to their legal team. I would support ban, as per WP:LEGAL. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So would I, but I did one more post on his talk page asking for him to retract and work with us to get a new consensus wording. Be nice if that worked... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:18, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I would hope so, but the user seems to be a more of an WP:SPA then anything TheMesquito^buzz 18:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User is no doubt WP:NOTTHERE. I support block. Weegeerunner (talk) 18:16, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

In fairness, the text restored in this revert [139] is not supported by the citation given [140]:

"One example of this is Mel Fisher and his highly publicized treasure hunting expeditions off the coast of Florida for the Spanish galleons Nuestra Senora de Atocha and the Santa Margarita]".

However, the text added in its place is all original research or unsubstantiated opinion. JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:21, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

The user should be blocked immediately and the legal threats removed. If they want to retract their threats they can do so verbally on their talk page in an unblock request. Our volunteers are not equipped to deal with these threats and should not have to endure them on wiki, that is why we keep these things off wiki. Chillum 18:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I would recommend that this discussion focus on the topic of the actual legal threats. Discussions about the article's content should be relegated to its talk page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I mentioned only from the standpoint of, hey, if he's got a valid point, let's give him some room to work with (consider the example from WP:DOLT). At the worst, we gave him a little more rope, and he's shown his intent and what he's willing and unwilling to do. —C.Fred (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

More relevant discussion: User talk:SarekOfVulcan. Seems like a third legal threat to me. Also, has admitted editing 3 times in 2 years- multiple account user therefore? Joseph2302 (talk) 18:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*Third legal threat, even saying his "wording is not a threat, it is reality." Ian.thomson (talk) 18:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

How many threats is this user going to be allowed to issue before he is actually blocked? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:43, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

I am fairly sure Mr Sweeney's talk of "bringing the matter to his legal department" is just so much hot air. Had he actually spoken to a lawyer, he'd know that he should be accusing Wikipedia of libel (written defamation), not slander (spoken defamation). Not that either charge is true, but still, the matter needs to be resolved. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Enough, legal threats cannot be tolerated. Our volunteers are in no position to determine if a threat is credible or not, they need to be taken at face value. I have blocked this user for making legal threats. We should never allow a user trying to negotiate content with legal threats stand. Their concerns should be looked into but unless they retract their threats they should remain blocked. Chillum 18:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

User blocked by admin Chillum (talk · contribs) for legal threats. TheMesquito^buzz 19:09, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Moved userpage

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

---

Can someone take a look at this Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes, a recently moved userpage. It's a bit beyond my experience as to what to do to it.

Its a userpage of a sock that was blanked then mvoed to mainspace and then had content added. Tempted to restore it to its original version but not totally sure if its a good idea without cleaning it up first. Amortias (T)(C) 21:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

• Suggest move to Draft:Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes, or restore original userpage -- Orduin ^Discuss 21:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

original page was another users userpage tagging them as a WP:SOCK so assuming it needs restoring. Looking to see if its best to move the page back, moving it to draft is just going to lead to a confusing edit history in my opinion. Amortias (T)(C) 21:55, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

It probably is better to move it back rather than delete it. —C.Fred (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Moved back. Next question. If this is a sockpuppeteeer why are they editing? Amortias (T)(C) 22:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Have tagged the moved page as WP:SPEEDY#G1 as the page makes no sense, however while paying insufficient attention please see below.

And someone please slap me. - Misplaced the page when moving User:Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes needs deleting now due to user error. Amortias (T)(C) 22:15, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Note: Tagged User:Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes with U2. -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:36, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, Kashyap Rajput Sub Castes tagged with G8. -- Orduin ^Discuss 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Pages deleted, I believe we can close this now? -- Orduin ^Discuss 22:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Sacha Sach back

Can we get an indef this time? [141]. Predictably, they didn't rent a clue. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Edits_of_Sacha_Sach --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Final warning issued. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

FreeRangeFrog, I find your reluctance to do the obvious pretty bizarre. I'll leave it at that. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I would not call a final warning reluctance. Either the user stops and we win, or they get blocked. Either way it stops. Chillum 01:49, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

They were final warned, blocked, and then resumed the exact same behavior when the block expired. Imagine "This despicable act lowers the Sikh people to-day to nothing more than a murderous cult. ...the present day Sikhs who are using the human rights to falsely claim discrimination in the Western democracies while they are engaged in terrorism, drug running, deceit, deception, murder to enrich themselves at other's expense." written about Jews, Muslims, what-have-you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

A "final" warning in response to multiple warnings (inlcding a final warning) -> block -> resumed disruption is not well-thought out and IMO a presumptuous waste of other editors' time. But it's not the end of the world either; so lets wait for another edit, revert cycle before the block is applied. Abecedare (talk) 02:10, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

IP hopping edit warrior / block evasion

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

---

IP account blocked for 2 weeks

• 67.240.247.8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 66.66.103.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 96.25.250.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• Murder of Boris Nemtsov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

First IP was blocked for edit warring by Swarm. All IPs geolocate to the same city. Edit warring has continued on the latest IP (96.25.250.141) while the first IP is still blocked. Requesting blocks or temporary semi on the page. Thanks, Stickee (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

 Resolved: blocked 24h by Antandrus. Stickee (talk) 02:59, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Only the last was blocked. The middle IP is hitting up WP:DRN as we speak. --IJBall (talk) 04:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the other one; it's obviously the same person. Since he did not take me up on my offer to unblock early if he promised to stop edit warring, instead switching to an unblocked IP, I'm withdrawing that offer. Ping me if you need the article protected. Antandrus (talk) 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threats

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

---

A number of edits by Amuwazi between 02:00 and 02:30 UTC today, 4 March, appear to include legal threats, so I would appreciate it if an administrator can give the user the appropriate advice. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:12, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

See also Talk:Beijing University of International Business and Economics. --David Biddulph (talk) 04:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

This edit is getting fairly serious. They may have been close to NLT before but I think that goes over the line. Ravensfire (talk) 05:21, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

There was an additional clear legal threat on their own user page made after that, so I have blocked them. They clearly have English problems, which may be contributing to the dispute, so it would probably be a good idea for someone who can read Chinese to talk with them when they ask to be unblocked. Yngvadottir (talk) 07:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, he is correct about the name for UIBE (as it is officially initialled: there is no "Beijing" in its name), but his way of going about it is apparently totally wrong, and I appreciate that we can't afford to take chances like that. Perhaps it is his inadequate use of English, because, having taught Chinese students for a number of years, they are often hindered and misunderstood by poor quality and misleading automatic translation software. I don't speak and I can't write Chinese enough to sort this out, though.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Talk:2 May 2014 Odessa clashes#Requested move 3 March 2015

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

---

RGloucester closed one of my recent RMs as certainly disruptive. I tried to convince him to revert the rushed closure without avail. In fact, he was reported many times, including the time after the previous RM on the "2 May 2014 (*ugh, I missed this one*) Odessa clashes" article was decided. He still defends his actions as if I did something wrong. --George Ho (talk) 05:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Opening constant RMs to make a point is disruptive. It isn't my fault that no one decided to respond to your RfC. RGloucester — ☎ 05:16, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

...Let's wait for administrators' responses, okay? --George Ho (talk) 05:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to indulge you, as I know that's where you derive nourishment. Me, on the other hand, I don't like to see people torn to shreds for no apparent reason. As such, I've self-reverted my hatting. Not because you are right, because you are not, but for pragmatic reasons. RGloucester — ☎ 05:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

IPv6-hopping "Lee Corso" editor is probably a sneaky vandal, but occasionally sounds sincere

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

---

• 2601:2:2380:27E:F50F:2654:2F67:D06B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 20 other IPs in the same /64 block -- I suggest installing the IP range widget for Special:Contributions, and searching for 2601:2:2380:27E:*
• Corsiobuttylykl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 3oi343oi4o34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Example article: Snowshoe, West Virginia

This IPv6 user is making a pattern of edits that largely involve either changing sentences to be about sports broadcaster Lee Corso, or changing temperatures to be colder. I've blocked the IPs for 72 hours so far and disabled account creation, but this still needs more follow-up. Today while scanning through the changes I found a case where later edits had been reverted to this user's preferred temperatures, for example, and made sure to specifically undo it. I doubt that's the last case.

The Lee Corso thing is clearly just vandalism, but some of the user's recent changes to temperatures include edit summaries that make them sound sincere, as if the user firmly believes that Wikipedia is actually reporting temperatures incorrectly. This makes it possibly slightly different from vandalism. I'm temporarily assuming good faith in the face of evidence to the contrary, so I left a message on User talk:Corsiobuttylykl (great name, I know, but that's the least of the issues here).

There definitely is a problem here. I'm hoping to get an explanation from the user on why they think the temperatures they're changing are wrong, although I'm expecting the answer is likely that they're screwing with Wikipedia and hoping to get away with it. But I'm leaving the Corsiobuttylykl account unblocked for a bit because I asked kindly for a response.

I don't have the time to follow up on this alone, though.

Keep in mind that if you're looking for user contributions or if you're about to place a block, you should make sure it applies to the entire /64 block, 2601:2:2380:27E::/64. The user appears to be on the kind of IPv6 setup where changing the last 64 bits of your address is easy. rspεεr (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Rspeer: Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jaredgk2008. Cheers ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

For the record, that address belongs to Comcast, and they typically issue a /64 to each of their IPv6 customers. The range contributions can be seen here if you have the range contributions gadget enabled. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 13:53, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

• Regarding the "least of issues" aside above, the user's name is, phonetically, "Corso butty-lick", thereby in violation of username policy. The name will have to be changed or blocked. Pax 18:26, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Corso was just blocked indefinitely for other reasons (being a sock-puppet), so this can be closed. Pax 22:17, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

2015 CheckUser and Oversight appointments: Invitation to comment on candidates

The Arbitration Committee is seeking to appoint additional users to the CheckUser and Oversight teams, and is now seeking comments from the community regarding the candidates who have volunteered for this role.

Interested parties are invited to review the appointments page containing the nomination statements supplied by the candidates and their answers to a few standard questions. Community members may also pose additional questions and submit comments about the candidates on the individual nomination pages or privately via email to arbcom-en-clists.wikimedia.org.

Following the consultation phase, the committee will take into account the answers provided by the candidates to the questions and the comments offered by the community (both publicly and privately) along with all other relevant factors before making a final decision regarding appointments.

The consultation phase is scheduled to end 23:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC), and the appointments are scheduled to be announced by 31 March 2015.

For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles (talk) 06:23, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this

Attacks on Krimuk90

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

---

Can an administrator please note the gross personal attacks made to Krimuk90 and abusive edit summaries and block them.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) I'm not sure what a "chootiya" is, but the edit summaries in general indeed suggest a violation of WP:NPA nonetheless. BTW, Dr. Blofeld, the IP wasn't notified of this discussion, so I did just that. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 10:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Not confirmed as a fixed IP and they appear to have stopped editing, so I haven't blocked at this stage. If it resumes please let me know. In the mean time have rev-deleted the insults and oversighted the BLP violation. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:55, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Krimuk90 can you alert Euyalus if he continues in the future?♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:57, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yup, thank you both very much. :) -- KRIMUK90 ✉ 14:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Vandalism at List of Cricket World Cup records

Semi-protected by CBW. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

---

Would an admin please protect this page against persistent vandalism? I posted at WP:RPP, but no-one seems to be active there. StAnselm (talk) 10:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Article now semi-protected for a period of 1 week by CambridgeBayWeather over at WP:RPP. --IJBall (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

---

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

Vandalism on The Amazing Race U.S. articles

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

---

This IP editor (68.172.212.105 (talk · contribs)) vandalizes every season of the original American Amazing Race with continuous unnecessary addition of span codes, I had reverted to restore them all and can any admin to report that user? ApprenticeFan ^work 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't think this is really vandalism. I don't particularly see the point in it, but I'm sure they are acting in good faith.  DiscantX 11:31, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Also, have you tried asking them why they are doing this? Maybe they have a good reason. I see no discussion on their talk page (you should also notify them on their talk page that they have been brought up here at ANI).  DiscantX 11:35, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Just notified the editor. The user's most recent edit was at 04:59 on 4 March 2015, so it looks like they've stopped. APerson (talk!) 14:22, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Lime Street (TV series)

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

---

Is this person's edit legit? even for a show that has historical significance because of its connection with Samantha Smith and even though it didn't even last a season, are we really allowed to link to full episodes on YouTube? Paul Austin (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Per WP:EL/P, since this YouTube video is published by an unreliable source, the link can be removed. Epic Genius (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you do it. It's better if someone with authority does it. I have no desire to become a target as i have no authority or power. Paul Austin (talk) 14:54, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

It isn't even a matter of it being an unreliable source. The video on YouTube is a copyright violation, and we must not link to such items. I've already taken care of this issue as Paul Austin left a note on my talk page. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:20, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Editorous is on a crusade

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

---

User:Editorous is attempting to push a POV on United States Merit Systems Protection Board about why and how it is so flawed. A block is in order. Also personal attacks. KonveyorBelt 17:50, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Continuing both logged in and logged out. Crusade is right. [142] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that appears to be a problem, including violations of neutral point of view per WP:NPOV, verifiability and reliable sources per WP:V and WP:RS. Be careful you don't get blocked for edit-warring, even if you are correct. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Don't intend to revert any more but your advice is good. Others can sort it out. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:14, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Editor is blocked (thanks Barek) and thanks CombatWombat42 for removing stuff like, "In fact it is so bad that MSPB has no attorneys in its pro bono program...and it's been this way for years! For documentation of these facts, statements and statistics see www.mspb.gov or contact your congressman or congresswoman." from the article. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:41, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Mukherjee007 repeatedly removing Speedy Deletion tags

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

---

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smooth Distortion, the SPA article-creator, Mukherjee007 (Talk,Contribs) has repeatedly removed deletion notice tags (despite warnings on his TP not to), at least five times at last count.[143],[144],[145],[146],[147]. Pax 18:08, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Given them final warning as they dont appear to have been sufficiently warned. If they do it again WP:AIV should solve this quickly. Amortias (T)(C) 18:11, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Shookenlover

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

---

Hi,

Can we block for disrupition only and nuke recent contributions please. Amortias (T)(C) 18:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Shookenlover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This template makes it easier for admins to check on the editors contributions. MarnetteD|Talk 18:44, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Reporting additional personal attacks by KazekageTR

KazekageTR (talk · contribs) has earlier appeared on my talk page after i listed him as a suspect in a sockpuppetry case, calling me a retard.[148] This was a clear violation of WP:NPA as per section one of WP:WIAPA. I subsequently addressed this attack on this noticebord, which resulted in KazekageTR being warned on his talk page by User:SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs), with the message that further attacks would result in a block. Now KazekageTR has reappeared on my talk page, erronously accusing me to Pro-Greek bias.[149] This is a mild violation of section two (ad hominem) of WP:WIAPA. On the ongoing SPI, he has also threatened to wikihound be to find evidence that i'm a sockpuppet.[150] This is a violation of section one (wikihounding) and two (threats) of WP:HARASSMENT, and a violation of section six (threats) of WP:WIAPA. More seriously, he has compared me to a "Gestapo operative" on the ongoing SPI. [151] This is a clear violation of section four (Godwin's law) of WP:WIAPA. Krakkos (talk) 18:45, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

While a couple of KazekageTR's comments are a bit beyond the pale, I have to say, that's the most random collection of users I've ever seen in an SPI. Are you sure your hands are clean on this filing? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:01, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan:, i'm in the process of removing a number of suspects, including him, from the SPI. I will simultaneously add a more detailed explanation for why KazakeTR was initially listed. Krakkos (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

You are trying to justify your wrongful move. You are not 'in the process of removing a number of suspects' you are just doing whatever you like and accuse people without proof. Also WP:WIKIHOUND applies to you too, you know? You are accusing me without any solid evidence(only some 'look alike edits with the other sock puppets') and if you keep this up, that ad hominem thing could turn the tide towards you. IF you keep accusing me without some good evidence to back up your claim, i will fill a form against you cause i am really tired of your nonsense 'witch hunting' and consider it as WP:HARASSMENT. kazekagetr 20:07, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@KazekageTR and SarekOfVulcan: I have now removed KazekageTR (and others) as suspected socks of Tirgil34, despite KazekageTR's accusation that i'm not "not in the process of removing a number of suspects." WP:Assume good faith? For those interested, i have explained why KazekageTR was initially added as sock here. Krakkos (talk) 20:43, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm no expert in SPI but that list is pretty incredible. Many of those listed haven't edited since 2014 so, from my understanding, any CU would be stale anyway (feel free to correct me if I'm mistaken). Much of the rationale does look to be somewhat flimsy; the filing doesn't look to be well thought out. I'd say remove all the accounts that haven't edited in 6 months or so and those that have been linked as socks to other accounts. Blackmane (talk) 23:05, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

AIV backlog

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

---

I would like to kindly request a little admin attention at WP:AIV. There is currently a backlog of several dozen reports. Thank you. Gnome de plume (talk) 20:52, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Heather Bresch

This article and a related controversy page have recently been brought to BLPN several times by Collect and myself.[152][153][154] In the most recent string I suggested it was more appropriate for ANI at this time.

There seems to be a lot of personal attacks, trolling, assumptions of bad faith, combative editing and WP:NOTBUREAU that have created a toxic and un-productive environment on the article. For example, @Hipocrite: and @Nomoskedasticity: have both been borderline trolling me, by sarcastically saying their edits are for auction, that they can be paid to leave any article alone, and in Hipocrite's case asking if I was paid to defame him.[155] Here the same two editors accuse me of spinning the article by intentionally omitting major controversies, but refuse to provide any sources regarding the alleged omissions and in other cases have accused me of being unethical, spinning the article and so on.

I don't feel this assumption of bad-faith is warranted, especially since I provided sources to verify beyond a doubt that the MBA controversy belongs on the page, pro-actively suggested adding COI concerns with her father and a debate about her tax inversion strategy. Additionally, they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits[156] or edits supported by consensus[157] (see @Jimbo:'s comments here), using very bureaucratic, technical rationales, like requiring consensus be established on the Talk page of the article, rather than noticeboards or Talk pages, or saying consensus is not clear enough.

Not doing the whole self-righteous charade of demanding blocks - just think it needs attention from editors experienced in handling this kind of drama.

Disclosure: Please note I have a disclosed COI. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Let's see this ANI post for what it is: a paid editor is trying (at his client's behest) to make this BLP a more promotional piece and then complaining here when other editors don't agree that this is what should happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:24, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite and Nomoskedasticity have both been warned previously for this type of conduct by User:Jehochman. These are also the type of comments that when an editor seeks help on an ANI board to deal with issues, that cause them to lose faith on Wikipedia and eventually quit. The sniping, specifically the comments about others and having been paid by someone to defame another is nearing harassment. Also Corporate, can you link us to where the consensus was at BLPN? I see some discussions but not like a full on consensus of the content. Tutelary (talk) 23:38, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

@Tutelary:Within this diff are links to the BLPN post, two user Talk pages and an IRC respondent (no link for that last one obviously, but that was @DragonflySixtyseven: who made the edit after picking up on the IRC chat) that all agreed the prior controversy section was UNDUE (it was pretty obvious). Though there wasn't explicit consensus for exactly how to handle it (trim and merge or summary style), but it's this kind of editing that concerns me; where the two editors edit boldly, but then require an impossibly high margin of iron-clad consensus for anyone else to make changes and often find trivial or unsubstantiated reasons to reject edits from others.

It's worth noting that @Jehochman:'s warning was given after these edits, however it appears as though this may be representative of their editing conduct in general or at least in other COI situations[158] and part of a long string of disputes between these two and Collect.[159] CorporateM (Talk) 00:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have very much seen this type of editing before and it's even being stated within this thread that Hipocrite likes to argue while sniping comments at people. The comments about how you're apparently being paid to cast aspersions against him are not convincing and are starting to inhibit the ability to discuss this matter at ANI--which is a frequent problem here I might add. Also particularly because this is a BLP, they are afforded much large protection via the larger WP:BLP policy, the bar might be higher for sourcing. But regarding their editing habits in general, if their comments on ANI are any representation of how they argue on the talk page (without even looking at it), then they need to be barred from this topic. Tutelary (talk) 01:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Again, you have stated that I edited boldly against consensus. Please show me where I did such on the page. Use diffs. I'll be sending Mylan a bill for my time, by the way. Hipocrite (talk) 00:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Hipocrite is correct in that I referred to both of them collectively as if they were a single person, but some very specific comments may refer to just one or the other. CorporateM (Talk) 00:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So really you have no comment about me except that I don't like you whitewashing your clients? Which of what you wrote applies to me, specifically? This comment cost Mylan $50. Hipocrite (talk) 00:50, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone is being paid to take me to ANI? No thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 00:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC) Still further "they have repeatedly reverted well-sourced edits?" Where have I done so? This paid aspersion casting needs to stop. Hipocrite (talk) 00:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, I thought you had better manners than that. Drmies (talk) 01:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Hipocrite, you aren't convincing anybdoy with this sort of argument. Please stop. Companies, like it or not, have an interest in seeing that their articles and their related biographies are accurate. We can't just blow them off when our articles have an impact on their real lives of people who work at these businesses. Please be patient and listen to whatever concerns are presented, and don't be disrespectful or dismissive. Jehochman ^Talk 15:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• You know what, fuck it. I'll avoid all Mylan related topics from here-on-out. Enjoy Pepsipedia, brought to you by IBM. Hipocrite (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I have never attempted to position her government lobbying as director of government relations as a philanthropic effort. On the contrary, I have provided excerpts from the source material[160] to assist in making it more clear how the legislation benefits Mylan. I did mention on @Drmies: Talk page that editing patterns suggest the two editors may be colluding offline, but immediately struck-out the comment as unsubstantiated. Mylan does not know there is a discussion at ANI or that these two editors are giving me a hard time; my edits are my own.

I have not actually requested a ban, but suggested diplomatic intervention was needed. Someone would have to do a deeper dive into their editing to see if a BAN was needed, but off-the-cuff an IBAN with all disclosed COIs seems worth considering. Again, someone would have to investigate their behavior in a broader sense than just this one article for that kind of thing. CorporateM (Talk) 16:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

As much as I dislike agreeing with a corporate anything, let alone a minion, I see no need to censure (or bitch at) CorpM here, who I believe has been going about this the proper way. The current version of the article isn't bad--I suppose this material, added by Nomoskedasticity is fine, but I don't rightly see why this material had to be removed. Either way, that's fussing over content, but getting all Pepsipedia over it is exaggerated and shows a tremendous lack of good faith. I mean, I suppose such lack of good faith with a COI editor is understandable, maybe, but it doesn't help us and our article. If Hipocrite stays away from this, that would be a good thing, if only to bring the temperature down. Drmies (talk) 19:27, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Personal attacks by QuackGuru

QuackGuru has engaged in personal attacks. In violation of AGF and misrepresenting me and my edits. Contrary to warning diff he continues to post links to a closed WP:AN/I section that was closed no consensus in an effort to discredit me. The attacks are not on point, but personal, not directed to the topic, but me. This has no place on the talk pages of WP articles.

• His latest including a link to the closed WP:AN/I section in the edits comments. diff diff
• Previous linking of the section closed WP:AN/I in edit comments. diff
• He even uses a user page to hold the information so he can easily paste it. diff
• He has placed the link in comments on an admin's user page, and the edit is a pure attack.diff
• He has placed the link in the comments and the attack on a request for page protection that I made. diff

This has to stop, There are serious violations of WP:EQ including misrepresenting, AGF, and making the discussion on the other editor and not the topic and WP:HARASS for the persistently trying to discredit me over old and resolved WP:AN/I sections. Asking him to stop has done no good. Smearing another editor should not be done. AlbinoFerret 03:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So the first dif is "User:AlbinoFerret claims "You have not discussed one edit in the 19k characters you inserted."[161] But I did discuss sources User:AlbinoFerret deleted.[162] The response was "Reliability does not guarantee inclusion."[163] That is not a specific objection for excluding relevant information. User:AlbinoFerret is not here to improve this page IMO. how is deleting numerous reliable sources improving this page? QuackGuru (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2015 (UTC)"

I am not seeing anything ANI worthy there. Sorry Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@QuackGuru, thanks for pointing out I had the wrong diff. I have struck out the wrong one and placed the correct one. AlbinoFerret 03:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• This comment "WHO is to health what the UN is to government, useless" by User:AlbinoFerret makes me wonder if a topic ban WP:Boomerang would be useful though. See how consensus is that WHO is one of the best medical sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:28, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
  • Bringing concerns to a noticeboard is what they are for [164]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That discussion already happened in the WP:AN/I QuackGuru keeps linking to and is now 5 months old. It is a content disagreement, and this focus of this section isnt on content, but the persistent personal attacks by QuackGuru. The noticeboard is only one place out of many, and it was the noticeboard for page protection, not a place to level personal attacks or discuss editors. AlbinoFerret 03:34, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Can someone please point out the personal attack? I do not immediately see the insult being directed. I think we are nearing 150 days of daily edit warring at this article so I recognize the tension. Blue Rasberry (talk) 04:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree BR, I don't see WP:NPA here. I do see unhelpful behaviour, not unidirectionally, including WP:IDHT, WP:Battleground and WP:NOTHERE. I fully understand AF's furstration at QG's massive undiscussed edits on a controversial topic, usually I find with reasonable content in them but lots of dross that doesn't add to the article as well. I also understand QG's frustration with AF undoing what is a large amount of work. But QG is persistently trying to discredit AF over old and resolved ANI threads. I don't know what can be done to reduce the tension at the e-cigarette family of Articles but I think some form of sanctions need to be handed out to those making it harder for productive collaboration to happen. SPACKlick (talk) 08:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I think sanctions might be the way to go here since there are multiple problem editors. Many editors left and unwatched the article as it became toxic. Considering how often e-cigs have come up at WP:RSN where decent medical sources always seemed to be challenged by the same group of editors, I'm concerned there may be significant POVs running the discussion. The more problematic POV seems to be being critical specifically of sources that are critical of e-cigs. There are behavior issues tied to how editors are dealing with content, so it doesn't seem like it's easily addressed here at ANI where people will say it's just a content dispute and ignore the behavior problems within it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:03, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry While it is not classically defined WP:NPA it is WP:HARASS and the two are very close. AlbinoFerret 14:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• QuackGuru, it would be better to please keep this diff collection on your own computer, not Wikipedia. Thank you. Otherwise, I don't see harassment here, and certainly not personal attacks. I agree with Doc James there's nothing for admins to do. Bishonen | talk 16:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC).

Bishonen So, its ok to smear another editor by bringing up old AN/I sections, even those that were closed with no consensus of wrongdoing. Even on article talk pages and others in an attempt to discredit and smear another editor? AlbinoFerret 18:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Disruption on an AfD?

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

---

Under normal circumstances are nominators allowed to relist deletion debates? Antigng has so for relisted twice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyon, an article the editor had nominated for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Closing_discussions says "Usually, both closing and relisting are administrator actions." --David Biddulph (talk) 03:32, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

That's what I thought, something had seemed off. Usually when an editor does a relisting that I have seen they are uninvolved. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-admin closures are not forbidden, so I don't see any problem with a non-admin relisting, per se. No, the real problem here is the that re-lister is involved, since they are the nominator. It seems to me that the re-lister should ideally be uninvolved, whether an admin or a non-admin. BMK (talk) 04:31, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is clearly to redirect, so I'd close it myself, but I'll be damned if I can figure out how to do it. BMK (talk) 04:37, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

User Editor605 is NOTHERE, long term abuse

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

---

Reporting Editor605 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as WP:NOTHERE. Since May 2013, this user has been slowly vandalizing cartoon-related articles. They have amassed 13 templated warnings on their talk page plus a few more non-templated warnings. This user inserts unsourced info, hoax info, and general vandalizes. I am requesting this user be sitebanned as NOTHERE and long term abuse. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Wow, this has gone on for quite long enough. Blocked and image uploads nuked. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 06:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict): I'm not surprised. This editor has been skirting scrutiny for quite some time. They rarely engage in discussion, and they have little grasp of community standards. Not sure formal "sitebanning" is the way to go. When I tried that with other disruptive users in the past, the sentiment was that indeffing was good enough, and that the user's edits could still be reverted on sight per WP:REVERTBAN if other socks were discovered, for indeffed users are de facto banned. No sense giving the kid a bragging token. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 06:04, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

@The Blade of the Northern Lights: Thank you.

@Cyphoidbomb: Sorry, yeah. I get my terms confused sometimes. Meant "block" not "ban". And that's what TBotNL did. Thanks for dealing with this user in the past. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:17, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Top Hat Trading Limited recreated again

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

---

The user continues to recreate the article Top Hat Trading Limited (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The user has claimed to have added additional material to resolve the issues in the AfD (which, admittedly, had minimal participation) - but all they have actually added since the version that was deleted via the AfD is a single press release that is hosted at digitaljournal.com. All the other sources are identical.

The user seems to believe that they fixed the issue because they have now provided "The complete information of magazine articles was added, included correct publish date and publisher's of articles.", however, as can be viewed in the version deleted at the time of the AfD, the references are identical.

I have no problem with the user trying to go through WP:DELREV or converting the article to a draft to be improved (if they can be made to understand that simply adding a press release isn't really an improvement). But I think it's a bad idea for me to address them directly right now as I'm both tired (getting late here) and frustrated enough from my prior interaction of not getting through to the user. So, I would prefer to leave it to someone else to try to communicate with them this time. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:08, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Which user? --IJBall (talk) 06:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, that would help. The user involved is Johnf1982 (talk · contribs). I had a short discussions on the now deleted talk page of the article a couple days ago, but I couldn't seem to make progress explaining the issues (or they were refusing to hear them). Perhaps someone else can better explain how they can best proceed. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I was review and editing the article, and I press the save page button but it was not intentional. Sorry for that, I don't will edit article in future... Thanks! Johnf1982 (talk) 06:47, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

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

Editor routinely reverting contributions from IP address editors.

Wtshymanski (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) is routinely reverting any edits made by IP address editors in any of the (mainly) engineering based artcles that he routinely watches. This is behaviour that was previously addressed by a Request for comment in 2012.

Since that time, Wtshymanski has continued to systematically revert any and all edits made by IP address editors. Many are vandalism (no problem), but many are good faith edits. There are far too many examples to document here, so I have restricted examples to just those from the past three weeks.

17th Feb

IP edit: [165]

Wtshymanski revert: [166]

This was a good faith and basically correct edit. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds of being 'ungrammatical and out of place'. It could easily have been made gramatical and was exactly where it needed to be.

18th Feb

IP edit: [167]

Wtshymanski revert: [168]

This was a good faith edit and technically correct. It was reverted on the tenuous grounds that the output is not light despite infra-red often being described as "infra-red light" as indeed it is throughout the rest of the article. Further: infra-red light emitting diodes are described as precisely that - "light emitting diodes". The revert actually made the article worse because it no longer told the reader what the 900 nm output is (could be an electrical signal for example).

25th Feb

IP edit: [169]

Wtshymanski revert: [170]

The article was PRODed by Wtshymnski. The IP editor challenged the PROD by deleting it as he is perfectly entitled to do. WTS simply reverted the deletion doubtless because he believes that IP address editors should not be allowed to challenge PRODs even though they are. (The WP:PROD procedure clearly states that a PROD is aborted if the tag is deleted and it must not be rePRODed.)

25th Feb

IP edit: [171]

Wtshymanski revert: [172]

The IP editor's edit must be assumed by the WP:AGF policy to be a good faith edit, there being no evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, WTS has, characteristically not assumed the required good faith by reverting the edit as 'vandalism', and has done so by copy-pasting back an old version of the article (intermediate edits preventing a stright 'undo'). In his haste to revert yet another IP address editor, WTS also pasted back a spelling mistake and a 'coauthors' parameter to a CS1 template which is deprecated. Thus WTS corrected one error but reintroduced two.

2nd Mar

IP edit: [173]

Wtshymanski revert: [174]

Again a potentially good faith edit from an IP address editor . Once again, WTS makes no pretence at assuming that the edit is good faith and it is dismissed as vandalism. Another editor, Andy Dingley independently made the same point on Wtshymanski's talk page. Nothing can be inferred from the editing history as the IP address resolves to a college in India so it is anybody's guess how many real users are behind it.

It is known that Wikipedia is always wanting to recruit productive editors for the project. Inevitably, many potential editors will start as IP address editors before creating an account - provided they find the environment welcoming. Wtshymanski has long held the view that IP address editors should not be allowed to edit Wikipedia and has said so (see RfC referenced above for more). This may be Wtshymanski's view but it is known that it is not the view of the project and Wtshymanski has no right to impose his view in the face of the project's

IP address editors can be productive and offer quality editing to the project. Deliberate wholesale reverting such edits does not provide the welcoming environment, that such editors need if they are to be encouraged to staty.

As evidence: a quick scan produces this IP address's contributions [175]. This editor has made good quality contributions on UK parliamentary procedure; seems to understand the subject and the contributions have been well referenced. I suspect this may be an experienced editor, but if it is, I have not been able to link the address with any other or an account. DieSwartzPunkt (talk) 16:49, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree with DieSwartzPunkt The diffs shown, show the removals called vandalism and they're not, further when he's challenged by a non-ip user, he's been letting the edits stand. KoshVorlon R.I.P Leonard Nimoy "Live Long and Prosper" 17:00, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

18 Feb IP edit was absolutely correct and Wtshymanski revert is an error, because what it emits is light (everything that involves photon is light). Some part of the entire light band is visible, but other invisible parts are also called.

I agree with DieSwartzPunkt's observation for all other instances too. – nafSadh did say 17:44, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• What's the point in this ANI post? Is this an "incident"? Maybe. What administrator action is desired here though?

Once upon a time we had WP:WQA and WP:RFC/U. Neither of them were likely to be effective (WP:Requests_for_comment/Wtshymanski wasn't), but at least they were an attempt by WP to have a means of resolving such issues. Admins won't act over such issues - it would involve making value judgements about other editors and that never happens. Even when it's not a popular editor who can rally their clique of supporters.

WP needs to restore WQA, RFC/U or something else in that line. This ANI post won't achieve that much though. Wtshymanski will, as always, back off for just long enough to dodge the bullet (see the RFCU closing comments) and then will be back, just the same as before. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Zhanzhao admits to socking as DanS76

See the admission HERE. His editing is seriously whacked, and an indefinite block is in order.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

• Where's the "whacked" part? Drmies (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

See here for starters. Also see recent history on the Rape in India page.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 19:21, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

So can I confirm that we are having the discussion here instead of at the SPI article whre this was? Its hard to split my attention up as you'll notice that my activity is slowing down in recent years.

As mentioned, DanS and I are brothers. same household, so I can free admit that a check of logs will identify us as being on the same router network. We are not the same person, in fact I think I'm not even as active as him any more. I was the one who introduced him to Wikipedia, hence our interests in wikipedia articles may have overlaps. In the topics mentioned here where an overlap occured, all have the common factor of being hot-topics in Singapore. Guess what, we both live in Singapore. However, while we might hold some similar views, (same political party support etc) our thoughts might vary in the specifics.

I.e. if you see [[176]], though both of us were involved in the same discussion, I wanted to give the subject in question a chance by only asking for a temp block for her to cools off, while my brother DanS was basically asking for a full ban.

Similarly, if I were just a sock, creating an account to bend consensus or skew voting, you can see here [[177]] that I was the only one who endorsed the motion, while Dan did not, even though he could have since he was involved in the discussion higher in the thread.

Its hard for me to find other examples, as I do not always pay attention to which articles he is active in, and vice versa, except ones which we are both talked about over dinner - which of course is what led to this problem in the first place. Zhanzhao (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)