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

Legacypac's persistent bullying

Moved from AN — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Again – after his cursing and threatening me in November 2014 – Legacypac (LP) wants to bully and threaten me. In a November2014 ANI discussion, colleague Serialjoepsycho concluded (24Nov2014,20:42 and 27Nov,01:38) that LP should not have threatened me the way he did and no one stuck up there for LP’s threatening and cursing; yet LP this month threatened/tyrannized me again.

If he can’t stop bullying me, there’s a good chance he does that to a lot more editors. In that mentioned 2014 ANI discussion, editors DocumentError and Skookum1 indeed seem to have attested of similar problems they experienced with LP. I’m not in the position to verify and judge all their complaints about LP, but for me, LP now surely starts to have appearances against him. Perhaps, therefore, it is time now for a real tough warning for Legacypac to stop his bullying and bossing of others?

The occasion this time was a posting from me on Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 where I criticized LP and two others for posting comments in a discussion section that seemed to be not addressing the issue there under debate. LP quickly accused me (5Jan,14:34) of having made a “personal attack” there by being not civil, impolite and/or disrespectful. I asked him (6Jan,14:02) how he meant that.

LP then replied/repeated/explained/threatened/accused/bullied (6Jan,14:36):
- “your rude comments…”
- “[do] not comment on other editors”
- “you have been warned”
and (14:50):
- “[you] insult and belittle…an experienced editor”
- “your behaviour is disruptive”
- “stay off this talk page…”
- “…(for a while) and I’ll not pursue this”
and (14:56):
- “quite inappropriate to do that”
- “… Your comments and behaviour are quite offensive…”
- “… and could easily result in sanctions like a topic ban or block”
- “If you stay off Talk Syrian War for a while I'll save myself the effort of reporting you”
- “…but if you continue acting inappropriately…”
- “… all this will become evidence”
- “ [you are] warned again”.

Apparently, according to LP’s explanation, the whole blow up is about LP reproving me for criticizing specific edits of specific editors including himself which he considers “commenting on other editors” which he fiercely denounces as not “civil”, “rude”, “impolite/disrespectful” and “personal attack” and – (partly) perhaps bearing on my later edit TalkSCW6Jan,14:23 but in that case in my opinion equally unjustified: there, too, a simple disagreement on content is no ground for such incriminating and bullying – reproving me for being “insulting”, “belittling”, “disruptive”, “inappropriate” and “offensive”; reason(s) for LP to try to extirpate all that with threats/injunctions like “you are warned” (2x), “...pursue this” , “reporting you” , “all this…evidence”, “sanctions like…”, and “stay off this talk page” (2x).
Since when is criticism on actions/edits of Wiki colleagues off-limits? Why does LP call criticism/comment on an edit “comment on an editor”? (‘Edit’ is not ‘editor’.) If my criticism would have been unjust LP could simply have said so or have reproven the criticism – but even a refuted or refutable criticism isn’t automatically a disrespectful or impolite criticism nor automatically an unacceptable personal attack – but Legacypac never even tried to rebut that criticism, he straight resorted to his threatening and cowing habit.

Meanwhile, editor Knowledgekid87 seems to have been enticed to join in that LP’s game of groundlessly accusing me (6Jan,14:31-32): of wittingly “reviving” a debate that “has died” and of being uncivil – ofcourse also without specifying my incivility – just to have me (and you) wondering and intimidated – safe behind Legacypac’s back and at the same time covering LP’s back: another reason perhaps why it is high time now to call an end to that (presumably contagious) harassing/intimidating/bullying mentality of Legacypac’s? --Corriebertus (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to provide diffs of the problematic behavior I warned , Corriebertus about but he kindly provided them himself. So here Corriebertus is Talk:Syrian Civil War,5Jan2016,10:13 telling other editors to stay out of a discussion and here he removes a close [1] by User:Knowledgekid87 to continue discussing changing the name of the Syrian Civil War to "The Early 21st Century War in Syria". Taking the Civil out pf the name has been discussed to death and clearly is not going to happen. Last formal request [2] plus the archives are littered with informal move requests. Admins should also look at [3], and soliciting an editor into this discussion I have no interest in interacting with [4] [5]

As for the 2014 activity, that has been mischaracterized and the user needs to get over it. The named editors who were complaining were later blocked for the activity I noted. The allegation that I cursed is not true. Legacypac (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• Legacypac, I fail to see any incivility by Corriebertus. I'm becoming annoyed with your sensitive skin. I'm not addressing the move requests here – that's not the issue that was brought to us. The issue is your conduct, and it has been brought to ANI over and over again. Corriebertus is being completely civil and your outrage over his tone is uncalled for. People are allowed to discuss issues, and disagreeing with you is not a license to get all bowed up and ruffled. He is allowed on any talk page unless he has been topic banned, and he is allowed to ask questions of editors whom you don't like. What is your problem, and why shouldn't we consider your behavior to be chronic disruption? Katie^talk 16:07, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Just read this discussion. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syrian_Civil_War#Is_the_title_correct.2C_.22Civil_War.22.3F and WP:CANVASSING an editor who was banned specifically for his interactions with me is not cool. Legacypac (talk) 16:45, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I already read that discussion. Now answer my question. Katie^talk 18:57, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Editor did not like the answers given after they continue to push a rename that is never going to happen, told other editor to get out of the discussion and accussed them of not discussing, and reverted a discussion close 2x. I warned the editor and moved on. Several weeks later they start this thread. That's it. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

• I understand the frustration with the constant move discussions; but, I think Katie's points are well taken. — Ched :  ?  17:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I, too, have been on the receiving end of Legacypac's bullying, thin-skin hyperbolic reactivity, personal attacks, and groundless accusations recently and in the past. Why he hasn't been dealt with more severely by now for his behavior is beyond my understanding. KrakatoaKatie's assessment of "chronic disruption" is wholly on the mark, in my opinion. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:55, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Several days ago WV removed my talk comments and when I restored them used that dif to accuse me of breaking 3RR. I can dig up difs but it was in an unrelated 3RR report I filed. Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

If the comments were on WV's talk page, theyhave every right to remove them at will, and you were in the wrong to restore them. This is standard practice, and it's probably enshrined in a guideline somewhere as well. If your comments were on an article's talk page, then WV should not have removed them unless they satisfied one of the criteria outlined in WP:TPO. BMK (talk) 05:49, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• While it is on my watchlist, I have been uninvolved with the Syrian Civil War article nor have I met or had any contact with Corriebertus before. I agreed with Legacypac that this edit was not civil: [6], what does it even mean "Seriously discussing"? Corriebertus points out my edit here [7] but never explained what he got out of all the past discussions that were held already on the matter. Given the past consensus I suggested to wait a month or two [8] which in my mind seemed reasonable. What I am seeing now is more of a WP:POINTy attitude that the discussion MUST be held now despite ones that had already taken place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:48, 16 January 2016 (UTC)
• I don't know what this is about, don't care, and am uninvolved in all of this. That said, while I don't spend much time at ANI, every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search [9] seems to indicate I'm not imagining this. That's all. LavaBaron (talk) 00:25, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

WV conduct

@BMK to answer your question WV removed my comments on an AfD [10] which I restored [11]. He then calls for a boomarang at a related 3RR.[12] (sorry not sure how to link to diffs in a closed 3RR) and when I ask "why the heck are you deleting my comments?" he "votes" again with "Another Support for boomerang following this[13] revert taking Legacypac over the 3RR mark. -- WV"

I'm a little frustrated that WV has

• Deleted my comment at AfD, and when this is questioned...,

• Called restoring my own comment on an AfD breaching 3RR,

• Wording his comments in such a way to look like there are two editors calling for a boomarang - leading his second comment with "Another Support"

• then coming here saying I'm using "personal attacks, and groundless accusations"? He sure likes to call for Boomerangs... Legacypac (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: Administrators and editors please take note that Legacypac opened this subsection as a complaint regarding my conduct 3 1/2 hours ago [14], but I was never notified by him that he had done so. When Chesnaught555 kindly informed me of this on my talk page just a short while ago [15], Legacypac immediately responded to Chesnaught's comments here with a very lame excuse: "I responded to allegations he made in the thread, so notification is fine but I don't believe it is required." While I do believe Legacypac is trying to distract by starting an entire sub-section about me, I don't believe his reason for the non-notification. If he were merely "responding to allegations", he would have just responded, not started a sub-thread calling for a boomerang and looking for someone he views as an enemy be blocked. This, clearly, is retaliation for my comments above. It's obvious bullying. Further, he's been here long enough to know that something like this requires a notification. The strange creation of sub-thread, the attempt to distract, the suggestion of a boomerang being appropriate when it's not, the retaliation, and the non-notification only further prove Legacypac's disruptive behavior and battleground mentality, making the initial report by Corriebertus to be a legitimate and necessary filing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

The editor doth protest too much, methinks. This is an active discussion already involving you, the section name contains the abbreviation of your username that you show in your signature, I suspect you have this page watchlisted. The odds you would have been discussed here without your knowledge are slim to none. Failing to notify you might have been a minor faux pas but it didn't warrant the above arm-waving. And, WV, your use of "battleground mentality" to refer to another editor is pot-kettle in spades. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have been too busy today researching sources for an article and working on it to take time to notice or care what Legacypac has been doing here or anywhere. Moreover, if I knew about his mention of me here (as you are trying to claim), why would I ignore it? In spite of your ridiculous allegations, Mandruss, this filing is not about me, regardless of how you are trying to spin it and as much as Legacypac wishes his behavior and editing style were not under scrutiny right now. Congratulations on doing nothing to improve the encyclopedia but doing everything to further the distraction created by Legacypac. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A wall of text with no answer to my diff substantiated allegations or diffs to support WV's serious allegations against me. I was recently blocked for failing to convince admins to sanction (what I later realized was) an Admin and Lugnuts about editor misconduct. Can we expect the same for WV here? Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued discussion

I'm not here to pile on to a witch-hunt (no, really), but I think there's possibly some WP:CIR issues with Legacypac. I'd like to believe he's editing in good faith, esp. as he's been here since 2007, but some of his recent activity is akin to someone who doesn't really understand the basics. Aside from the misguided enforcement request against me, there have been some bizarre deletion rationales at AfD of late. For example, one and two. I hope that future AfD rationales can be built on policy, as other users might see it as being disruptive. Unless anyone else has anything of substance to add, I recommend this is closed as I don't think it's going anywhere. Obviously bring back concerns to ANI if issues are continuing AND there's clear evidence of no improvement. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:21, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We did have an issue recently in which Legacypac AFD-ed a discretionary sanctions article, the AfD failed, and he went ahead and did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) of the article five hours after his AfD failed [16], then undid other editors attempts to repair it. Some of us asked him on his Talk page to self-revert and he basically told us to drop dead. An admin finally had to intervene to undo the blanking [17]. It caused more than a minor inconvenience as we were trying to settle the article for the DYK queue at the time. LavaBaron (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please don't use your content dispute to try to paint me as bad. The close was keep, but with explicit direction "The result was keep. Merger can be proposed on the talk page. (non-admin closure) Yash! 02:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC)" which I had already done on Oct 28 (7 days before).[18] and only LavaBaron opposed. Given the other comments on the AfD including a Delete, and a "Keep and Merge" I decided to be bold. There is an open merge proposal on the proposed target [19] which shows I continued to seek consensus. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

(1) Do not characterize this as a "content dispute" unless you have some diffs. I had no involvement in the page, or the topic range at all, other than some minor copyediting to conduct a QPQ for DYK. This is not a topic area, nor article, on which I edit. (2) Do not start firing smoke round diffs to make this look like something more complicated than it was. You AfD'ed an article, your AfD failed [20], you did a "guerilla deletion" (blank and redirect) less than five hours after your AfD failed [21]. Polite attempts to reach-out to you by multiple editors were rebuffed in aggressive fashion and an admin ultimately had to intervene to undo your damage [[22]. That this was an article under discretionary sanctions should have landed you a 30-day block right then, but everyone involved in this (myself included) were coming from DYK Review and had no interest in the topic area to pursue it. LavaBaron (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac has a clear track record of disruptive and deceptive behavior to force their own preferences over established policy and practice. Less than two months ago, they ended up here because they were NAC-ing articles as delete, sometimes not even acknowledging NAC closes, then applying speedy tags to try and trick admins into thinking that these were just deletions that had fallen through the cracks. Their anti-Neelix jihad has been a long-term disruption. It's astonishing what some editors are allowed to get away with. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

To this I can only say hogwash to this "disruptive and deceptive " characterization. This issue was extensively discussed at ANi, DRV, and various talk pages with zero action taken against me. There is clear policy arguments for and against my one NAC delete close which BTW survived a DRV. I've not done a NAC close since - too much grief. Legacypac (talk) 02:23, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

As I previously mentioned, I don't spend much time at ANI but every time I do come here - without fail - Legacypac is filing a complaint about someone or someone is filing a complaint about Legacypac. A quick search of the archives of this noticeboard seems to indicate I'm not imagining this, that the last couple of years has been a parade of warning after warning he's been given. This is not the track record one would expect of a normal, content-focused WP editor. He seems to know how to push just far enough with his edits and how to be just nasty enough with other editors to only get yellow cards. My limited interaction with him just in this thread has left less than a good taste in my mouth - instead of offering explanation or reasonable rebuttal for questions about his edits his first inclination is to unsheathe the knives and start swinging. He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl. LavaBaron (talk) 03:14, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

"He seems to treat WP as a giant barroom brawl." Yeah. That's clear. This should be the place to deal with that, but it often seems to not work out that way. Go figure. Begoon ^talk 14:34, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Resolution

The original ANI notice seems to be vague. A number of editors such as Begoon, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, Lugnuts, Corriebertus, Knowledgekid87, Winkelvi have provided thoughts, but this has rapidly descended into a complaint fest and parade of horribles with no suggestion for resolution, which is unfair to Legacypac and other editors themselves.
As a concrete proposal, therefore, I recommend - based on the issues raised by aformentioned editors in the preceding discussion - a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support as per reasons described in "continued discussion" (above) by me, specifically the "stealth deletion" of a discretionary sanctions article by Legacypac. LavaBaron (talk) 00:39, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per LavaBaron. I have to wonder, however, what will change in the future with the behaviors noted by myself and other editors above. If this CBAN proposal becomes a reality, it will be interesting to see if LPs behavior changes for the better outside the specifics of the CBAN. If not, we will likely be back here again (and again) with LP as the subject of more filings. One thing at a time, I guess. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:32, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What a dumb idea. I've edited quite responsibly in the SCW&ISIL area for several years. I have started and built out a number of good articles there, have no record of edit warring sanctions there, and regularly patrol changes and revert vandalism in this area. Large parts of both the text and organization of the pillar ISIL article still stand as written and organized by me last year. Some people don't like my cleanup efforts but targeting my participation in ISIL topics is wrong headed.

I'm also surprised to see WV still posting in this thread after he failed to answer for his own behavior just above, claiming he was too busy. Someone should look at his falsifications and act on them. Legacypac (talk) 02:58, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Within the context of the behavioral issues that have been raised, starting a response to another editor with "what a dumb idea" may underscore that this is not such a dumb idea after all. Just a thought. LavaBaron (talk) 07:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh. [23] kettles, pots and all. Legacypac (talk) 08:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

The formal proposal is in revisions history. Feel free to use it. But it won't have my support until any of the sides properly establish their viewpoints. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:12, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate you providing a better worded proposal QEDK. I agree it's preferable to the current version, as it's more precise and fairer to Legacypac as it leaves less ambiguity, but I'd rather defer to another editor to introduce it as I'd rather not become more involved in this than I am already. LavaBaron (talk) 08:21, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Anyone can introduce a proposal, however only uninvolved editors can close it. That's how it works. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 08:23, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Indeed it is. LavaBaron (talk) 08:24, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Legacypac, I've noticed that you've nominated a bunch of redirects by Neelix for speedy deletion, branding them as nonsense. Why? They seem perfectly fine to me. Neelix is an experienced editor who clearly knows why such redirects are required. I therefore support the CBAN proposed by LavaBaron as I think you need to learn that your behaviour is unacceptable. Chesnaught (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You do know that Neelix disappeared up his own orifice in a blaze of self-failure, right? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:13, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

If Ches doesn't know it, he must be living under a Wiki-rock. Even so, it does seem at this point, from the edit summaries as well as the fervor behind the deletion nominations by this one editor, that there is an unhealthy flavor of vendetta afoot. Just my observation. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

'A bunch' of Neelix redirects is a very unfair characterization. I processed (CSD, RfD, AfD, or cleared as ok) over 2,200 Neelix redirects just this weekend on list 5 so far [24]. [25] plus some on lists 1-4 too. You must have missed the community decision that any Neelix redirect can be deleted G6 housekeeping if an Admin thinks it would not survive RfD.

Also Someone should look into WV's false allegations above since he keeps spouting nonsense about me here please. Legacypac (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite Legacypac's incessant breast-beating and pronouncements of their editing's importance, their efforts are proving indiscriminate, disruptive and spiteful. Just a few minutes ago, Legacypac reinstated a pair of speedies I declined without substantive explanation, without bothering to check out the reason I gave, with a snarky (at best) edit summary. It's one thing to whack Neelix's hundreds of synonyms for female mammaries; it's quite another to aggressively try to delete redirects like "possession of a firearm", when the simplest Gsearch would shows several million uses, included frequent references in US statutes and court cases. Their jihad is more disruptive than the problem; the reason that nobody noticed Neelix's crap for years was that it was mostly harmless. That can't be said about Legacypac's behaviour. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 21:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I saw the reinstatements and thought of coming here to mention them, but am glad someone else took the initiative. At this point, yes, the Neelix-related deletion requests by LP do seem spiteful and disruptive. As I noted above. Is his war on Neelix really doing any good at this point? I submit, "No". -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:42, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz just a gentle reminder, this isn't the place to "pile on" against Legacypac. Please clearly state whether you Support or Oppose the Community Ban proposal, preferably with a bullet point and bold, in the main threadline, for ease of bookkeeping. LavaBaron (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Apologies for late reply. Lugnuts, of course I am aware of Neelix's departure, but as Winkelvi was saying, LP does seem to be on a vendetta against him for some reason. Chesnaught (talk) 07:34, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no vendetta - there is still a BIG cleanup job to do. Neelix created thousands of fake words and other misleading redirects. It remains easy to pick off dozens of these in minutes. Editors that are spending their time bitching here instead of cleaning up or doing something productive should be ashamed of themselves for they truly are the proverbial peanut gallery. Legacypac (talk) 11:01, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

That sort of language won't help you out at all here. Furthermore, these redirects that you are nominating for SD aren't always the malicious ones which Neelix created; some of them were actually fine. Chesnaught (talk) 16:24, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The VAST majority of my noms are deleted. Sometimes others see stuff that can be retargeted or think something should be saved. That is why we have Redirects for Discussion. I don't see a result of not delete as a failure.

• Regarding Legacypac's apparent "vendetta" against Neelix redirects, there are some 80,000 nonsense creations by that one editor which the community agreed needed to be dealt with in this piecemeal fashion (rather than mass-deleting all of them, and rather than keeping all of them as good-faith contributions). To support this, the community also passed a special criterion for WP:G6 to allow admins to speedy-delete them. Both of these discussions were large threads with broad community support, not just one or two editors deciding to go rogue. This was happening entirely in the background until about a week ago when a handful of editors began executing their own vendetta against Legacypac, following him around removing his CSD notices, and that's the entirety of the reason that these masses of obvious-delete redirects are getting dumped at RfD again (and then speedy deleted anyway). So if you want to end the disruption entirely, stop removing the notices. I have no comment on the proposal. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support This edit, with the summary "the peanut gallery can choke on their nuts" is probably enough to convince any rational editor that a CBAN is necessary for Legacypac. The pattern of abusive personal attacks and provocations has gone one far too long. An editor that has no qualms dragging any and every editor who differs wih him to ANI or Arbitration Enforcement on a daily basis should realize that he has been hit by a long overdue WP:BOOMERANG. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support per Alansohn. Despite the issues being brought to the attention of the user, they continue with the same behaviour that brought their habits to the attention of ANI. And Legacypac should count himself lucky it's not a block/lenghty ban/indef. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Editors calls other editors SCUM and FUCK on the top of their talk User_talk:Lugnuts should not be talking about bans over civility. Anyway I was already blocked for complaining about Lugnuts rudeness, so punishing me again because he is still annoyed at me taking him to AE is quite wrong. Legacypac (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not calling any editors scum, if you take your head out of your arse, you'll see it links to a highly funny TV show. Yes it fucking does. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. It stroke me what Ivanvector wrote which I trustfully accept as a fact. It thus looks to me that Legacypac's only fault (apart from his less-than-civil commenting style) was that he was cutting procedural corners in his efforts to undo all of Neelix's vandalism/contentious edits, by XfD'ing and re-XfD'ing Neelix's redirects (as anyway approved by a large consensus). Uninitiated editors could well not have the knowledge of the context and tried to stop/revert him, leading him to that less-than-civil behaviour. Still, I believe Legacypac's initiative deserves at least a degree of recognition. As for the civility issue, I believe a punitive ban block of a day or two should suffice, as it is often done with editors too quick to revert or who show outbursts of aggression. In short, there is a problem with Legacypac's civility, as this thread's title shows anyway, but topic bans are NOT a right remedy to civility issues. — kashmiri ^TALK 16:32, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Kashmiri - my impetus for the proposal had nothing to do with his civility, though that is definitely a concern based on his rap sheet at ANI. My proposal was based on my non-Neelix experience in which he AfD'ed a page under discretionary sanctions and, five hours after the AfD failed, "guerilla deleted" (blank/redirect) it. After being asked by multiple editors to undo the guerilla deletion he simply dug in his heels. An admin finally had to be sourced to undo it as everyone else - everyone except, apparently, Legacypac - was treading carefully to avoid violating the discretionary sanctions. Based on the whole of the non-Neelix issues, it appears he has a shoot first / ask questions later approach to editing sensitive articles and an unwillingness to collaborate with others on this topic. (And I say this as someone who is not active at all on the topic, but came across it quite by accident, as I've detailed in my original case in the preceding section). LavaBaron (talk) 20:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@LavaBaron: Sure, but this post is about persistent bullying by Legacypac, as this precisely is the problem stated by the OP. You have rightly noticed that the thread has descended into a complaint fest and a few editors started digging out their content disputes with LP. BUT we are still - or should be - discussing the original problem which is LP's "bullying". Topic bans are preventive, their aim is to prevent damage to a certain subset of Wikipedia articles. But nobody here suggests that LP damages any topic. So, when talking about behaviour, we can only look at punitive sanctions, like formal reprimands, short-term blocks, etc.

You mentioned an instance of blank-and-redirect. I am not involved in the ISIL topic but where I edit (India & Pakistan) we also have discretionary sanctions. Still, articles are frequently blanked and redirected with little fanfare or consequences. This is not to say these topics are comparable, but I'd like to put an single act of blank-and-redirect in correct perspective. Regards, — kashmiri ^TALK 08:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Absurd to apply "a one-year WP:CBAN applied on Legacypac by community consensus on all topic pages covered by the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case" for continuing to clean up Neelix redirects that are - so far as I know - quite unrelated to the WP:GS/SCW&ISIL case. NebY (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't always agree with Legacypac, but IMO he's right here. So are kashmiri and Neb above. A topic ban wouldn't make sense. ansh666 19:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a proposal for a topic ban, but rather a community ban. Ches (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it's a proposal for a WP:CBAN topic ban from pages covered by WP:GS/SCW&ISIL, as I quoted above - you may find it helpful to review WP:CBAN. This raises the question of what it is that you are supporting. Is it a topic ban from WP:GS/SCW&ISIL pages, or a complete ban from Wikipedia for continuing to clean up Neelix's redirects? NebY (talk) 13:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The former, sir, although given LP's recent bullying of other users, I would be in support of the latter should it ever be proposed. Ches (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support per Lugnuts. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 21:52, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
• Oppose LP is on the right side of the Neelix redirect issue. He is explicitly carrying out the stated view of the community. I've had occasion to see Legacypac in action over the last several months because of our mutual interest in pruning the WALLEDGARDEN of "World's Oldest People" articles. LP is often brusque and snarky but generally right. His contributions are a boon to the project. It is not a violation of civility to call dumb ideas dumb, nor is it unconstructive to ridicule the ridiculous. David in DC (talk) 22:25, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Gotcha. So if you act like an uncivil ****, but hunker down with a thankless task in the meantime, you get a free pass. Glad that's clear. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't strike me as a reasonable recapitulation of my comments. Nor of LP's behavior. Which is unsurprising, but still sad. David in DC (talk)

Well Dave, I can't account for your reading skills. No doubt we'll see Legacypac back here sooner rather than later. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Any opinion on the non-Neelix related issues that were mentioned? Specifically his "guerilla deletion" (blank / revert) of a discretionary sanctions page after it failed his AFD and his refusal to undo it, ultimately requiring admin intervention? LavaBaron (talk) 20:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Not really, but this thread is supposed to be about "persistent bullying." What you're describing as a "guerilla deletion" may or may not have been improper, but I'll be darned if I can figure out what it's doing in this thread at all. David in DC (talk) 21:21, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

The thread is about whatever we make it about. A thread title is not a suicide pact. LavaBaron (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support looking for any justification to invalidate perfectly independent viewpoints. I do believe this has gone well beyond CIR levels to the point of questioning if a suicide by admin defense is being put forth. And now for the obligatory attack to invalidate myself as per the modus operandi. Hasteur (talk) 19:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: There seems to be a pattern of behaviour here, which I cannot personally speak to, which is informing many of the positions with regard to Legacypac, and it may very well be that there is some long overdue community action that needs to be taken. Certainly there seems to be a bit of battleground mentality involved here. However, reviewing the diffs supplied above and looking over the talk page discussions, it doesn't seem as if the digression into polemics is altogether one-sided--including particularly the failures to assume good faith and attempts to discredit the opinions of others via an implication of disruption. Both LP and corriebertus seem inclined to engage in this kind of behaviour, with each apparently oblivious to the irony of their charges: [26], [27]. Even recognizing that editors who routinely fail to operate in a collaborative fashion should be called to account, and further acknowledging that the editors commenting here seem to have valid points about a pattern in Legacypac's collaborative approach, I'm still concerned that it may not be appropriate to invoke a sanction in this case, where the behaviour of the filing party is arguably as, or more, combative and disruptive as LP's. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. If the above arguments are not enough, LP also casts totally unbased aspersions on editors who don't support his arguments at AfD and elsewhere. This action is long overdue. Jacona (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Elvey - violations of community of imposed TB

Elvey was indefinitely topic banned from COI matters by the community per this. The topic ban started Aug 7 2015 and runs 6 months. Elvey has violated this ban many times, and has been warned once by admin JamesBWatson here and was reminded of the TB last week by me here.

My warning came due to his TB violations in the past month:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above. I didn't go further back in time than that.

After my warning, Elvey made the following edits just this morning:

this

this to a section he started claiming COI-driven editing in an article about a drug.

These three edits to the article about David Healy (who writes about COI in the pharma industry), to its section on Conflicts of Interest in the pharma industry, here and here about a "bombshell" and here and went on to add content about the "bombshell" to a drug article, here.

More broadly, he has been pursuing an SPI case about an editor he believes has a COI with regard to drug articles (per this already-presented dif and any others. His pursuit of that SPI case became so disruptive that admin Vanjagenije wrote this: "I now officially ask you to stop participating in WP:SPI. You are not welcome here any more. Your comments are full of insults towards other users who just wanted to understand you and to help This is a huge waste of time."

Elvey has disregarded the community-imposed topic ban. He seems to be unable to deal with COI matters in WP without being disruptive and he has a substantial blog log.

I suggest a 48 block to stop his current run of TB-violating edits, and an extension of his topic ban on COI matters to indefinite, with the standard offer to lift it. Jytdog (talk) 15:27, 17 January 2016 (UTC) (striking per note below Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC))

As I understand, his topic ban is already indefinite, and "may be appealed to the community in six months". This does not mean that it expires in six months, but that It may be appealed in six months. So, your second proposal is redundant. And, with respect to your first proposal, I have no idea what is a "48 block". Vanjagenije (talk) 17:26, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Vanjagenije for pointing that out - I have corrected my posting above. I thought the community had been more lenient than it had been. (I meant 48 hours btw) Jytdog (talk) 17:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

I understand the topic ban to be with respect to COI as defined here at wikipedia:COI, broadly construed. I will hold off on any further related editing 'till this is clarified. As I am under the ban, I am almost entirely unable to defend myself without violating it, so I will not comment further unless asked. I am proud that opened an SPI on a user who has since been banned for confirmed sockpuppetry and who has no respect for WP:NPOV, though of course Jytdog routinely defends him to the hilt. Jytdog and this user have on occasion done good work. I have attempted to avoided mentioning whether the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI as much as possible. Even assuming I have said that I think the user has a disclosed or outed (F)CoI, which I believe I have not, should that immunize the user from my opening the obviously well-deserved SPI on them? I think not. Jytdog fanatically defends this user, who has oft defended him in the past and this ANI is part of a defense strategy that others have noted.***

Jytdog's diffs do not show what he says they show, by and large. And, it's difficult to avoid the occasional unintentional slip. And, I've slipped on occasion; and I apologize for that and am trying not to.

Jytdog is currently edit warring to re-introduce material to support his extremely non-NPOV. This material is unacceptable and in violation of Jytdog's own expressed views on what content is acceptable WRT WP:MEDRS that he has espoused when removing material supported by equally topical sources of equal quality, but which opppose his extremely non-NPOV. (Diffs upon request.)

Recently, I have twice asked Jytdog,"Do you have any alternative accounts?" but he vaguely states, "I have nothing to say" and shut down the thread instead of responding. A sentence in WP:CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative, ... , and to be responsive to good-faith questions." Jytdog, in being unresponsive to this good-faith question, stands in violation our WP:CIVIL policy until he responds.

I have respected Vanjagenije's ban, as much as I disagree with the basis for it. It served to let Vanjagenije get away thus far with being unresponsive to good-faith questions. It is unfounded; I insulted no one; I posed probing, reasonable questions, and commented on behavior, as our policies encourage us to do, but I could have been even more civil, I'm sure.

Dishonesty is on display above, where Jytdog, for the umpteenth time, attempts to reframe a straightforward situation as something else convoluted and 'out of bounds'. The straightforward situation is that I replaced what I perceive (per the ¶ above) to be an "unfounded personal attack" on me with that phrase. I could have used {{rpa}} but wanted different wording. This straightforward action was reverted by Vanjagenije and I was threatened with an immediate block if I removed his personal attack on me again. This is bullying. Reasonable people can disagree as to whether that was a personal attack. I don't think reasonable people would disagree that threatening someone with an immediate block for removing what they feel and can reasonably seen to be a personal attack is reasonable. And its particularly inappropriate of an admin, because we expect them to behave better than average editors and not to act when involved, and here, the attack was by the admin, Vanjagenije. SlimVirgin agrees that he should have considered himself involved.

I would like to get back to editing.--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Elvey: As you probably noticed, this is administrators' noticeboard, not your own. If you edit other people's comments just once more, I will block you immediately. Vanjagenije (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Vanjagenije, I don't know everything that has happened at that SPI, but it seems to have angered you, so I think you should consider yourself involved as far as Elvey is concerned. He's frustrated because of the way the SPI has been handled, you're frustrated because he's not doing as you ask, and things are escalating. Now Jytdog wants a ban. Please look up how often Jytdog has asked for blocks and bans in the last two years. We need de-escalation. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:10, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

We need Elvey to abide by his topic ban until he properly appeals it. He never expressed an understanding of why he was topic banned; he makes no acknowledgement here that he understands he has violated the topic ban. We don't de-escalate in those situations. Jytdog (talk) 14:58, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• In light of my incorrect understanding of Elvey's topic ban I struck my original recommendation above. I think it is important to make a proposal, so I will make a new one. I am asking for a 6 month block for Elvey in light of the above, and his continued disruption here in order to prevent further disruption (e.g editing my post as Vanjagenije mentions above, in this dif. Making it appear that I edited Vanjagenije's quote and called it an "unfounded personal attack" is really out of bounds.) Jytdog (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support some sort of block. I'm not sure what the appropriate length of the block should be, but there are serious issues here. I am going to provide some further specific evidence below. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Boomerang?

Jytdog is currently under an ArbCom-imposed topic ban for matters related to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted

ArbCom found

1. that Jytdog has engaged in edit warring, has belittled other editors, and has engaged in non-civil conduct.
2. Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility.

In discussing Formerly 98, Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban, as Formerly 98 edited in these areas, logically, if I'm in violation of my TB for discussing his edits. (Evidence: diff shows extensive GMO discussion with Jytdog)

Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?

Oh, and that's an interesting diff for other reasons too - look HOW Pharmacia & Élan are mentioned! Perhaps some users can edit in alignment with WP:NPOV even despite such employment relationships. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• Nonsense I'm afraid your log is much longer than any boomerang you could possess. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:43, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not about me. When it comes to Boomerang, it's about Jytdog' violation of an ArbCom-imposed topic ban. Nice try deflecting the discussion tho.--Elvey^(t•c) 18:01, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

You seem to think it's an automatic right that everyone has at AN/I. This is not the case, and it is patently clear that in fact you are trying to deflect axamination and discussion of your actions; this will, of course, fail. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 18:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, it's entirely possible for the boomerang to hit and take both of them out. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Wouldnt that just be a stick? Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:15, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Ah... the prototype Mk I? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:11, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

• I do not see any violation by Jytdog here of the topic ban concerning GMOs. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Do you, The Bushranger? I thought this was ANI. Would you be willing to answer my questions: "Is this an OK place to bring it up? Is WP:AE more appropriate?"--Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

And what about the main issue: If I'm in violation of my TP ban because I discussed Formerly 98, as Jytdog claims, then Jytdog is in violation of this ArbCom-imposed topic ban for doing the same. If not addressed here, it becomes ripe forWP:AE. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Is it OK for admins to enforce policies on the folks they don't see as sharing their POV, only, and call requests for evenhandedness "disruptive"? Seems to be.  :-( --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I renew my request that Jytdog to acknowledge the violation, or dispute it. --Elvey^(t•c) 15:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your claim is without merit. Discussing an editor and his reasons for his behavior around his username/account, and what the community should do about that, have nothing to do with my TBAN. I have not touched on the topic of my TBAN since it was imposed, except at Arbcom. This is a transparent and weak effort at retaliation that is yet more evidence of your generally disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Questions

Does Elvey's ban indeed extend to anything related to User:Formerly 98, including any articles he edited?
Does it extend to a ban on to any editor ever accused by anyone of CoI?--Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• No. If he does not discuss CoI, articles edited by and issues relating to sockpupptery by User:Formerly 98 are open to Elvey. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:04, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

• BTW, can somebody PLEASE show this editor how to format properly?! That seems to have ben sorted- by everyone else anyway! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 17:47, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Related problems

Separately from anything that Jytdog has, or can, present here, Elvey has also shown some very belligerent conduct recently, that violates both the community topic ban over COI [28] (note that the ban covers "COI, broadly construed"), and discretionary sanctions recently issued by ArbCom. The DS are enacted here, and include this principle prohibiting editors from casting aspersions of other editors having COIs on behalf of GMO companies on pages subject to the DS. The page on Glyphosate and its talkpage are in the scope of the DS.

Very recently, Elvey posted this: [29], at that talk page; note the middle paragraph. Elvey clearly raises an aspersion that another editor is editing with a COI on behalf of GMO companies "with deep pockets". Subsequent discussion: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], and [36]. Elvey adopts the fantastical position that he is not at all mentioning COI, and that anyone who disagrees with him lacks reading comprehension skills. He is shrill and battleground-y, continuing the behavior that led to his existing topic ban. All of this conduct over time is of a single piece, and it needs to stop. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't see that as a COI allegation. He wrote: "We MUST NOT WP:IAR in order to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets, no matter how shrilly or repetitively [User:X] demands that we do so."

He's expressing the view that an editor is being repetitive and shrill in the defence of a big company that can look after itself, and that we ought not to ignore our policies to suit that company. (I haven't looked at the dispute, so I have no idea whether I'd agree; I'm saying only how I would understand that sentence.) SarahSV ^(talk) 22:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

And he clarified that here and here, at the time, when you wrote that you had understood it as a COI allegation. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Not credible, in context. No one just comes along "to protect the reputation of big companies with deep pockets" simply out of editorial judgment. It's part and parcel with what the ArbCom case found in other editors. And there was nothing shrill about the other editor, nor, for that matter, do I have a lack of English reading comprehension. Those are not clarifications. They are continuations of the same conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

I point out that the problem with Elvey is not just his fixation on COI or SPI (where topic bans might have some use), but in his characteristic behaviour of belligerence – "shrill and battleground-y" – towards other editors when he feels crossed. As Tryptofish says: "All of this conduct over time is of a single piece....". In addition to the examples from Talk:Glyphosate cited above, note the very similar behavior at Talk:Levofloxacin#Pictures_of_text, which went on to WP:Files for discussion/2016 January_5#File:Levofloxacin-black-box.png, then spilled over to User_talk:Steel1943#January_2016. P.S., there's more at Talk:Fluoxetine#Kapit et seq.

Curiously, "fantastical" is the same word that came to me last night as I tried to characterize Elvey's statements. His understanding of other editors' comments, even of his own behavior, often seems quite skewed (as well as asymmetric). And I suspect he does not understand just how wide of the bases he runs. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:00, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

It has been a while since I sat for an examination of my reading comprehension skills, but I got a perfect score. When an editor (this is fairly common practice, it just happens to be Elvey today) repeatedly makes allusions to opponents that support "companies with big pockets" in the context of a content dispute, they're making a COI accusation. They are aware of this or else they wouldn't couch their wording so. When the same editor then denies it, they are insulting our collective intelligence, such as it is. Here we can find out if we have any. Geogene (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Above, Geogene astutely observed that this case might test the community's collective intelligence. Unless a clear line is drawn to indicate that Elvey's conduct will not be tolerated, then I guess that the answer does not reflect very well on us. No, I'm not going to ping anyone, but I think that it is ridiculous that editors are conflating the legitimate investigation of COI with the dishonest tossing around of COI aspersions without any intention of backing it up with evidence, because the aspersions are being cast in a transparent attempt to discredit editors pushing back against POV pushers. The comments that led me to write the sentence just before this one were subsequently redacted by the editor who made them. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC) Maybe ANI is incapable of dealing with this and it will end up back at ArbCom, I don't know. But I will say quite clearly to Elvey that you have used up all of your rope, and any continuation will be treated very seriously. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:07, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to draw clear lines against a lot of kinds of behavior to show that they will not be tolerated, to ensure neutrality of articles. If the polices and guidelines were actually enforced across the board, without prejudice or bias, then things would work around here. Also note that it is a relative judgment as to who is a POV pusher and who is an editor pushing back against POV pushers. Conjectures as to motivations are also subject to error quite often. The policies and guidelines are clear. We need them to either be enforced equally, or ignored equally. Otherwise, we have biased enforcement, which of course leads to a bias in empowerment of editors, which of course leads to biased articles. SageRad (talk) 14:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

If problems with Elvey's editing are under discussion here, then I may as well draw attention to this unfortunate comment by Elvey, which suggests a worrying lack of understanding of or respect for copyright. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

COMMENT: I am an unregistered editor, but would hope that my comments here be allowed to stand: "WikiPedia - the encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Last year, I, amongst other IP editors, was involved in a so-called 'content war' with User:Elvey at the Carlos Castaneda page. I and others had tried to edit erroneous information and spurious references therein, also to post new information that had come to light regarding Castaneda's personal history and regarding some of his critics, only to have User:Elvey continuously revert with a distinct POV bias. In my opinion, I followed Wiki procedure to the letter, explaining my edits in the edit summaries and expounding on the TalkPage, waiting for due diligence before editing, only to have User:Elvey arbitrarily and disruptively revert every edit, whilst accusing myself and others of 'vandalism' and disruption. The culmination of all this was that User:Elvey, together with User:Shii (now inactive) managed to implement a year-long IP editor ban on the Carlos Castaneda page. All the evidence is there on the Carlos Castaneda page and Talk Page and I would like to think that a responsible editor (of whom there are many) would look at this history that I have outlined and revert the ban, which I feel was completely uncalled for. Thankyou for your time. 80.44.144.26 (talk) 23:20, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Added linkage. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Continued

• Observation On January 14 Jytdog wrote I'm not taking any action now - just reminding you. Then above he cites 2 talk page entries which are not related to COI, but then took actions to ANI. Though Elvey posted a quote in 1 of these comments which was suggestive. I suggest Elvey should wait for his or her appeal in a couple of weeks before getting involved in COI matters again, including suggestive comments. Since neutrality is very important for Wikipedia and given the history of COI edits, skeptical editors are important. Also, at least to me it is unclear if talk page comments are part of the ban. Maybe this could be clarified to reduce confusion. I also note that Tryptofish is not an uninvolved editor in related topics and always defends Jytdog. Suggestion close this thread, no real breach after Jytdogs own warning. prokaryotes (talk) 18:44, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Prokaryotes, you are illustrating the problem that I described. And no, I do not always defend that other editor, nor do I always criticize editors who take the opposite position in those POV discussions. But your comment clearly casts me in the way that I described, by trying to discredit what I said. In fact, now that we are on the subject, I will point out that higher up in this ANI thread, an administrator was called "involved", who really was not involved. Same problem, not being addressed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:51, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Procaryotes, in the first dif I posted about post-warning activities Elvey writes about my supposed refusal to acknowledge something and then added the quote: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” which is a reference to paid editing. I made clear already how the other difs are related to conflict of interest. You misrepresented the difs. Jytdog (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

• just a note. As he did in the last ANI that led to his TBAN from COI, Elvey has mostly gone to ground, per his contribs (although there is this strange bit of activity with a doppelganger account per Special:Contributions/Elveyzilla). I am grateful for the (mostly) lack of drama but this matter does need closing. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I am concerned that the Elveyzilla activity looks like a possible attack/research page, because it seems to be a copy of the talk page of another user (with the use of a transparent "zilla" alternate account to disingenuously deflect attention from the main account). I am going to ping Alexbrn, and perhaps take the page to MfD. This is yet another concern that I wish administrators would pay attention to. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment I am currently on a public computer and I don't have access to my account. Back in November I noticed that after a self-imposed 2 month break Elvey immediately went back to editing against their ban. I compiled a draft ANI proposal in my userspace here. I will add further comments when I am back at my home computer. I will also bring the links from my sandbox to this discussion with commentary at that time. Adam in MO via --75.132.99.164 (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I've spent half an hour reading but i still cannot figure out the reason for the initial ban, and it strikes me as over-reach. Anyway, i'm not sure what to make of this but continuing to watch and try to understand this inscrutable case. What's it about in a nutshell? Is there a summary anywhere? SageRad (talk) 12:28, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I brought the intital case (linked in my OP) because Elvey was disruptively interacting with other editors here over COI issues. I asked for a topic ban and he behaved in such a way that he came within a hair of more serious sanctions, but came away with that. Jytdog (talk) 07:14, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the following resolution:

• Elvey is reminded that accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. The "pharma shill gambit" has no place on Wikipedia. Any future accusations of COI must be made at the appropriate noticeboard, WP:COIN, must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. Guy (Help!) 23:31, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I struggle with that Guy but thank you for commenting! has been wind whistling here...... Elvey was already TBANed by the community for acting disruptively in COI matters, and he went right back to it, behaving inappropriately yet more. Your proposal in response to that, replaces the TBAN with something weaker... how that is consistent with anything we do here? Or maybe you think the original TBAN was inappropriate? These are real questions. Jytdog (talk) 07:17, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Against Sorry, Guy, but that is a terrible idea. We need to move toward stronger action. A community ban is needed here. If we aren't going to give our TBANs any teeth then why have them. Elvey has walked through this COI Tban on multiple occasions and a community failure here would endorse more disruptive behavior.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose as a step backwards. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Inadequate. While this discussion arose out of violations of a specific topic ban (re COI), the general problem, as stated at the TBAN, is hounding, and, as noted in this discussion, general behavior across serveral topics. If Elvey only needed reminding of proper behavior a few words would be suffice. That they haven't shows that the problem is deeper than addressed by a mere reminder. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose user is in clear violation of an existing community sanction. Geogene (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I "do not know and cannot claim to know" [37], [38] whether you're lying. But if I were to repeat that phrase twice in a thread, in consecutive replies, it might look like I was calling you a liar, merely by calling attention to the question of whether you're lying. I think that you would be justified in interpreting it that way. However, SlimVirgin and Drmies might not agree. Likewise, by drawing attention to the fact that Monsanto has deep pockets in three consecutive replies, right after mentioning an editor that was ostensibly protecting their interests, doing this three times,[39], [40], highlighting it in a nice green color, and especially juxtaposing it with a statement that it's some kind of mystery why that editor supposedly protects someone's interests, it certainly looks like you're calling that editor a shill. This could be some sort of accident on your part. Maybe those particular keystrokes are soothing in some way. It could be that this "deep pockets" thing is some kind of tic or compulsion or some sort of poetry that I'll never be able to appreciate. Whatever. I also don't know why the admins don't see what I'm pointing out here. I know what I'm seeing, but all that can be done is to point it out, and then shut up about it if it doesn't get traction. Geogene (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I believe accusations of COI must be backed by solid evidence, and that repeated accusations of COI in the absence of such evidence are uncivil and unacceptable. Any future accusations of COI must be backed by credible evidence, and must not be repeated if rejected unless there is some material change in the evidence. No one claims COIN has no issues that hinder its effectiveness and evenhandedness.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Support per prop prokaryotes (talk) 22:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Proposal 2

• Proposal Elvey is community banned for 3 months with the standard offer for failing to abide by community consensus regarding their COI related edits. In addition to a continued ban on COI, Elvey is banned from participating in SPI related discussion, broadly construed. Elvey can come back to the community after 6 months and make their case for the TBANs to be lifted.--Adam in MO Talk 11:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. To be clear, I understand this to be a community-imposed site ban for 3 months, with topic bans about both COI and SPI (I assume that meant SPI, not SPA), both broadly construed, with the option to appeal the topic bans in not less than 6 months from now. I believe that this is the proper response in the context of the previous community topic ban and the subsequent conduct, and a necessary step to let the rest of us get back to peaceful editing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I edited the proposal to SPI. My mistake. Good catch. Cheers. --Adam in MO Talk 17:59, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support the next step. Geogene (talk) 23:25, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support - given this, a reasonable action for clear violations of current sanctions. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:30, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite my later edits and comments to that text AND SlimVirgin's comments about that? She says it's not what you say it is at all, so how is it "clear"? Like Tryptofish did, you insist on assuming bad faith and saying I'm not credible - that is, I'm lying? --Elvey^(t•c) 21:22, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• I am the OP, and I am fine with this. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's impossible to respond adequately while I'm under the ban. However, I've apologized - on this page - for the COI related edits I made. Jytdog claims I didn't even acknowledge them; that's another in a long line of false accusations by Jytdog, which seem to work so well. I was topic banned largely for objecting to misleading presentations of evidence regarding my posts on COI matters. So objecting to the flaws in evidence in this case seems likely to be similalry futile or counterproductive, irrespective of the flaws, anyway. Feels unfair to be facing such a perfect storm.

I have a history of conflict with voters J. Johnson (at Earthquake prediction, where he is very frequently in conflict with other editors), Jytdog, Adamfinmo and Tryptofish. Some of them regularly work closely to support each other or the same status quo POV (which I'm sure they will all agree is a NPOV.)

I see no discussion here justifying the a ban from SPI related discussion, broadly construed. I object to that as unreasonable. I responded, as did SlimVirgin; see ***, above.--Elvey^(t•c) 21:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

When you say that we "regularly work closely to support each other", , you are just continuing the conduct that brought you here. Editors can agree with each other without actually editing in a coordinated way. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Elvey certainly does have a history of conflict; that is why we are here. His statement that "some" of us (who, precisely?) "regularly work closely to support each other" is not only false, it is prime example of where he attacks editors rather than positions, and a manifest violation of WP:AGF. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:43, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Fact is, I didn't say and don't think that you regularly work closely to support those other users, but could have been clearer. I said you are very frequently in conflict with other editors at Earthquake prediction.

I ask the closer of this (and others) to make note of the way these three users ignore the words "Some" and "or" that surround that misquote. Context matters and yes, I could have been clearer. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you could have been clearer, but you were not, and I think that was deliberate. To avoid making an actually false statement you imply that I am part of some cabal, which amounts to deception. If part of your defense against the charge of a TBAN violation is that you are being oppressed by cabal you need to provide specific evidence (such as diffs), not disingenuous aspersions. BTW, which "misquote" are refering to? Tryptofish and I both quote exactly your very words some half dozen lines above. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. This proposal adds confusion to confusion. I've tried to read the August 2015 discussion in which Elvey was topic-banned, following a proposal by Jytdog, but I can't understand it. (Pinging Drmies, who closed it.) It appears that Elvey was banned from Wikipedia discussions about WP:COI. Now Jytdog is back, asking for a total ban because Elvey allegedly violated the topic ban. But he wasn't banned from editing articles about physicians who have challenged COI within the drug industry, etc, which it seems is being used against him. And this comment, which is being cited to support a ban, is ambiguous; I don't read it as a COI accusation. When a comment is ambiguous, we ought not to rely on it to ban someone from Wikipedia. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:56, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The proposal here was not proposed by Jytdog, so he should not be made the issue. It looks to me that there is a pretty strong consensus in these discussions that there was nothing ambiguous about the glyphosate comments. Artful, perhaps, but very clearly intended to paint Boghog, a good editor, in just the way that ArbCom has said is unacceptable. It's fine if you have a dissenting view of those comments, but it is a dissenting view. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog opened the thread and proposed a six-month ban here. When that wasn't supported, someone else proposed a three-month ban instead. But that Elvey should be banned stems from Jytdog, as did the topic ban in August that Elvey has now supposedly violated. A better solution, if one is needed, might simply be to ask Elvey and Jytdog to avoid one another. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:41, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Haven't we tried asking Elvey to abide by his TBAN? I provided nearly half a dozen diffs of Elvey blowing through their tban. Asking them to follow the rules doesn't work. It is time to give teeth to the community consensus and let Elvey cool their heals somewhere else for a little while.--Adam in MO Talk 00:57, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, I don't have much of an opinion on the ANI thread I closed--just doing my job, I suppose. However, I agree with you that the one comment on Talk:Glyphosate isn't as unambiguous as it's made out to be. There are more diffs listed below, in a post by Adam in MO, and I don't see it there either. Maybe there's violations in an extended context, but that's too extended for me. I see the violations in the edits to the COI template, sure, but those are from October and the editor was warned. Drmies (talk) 01:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, thanks for the reply. If we ignore the diffs from October, where he was warned, we're left with him having edited David Healy (psychiatrist) (who writes about COI in the drug industry) – and I believe mainspace editing isn't covered by the topic ban – and the disputed, I would say ambiguous, diff. Also, Adamfinmo, you seem to have focused quite a bit on Elvey recently, and Elvey doesn't respond well to that. His responses attract more attention, and so on, and here we are. If Elvey and the editors in dispute with him could minimize their interactions, that might be all that's needed. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:24, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

@Drmies: You will remember that I commented recently that you might be finding GMO-2 on your plate sometime. Let's try not to let things go that far. I'm not sure how much you read of the diffs that I posted, but please let me run this by you: "You, Drmies, must have atrocious reading skills, because we must not excuse Elvey simply because we want to cast aspersions on big companies with deep pockets." OK, I don't actually mean that, but I suggest that you look again at the diffs I posted, with that in mind. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:47, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked at the diffs you gave earlier--it's a lot of diffs, but it's just one discussion. I do not see there what you want me to see, which is a violation of a topic ban. Also, I cannot really parse your hypothetical insult; too complex for me. There are reasons, I suppose, why one would want Elvey chastised--rudeness, a poor sentence here and there, an obsession with a particular former editor--but I don't see evidence for this particular charge. In addition, the way to prevent ArbCom from having to deal with this or that is not to ban an editor. If there is consensus that Elvey's behavior make them impossible to work with or whatever, propose that--but I cannot see evidence of a topic ban being violated in the Glyphosate discussion (which, by the way, does not lack editors who act like what in worms is "a pore on the worm's side"). Drmies (talk) 19:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies I am pretty confused by what you write, as Elvey has continuously violated his topic ban since it was imposed. I reminded him of his TBAN when I am saw him violating it and that led me to go look for others. I haven't posted this before, but his response to my warning was typical - he basically copied/pasted what I wrote and thew it back at me with regard to my TBAN. When he blew of my reminder (as he had the warning from the admin before back in November) and continued dealing in COI-related matters in WP I gathered diffs going back to October and presented this case. He has clearly blown off the TBAN on a regular basis, and more recently his pursuit of an editor for socking (whom Elvey was convinced was editing under a COI), disrupted things at SPI so much that Elvey was barred by Vanjagenije from participating further. Elvey's continued disruption around COI matters and his ignoring of the TBAN is so clear... Jytdog (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't understand the confusion. Tryptofish asked me to look at some diffs, and I did. I see no violation in those diffs. Their throwing your accusation back at you--that may be rude, or maybe it's appropriate, I don't know, but it's not a violation of this specific topic ban. Now, you all should really leave me out of this: I have nothing to add, I am not aware of these conversations, I don't know Elvey from Adam (I think--certainly from Adam in Missouri). It's not me you need to convince; it's other editors, and you'll need some diffs that are stronger than a rather cryptic comment about deep pockets. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I was going to let it go after you told me that you don't see what I see, and I agree with you that this isn't about convincing you. (And I think I parsed that thing about worm anatomy.) It's a tough thing about Wikipedia: one of us can feel like they see something as plain as the day, and someone else just doesn't see it at all. And I wasn't simply talking about the community topic ban, but also the DS from ArbCom, so see: this. But for the benefit of whoever it might clarify things, here is what my pseudo-insult was intended to convey: Elvey shouted, repeatedly, that I and other editors lack simple reading comprehension skills, on a page where ArbCom imposed DS. Set aside anything about the TBAN on COI, do we really want that kind of editing environment? Did anything I said or that Boghog said justify that? It's an understatement to pass that off as "rudeness". And I cannot imagine how anything about "protecting companies with deep pockets" means anything other than editors who are "shills" per that ArbCom link I just gave. Do editors protect companies with deep pockets because of editorial judgment? Perhaps someone would protect companies against inaccurate negative material, but the "deep pockets" stuff is clearly an appeal to think that this is paid editing. What is happening is that editors learned from GMO-1 not to say outright that an editor is working for Monsanto, so they have cleverly figured out that if they say it more vaguely, then folks like Drmies won't get it. But that is clearly what happened. And I sure hope that we will nip it in the bud. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. Drmies didn't review the case from the very top. Makes sense now. Jytdog (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• That is correct: I looked at what I thought I was asked to look at. I see your points about the "deep pockets", of course, but it's vague--that companies have deep pockets is no secret, but a COI allegation should not be about who has the pockets or how deep they are, but about who receives what allegedly comes out of certain pockets of a certain depth. And I am loath, in this case, to impose a harsh penalty on a phrase like that. Again, I understand some of the frustration, I think, and it is entirely possible that some kind of restriction needs to be imposed, but I can't impose this restriction for this offense. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that Drmies. If you are willing, I would appreciate it if you would review from the top, and I think that given the context what Trypto is saying might make more sense to you. Thanks for tolerating the request, even if you don't want to. Jytdog (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Watching this from a distance, i am happy to hear this sentiment from Drmies. A specific accusation of COI is one thing, whereas a general statement that there may be an industry agenda at work somewhere is another thing. However, in the course of a dialog about article content there is no place for either, i would think, except for general comments on the shape and trajectory of an article through time. Same would go for saying that "activists" are working on an agenda, as well, for accusations and aspersions of these kinds definitely go both ways. Whether or not the accusation involves money, it still refers to motivations other than good encyclopedic work. SageRad (talk) 19:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, Tryptofish, I see the problem with the three or so edits from early January. I do not agree that the Healy edits are a violation, and I do not see the problem with this edit and this edit. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll try to provide more context.

First let me just note on Elvey's perspective on his topic ban, here:

And Jytdog got me topic banned because I kept on accurately describing what a policy said and people who didn't want me to do that called that disruptive.

So in his view, he did nothing wrong. Which is why, I reckon, he has ignored the TBAN.

One set of his TBAN violations (not all of them) arise because he thinks Formerly 98 is a "pharma shill". (Formerly 98 no longer edits here, for reasons external to WP that affected his ability to be present here, and led him to try (badly) to "vanish" - he ended up violating SOCK) Elvey pursued an SPI against Formerly fiercely, driven by his conviction that Formerly (and I) are pharma shills. Elvey brought up COI matters explicitly in the SPI: dif. As I linked above, Elvey pursued the SPI so fiercely that he got banned from the investigation by Vanjagenije. The discussion where Elvey became disruptive is mostly on the Talk page of the SPI, here.

• in this dif at the SPI he makes it clear that he is movitated by fighting pharma shills, which in WP is all about COI.

• and here again on SlimVirgin's Talk page where he wrote:

  What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary". It took many users and months of edit warring (not by me) to get any info at all about the incredibly lousy PARADIGM-HF trial despite lots of damn reliable media coverage of this very important topic.

• and that leads to the first dif you said you don't see as relevant, where he wrote:

  I've removed some promotional material that Jytdog had just added.

  The PARADIGM-HF trial made big news, and is the trial that was eventually used to get Valsartan/sacubitril approved as a drug. There was ~some~ controversy about the design of that trial, and the anti-pharma brigade tried to make a big deal out of it in the WP article about the drug. Formerly and I tamped that down. Elvey later came by and opened a section on the Talk page called "This reads like an advertisement, but it's for a very controversial drug (that is a dif to the Talk page) - it is the only thing there. And you can see that Elvey is in pursuit of pharma shills - in other words, COI editing in WP. So that is what the first dif is about. btw The material I added that Elvey called "promotional" was a quote by Steven Nissen, a fierce critic of the behavior of pharma companies, who said the drug was a "a truly a breakthrough approach" and its approval was the most important event in cardiology last year.

• about the second diff, he wrote there

  The way in which Jytdog stubbornly refused to acknowledge, well, anything, at the discussion you linked to (that he, oddly, excised from an article talk page!!!)) shows how extreme his editing is. ....“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
  — [[User:Upton Sinclair]]

  With what I have written here, can you see that he is accusing me of being a paid editor, on the pharmaceutical industry's payroll? I struggle to see how that is not within his TBAN.

• About Healy... that is arguable. Elvey's TBAN is for COI, broadly construed. Healy writes about COI in medicine all the time, and thinks that is why SSRIs are still on the market. Elvey's edit to the Healy article was adding a "bombshell" (his words) article by Healy about COI in medicine. The exact thing he has been focused on here in WP for the last month. In my view it is all of one piece.

• Finally, here is a random diff (of the many that exist) of Elvey stomping right on his topic ban, addressed to me, ironically, under the section header "Paid Advocacy Editing by SPA HealthMonitor":

  Jytdog - Belated ping. I bet you can't get the community to take action against SPA HealthMonitor, who has a disclosed FCOI and blows off that "should not"

Do things look at all different now? Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 08:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC) (note, added a bit. not REDACTing since no one has responded Jytdog (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

Oppose Unclear why SPI ban, and 3 month ban for 2 talk page comments, after warning, proposal to far reaching. prokaryotes (talk) 22:14, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You haven't done your homework. Here is Elvey's very first edit upon coming back from a self imposed break, a violation of the TBAN. Here is another. Three more times, in the same conversation. Then I warned them. An Elvy continued. How much evidence do you need that Elvey doesn't give a hoot about their TBAN or the consensus of this community? --Adam in MO Talk 00:52, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote above, Jytdog who brought this here, gave E a warning on Jan 14 2016, after this i saw two comments on a talk page, as discussed above. After this i am not aware that he/she continued. prokaryotes (talk) 02:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

As I wrote in the original post, Elvey blew off the TBAN early and never stopped - not after he was warned by and admin and not after I reminded him, and even just a few hours ago per this. He cannot let it go. 08:12, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

While there are gabs, [redacted, do not link to external archives of deleted content this here is evidence for COI], which should be investigated by SPI, see also this IP edit. also i see that you seem to be involved. prokaryotes (talk) 12:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

In fact many of the people who are involved here are also very much the same people involved in the related ANI/COI thing. prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Off-topic from Elvey's behavior and this proposal. You are not addressing his behavior. Of course I am subject to boomerang; please address that above if that is where you want to go. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Why shouldn't "many" of the people here come from the COI venue? That is his most recent area of activity and where the topic ban came from, and it is to be expected that the people there are most cognizant of that situation. (I note that one of Elvey's frequent complaints is being judged by editors and admins who are "involved", as if any kind of adverse interaction with him should preclude future comment.) On the other hand, I have absolutely no prior involvement with any COI or pharam topic. My involvement here arises out of similar behavior by Elvey in a totally different topic. Note also the new (23:20) comment by 80.44.144.26 at the bottom of #Related problems, alleging similar conduct at Carlos Castaneda. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson (JJ), I went to the page and guess what. There is this edit which seems to have been contested by 2 IPs. And then wasn't contested later by other editors, talk is only brief, and besides that appears to be a valid content addition. That people are involved here and in similar disputes is foremost an observation. I value the judgement of uninvolved editors more, given the conflicts and degrees of involvement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Is uncivil behavior acceptable if one happens to be "right"? I take no position on the content disputes at Carlos Castaneda, or on the clean-handedness of the editors involved, but point out that on the talk page there Elvey exhibits the same uncivil behavior that got him into trouble at COI. I quote some of his comments: "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."; "There is no excuse for your removal .... What blatant example of bias that is. Thanks for making it so blatantly obvious."; "What part of ... do you not understand?"; "I don't believe a word of what you've said, either about the article or Sampson and I don't care to spend the time to verify it."; and (again) "Amazing tortuous justifications for what's really just sanitization."

Your position has a tautological exclusion problem: totally "uninvolved" editors, having no interaction with Elvey, likely have no basis of complaint, and thus no reason to be here, while anyone who has been "involved" is (in his view) tainted, and shouldn't be listened to. While most of the people here might have a bone to pick with him, that is very the point: the community finds him to be very aggravating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:15, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, prokaryotes. All the misrepresentation makes the closer's job a lot harder and a lot more time consuming. I don't envy their position. I ask the closer to speak about the accuracy of the accusations each participant has made - where did and didn't context make what seemed like a valid accusation turn out to be invalid, when investigated? I see allegations by supporters and opposers being challenged on this front. --Elvey^(t•c) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What misrepresentation? The quotes are accurate, and your comments are prima facie uncivil. If you think there is some context that justifies such language you are free to demonstrate that, but you have not. And without that you are just blowing more smoke. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support. The above conversations show continued poor behavior across the board even being under topic ban. That this has occurred in multiple topics drives that point home. In the instances pointed out at the glyphosate article, their behavior also violates the spirit one of the ArbCom principles related to aspersions.Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically_modified_organisms#Casting_aspersions. Issues in other topics unrelated to that only compound the issue. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I find the wording community banned for 3 months with the standard offer confusing. I can interpret it in two ways:

1. The user is banned for three months. During that period, accepting the standard offer may result in the user being unbanned immediately. If the standard offer isn't accepted, the user is automatically unbanned after three months.
2. The user is banned indefinitely. After a period of three months, he may be unbanned if the standard offer is accepted.

If the original topic ban conditions are unclear, then it would be good if this discussion clarifies these conditions. --Stefan2 (talk) 16:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Stefan2, Case number 1 was my intention. When Elvey was initially TBAN they placed themselves on a voluntary block for 2 months. It was my intention to mirror this.--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)--Adam in MO Talk 16:23, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The standard offer is that, after six months with no socking, the user can return if they "promise to avoid the behavior that led to the block/ban [and] [d]on't create any extraordinary reasons to object to a return." The six-month period can be adjusted, but what does it mean in the context of a three-month ban proposal? If he says after 12 hours that he promises to avoid, etc, could he be unblocked? And given that he has already said it, can the ban not be avoided altogether?

Adam, it seems to me that, if Elvey says "I did not intend to violate the t-ban but undertake to make stronger efforts not to appear to do so in future," and if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well, and we can close this. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

SarahSV that statement would not be an accurate representation of his past behavior. He has disregarded the ban, clearly discussed and brought up and tried to address COI matters, and in addition has disrupted SPI while doing so - and disruption when dealing with COI matters is what got him banned in the first place. The community might want to consider closing this without action if he wrote something like: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I disrupted SPI while trying to get an editor blocked who I am convinced was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward, and I will not argue about the community taking action if I violate my topic ban again." And by the way I do not seek Elvey out - he came after drug articles that have been on my watchlist for a long time. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah, applying or reversing blocks are always up to the administrators. When Elvey first received their TBAN they went on a self-imposed 2 month block. The 3 months, here proposed, were mean to mirror that. I have no intention of interacting with Elvey going forward, as long as their edits remain within community consensus. That consensus appears to be that Elvey should not discuss, comment on, or edit anywhere near COI issue, nor should they be involved in any SPI related discussion, at all. Elvey is a good editor. They have a contentiousness and attention to detail that I'd like to see more widely utilized. But until they are willing to work collaboratively and to stop the contentious edits, it won't be possible for them to utilize their full potential.--Adam in MO Talk 15:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, he didn't (so far as I recall) mention COI during the SPI, and indeed didn't at first realize who was behind the IP addresses. The concern was advocacy and the use of several accounts/IPs.

Adam, quite a lot of your edits seem to be related to Elvey, so it would be a good idea to reduce that interaction. At Clear aligners, for example, Elvey added a section on price, which was helpful. You arrived shortly afterwards and removed it, along with a section others had added on the same issue, even though you hadn't edited that article before. [41] (I noticed this only because I've edited that page too, so there may be other examples.) If Elvey sees himself as being pursued, even if you don't intend that, he'll respond poorly and we'll be back here again soon. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Sarah: doesn't your suggestion that "if the editors he's in dispute with would reduce their interactions with him, then perhaps all will be well" also run the other way? That is, why not have Elvey reduce his interactions with others? ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

J. Johnson, yes, indeed, it works both ways. The diffs I've looked have involved people arriving at pages Elvey was editing, but if he's doing the same thing to others, that should stop too. If everyone involved in this keeps interactions to a minimum, things will improve, and if problems continue despite that, you can always raise it again. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

He does, where he typically charges the other editor(s) that object as WP:OWNing the article. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 00:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Slimvirgin Elvey brought up COI matters in his pursuit of Formerly (I just mentioned these above, but am repeating them here as this has become a sprawl):

• dif. That one is dead on:

  This person has claimed to be a retired PhD Medicinal Chemist and yet recently claimed working (per User_Talk:Vanjagenije) in pharmaceutical development as a medicinal chemist, but now at UCSF, from whose IP space he sometimes posts AND has claimed to have never been paid for editing AND have no COI with respect to pharmaceutical companies.

  Elvey's focus on what he believes to be a COI issue with Formerly is explicit there.

• in this dif he brings the "pharma shill gambit" which in WP is all about COI.

• and here again on your own Talk page where he wrote:

  What's the bigger picture here? It's about a cabal fighting a war to, as you have noted, to defend big pharma by what could be described charitably as "any means necessary".

  That is also pharma shill gambit, which is about COI. I know you agree that Formerly was a pharma shill, as you wrote here at the SPI. But you are not topic banned from COI matters; Elvey is. Jytdog (talk) 08:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Jytdog, my concern at the SPI was the combination of advocacy and avoidance of scrutiny. Whether COI was behind it, I don't know ("editing in the interests of" was in the sense of "for the benefit of").

Regarding Elvey's diffs, I don't see it in the second or third, but I do see it in the first diff. That seems to be a topic-ban violation, if the ban was on discussing Wikipedia and COI. SarahSV ^(talk) 06:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

SV, thanks for acknowledging the TBAN violation in the first dif (and btw his TBAN is "COI, broadly construed". Here is the closed ANI if you need to review that). The 2nd dif I cited was sprawling, and I should quoted the relevant bit which is "

the sock, which is infamous for scrubbing articles of information critical of big pharma,...

". In my view, the 2nd and 3rd diffs clearly describing the "pharma shill" claim, in light of the first, show clearly that Elvey was in pursuit of an editor he believed was editing articles under a COI (in the pay of the pharma industry). About your comment, where you wrote

This user edits in the interests of the pharmaceutical industry, and avoids scrutiny by swapping accounts and IPs.

....you are very well acquainted with the COI guideline as you have made 459 edits to it. You know very well the distinctions we make between advocacy and COI, and the language you elected to use there, as you attempted to persuade the people to working at SPI to take action, is very much the language of COI.

As I said, you are free to do that, as you have no TBAN for COI matters. And in any case, sharing a perspective with Elvey, that Formerly was harming WP by editing in the interest of the pharma industry, should not affect your judgement with regard to the fact that Elvey has continually violated his TBAN and, as he did before, was disruptive in doing so, now in yet another venue.

The community has found that Elvey becomes disruptive when he deals with COI matters and it has become clear that he cannot seem to be restrain himself from addressing COI matters. Proposal two is entirely normal in this kind of situation, which is why the consensus of !votes actually looking at his behavior is supporting it. Please reconsider yours.

Editors like Elvey who cannot deal with COI matters well and become disruptive in addressing them, harm the overall effort to address COI in WP, as their behavior gives fodder to those in the community who oppose efforts to better manage COI here. That is why I care about this. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, please don't tell me what I'm thinking or what I know very well. If I felt convinced that that editor had a COI I would say so; at times I've thought so and at other times not. And that is not the topic of this discussion.

Re: Elvey, I couldn't support a three-month ban on the basis of that. Bear in mind that when Elvey opened the SPI, he didn't know who was behind the edits. The issue with Elvey is not that he doesn't deal well with COI. It's that he doesn't deal well with issues he feels aren't being addressed properly, or where he feels he's being ganged up on. During the SPI, he began to think that it wasn't being handled the way SPIs normally are, and his suspicions led to repetitive posts and being shrill. And so I do agree that he needs to learn how to handle disputes differently, not become so upset, not be so repetitive. But going straight to a three-month ban is too much. The usual practice is a series of escalating blocks.

He has written below: "I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward." That should be enough regarding the COI issues, and if he mentions COI again, the topic-ban violation will be clear. What should be clarified, though, is whether it applies to mainspace. I don't think it does or should. In addition to clarifying that, whoever closes this, assuming it is not to ban him, might consider asking Elvey to practice removing himself from a discussion when he starts to feel very upset, or when other people say his posts are becoming repetitive. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi SV. Per the notes on the case, he opened the SPI under Formerly's renamed account name. See here at 22:38, 5 December 2015. If you look at his contribs, all that day he had been edit warring and arguing with Formerly on the Valsartan/sacubitril article and its talk page, and his last edit on the talk page that day was here where he wrote:

Good. Now log in and stop avoiding scrutiny by, e.g. using multiple accounts/IP addresses on multiple networks

He did know whom he was pursuing. While Elvey may have broader behavioral issues, the point issue that he seems to get especially out of control/emotional when dealing with COI matters. That is why we was TBANed in the original case and why he was yet more disruptive at SPI. I understand that you don't agree about that nor the remedy. And in my view Elvey's TBAN is standard per Wikipedia:Banning_policy#Topic_ban -

"Unless clearly and unambiguously specified otherwise, a topic ban covers all pages (not only articles) broadly related to the topic, as well as the parts of other pages that are related to the topic."

I don't see what he has done to deserve actually narrowing the scope of his TBAN, nor why you would propose that. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not proposing that the topic ban be changed. You opened the topic-ban discussion in August. You requested that Elvey be "topic banned from discussing COI in Wikipedia (he is not competent to deal with editors with a COI ...)." You also asked for an interaction ban. The discussion was closed by Drmies as "Elvey has exhausted the patience of the community and is topic banned from COI, broadly construed." Drmies has said in this discussion that he does not see the Healy edits as a violation. [42] Whether he meant that mainspace is not part of the topic ban or that those particular edits weren't problematic, I don't know. I'm arguing only that we should clarify whether the topic ban covers mainspace. SarahSV ^(talk) 01:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Re: the SPI, there's no indication that Elvey knew who it was at first. He opened it under one of the IP addresses. MikeV archived the case on 6 December under that address. Berean Hunter moved it to the name on 20 December. SarahSV ^(talk) 02:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hm, the history of that case is really confusing. I do know where Elvey was just before he opened it, and I can see on this this page a big note that says:

Please note that a case was originally opened under Renamed user 51g7z61hz5af2azs6k6 (talk · contribs) but has been moved to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/169.230.155.123.

. All this is weeds. The key thing is that the case arose at the Valsartan/sacubitril article where Elvey was already concerned about COI/whitewashing editing, per the header he placed on that page. Elvey knew right away, or soon after, that his target was Formerly, whom he believed had a COI, and he acted in a disruptive way as he was told by two SPI clerks there before he was finally banished for disruption on the associated talk page. (those two warnings here and here). Jytdog (talk) 03:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (amended this; didn't redact since there has been no reply Jytdog (talk) 18:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC))

Support per OhNoItsJamie. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The first of this IP's 2 dozen edits (edit summary "Warning of copyvio" using {{Copypaste}} and then many ANI edits) suggests this may be an experienced (banned?) user socking and performing administrator -like tasks. But my hands are tied; I'm banned from opening an SPI case. Can someone do something? (Also, voting in an archive!) --Elvey^(t•c) 16:44, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh boohoo. Complaining about an IP who likes to help out across this encyclopedia. Not connected to any accounts whatsoever. 97.95.68.240 (talk) 22:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Support - it's all the community can do in the face of the TBAN violation. Alexbrn (talk) 14:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose - per SarahSV. I see serious issues in this case, with many of the same editors in the recent ArbCom GMO case in alignment here to "punish" an editor they don't like. I call on a completely uninvolved admin to close this, and dispense trouts as needed. Elvey has issues, but those casting the stones are not without their own. Jusdafax 16:26, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Jusdafax your vote doesn't deal with the fact that there was a topic ban nor with Elvey's ignoring of it nor with the actual disruption he caused (again) while pursuing the topic he was banned from. As you wrote there, clearly the politics are what are important to you here. Jytdog (talk) 19:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The last time you directly addressed me, in a disingenuously-worded, vaguely threatening reply to a notification on your talk page, it was already clear you were cruisin' for a bruisin', and indeed, after your spite-naming of me as a party to the GMO Arb-Com case, which you have never supported or had the common decency to explain, you have been blocked, as well as admonished by ArbCom for abusive editing and topic-banned. "What's important to you here" you say. How dare you. It's very clear, given the record, what you are up to, and I have warned you before, which you saw fit to ignore, so I now formally warn you to stop harassing editors who don't think or edit in a way that you personally approve of. Your attacks on Elvey, in my long experience since you first posted on my Talk page, are demonstrably motivated by bad faith editing, which, again, I have pointed out to you before, when you have attacked others. You face further blocks and sanctions if you do not stop. Get real, dude. Jusdafax 20:49, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Your comments only reinforce the validity of my remark that your !vote did not address Elvey's behavior regarding his existing TBAN and clarifies that it was really about your dislike of me. Thanks for clarifying that. Jytdog (talk) 21:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Judasfax: The specific "issue" here is violation of a TBAN, which (aside from Elvey's counter-charges against Jytdog) is not an issue with anyone else. Perhaps you would excuse his general incivility because he doesn't feel enough love, but I think cause and effect actually runs the other way. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Oppose This appears to be personal for Jytdog. Look at the way he attacks here just now, where he joins a discussion where I am mentioned just to spend nearly 500 words on an ad hominem attack on me. Opening and pursuing the (valid!) SPI on his banned friend, Formerly 98, was appropriate; 99% of my edits in that regard are not a violation of the TBAN, as I see it, but I acknowledge that my discussions with V in and about the SPI, I pointed out what I saw as numerous policy violations by him and that he saw those as disruptive and he used the mop to ban me from SPI. (I opened #Questions, which I urge the closer to address, and later realized V doesn't have the authority to make that unilateral ban there, though I'm still respecting it as he could probably still get away with enforcing it.) Here is the comment Jytog proposes I make, corrected for accuracy: "I acknowledge that I have violated my topic ban multiple times and that I opened an SPI (on a user Jytdog is so close to he shares their private communications) and that at one point (this was a very long discussion) mentioned, in a quote, that another editor was convinced Formerly 98 was editing under a COI. I should not have brought COI into those discussions. I apologize and will stay very clear of COI matters going forward" --Elvey^(t•c) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

elvey, this ANI thread is about your behavior violating your TBAN. Bringing evidence of your behavior, is not an ad hominem attack. About the SPI case itself - there was a valid SPI case against Formerly as I have acknowledged; however your pursuit of Formerly was due to your conviction that he was editing under a COI - that he is a pharma shill. Could you have done all that work on the SPI without explicitly violating your TBAN? Probably.... But would you have launched that SPI to shut down a "pharma shill", if you were really honoring your TBAN and not dealing with COI in WP? I don't think so.

None of this is "personal." You are disruptive when you try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. You have shown that yet again by disrupting SPI - and you are still not accepting that you were disruptive at SPI. It is not good for the project for you to try to deal with COI in Wikipedia. That is why the original TBAN was put in place by the community and why the community is proposing to extend the TBAN to include SPI. You have not heard what the community is telling you. Jytdog (talk) 00:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• SlimVirgin, I looked over the original ANI discussion again. The first proposal, by Jytdog, specific "topic banned from discussing COI", and I think that phrase guided the rest of the discussion. The actual proposal I cited, and you'll note I cited it since I did not know how to rephrase it, said "topic banned from COI"; this was Georgewilliamherbert's phrase, and I wonder if they simply forgot a word. Now, on the one hand, I think that when it's not so clear we should be conservative, and thus limiting the topic ban to non-article space makes sense. On the other hand, if the editor were to start slapping COI tags on articles, I have no doubt that to other editors this would be as disruptive as the other edits were. After all, planting a COI tag on an article is basically saying "there's a COI here", and one would expect the tag to be explained on the talk page.

  To put the whole thing in another way, it would be very unwise for Elvey to skirt around the boundaries of the topic ban. Drmies (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Drmies, my understanding of the discussion in August was that Elvey had become disruptive around COI editing on Wikipedia. That was the ban that was requested. Content editing is not related to discussing COI editing on Wikipedia. Adding a COI tag to an article is another matter: that involves stepping out of content and going meta, so it would be covered by the ban. Someone might argue that these distinctions are easily missed when someone is upset, so to avoid future mishaps the ban should cover content. I suppose it depends on how much self-restraint Elvey can exercise, and in fairness to the complainants here, his track record isn't good. Still, it seems to me that if COI is one of his interests, and if there are articles about COI that need work, that would be a useful thing for him to do, so I'd be inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, but to extend the ban to content at the first sign of a boundary violation. SarahSV ^(talk) 04:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• It's also a question of being smart about it. I removed what I am sure is a kind of COI edit earlier tonight, but an edit summary could just say "not properly verified" or "far from neutral" or something like that. "Rv COI edit" would be the worst thing they could do. (This is what I was referring to: a kind of overlap between content editing and discussion.) And for those who think I am proposing a kind of cheating--no, from what I can tell the disruption was caused by their way of discussing COI and suspected COI. Either way, the area Elvey apparently needs to strengthen their skills in is control and diplomacy. Goes for a lot of us, of course. Drmies (talk) 05:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a question of keeping his eye on the ball if he edits in those areas, and not wandering into "rv, but I'm not allowed to say why." SarahSV ^(talk) 05:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Looks like another attempt to silence the opposition, as happened before in that field. The Banner talk 04:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone other than Elvey who has been topic banned for COI matters. Weird. Jytdog (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose mostly per Sarah's thorough analysis appearing in the above discussion. Generally, I'm not impressed with the claim there's a violation of the topic ban. At worst, it's a technical violation that should result in Elvey being instructed that the conduct violated the topic ban (and it looks like there's some question as to whether it does). Going this far on the basis of what's been presented just looks punitive. I disagree with the assumption that a siteban is the next step in the ladder. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Mendaliv did you read the difs at the very top? In every one of them, Elvey explicitly discusses COI of editors and they all came after his TBAN was imposed. I feel like i am in the Bizarro World where a thing is its opposite. Here they are again:

• Here
• here
• here
• here
• further back in time, this and this and the coi template edit warring that led to this reminder from an admin on Nov 1., mentioned above.

How can you call each of these not a violation? And that is just a partial sample. And doesn't even get into his disruption of SPI. Jytdog (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should "result in Elvey being instructed..."?? How much instruction does he need? Do note that in this reminder from an admin Elvey was told: "all the relevant issues have been explained to you in the past, some of them repeatedly, and that you have a frequent habit of contemptuously dismissing messages from other editors about their concerns regarding your persistent disruptive editing, so there is no point in explaining them to you yet again." Note also in Elvey's last comment (above) how his ostensible apology is "corrected for accuracy". It seems to me that all of the instructions and warning he has been given he interprets "corrected for accuracy". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Reluctant support I appreciate Sarah's general emphasis on mediation and de-escalation, but at the end of the day, I just don't see Elvey's violation of his topic ban as being as ambiguous as she (and some others) view it. There are instances of Elvey making direct reference to COI/COI discussions and other comments about "salaries" (be they even quotes) are hardly oblique. Topic bans are not trivial sanctions--they are only issued when behaviour has become deeply disruptive, and then generaly as a last-ditch effort to preserve an editor's positive contributions while curtailing the disruption which accompanies their involvement in a given topic area or process. If a contributor violates the community's effort to isolate their disruption in order to facilitate their continued involvement, then the community has run out of intermediary options and must default to the more general ban that we hoped to avoid as necessary to demonstrate that the balance of the editor's involvement no longer favours the good of the project.

We can parse Elvey's language at length here on technicalities if we really want an excuse to keep them on, but assuming that we view the original topic ban as a valid community sanction, many of the diffs above do represent a continuing inability in this user to disassociate from the area the community clearly directed them to avoid; that is, a self-directed personal mission to counter behaviours in other areas which they perceive as the result of financial motivators. Whether (or how often) they use the exact words "conflict of interest" is really rather incidental here. The question is whether they still feel compelled to root out the influence of corporations on this project, by either providing or commenting on "evidence" of these influences, an activity the community has explicitly directed them (Elvey) to desist from. I hate to oppose concilatory efforts like those SV is proposing, but, in this instance, I think the user in question needs a firm reminder that they cannot just defy community will on a whim, especially when that will manifested in an effort to try to preserve their participation here. A one- or three-month ban seems the appropriate means to make that point. Snow ^{let's rap} 08:40, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I think that comment does an excellent job of laying out what really matters here. Well-said, and thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Being hassled by User:Matt Lewis

I don't really like bringing this here, but user:Matt Lewis has been threatening to "report" me, so I thought I'd better just do it myself.

Matt made an edit to Naturopathy that introduced new, uncited claims and brought the lede into conflict with the rest of the article https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&type=revision&diff=700163445&oldid=698665542, so I reverted it https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naturopathy&diff=next&oldid=700163445. My edit summary was maybe a little brusque "No. Adding vague qualifiers doesn't help", but it wasn't wrong, and I wasn't trying to be rude.

Anyway, he came back with a screed on my talk page, threatening to report me for, amongst other things, bullying. I tried to better explain why I had reverted his edit, and pointed out that having a go at me wasn't OK. That got a much longer screed about all the things I supposedly do wrong on WP and how terrible the Naturopathy article is. I told him if he wanted to do something to the Naturopathy article, he should take it to the naturopathy talk page, and he replied with another threat to come to ANI. So, here I am. PepperBeast (talk) 02:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Accusing people you disagree with of "bullying" is the flavor of the month. People seem to think it's some kind of magic word by which they can "win" their dispute, but generally it's grossly misused. BMK (talk) 02:20, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Does that observation actually add anything to this case? I've heard it before, and I wonder sometimes if it doesn't rather work the other way. I would agree that threatening ANI is not generally appreciated, but what I actually did was told PepperBeast it was certainly going to happen.. but when I could find the time. Perhaps not the best way of doing it in retrospect, but he could have just backed down and apologised you know - that can work wonders in situations like this. What is certainly a fact here is that I got quite upset and I let it show. I had nothing to gain from creating an ANI in terms of the article or anything - ie it couldn't have been pitched against PepperBeast doing anything, except perhaps apologise. Please don't assume that it was. My personal ANI would have actually centred around a point that I am raising below instead... Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BMK that there are various flavors of the month that are yelled in order to try to "win" a dispute. It is also popular to yell "vandalism" in order to "win" a content dispute. Yelling usually doesn't help, especially when what is being yelled is wrong. There are a few editors who like to yell "bullying". Sometimes yelling "bullying" is done by bullies. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

If that's all it were, I probably would have ignored it. PepperBeast (talk) 02:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm finding it all a bit mysterious in how much I'm supposed to have done. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• Phew. I was going to say bringing this to ANI was a bit knee-jerky, but wow, those posts are both nonsensical and way over-the-top. I'm also surprised to see that Matt Lewis is an established editor with nearly 10K edits (though only a handful of those since 2011). What really disturbs me is this excerpt: Look if you don't respond to me sensibly here and apologise, I promise to you that I will report you for doing this. It's simply a matter of principle. I made ONE SINGLE EDIT to an article - a very good one - and someone (not even you so why are you here?) quite-antagonistically reverted it without properly explaining why. And you have effectively given me a low-key Warning. And you too have not shown me where and why. I simply re-worded a very-biased paragraph to be a little less obviously biased. The only link you have given me is "Referencing for beginners"! I joined this place 10 years ago - don't you realise that you aren't supposed to treat people like that? I'm just not sure about this. Matt Lewis definitely needs to take a chill pill, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:32, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was the one who issued the warning, which of course caused Matt Lewis to share his vitriol with me too. I also found his words quite over the top. I got the impression that his threats were empty but also baseless, so I'm not sure there is anything really to be done. Delta13C (talk) 07:26, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I was going to let it ride, but he was back this afternoon with "I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it." I'm feeling rather put-upon. PepperBeast (talk) 07:30, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• My take at this point is that Matt Lewis should have had it made clear to him that his conduct in this case is unacceptable, especially for an editor with his experience. Certainly, more voices explaining that would be helpful, but the take-away for Matt should be to dial back the vitriol, because a repeat of this sort of incivility can and should result in strong sanctions. In short, this thread should serve as a final/only warning. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:05, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt Lewis does not appear to have edited since this thread began, but I concur with your read - his reaction is not acceptable conduct. I worry about the response we will get when he does come back and comment here - it may likely be more of the same. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:47, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

I’m sorry but I think you are just wrong to voice that here. It’s negative speculation and I find it somehow prejudicial. I haven't said anything yet...

Ok, I am a person with very strong values, and I feel that needs to be said first. I’m not particularly good at interfacing and making friends here etc, but I am normally very collegiate I promise you. I can get into occasional scrapes though and I'm probably not particularly liked. I certainly don't scrub my personal pages enough. When will I learn? But I promise you that I do not look for incidents like this, and I do not ever want to see them. I come here either to read or to edit. Looking at some comments above, I've seen some advice has already been given for some kind of punitive ruling towards me. But before people get ahead of themselves, can anyone here tell me how bad my conduct has been, and actually provide actual examples of the areas I have been unfairly or even unduly upset? No one has yet addressed my position in this case, or my point. It's actually a weirdly pre-emptive ANI. But I will accept any point where I have personally gone wrong. Why would't I?

A few days ago on the Sat 17th I made one [edit] (ie nothing to wave sticks at), in an article I’ve never edited before or since (so absolutely no reverts etc) and the next day it was removed and I was basically Warned for making it. It could have been the case that Delta13C thought I was a sockpuppet. If so, he or she was wrong - and that would be a simple AGF matter, soon resolved hopefully. The problem is that I felt that the Warning, combined with the "No." that Pepperbeast gave me when removing my single contribution, meant that ‘a Level 2 Warning’ was on the cards for anything similar that I may have contributed. I felt I was being told to 'back off' basically, and I didn't like the feeling at all. It felt threatening, and that is why I reacted as I did. I saw a very valid improvement to make to the article here. I made one decent-enough edit (better than what was there for sure), and am always willing to work on things when people treat what I’ve done with due respect. It’s not the removal of my contribution that is the problem here (or 3rr or anything like that) – it’s how my contribution was dealt with.

In terms of ‘harassment’(!) of PepperBeast (who I do find very cocky and rude I'm afraid), I made one admittedly-upset and fairly-long comment on his Talk page, and then left one very short reply after he responded to it. I admit that I am prone to longer comments – I can’t help that, and I’m sorry. But please people - don’t be too rude about that, it’s just the way it is. It's partly a time thing - I don't really have the time to shorten myself, and I always begin big. But yes that was all it was – two comments to him, one long, one short. How can that be "harassment"? PepperBeast has also suggested that he’s started this ANI because I said I would make one myself (which was to be in part about patrollers in general). Is this really the right way to treat ANI?

I wasn't going to create my own ANI today (I suggested I was too busy at the moment to PB when I gave him my timeframe), but I have to find the time respond to this particular ANI now. I accept he wasn't going to be ecstatic bout having a pending ANI hanging over his head, but I'm really busy (as a carer who works all hours) and ANI's like this one really do force people's hand – as mine has been forced here. So I don’t think it was right of him to do this for a number of reasons. There were plenty of other options for him. Certainly no harassment was around. I think this is all about respecting the real-life lives of the various people who make edits to this place.

Now please - I genuinely would appreciate knowing what exactly I did wrong in the first place, including regarding Civility in my reaction to the very-antagonistic reception my single contribution received. I can’t always help being annoyed, but I do want to help being “uncivil”. I believe I have a very clear point indeed here, and as I suggested on [talk page], my own ANI was actually going to question the correct attitude for 'patrollers' in general, and whether there shouldn’t perhaps be a ‘code of conduct’ in their behavior to people - including new accounts, returning users (like me), IP's etc. Basically to avoid upsetting decent well-meaning people, and especially in delicate areas surrounding health. I think ‘curt reverting’ (to give it a name) can be an extremely negative thing for Wikipedia. I’ve already explained this to Delta13C, after he apologised for his Warning upsetting me. I accepted that apology and moved onto discussing content, as he suggested, and as can be seen. I wanted this level of conversation to be on my talk page really (or the article's), but it ended up on PBs as Delta replied to me there instead of on my own. I couldn't do anything about that, obviously. I'm entitled to respond to someone under their comment, and I already told Delta that is what I always do - but he says that he missed me asking for that. So there was two conversations going on PB's page. I didn't personally see any bother though. I did feel these two people are a bit too connected with each other, though.

Yes I'm sorry, but I did originally see PB and Delta13C as ‘tag-teaming’ in some sense – because it was the only way Delta’s out-of-the-blue Warning made any sense to me. I simply assumed that one of them says “No.” to an edit he doesn’t want, and the other “Warns” the user. You have to admit that is basically what happened, with no policy-based reason behind that I can see at all. Isn’t that the basis on an ANI issue? ie unless it got sorted out otherwise?

I have to say that if Pepperbeast simply apologized as Delta13C quite-easily did (though he is rather rough on me here), it would have all been fine. I have never turned away an apology from anyone on Wikipedia. But I began quite upset and I think I had a right to be. My edit was in good faith and ALL content edits take some time. Removing text takes only seconds. People really do sometimes forget that here – the actual time that ALL content-makers put into this place. I believe it is wrong to be curt to people who have taken the time to make an edit like mine. Especially in areas like this to be frank. I’ve felt in that past that Wikipedia somehow tolerates rudeness to people in the area of alternative medicine. It that right? The oft-maligned ‘Wikipedia is Not the Truth’, general Policy, AGF etc – it all points to the same thing; find the right balance because you do not need to judge. I can tell you from experience that these people are usually ill, often with cases where conventional medicine is sadly not really working for them. You’ll be surprised how many people turn to herabalism especially. In certain cases I've even seen them pointed there sometimes (with the usual provisos), when doctors reach the end of what they can do. Placebo? Who knows. When the results /sup>are really good they are soon taken up by the pharmas. But those are still used by the herbalists though. Why don't we give thse vulnerable people a break and stop being so cold and nasty to them so often? I’m not personally associated with any alternative health, nor do I lean towards any of it really - though a chiropractor did once manage to sort my back and I'm a big fan of 'good food'! I think it's just wrong to assume that people are ‘involved’. All I did was make a simple edit. I didn’t deserve to be effectively warned away. I think I just editied perceived 'protected content' that really didn't deserve to be protected, that's the underlying story here. And it was protected far too overzealously - that's the bottom line.

Regarding this ANI, the obvious question for me to ask is where is the actual "harassment" I'm accused of giving? I haven't harassed anyone, I never will and never have. It’s a particularly bad thing to do in my opinion. PepperBeast has also suggested he created this to ‘pre-empt’ my ANI, and he seems very confident about it doing it too. This confidence really concerns me to be frank. Do I not have a right to be concerned about him? I personally think that the over-exuberance of some change-patrollers can actually be a negative thing for the act of encyclopedia building. I certainly don't feel like I made my edit on a level playing field in this case, or that my edit was valued in any way at all. I think there could be a problem that some editors with particular 'jobs' can see themselves as being on a higher plain to others, and perhaps even subject to a slighly different ruleset. I think it's a problem for this place: a place I can promise you that I've always tried to help improve.

If this response is seen as "more of the same" (I'm at a loss with that one I’m afraid), it's because I actually have a point isn't it? I won’t be making my personal ANI now though - and actually, how can I? My question regarding patroller conduct is raised here instead. Someone perhaps could think about it if they want. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not going to apologise to you because I haven't done anything wrong. Your edits are not sacred and I did my best to explain to you what I thought was wrong with that particular edit.
• I don't know why you keep saying "harassment", when, in fact, I deliberately avoided what I think is kind of over-the-top language. I said you were hassling me and threatening to take whatever your big problem was to ANI. Well, here we are.
• Actually, you made two long comments, the first, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700317501&oldid=696396936, starting with If you ever use language like that towards me again on the edit table I will simply have to report you. You don't seem to realise how utterly wrong it is, so at some point you will need to be told. It combines incivility with abusing Wikipedia's core values. It leaves a stink and ultimately works against the encyclopedia. It's bullying really. After I replied to that, you came up with a second, much longer rant https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700373035&oldid=700356227, and finally, you repeated your ANI threat. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3APepperbeast&type=revision&diff=700851858&oldid=700407744 I'll see you at ANI and it should be this week, if not the weekend. The problem with the Discussion page is your propensity to say "No." to normal polite people there. It does the very opposite of inviting discussion. It's important and I want someone to tell you to stop it.
• I am not responsible for Delta13C's warning, or anything else that Delta13C does. I have no idea why you think I am "too connected" to Delta13C or even what "too connected" means.
• My talk page is not a place for you to rant about everything that's wrong with WP.
• Seriously, lay off the personal attacks. PepperBeast (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

You know, you made this ANI a lot more personal than I was intending to do with mine. Yes I did make a mistake above, missing the my middle response to you. You called my angry reaction a 'personal attack' (does that ever make things better?) and said my edit contained Weasel Words, which doesn't make sense to me in this case, as I explained. In my opinion the reading of the term and the refs contains Original Research. I mainly addressed the content of the edit and my feelings surrounding it. If you feel that my explaining my own views over a content issue that you've addressed yourself constitutes a 'rant' and a point of harassment (or 'hassle' as you actually did say, but in terms of an ANI people are obliged to see it as the same thing), I would say that's very subjective, and hardly an issue for an ANI complaint. Btw, your point about the Intro needing to be so decisively negative because the rest of the article is so singularly negative (or has become so perhaps), is actually a very complex one. And as I've said, I've always felt that imperfect improvements should be improved upon, not given a straight denial. 10 years ago I think that was far more likely to be the case. As I remember it, people were much more inclined to edit or hone things out in turns, and the general atmosphere was far more productive. I’m sure that articles like this one contained more balance then too – albeit with various issues surrounding weight and wording. It's quite rare to see a perfect first edit anyway, isn't it? What you've got to ask is, does the contribution improve and progress or advance things? I think that over the years Wikipedia has become too much of a static shop front, but these kind of articles are nowhere near good enough yet. Very often when I use Wikipedia I see broken or misrepresenting links and failing statements, and they certainly exist in this article still.

So yes I can see that I fully responded to you twice, and not just the once as I said above - but with this ANI you really forced my hand here when I effectively said I wasn't ready yet. And it's an awkward hour right now. I can only find pockets of time, and in no time some people call for beheadings in these places - ANI's can be quite OTT at times they really can(!) I've got someone now asking for sanctions over my supposed "screeds". Look, I apologise if I got it wrong about you and Delta13C being a 'tag team'. But you did manage to appear like one, which I am sure you can see if you really looked at it. Look at your sharp and conclusive 'edit note' followed by his completely out-of-the-blue warning. But that was just an unfortunate sequence perhaps. And also unfortunately, Delta13C did make his reply to angry-me not on his own 'Warning' section, but on your Talk page instead - even though I clearly asked him to keep it all in the same place. It was wrong of him really, and it was another thing that made it look like you were 'combining' to me.

I do think my points on patroller etiquette are very much still valid though, and that is what my own ANI would have focused on. If you simply apologised for being so 'owny' (saying "No." to me over this Intro basically, as you did to the other guy on the discussion page) I would never have gone onto make an ANI of course - as I said. I think most ANI's can't really be done when someone's apologised. I may still have dropped-off my thoughts on patrolling in some relevant discussion page somewhere however, like I used to do with these things (the Patrollers page or whatever). And finally, surely no one should ever be above apologising here, but you will know that I'm sure. And it's especially the case when you know someone wants to hear it surely. It should be just standard practice when you've done something 'off', and you can surely still make all your points after doing it, and in whatever way you choose. It worked between Delta and me (though he hasn't quite continued the sentiment here unfortunately for me) and it would very-easily have worked for us. Sorry I called you cocky and rude above, but I do think you could perhaps come down just a step to my humble editor level. Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, I thought your comments on my talk page fell a little short of being personal attacks. Calling me rude and cocky here, however, does not. I'd accept your sort-of apology, but you're still haranguing me for some kind of mea culpa for undoing a single edit, and it's not going to happen. PepperBeast (talk) 09:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Well, you did call it a 'personal attack', and I took you up on it and talked of ANI if you didn't apologise for your attitude. I was pissed off! It was purely the way you made the revert that upset me - curtly saying "No" (the rest of the edit note is more complicated to deal with, and this isn't the right place to talk of article-balance or strict Intro rules re the rest of the article.) You'd never seen me before, and I'd made one single edit! And of course I was immediately Warned by Delta too, which doubled my anger to the "pissed off" level you saw. It was not the fact you reverted that really angered me at all. As I've said below, you have to expect quite a lot of full reverts in Wikipedia these days. I've certainly never asked for an apology from someone for doing that. It was the way you reverted, and the way it all happened wasn't good. It felt like I was being warned away. Surely you can both see that now, to some degree at least? ie after it happened - though not at the time perhaps. I admit it was bit paranoid of me to see you as 'tag teaming'. Tbf, I think you should have seen my point of view, and maybe apologised the way Delta did instead of making this ANI. I'm sure I wouldn't have done anything then, despite the point I wanted to make on patroller etiquette and the need for it. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

• Sanctions may be needed Matt Lewis has made it clear that he is unwilling or unable to take on board the criticism of his conduct that has come out of this thread. The huge rant (10 KB!!!) he posted in this very thread is combative, suggests his prior combativeness was a desire to prove a point (?) along the lines of WP:DTTR, and in general displays an attitude reminiscent of the Wikipedia of eight or nine years ago. Wikipedia does not need to drive off new editors, and I question whether someone who snaps at established editors over a templated warning would react much better towards an inexperienced user who actually does post an unfriendly message at his user talk page. I just get a terrible feeling about Matt Lewis at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:43, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

10KB!!! Huge rant! Oh come on Mendaliv. It's takes about 2 minutes to read out loud. I write the length I write and I apologised for that when I wrote it. If you don't like it, don't read it, or just don't read it all perhaps. Don't you think you are being bit over the top yourself here? If you really have a "terrible feeling" about me, maybe you need to take that "chill pill" you recommended to me above over another 10k post! They are just a long posts. Give me any amount of longer posts over a typical group of sometimes completely needless comments and I'll show you which take up less k. Some Wikipedia pages can seem to go on forever, but it won't often be down to the longer posts. As anyone who knows me on Wikipedia will tell you, if I ever write anything at any real length it's always constructive. I really do feel that Wikipedia risks driving off new and even old editors at times. I don't see how you can categorically say it doesn't. It’s just my opinion, and it's not a crime to have one surely (unless I've missed anything truly radical the past year or so). As I just suggested to PepperBeast above, I think that 10 years ago in certain ways Wikipedia was actually a more productive place. Not in every way of course not, just in some. And I never said any solution was easy did I? Discuss, absorb.. or ban? Matt Lewis (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Why are you being so aggressive? I seriously think there's something wrong here if you think this is an appropriate way to respond. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not really 'aggressive' is it? Look at your comment towards me again please. Is it really the right way to approach this? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Have to agree the reaction here seems OTT. And I'm someone who does often write long posts and can be quite aggressive in defending myself. Probably the warning wasn't necessary, but I imagine an article like Naturopathy does often have problems with well meaning editors who support naturopathy but don't understand our sourcing and other requirements. And while looking at the long term contrib history or perhaps the long talk page of Matt Lewis may suggest that they are not new and didn't need such a warning, a quick look at the contrib history may not clear things up so much. Ultimately I guess, if you are an experienced editor and don't need a warning, then it's not like there's some harm in receiving one. If you're not an experienced editor, then receiving a warning served to inform and also makes it difficult for the editor to claim they weren't aware of our policies and guidelines.

I do agree improvements with mistakes that can be easily corrected should be corrected rather than simply reverted. In fact I got in to a minor dispute with another editor over this about a week ago (not much about my edits). But on the flip side, sometimes edits are problematic enough that even if you think there is some minor improvement in some area, it's better just to revert and require the improvement to be far better. Colloboration can sometimes mean "sorry that's just too bad" rather than just "I see what you're trying to do but there's a problem so I'll fix it". Also, sometimes editors may just genuinely disagree about whether improvements are necessary (or perhaps they will agree, if they say proper improvements but can't see it until they see them), in that case, there ultimately needs to be consensus on the best wording so you're going to need to initate discussion.

And while editing in situ can be easier, other times for a variety of reasons it's better to come up with some draft on the talk page. The biggest confusing thing about this is if it's such a big deal, why is there zero discussion on the article talk page? Does that mean Matt Lewis now accepts that improvements aren't necessary and if so, why is there still so much fuss?

P.S. Just a quick reminder that edit requests are only intended to be used for simple changes that already have consensus (whether from previous discussion or which can be assumed). A simple "no, please establish consensus for your change" to an edit request is fine although that doesn't seem to have been what happened anyway. If editors are using edit requests incorrectly, it would be better to educate them on the correct usage of edit requests not to require long discussions when rejecting an edit request. Admitedly I'm not really sure what discussion page is being referred to anyway, since there's no comments by Pepperbeast on the Naturopathy talk page (perhaps in archives).

Nil Einne (talk) 10:57, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I explained in great detail above. This is all happening on my talk page. PepperBeast (talk) 03:03, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read all you said, but I see zero chance you can come up with a good explaination of why the discussion should be held in your talk page. If you want to modify the article and get into a dispute, discuss it on the article talk page. (There are some exceptions where it may be fair to hold some discussion on an editors talk page, but I won't go in to detail except suffice to say if there is actually going to be any change, the primary point of discussion should be the article's talk page.) This means if you haven't discussed it in the article talk page, it's pretty much impossible to make the claim people are being unresonable or rejecting any changes. So either you care about the changes and they are a big deal and there is a discussion in the article talk page, or you don't really care about the changes and this whole long discussion is largely moot.

And BTW, you've made a big deal about how you're an experienced editor who didn't need warnings, but then seem to be giving us an example showing you still don't understand how wikipedia works (if you do think the changes are justified but are not discussing it in the article talk page), so perhaps the warning was fair. (I'm assuming you do at least understand people can give you as many level warnings as they want. But nothing is likely to happen to you unless you violate some policy or guideline. And some resonable comments in an article talk page proposing changes particularly if you've taken on board what has been said before and our policies and guidelines, carries almost zero risk of being blocked simply for these comments, unless you're either a sock of a banned editor or have a topic ban.)

Also one thing I learnt from the above discussion before my first reply was that other people had told you to take it to the article talk page so I see even less chance you can explain why there is no discussion in the article talk page.

Your rants about how poorly your proposed changes were handled is of course offtopic on the article talk page. However such rants are rarely going to get far if they're over a nonissue (i.e. there was no change needed for the article anyway). Come up with an example where good, or nearly good changes were rejected (or perhaps it was impossible to know if the changes were good because they were reverted for a trivial error which could have been easily resolved to allow proper assessement), and you may achieve something productive.

But if changes were actually without merit, at worse you can say the edit summary was bad. But it would have to be very bad for people to care about a single edit summary. And frankly the edit summary doesn't seem bad at all [43]. Actually even if it turns out the article summary did need work and your proposed wording was close to the consensus new wording, it's fairly unlikely we're going to conclude there's clearly a problem from this one instance, but you at least may have some decent evidence. (And just to be clear, since we don't rule on WP:Content disputes here, only deal with behavioural problems if we look at the article and see the changes haven't been implemented and there no discussion, the only possible conclusion is it doesn't seem there was merit.)

TL:DR version; no discussion in the article talk page = no evidence you really tried to collobrate on improving the article = almost impossible to establish people are being "owny" or rejecting resonable changes = no issue for us on ANI = don't give warnings about how you're going to take people to ANI over such non-issues = if people come here because you gave such warnings, just say "whoops, sorry my bad" not write out long replies.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Nil, I can't disagree with you more. Matt Lewis's explosion in response to being reverted and templated is flat out disturbing. First of all, Pepperbeast's revert was perfectly in line with WP:BRD, insofar as Matt Lewis introduced new material into a stable article without discussion. Matt Lewis, being a regular, should know well enough how BRD works. It might've been courteous for Pepperbeast to then let Matt Lewis know why he was reverted in a more lengthy explanation somewhere, but not strictly necessary. Now, Delta13C templated Matt Lewis with {{uw-unsourced1}} for that contribution, which would have been the appropriate warning otherwise. Last I checked, WP:DTTR hadn't become a guideline—with WP:TTR still listing good counterpoints—and, honestly, I'm not sure you can even call Matt Lewis a "regular" in the sense of DTTR considering his level of activity in recent years. Perhaps article talk discussion was lacking, but that's on Matt Lewis within the BRD framework. You can't just go and blow up, threatening to take everyone to ANI in response to what is, in the scope of things, the tiniest slight. If we take Matt Lewis's conduct as indicative of his general attitude, which I believe is reasonable, we have a person who is very rapidly demonstrating himself to have a civility problem. Loquacious threats to drag unsuspecting editors to the dramaboards have a distinct chilling effect, particularly against inexperienced users. It's disruptive, and the fact that Matt Lewis immediately leaped to that level leads me to believe we need to take a much harder look at his user interactions if there's no indication this was an aberration. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Will you stop calling me 'flat-out disturbing' etc please? Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you find the phrase upsetting, but I've got to call a spade a spade here. You need to understand that your conduct here has been inappropriate and disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry Nil, I find this a bit hard to accept this when you admit you haven't read all of my defense. I don't want to repeat too much for you, as long-post repetition is not well-liked is it? But I will say this (as I've already said I think in two different places)... I didn't discuss the edit first as I saw PepperBeast's "No" to someone else on the article Discussion and I didn't find it very welcoming. So I was bold. I’m always prepared for anything I contribute to be removed by someone on Wikipedia, especially as the years have gone on. I expect that era of 'can I improve?' has simply gone, for these kind of articles at least. I have said very-clearly that my anger towards both Delta and PepperBeast (but was it really "hassle" from me, though?) was NOT about my contribution being removed! And I did NOT make one single other edit! I am very HAPPY to work with anyone who isn't rude to me on content. It's was ALL about the very particular way I was 'received' by them. Deta's Warning seemed to just appear out-of-the-blue, straight after PepperBeast said "No" in removing my edit. And when Delta14C moved his 'Warning' discussion from my Talk onto PepperBeast's Talk page (even though I asked him to keep it on mine), I felt even more sure that they were 'team-working' together on protecting this essay from certain unwanted edits. However I accepted Delta's apology re the Warning 'iking' me - though he didn't seem to accept that a warning was completely unjustified here. I then discussed a content issue in the whole article to him (as he suggested I do, though perhaps not there obviously) and then PB said “take it elsewhere”. Ok, fine. But why was Delta even on PB's Talk? And then this highly unconventional ANI suddenly happened.

I'd actually like to know if Delta gave me the 'Warning' (which of-course many people will find intimidating however you say they don’t all matter) because he thought I was a sockpuppet of the IP who also got a "No." from PepperBeast regarding a similar type of Introduction change? And maybe also if anyone really thinks that this ANI was a particularly good idea, and was made quite in the right spirit? Readjusting the track with me might have been a better idea I think. Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Some real advice for all you guys out there, please do not post essays, it doesn't make your argument a pinch more believable than what it'd be without all the fluff. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I get this. In the sense that Matt Lewis has been all but screaming "Don't Template the Regulars" from the git go as though it's policy, I agree that it hamstrings his credibility. In the sense that I'm calling him out on demanding other editors follow nebulous essays by linking to the essays, then I don't really get how that hurts my credibility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

By essay, I mean, a really long reply/comment/post, nothing else. It had 1.6k words, thrice the limit for my English essay. And, I was only referring to Matt's essay, so no worries mate. I think I'll label my messages next time. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 18:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, of course. Silly me, I should've understood that. I agree wholeheartedly. Essay-length responses on any talk page, let alone ANI, are really counterproductive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:48, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping not to comment here again, but sorry... you've been given a 500 word English essay to write? That's less than 20 lines on my monitor, which is about 2 average paragraphs surely? My 1,600 word post (if that's what it was) was my main defense to an ANI. I've got to ask you what your English essay it was on? English is my 'subject' (I'm 45 btw, I'm not still studying it) and I am really interested in what they ask of students now. Tbh, I don't see how anyone can practically request this kind of thing of Wikipedians. If a long post is too much for someone to personally to manage, surely they can just leave it to someone else? My defense wasn't made to anyone personally - and people's hands are rather forced in these situations. I think you can look at this both ways really - ie some people find it a bit of a chore to read more than a longish paragraph or so (and presumably do all they want to do), while others have real difficulties keeping their comments to a single paragraph. But Wikipedia is a big place and is supposed to cater for a broad spectrum of people - so what's the bother? There is no great hurry here, or a shortage of staff is there? I've not been repeating anything over and over, which can be a real pain over many long posts I'd agree. Surely you wouldn't say this to anyone outside of ANI, so why say it at ANI? And isn't it rather picking on a defendant? You probably don't see it as being rude when in here, but I think it is. I'm a decent human being who has already pre-apologised for writing the length that I have (and often do). And I'd like to say that in 10 years I've never once complained about anyone's writing needs or style, nor ever made suggestions for anyone to be punished in any particular way either for what it's worth (I've never personally seen that as my role). And believe me, I've wrestled with some notorious sock-farmers and article disrupters over my really active years here too. I just do not like being totally-needlessly needled at, with Warnings or whatever. And I really do not think it's good for Wikipedia. (380 words). Matt Lewis (talk) 02:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Let me tell you something. The shorter the speech, the happier the audience. I didn't critique your writing style, just the need of writing 1.6k words to defend yourself. Since, I probably have some informal kind of ADHD, I went through the first three paras of what you said and it has missing commas, periods and uses words that are not related to the context. Undue exclamation marks, a display of battleground mentality and no quotations from policy. And you thought was I said previously was critique. Ha. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 05:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

What are "words that are not related to the context"? You mean I went off topic? If I opined over an area of Wikipedia, I assure you it is related to all this. And "missing commas" indeed! How does that work out? For people like yourself, I've actually taken to using as many commas as I can these days - eg placing them before and after using 'and'! I use them all over in fact. Your list is just wrong, and is totally needless too.

I just can't believe that I actually said above "there isn't exactly a staff problem here"! Attending to ANI must be a nightmare for Wikipedia in general, and it's always been full of passing poppers posting pointless comments. I should have told PepperBeast I'd be taking the whole 'patroller etiquette' issue to a noticeboard-type place, or ask a decent admin or something - ANI is a crazy place to take anything that isn't clear disruption or abusive 3RR or something seriosuly article-effecting like that. I was just rusty that's all, and really cheesed off, and ANI is the place that came to mind. I don't know what PepperBeast was thinking of either in counter-reporting here. Matt Lewis (talk) 21:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking "fercrissake, I'm getting blasted and ANI-threatened by some guy I've never interacted with before because I did something perfectly normal. It's going to be ANI'd anyway, and I don't know what else to do about it". PepperBeast (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

PepperBeast, you just to understand that there was nothing perfect about the way you began our interaction. Or with that other person too. Because (aside from imo non-policy-related article 'ownership' issues) this 'tough' "No." approach is just really unsuitable for a communally-built encyclopedia. You still argue that this manner of reverting someone's contribution is perfectly normal. Nobody is supposed to have an elevated editing position on Wikipedia, and it seems to me that even this ANI suggests you likely feel that you have some kind of special position here. We all should know that everyone is supposed to treat complete strangers with civility, equality and respect, and especially in this controversial area - an area I think too-many people think they can be rude by default.

Nobody is going to support any of that here though, and I don't even know why this ANI is still open. I'm tired of coming back to check if it's been archived yet, or if something has happened. And I expect you are too. I wish I never even thought of the bloody acronym.

It's all about the attitude. I've just had a quick look at that frankly-unwelcoming article talk page, I can see even-now Delta13C is being intimidating to someone who had questioned the article's neutrality. He's asking if he/she has a "a conflict of interest with naturopathy in any way?" I don't think you can just ask that kind of question out of the blue at all. Not without a very good reason stemming from the actual editor, and not purely the subject matter! It's all too intimidating. Delta14C was the editor who 'Warned' me for making one single edit - so yes that does relate to this ANI. And (before you complain again) I was obviously going to bring him up in here, as he was entirely following your lead, and some of you do seem to work as intimidating groups. What did you expect when you made this ANI?

It's ALL too intimidating, and I worry that all this is typical in complimentary medicine (ie 'CAM') areas on Wikipedia. I think you both feel too empowered and neither of you have any right to lean on anyone. The angry way I reacted to you both? Well, that's a separate matter. It's a reaction, and a really pissed-off one. I just hate seeing bullies. I am certain that you both feel you are fighting some great 'war' against pseudoscience, and set out to be tough guys toward every fool you feel you come across. Can't you just edit Wikipedia like you are supposed to for pete's sake? Using core policy properly should make these articles work - avoiding your own 'POV' is always the key. The idea of WP:NPOV has to work both ways to work properly. When people think they are somehow exempt from POV (in this case partly due to this highly unscientific ill-defined, super-conclusive, fits-all, and ultimately-unsourced and 'OR' idea of "scientific consensus" for everything to do with whatever alt-health is supposed to cover at any one point), you end up with articles needlessly reading like they are hatchet jobs. That is the net result. Wikipedia should not have that vibe, nor give that impression. It's highly unprofessional, and no doctor or scientist would approach it like this. You can tell the real story here without being macho about anything. The only reason that a reasonable probably rarely happens in these articles is because it's made so unwelcoming for moderate editors to step in and help. The hardliner ethos seems to be so completely entrenched that changing to more typically encyclopedic approach is pretty-much met with ridicule and/or distrust. Regarding my own single edit, it's pretty obvious that I was seen as a 'possible' sock puppet frankly too (ie if not just some silly-billy alt-health proponent) - but ignoring AGF like that is just not on either. It's just not the rules.

Please, just show some basic respect to normal people please. Behind all this is actually just a carer asking you people to offer a level field of respect to perfectly-decent and perfectly-intelligent people who often just happen to be (sometimes quite seriously) ill. It just happens to be a group that deserves basic respect. It's all about your approach. Matt Lewis (talk) 15:44, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't know what more I can add to this discussion. Any comment I make seems to elicit an increasingly grandiose rant. Matt Lewis, you're hardly in a position to lecture me about "basic level of respect". PepperBeast (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Well we all know the mechanics Wikipedia sometimes operates under. It's like a simple but effective machine; from the article interaction to the notes to the responses. Shorter criticsm gets advisory wikilinks including on 'personal attacks', longer critism is always dismissed to as a 'rant'. Just add a small array of colourful cliches to release in turn. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a patroller's 'bot' around that effectively automates every form of human interaction. Is this done yet? Matt Lewis (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Matt, Wikipedia editors are volunteers. Nobody here has to read your rants on ANI, but do because they are skilled at assisting in behavioral disputes. You speak of respect: Where is your respect for the people who read this board? For the volunteers who edit this site? I find it lacking, as evidenced by your absolute fervor in response to (1) a revert, (2) a level-1 user warning template, and (3) an ANI thread. All you had to do was explain yourself and walk away. Preaching about lofty principles is interesting, but not pertinent in the least. Even in terms of righting great wrongs, the three things that were "done to you" are hardly great even if they were wrong. That sort of fervor over what is, honestly, an exceedingly minor slight, sets off alarm bells in my head, and should do the same for other regular participants here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Too long, didnt read most of the above. Seriously, if you cant make your point in 500 words or less, you dont have a point. For complainant: 1. Accusation. 2. Diffs in evidence of accusation. 3. Resolution you are requesting (if known). For responder: 1. Why evidence does not support accusation. Anything else is waffle. Pepperbeasts complaint is that Matt Lewis is hassling them by their overly-long screeds in response to a simple editing conflict (and yes, it *is* a simple one that should have been resolved in 5 mins). They have provided evidence to that and Matt Lewis's extensive comments in this thread corroborate their excessive wordiness. I would certainly feel hassled by someone who posted those rants on my talkpage. Proposed solution: Matt Lewis, stay off Pepperbeasts talkpage or you will end up being blocked by an admin. Discuss editing conflicts at article talkpages. Refrain from commenting on editors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It isn't so much the wordiness for me. It's the content-- the aggressive tone, the lecturing, the repeated demands for an apology, the threatening to "report" me, calling me rude, cocky, and disrespectful, etc., etc. PepperBeast (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support the recommendation to Matt Lewis that 1) he has vastly over-reacted to a mundane and in-all-respects minor content dispute, 2) blowing things this massively out of proportion is especially problematic when coupled with a deep personalization of the issue, 3) this is a topic which should have been taken to the talk page for a cordial, collaborative effort at a middle-ground solution, 4) long-winded screeds on user pages are not a well-advised alternative to this process and an even worse idea when trying to defend one's sense of fair-play and proportion at ANI, and 5) an inability to scale back the hyperbole and long-winded claims of persecution is likely to result in sanctions. Seriously, any (extremely minor and certainly common-place) brusqueness on PepperBeast's behalf in that initial edit/edit summary was outdone in terms incivility by a factor of twenty in the first post to his talk page, to say nothing of the following comments there and here since. For an editor with a decade's-worth of experience who likes to gripe about what other editors "simply cannot do" in behavioural terms, said contributor really needs to get a grasp on basic conflict resolution strategies. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by User:Funkatastic

The editor keeps adding Bubbling Under chart peaks at Rick Ross discography, which cannot be verified through sources provided. I tried to explain to the editor that those peaks s/he adds cannot be verified at his/her talk page. But s/he removed my explanation, and reverted the page to his/her revision 1, 2. S/he keeps saying in the edit summary that These are routine calculations. Very much allowed. I'm not sure what routine calculations have anything to do with the fact that the peaks aren't verifiable.--Harout72 (talk) 22:52, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

So very happy you chose to involve other editors in this issue. WP:CALC, a sub policy of the WP:No Original Research policy, states specifically that:

"Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources. Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age are some examples of routine calculations."

The Bubbling under charts act as extensions of other charts. For example, if a song charts at #5 on the Bubbling Under Hot 100 Chart, which serves as an extension to the Hot 100, one could most certainly deduct that 100+5=105. This is simple addition, and to argue that this doesn't qualify as "simple arithmetic" is asinine. Additionally, this user has began edit wars on the pages Rick Ross discography (as well as my personal talk page), without adding any further explanations of his edits other than the argument made in his original edit summary, despite the fact that I presented a policy that specifically countered his argument. Though I personally feel that Harout72 is guilty of disruptive editing, I'd personally prefer that no repercussions are given to him and someone just simply explain to him that what he's doing is incorrect and violates WP:CALC. Funkatastic (talk) 23:03, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

You simply do not want to hear what others are saying to you. You were not brought here because you added Bubbling Under peaks, you were brought here because you kept adding peaks that cannot be verified through the sources that your edit here adds. This here is one of the sources that supposedly supports those chart peaks, which does not list any chart peaks for any songs whatsoever. The issue here is about the fact that you're either not familiar with WP:Verifiability or you knowingly keep disrupting that page. Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section.--Harout72 (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

You literally just accused me of exactly what you're doing, you're not listening to counter arguments. I did not add a single source to this page, so if that's the argument you're switching to now that's great, because now you look even dumber. The only thing I did was take the Bubbling Under positions from the Notes that already existed on the page and reflected them to the tables. So if your new issue is with the references, you're not even talking to the right person. This is hilarious. As you added in the final sentence of your last argument, "Also, Bubbling Under peaks are never adding in the column of Hot 100 chart, they should be listed at the notes section." is once again, completely ignoring the policy WP:CALC.Funkatastic (talk) 00:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

This is your edit. You have copied and pasted an entire older revision of the page from which I had to remove all of those sources and peaks due to unverifiability. By doing that, yes, you are adding sources which do not support your added chart peaks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Except the proper move there, isn't to completely remove all of the content. It's to add a notice at the top of the section & article saying that the article is unverifiable and it's sources need to be updated. So once again, you made a mistake. Funkatastic (talk) 05:54, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:44, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed this at Rick Ross discography and I'm not getting involved beyond this except to point out the fact that Funkatastic, you don't seem to understand it is not "basic arithmetic" because the Bubbling Under chart only tracks songs that have not yet reached the Hot 100. Therefore, a song that falls out of the Hot 100 will not reappear on the Bubbling chart. Thus, that particular song might be #101 in Billboard's calculations in a given week. To then list what is #1 on the Bubbling Under chart as #101 is inaccurate, because in reality it might be #102 or even #110; without actual figures, one cannot know. I've noticed what you've done at Meek Mill discography with Azealia911 (talk · contribs) with re-adding the Bubbling Under peak onto 100 and it's inaccurate, persistent and disruptive. Please recognise that you are misconstruing what the Bubbling Under chart actually is, and what it isn't is a simple extension chart (if it was, songs that fall out of the Hot 100 would reappear on it). This isn't anything personal, it's just that I've come across this misunderstanding many times over the years and it's frustrating to see it all over Wikipedia. That's why the note should be placed next to an mdash, because in the end, it did not chart on the Hot 100, its exact position outside the top 100 is not known, and the Hot 100 and Bubbling Under chart are two different charts. (Also, WP:CALC was not created for this reason and the cited passage indicates there must be consensus about said "calculation" for it to be added. There clearly isn't consensus among users about this, even beyond the scope of this.) Ss112 10:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Echoing what Ss112 has just said: the Bubbling Under chart is not an extension of the Hot 100 because it only includes songs that haven't yet reached the Hot 100, and does not account for those that have fallen off yet might still be just below 100. WP:CALC does not hold here, because the criteria are not the same between the two lists. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It appears Funkatastic has either not seen this or still does not care, having just edited 2 Chainz discography, still operating under the assumption one can add the Bubbling Under onto 100 and citing WP:CALC in his edit summaries. It needs to stop; it's disruptive, persistent and inaccurate. Disruptive because he will restore his edits if anybody takes him up on it. Ss112 18:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me if the user in question had indeed seen the above explanation on why CALC does not apply here, not been bothered, and carried on doing what they want regardless. I was originally wary about partaking in this discussion, as all attempts to contact the user via discussion or their talk page usually result in them blanking any attempt of communication, usually accompanied by an insulting statement in the edit summary (see their talk page history). I was also reluctant to add my thoughts as I didn't want the conversation to completely derail (see this discussion about a content dispute, which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up. If the user is simply ignoring what Ss112 and BlueMoonset are explaining here, then further action may be a possible route to take. Azealia911 _talk 20:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Funkatastic hasn't been pinged here lately, so I'm doing so now to ensure that the conversation is being followed as well as the explanations as to why the calculations are producing invalid results, rather like adding apples and oranges. (WP:CALC simply doesn't apply when the numbers being combined are determined based on differing criteria.) BlueMoonset (talk) 21:09, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that unlike other policies and guidelines that instruct users to be bold, CALC specifically states that "Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious" I have yet to see one discussion in which there is consensus amongst multiple editors that CALC can be applied in this manner, rather the opposite. Azealia911 _talk 21:13, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

*@Harout72: You've forgotten to notify Funktastic about this ANI complaint. I have done it for you, but given the fact it pops up in a big orange box every time you edit the page, I fail to see how you have missed it. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:06, 23 January 2016 (UTC) Ignore this. I noticed he removed the ANI notification. My bad. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 06:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

LMAO, that might be the dumbest thing I have ever read. If a song reaches the Hot 100 then any charting on the Bubbling Under charts wouldn't be the peak. I understand the concerns, but not a single one of you has raised a valid argument as to why WP:CALC doesn't apply to the use of Bubbling Under Charts. If you'd like to try and start a discussion on any of these pages to try and create a consensus that simple addition doesn't qualify as basic arithmetic please go ahead, but because that claim is so farfetched I'll continue to make these edits. I've yet to do anything that qualifies as "disruptive, persistent or inaccurate". Two more things I'd like to point out, I have never stated that the sources on these discography pages, nor have I ever personally vouched for him. Secondly, the above user says "which Funkatastic tried to turn conversation to how I paint them as a 'bad guy' and I was only posting to bring my 'personal beef' up" is completely irrelevant as it happened over a year ago, the only reason to bring up this dispute would be an attempt to personally attack a user instead of discussing the contents of the topic. Don't know how you could still deny these as personal attacks when in this scenario the content isn't the slightest bit pertinent to the current topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

It's valid because it's proof that, as you have also just stated, you (will) continue to add what you consider "routine calculations" persistently to the point of disruption. As I and other users have just explained, it is not a routine calculation; they're two different charts and the Bubbling chart is no longer a simple extension chart, otherwise it would still be listed as such (#1 being #101 and so on--there is no proof this is the case today). Even pointing out that if a song makes the Hot 100 "the Bubbling Under position would not be its peak" demonstrates you still do not understand what any of us has just said. Claiming without proof you have consensus to make said edits is wrong, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing this now. Ss112 01:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Funkatastic still keeps reverting Rick Ross discography to the revision which adds sources that leaves all of his added Bubbling Under peaks unverifiable. He still chooses to do so even after he accepted that his edit adds sources that do not support those chart peaks. Even after being told that Any material not supported by a reference can be removed without warning or notice; it is not a "mistake" to not tag it first. Hopefully administrators prevent further disruptions by this editor. He even reverts edits of other editors at all discographies where he's told what he's doing is wrong.--Harout72 (talk) 03:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

The above two posts both claim I said things that I never posted here or anywhere. I never once claimed I had a consensus, nor did I ever claimed I added sources to the page Rick Ross discography, both of those claims are 100% fictitious and furthermore prove that these users aren't even aware of the point I'm trying to make, let alone the topic of discussion. Funkatastic (talk) 19:55, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

You cited WP:CALC here and in your edit summary, which claims you need to have consensus to add numbers together for it not to be considered original research. You don't have consensus on the matter of adding Bubbling Under peaks to 100 to be adding it anywhere. You are now reverting @Cornerstonepicker: and claiming their reversions of your disruptive edits are "vandalism". Also, do not change the heading of this discussion; that's not your place. You didn't start this discussion, Harout72 did. Most of your edits are also unsourced, as you don't have any proof Billboard considers #1 on the Bubbling Under chart #101, which makes it original research as well. Since you are the user changing dashes into inaccurate additions (inaccurate, as I and others have explained above) of numbers, the burden of proof is on you. Ss112 20:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Especially Kanye West discography with WP:3RRV. Since his explanation is invalid, not sure why the persistence with unhelpful edits. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Would a topic ban proposal be too extreme? One that would prevent the user from editing discography articles completely. It's evident that no matter how many users attempt to explain how CALC can not be evoked as a reason for their actions, they clearly do not want to listen. What do others think? Azealia911 _talk 22:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• If no administrator blocks Funktastic for those erroneous additions despite consensus to the contrary, which is the only other thing I can think of that might get said user to stop without going to a ban, then I would favor a temporary topic ban on editing charts and chart data in discography articles and discographies in regular articles, perhaps a month, to be made indefinite if the behavior is resumed after the temporary ban is lifted. A line was crossed with the claim of "vandalism" when one of the CALC edits was reverted. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Saw this topic fly by: I can only add that I warned Funkatastic about this while I was an administrator, and, were I still an administrator, he would be indefinitely blocked until he acknowledged that his edits violate policy, guidelines, and that most horrible thing to mention, truth. As multiple editors have explained to him, the Bubbling Under charts do not function as an extension the main chart.

For those that aren't versed in charts, the Bubbling Under charts are a chart of the fifteen or twenty-five best-selling songs that have not made the main chart. If a song ever charts on the main chart, it cannot reappear on the main chart. Thus, if the 101st best-selling song used to be the 99th best selling song, it will disappear from the charts entirely, and the song showing a position 1 on the Bubbling Under chart is actually position 102 or lower. That's the reason that WP:CALC doesn't apply, and what Funkatastic is able unwilling or unable to understand. A WP:CIR block would be quite appropriate here: even if Funkatastic is well-intentioned, his edits are damaging.—Kww(talk) 20:40, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban or similar form of disciplinary measure. After a few days' rest, it appears Funkatastic has resumed disruptive editing; reverting BlueMoonset's edits at Wale discography. This persistent refusal to accept they are wrong and adding incorrect information needs to stop. Ss112 05:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for topic ban

I propose that Funkatastic be given a one month topic ban from editing discography articles and from making any edits related to Bubbling Under charts and music charting in general, broadly construed, said ban to be made indefinite if the behavior is resumed at any point after the temporary ban is lifted. I'm happy to entertain modifications on specific details, and alternate proposals can always be made. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Funkatastic's disruptive and inaccurate edits continue. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support I agree with the assertion that WP:CALC does not apply to the nuances of content involved here, but even if it did, that guideline still stipulates that Funktastic must secure consensus for these changes--which, in any event, specific policy reinforcement or no, he needs embrace for any controversial content change on Wikipedia. Since he seems determined to go his own way on this issue, across multiple articles, a topic ban seems the only appropriate measure at this time--though I wonder, given his disposition towards collaboration, if a topic ban will be sufficient or headed. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support Funkatastic is never going to stop disrupting discographies. This editor doesn't have the ability to listen to what others are saying to him, and surely isn't willing to work with the rest of the community.--Harout72 (talk) 14:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support, although I think a complete site ban would be preferable.—Kww(talk) 15:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's always a possibility it may come to that, if the editor doesn't begin to appreciate the principle of the collaborative process, but I have to say that proposing a full site ban based on present activities would be a massive over-reach of a sanction, thoroughly disproportionate with the disruption being examined here, not withstanding their editing philosophy and propensity towards IDHT in this narrow context. A temporary topic ban or a very short term block would be appropriate, either of them, but an indefinite or long-term site ban would surely be excessive, in my view. Snow ^{let's rap} 01:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support The user displays tell-tale signs of WP:IDHT. No matter how many times it is explained to them, they will not cease to use WP:CALC as an excuse to disruptively edit discographies. I'd motion to extend the 'trial' topic ban from one month to three or four. I also concur with Kww that a better route to take would be a site ban. Azealia911 _talk 15:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support per comments by Kww and Azealia911; either a topic ban or site ban. Ss112 17:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions

Closing with no action as none is merited. Any discussion of potential changes in editor behavioral guidelines can be take to the pump or other appropriate places. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 00:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

---

Kingofaces43 is casting very serious aspersions, and here - where he essential frames everybody participating in a OR noticeboard discussion as a climate change denier, among his common theme as fringe. I asked him to retract that but he ignored it. Other editors also challenged these remarks as aspersion. Ping involved editors AlbinoFerret, Semitransgenic, The Four Deuces, Aircorn, petrarchan47, Tryptofish -- prokaryotes (talk) 02:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I see a profound difference of meaning between statements like 'Arguments like this are used in climate change denial' which seems to be what KingOfAces is saying, and 'The editors arguing this are climate change deniers', which seems to be what Prokaryotes is accusing KingOfAces of having said. Not sure how those two are being confused, although statements like the first one can be logical fallacies. Geogene (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I've also explained exactly this to Prokaryotes prior to this posting at WP:AE where their behavior is currently being looked at.[44] My only comment actually directed at editors and not on content/subject matter was that multiple editors were misunderstanding some of the concepts behind some scientific content. I'm not interested in addressing the hyperbole that I'm calling editors climate change deniers further, nor do I think we should entertain the silly idea that I was doing that. I was actually careful on wording my posts to focus on the subject and not editors to avoid these kinds of comments as we're subjected to drama pretty often in this topic. Either way, the topic is under discretionary sanctions, so even if someone thought my sourced comments on the subject matter were some sort of violation, that's for WP:AE, not here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:06, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• The first two links are diffs of comments that show no problem that I can see. The claims are generic and appear unexceptional. It certainly is true that people use Wikipedia to promote WP:FRINGE ideas, and often sources are cherrypicked to make claims that aren't valid—the same tactics of climate change denial. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can you link a comment from there where someone is promoting a fringe theory? prokaryotes (talk) 04:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

He wrote:

• "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus. We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus"

  "...but that is a real world issue that comes with trying to edit articles where people are trying to deny a scientific consensus. It is a legitimate content problem when editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial."

To understand his comments you need to read the discussion, the main point being that none of the sources cited supports the consensus, except for a single author (who was criticized for a flawed assessment by the Union of Concerned Scientist). And besides the WHO states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." Pointing out the lack of consensus prompted him to write above analogy to climate denial - states ..."editors or sources are using the same arguments here as in climate change denial" He is not calling us deniers, but compares our honest policy based input to climate denial. Hence why i wrote above, he essential frames...and this is what qualifies as aspersion.prokaryotes (talk) 04:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

To make this clear he started with denial when he wrote, "There's no OR with respect to the scientific consensus." . But there is no consensus at all in the world of GMOs (in regards to an overall assessment as discussed).prokaryotes (talk) 04:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Additional look at the discussion and judge for yourself, are the arguments there the same as in climate change denial, as Kingofaces claims? prokaryotes (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Coincidentally there is an article about recent discussions on the food safety consensus, we discuss here, http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986952/why_is_cornell_university_hosting_a_gmo_propaganda_campaign.html prokaryotes (talk) 05:11, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• Comment Responding to ping. Maybe I have thicker skin than others, but despite some robust discussion that is not going anywhere fast I am not seeing much in the way of "very serious aspersions" from either side. I think the OP missed the point as far as apparent "accusations" of climate change denial goes. Nobody on either side of the debate thinks of the others as denying climate change, quite the opposite in fact. It is more presenting the paradox of how similarly presented science can be seen so differently depending on ones ideals. Something not unique to GMOs or climate change. AIRcorn (talk) 08:28, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• As noted above, "this is the kind of thing climate deniers do" is not an accusation of climate denial. It has been observed elsewhere that some anti-GMO activists are massive fans of science in the area of climate change, and resort to fallacies such as the "pharma shill gambit" when science fails to show GMOs to be dangerous, I wonder if that is the problem here. Regardless, I see nothing actionable here, on either side. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
• I've been pinged, and I am responding with no small amount of annoyance. This is "vexatious litigation". It is abundantly clear that saying that an argument is the same argument that has been made in other contexts is not the same thing as saying that editors have actually made that argument in other contexts. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:30, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Vexatious Litigation? If you were all for avoiding conflict, then why did you take Prokaryotes to ArbCom Enforcement almost less than 1 hour after after the 1RR violation here without first asking him/her to self-revert? No warnings, nothing. Just straight to ArbCom. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Because that is how Wikipedia works. The difference is that there really was a 1RR violation there, with an abundance of prior warnings, whereas there have not been aspersions here. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:13, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

There was no "abundance" of prior warnings. One only need look at Prokaryotes talk page history going back to 2013 to see that the only warning from you was after you filed the case at AE. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:44, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

A day or so ago, I thanked you at the article talk page for being willing to work together, but here, you are sounding rather partisan, especially given your professed preference for "avoiding conflict". Please see the AE page. There is a section in my filing that details prior warnings to him. ArbCom imposed 1RR, and they had good reasons for doing so. The way it is imposed, prior warnings are considered the appropriate procedure. And it took him well over a day before he finally got around to self-reverting, but he was a lot quicker to open this retaliatory complaint here at ANI. In any event, here we are discussing whether admins should block KofA. It is abundantly clear that they should not. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being "partisan". I am not trying to create conflict, but point out what I see as double-standards of calling this unnecessary litigation. Prokaryotes did not wait a day to self-revert. Prokaryotes self-reverted here only 21 minutes after being asked by Aircorn here. If you had politely asked as Aircorn had, it would have saved us a lot of time at AE. Instead you supported a topic ban for Prokaryotes. It is true we seem to be able to work together and appreciated your positive comment there. I would like you to try harder to work with Prokaryotes instead of threating a topic ban. (I apologize if others see this is off-topic.) --David Tornheim (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

You are certainly coming on strong with your beliefs that I am at fault and Prokaryotes should be excused. It was a day from the AE filing. An editor who understands why there is 1RR would not spend a day arguing at AE that the reverts were justified because he was supposedly right in the content dispute, only to self-revert after someone points out the obvious to him. This is not a double standard. The AE filing is appropriate, and two administrators there have agreed about it. This ANI filing is unnecessary. If you are such a fan of asking politely, why didn't Prokaryotes try to discuss it at KofA's user talk, instead of coming here? See? And I have been quite polite to Prokaryotes at the article talk page, even saying that I fully supported the edits that you and he had made at one point. His response to me saying that? He accused me of not cooperating with other editors. And while we are veering off-topic here, I'll point out that editors were quite noisy about wrongly accusing me of SYNTH, but when I supplied the requested source, the response has been silence. There is a source for "scientific consensus", and editors suddenly lose interest in discussing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

And to be very clear: 1RR does not mean if you make a second revert other editors are supposed to explain to you that you need to self-revert. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close with no action, per comments above. Geogene (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I too find that KingofAces43's frequent use of the term "Fringe" and "climate denier" problematic and needlessly antagonist. We are supposed to discuss how to represent what is in RS, not use our personal biases about the science (or a scientist) to dismiss any position (or person) we do not agree with as "Fringe". For example here, King claims that José L. Domingo who is editor and chief of Food and Chemical Toxicology, a journal with a high impact factor is "fringe". It is little more than an ad hominem argument, just like calling editors "anti-GMO", POV-pushers, etc. This same editor was none to happy when accused of having a COI here, which resulted in a very lengthy AN/I and successful block against the person suggesting King had a COI. You would think King would give other editors the same respect and not use ad hominem arguments, but after repeated warnings, this has not stopped. I am not surprised this case was brought. I think a warning to cease the behavior would be sufficient. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Besides the ongoing OR discussion, Kingofaces is now what appears to be edit warring at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genetically_modified_crops&action=history, where he edits against talk page consensus, of several editors. prokaryotes (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial. Advocacy of fringe beliefs and climate change denial are a long term problem on Wikipedia, hence WP:ARBCC and WP:ARBPS and the like. It is a clearly established principle of Wikipedia that the mainstream POV is Wikipedia's POV. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment There is no reason to throw editors who are questioing recent edits by King, Air and Trypto in with climate change deniers, unless you want to distract from the real issue. And it is simple: Jytdog wrote a SYNTH/OR "scientific consensus" statement that after a months-long, well attended RfC, was closed with agreement by all that the wording does not have support with available RS. As no new sources have emerged to support some version of 'no scientists doubt the safety of GMOs', these editors who are now ignoring that RfC cannot claim to be doing it in good faith. So sling mud, then no one will notice. It's a PR statement and makes Wikipedia look like an anti-science establishment mouthpiece. Guy argues that Domingo 2011, which shows that HALF of all independent studies done on GMO food safety found "serious cause for concern", should be ignored by WP and not included in these articles until various governmental agencies have adopted different language (admit that questions of GMO safety exist). We have suggested for going on a year now that the solution to this contentious and unsupported generalizing statement is to simply quote the various groups. We don't do that. WP summarizes upwards of 18 different sources in order to claim that this 'general consensus' exists. Having been through the RfC and the related ArbCom, these facts have been well covered so i won't be added diffs again. WP can continue to host unsupported PR statements that fly in the face of MEDRS, and it can continue to be a laughing stock that people are warned to stay away from. Up to you. But PR doesn't work if no one trusts you. petrarchan47คุก 20:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Good point about direct quotes, I have suggested this here, and guess what - the involved editors ignore this entirely, besides we do this for Scientific opinion on climate change. Their reason is probably because the WHO (statement in link)- the highest authority in the field, directly contradicts a consensus statement. prokaryotes (talk) 22:42, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

That we are being forced to reargue that gargantuan RfC, but unofficially in barely-related noticeboards, shows disruptive editing. That this consensus statement is being added to WP and you are the one who ends up in trouble (again, for simply tending to RS issues) shows that "discretionary sanctions" and handslaps from ArbCom do not actually help anything. This issue needs to go to the authorities and they should be forced to address it. [But I'm not volunteering; I am ignored even when I ping and ask very direct (even bolded) questions.]

It is clear that an encyclopedia would uphold the notion that we add content, well-sourced and neutrally stated, and then if it can be summarized in a simple statement, great, add it to the intro. I call this a PR statement because for one thing, the opposite happened in this case. The statement was written, and the sourcing was dealt with afterwords, largely through drama board gaming by gangs, as we see today. Even though official WP processes were used to determine that statement is without support, longtime editors can still find a way around this inconvenient fact. I call it a PR statement also due to the fact that any true mention of opposition to this POV is left out of articles, again through these same methods. To this day, WP does not mention the percentage of Americans who favor GMO labeling, even though I have complained about this many times in very public places. I've mentioned many times Domingo, who's paper is the very best MEDRS source available on the subject of GMO food safety, and literally everyone at this encyclopedia snores. So, by what WP does say, and by what is being kept out, we do indeed have a PR statement written by a topic banned editor, now being reintroduced and defended by his buddies. petrarchan47คุก 00:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Did anyone else notice Petrarchan47's shill gambit above? Comments? Geogene (talk) 23:22, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, stop following me around. It's becoming ridiculous. petrarchan47คุก 00:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Following? I posted here (top of the thread) before you did. Geogene (talk) 00:13, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Quite. The apology will be interesting. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene has been following me for a long, long time. I had to say it, even if it doesn't immediately apply. Anyone can do a little search and find this to be true. I see no reason for an apology, but it's easy to believe you weren't aware of our long history. You can check Geogene's talk page archives for more. petrarchan47คุก 00:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Then ask for an IBAN. A two way IBAN. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm asking you to leave me alone. It's been over 2 years. Let it go. We don't need to call the cops. petrarchan47คุก 04:20, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Is anyone here still discussing whether there should be administrator action against KingofAces, or are we just warming up for another round of dispute resolution? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

No, this was dead on arrival and should have closed yesterday. Geogene (talk) 00:50, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion

• Suggestion (from uninvolved editor): I suggest that the community make it a policy, in DS or AE/ArbCom areas, that participants on either side must not name-call or falsely characterize/compare the participants on the other side. Therefore, in this particular DS topic area, no use of the word "shill", no mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar such as flat earth), and no use of insults/name-calls such as "GMO paranoia gang". Can we all agree on that? It seems like such directives should be included in every ArbCom ruling in these sorts of DS areas. It would solve a lot of problems. Especially if sanctions were forthcoming for any breach of these principles. Softlavender (talk) 01:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you in principle, and I've been trying to get the community to see pretty much that in the thread about Elvey higher up on this page. The thing about "shill" was actually codified in the ArbCom decision. But what is happening is that editors are getting sophisticated about skirting the spirit of the principle. Instead of calling someone a "shill", they talk about "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good", and in the thread I referred to, administrators are saying that they don't see anything about "shill" in that. But the opening complaint of this thread here was about an editor saying that an argument resembled the arguments used by climate change deniers, and some editors are trying to spin a critique of an argument as being the same as saying that editors are climate change deniers. It gets messy when you get into the weeds, just like civility. I wish it were clear-cut. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Spot on Softlavender prokaryotes (talk) 01:19, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

It would all be settled if any mention of climate-change denialism (or anything similar) were prohibited. I'm not talking about this ANI case. I'm talking about going forward. And, going forward, "editing to make companies with deep pockets look good" and similar statements would be prohibited as well. If someone has a COI claim or investigation to make, that belongs on WP:COIN, not in content discussions or disputes. It's fine to discuss whether research or a source is independent of a company/ies or not, but in this DS area, it's not fine at this point to discuss or hint at other editors' motivations, period. Or compare their arguments/behaviors to other groups, period. Softlavender (talk) 01:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the problem with comparing an someone's argument to arguments used by climate change denialists. For one, that's a critique of the argument, not the editor. It isn't flattering, but this is not the most horrible insult to hit ANI this week. Geogene (talk) 01:31, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's precisely the point: It is an insult, and in these contentious DS/ArbCom areas, we need to prohibit insults of every kind, on both sides of the equation. Again, I'm not talking about this particular ANI case; I'm talking about going forward. Softlavender (talk) 01:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

We need to be able to objectively, and honestly discuss the qualities of arguments other editors use. If it's a bad argument, the editor behind it might feel insulted. But that's not necessarily an insult. The problem comes in when they attack the editor, such as by assigning them problematic motives. That isn't what's happening here because this area has no connection to climate change, and there's really no threat of anyone constructing bad arguments about GMOs because they're climate change denialists. If that were true, if a reasonable person might be worried about denialists sneaking in and using bad arguments, etc, in GMO articles then it might have been an aspersion. Civility and AGF are already required by policy but they aren't consistently enforced. Banning certain words or phraseology would just be another "gotcha" trap for newcomers to Wikipedia and wouldn't accomplish anything because thesauruses exist. Geogene (talk) 01:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Arguments are based on logic. You can objectively critique the logic of any argument without comparing it to the arguments of a disparaged group, or indeed any group at all. (Just as you can critique someone's claims without fulfilling Godwin's Law.) I see no point in explaining this further, so that's my last comment to you on that score. Softlavender (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Geogene, "discussing" needs to be done in all kinds of ways, but "honestly" isn't necessarily one of them. I agree with Softlavender that such a comparison is insulting, and is meant as a put-down. Analogies can work very effectively, just ask Donald Trump or any other politician, but some of them work by way of rhetorical sleight of hand. If you cannot say something in literal language, you probably should stay away from using metaphorical language. I'm speaking now as a person who has a block button: I am very likely to consider the comparison a personal attack. Carry on, Drmies (talk) 17:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Drmies, I'll remind you that editors such as Prokaryotes were made fully aware this couldn't be construed as a put-down before this thread opened as described in my original post here, with even more explanation here, and my comments at the AE case. They were implicitly told I was focusing on the sources and the arguments sources put forth and that the criticisms of arguments for "no scientific consensus" being like climate change denialism were also sourced. The only time I ever directed a comment at editors was: 1. Some were misunderstanding some technical aspects of the sources [45] explained in previous discussions. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at the board.[46]

As a legitimate question to hopefully end this, maybe you can offer some insight both from the admin/ArbCom perspective and the content side? If even introducing the content issue that science denialism in the GMO topic fringe sources and the methods the sources use causes this much of a call for blood, how would we even approach writing about this content in an article? Such content would describe many of the arguments against GMOs being safe as ranging from unsupported to pseudoscientific and described as similar to climate change denialism, vaccine controversy, etc. by sources. That's content and a huge consideration in WP:WEIGHT on the topic. No one should be getting insulted by that content not directed at editors. That's especially if editors that may not personally agree with that view are checking their personal views at the door at login. Not checking such views at the door should be the only way to claim personal offense in this area of the content and contradicts WP:NOTCENSORED.

How would you go about dealing with this dynamic of separating content from behavior issues on this specific topic? I for one am interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack. I'm open to thoughts of clarity on this, especially now that we've fulfilled the point of Godwin's law where editors are invoking Nazis as part of arguments. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content. Accusing an editor of using an argument like climate change denial is not at all the same as citing content from purported RS that does so, and then discussing whether the source is RS or is the best RS. Besides I have not seen quality RS that accuses those who question the purported "scientific consensus" on GMO safety as being akin to climate change denial--it is usually GMO proponents like Jon Entine or Pamela Ronald who write in mainstream who say things like that. Nor have I seen RS using terms like "pseudoscience" or Fringe. The word "Fringe" is purely a Wikipedia construction. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:18, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Softlavender's suggestion and agree with all of Softlavender's responses to Geogene. We need more civility. These insults are unnecessary and unhelpful and also create a lot of text that does not serve the project. Instead, let's look at the RS and what it says and discuss it without attacking the other editor's intelligence, competence, motivations, etc. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Do you consider a comment like "I understand the industry does not want the critics' voices, but I think our article is supposed to be about the "controversy" not just the industry perspective. in relation to a reversion to be any different than the ones being discussed here? I was personally not offended by it in any way and didn't even give it a second thought until another editor linked WP:AGF when responding. I think it highlights how easy it is to make these unnecessary aspersions and the difficulty in enforcing them in any meaningful way as the level of offence experienced by editors varies a lot. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There was a very subtle accusation of biased editing in the first part of that comment. So it was okay for the other editor to call me out on it, and so I regretted it after making it. I should have just said that there is too much of the industry perspective. In fact, I would be willing to strike that part out if it helps. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Since this is good opportunity, a bit more of a hopefully final explanation of my original intent plus general issues we're dealing with in this topic. Part of the problem with what Softlavender described is that general science denialism tactics (e.g., denying scientific consensus where climate change has the most examples) are content issues, not comments on editors. I fully acknowledge that editors sometimes may blur the line between the two in heated debate, especially in cases when an editor personalizes a point of view that might have significant criticism and gets offended (I'm not singling anyone out here). Editors should be detaching their personal views from content when they log in though per NPOV. That's all why I was purposely careful to focus my post about the content, not editors, as I made abundantly clear to Prokaryotes before this thread was even opened and at the WP:AE case against them (where I find it very curious that they went to ANI with this instead of AE during their open case).

Saying we can't talk about sourced science denialism in a topic at all would be restricting content. It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism. Those things are going to come up as part of legitimate discussions on real-world content in these topics. Obviously no one should be going so far as to personalize it into insults directed at editors such as claiming they are an anti-vaxxers, anti-GMOer, etc. We focus on content instead. It's one thing to deal with obvious personal attacks like just I described. It's entirely something else when an editor gets offended and tries to claim personal attack because the subject matter in the controversy has been characterized as pseudoscientific, fringe, on par with climate change denialism in method, etc. by sources as happened in my case. Especially in controversial subjects, we can't be restricting content because someone will create offense out of that focus on certain content. I hear your comments on trying to cut down the drama (we all want that), but we'd be violating multiple policies and ArbCom decisions if we apply your suggestion to these kinds of situations. We instead need to cut down on instances where editors try to falsely claim personal insult when discussion of controversial subjects comes up, not restrict the controversial subject from the content discussion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Stated above: "It would be akin to saying the problems with climate change denialism arguments couldn't be discussed as part of content to include or exclude in climate change denialism". Not at all. There would be no need to compare the editors or their arguments to climate change denialism, since the subject would be climate denialism and the arguments would be discussed directly and would be directly relevant, not an attack by using an Association fallacy with something unrelated to the subject matter that is designed to denigrate those making an argument. Should we allow those who dispute climate change to have free reign to say that those who disagree with them are using the same arguments used by the Nazi's, since limiting such comparison to the Nazi's would negatively impact the articles about Nazi's? See Godwin's law.

To say it another way, I think the concern King raised about Softlavender's proposal, is that he believes it would make it impossible to challenge the LOGIC of the climate change deniers. No. The LOGIC, facts, RS, etc. of arguments related to climate change or GMO's can be challenged directly without any need to compare the two. The objection made here is of the unfair comparison of the two with the purpose of denigrating the editors. I would be just as concerned if Nazi's were used for comparison. (Ironcially, when I searched for this section, Godwin's law came up on one of the other AN/I cases. Softlavender mentioned it too.) --David Tornheim (talk) 14:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That is among the most fatuous suggestions I have seen on Wikipedia in recent times. Censoring Wikipedia discussion to prevent mention of such well-documented real-world problems as climate change denial would not only be completely unenforceable, it would also be an abrogation of our mission to be neutral and accurate. Of course climate change denialists hate being called climate change denialists, that's their problem, not ours. Climate change denial is real, and to make climate change denial denialism a formal policy here would be outrageous. What would help is for those who self-identify as climate change not-denial-at-all-ists to stop getting so indignant whenever we mention the D-word. The global scientific consensus on climate change is extremely robust, and the continued pathological opposition of a group dominated by fossil fuel interests and fundamentalist libertarians is justly characterised as denial: a form of motivated reasoning. And we're not going to stop calling it that, and if people are uncomfortable with a project that is unashamed to call climate change denial by its name, then they will surely be most welcome at Conservapedia, where climate change denial is the official editorial line. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You are reading a different suggestion here than the one I see. Call a climate-change denier a climate-change denier or an anti-vaccine advocate anti-vaccine. This is not a problem. The problem arises when shallow comparisons are made, saying anti-gmo groups are like, or make arguments like, anti-vaccine advocates, when the groups, arguments, and science involved have almost nothing in common.Dialectric (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually from my own observation of anti-GMO activists and anti-vaxers at work, they use very similar arguments: "not adequately tested", for example, the pretence that they are not anti-X but pro-safe-X, "think of the children" and so on. The tactics of antivaxers are more rabid, but anti-GMO activists and climate change deniers - two groups with almost no overlap in personnel - both make liberal use of tactics straight from the tobacco industry playbook. And there is also quite an overlap between climate denial and antivaxers in US politics at the moment. Guy (Help!) 19:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Those are your observations, but we are supposed to be reporting what is in WP:RS, not making up our own theories. If someone said, "These editors are using the same arguments as Nazi's in order to promote their agenda here on Wikipedia", and the writer defended it saying, "that's just my personal OPINION and OBSERVATION", you wouldn't seriously be okay with that would you? --David Tornheim (talk) 16:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It's crude and proves Godwin's Law, but aside from that, what's the big deal? After all, Wikipedia more than occasionally deals with true-to-form honest-to-goodness Nazis, doncha know? Are you saying that if we find a Nazi we should never point it out? Honestly, I'm getting the impression that you lack critical thinking skills here. jps (talk) 00:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Editors have agreed that denigrating one's argument by lumping them in with climate change deniers is indeed "casting aspersions". As these articles are under DS, I would support some action taken. Guy said:" I find it worrying that you have a problem with Kingofaces' entirely normal use of the terms fringe and climate change denial." In my opinion, it is equally agregious to use these terms as it is to use "shill" (a term I have never used, by the way, and wouldn't support). These needs to be made clear. petrarchan47คุก 04:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I personally agree. In my opinion there is no way that mentioning "climate-change denial" (or "fringe", or "anti-vaccine"), when discussing a completely different topic is not casting aspersions. Nor is it content-related: it's behavior-describing. For instance, saying "We're just seeing the same tactics as we see in climate change denial to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated fringe sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." needs to be re-worded as something like "I'm seeing tactics to make it look like there isn't a consensus such as cherrypicking the isolated anti-GMO sources, claiming different nuanced ways to say essentially the same thing isn't consensus, etc." -- Softlavender (talk) 05:58, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The use of aspersion-by-association has gone on for some time now on the GMO articles and this behavior should stop. It does not contribute to dialog. No argument in this area requires nakedly biased wording such as 'fringe', shills', or association of arguments or individuals with 'climate change denial' and the repeated use of such wording is divisive. While it may take a few more words to articulate one's concerns without such language, many editors manage just fine without resorting to it, and as most of the editors involved so far in this discussion have written many thousands of words on GMO topics - a few more in the service of a fully articulated argument free of aspersions won't hurt.Dialectric (talk) 06:40, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Your revision still says the exact same thing I originally did and my comments were referring specifically to sources and content. It's time for people to drop the stick that I was somehow referring to editors even after multiple clarifications on my intent being on the sources and the arguments they put forth. WP:NPA is clear that discussion of content in this manner not directed at editors is not a personal attack even if people may be offended by the content itself, and we need to stick to that policy, especially when it comes to misrepresenting editor's statements. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:59, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Who and what are you replying to Kingofaces43? If, as you say, you are truly 'interested in being able to work on this specific part of the topic without having to deal with continued claims of personal attack' then a clear statement from you that you will stop mentioning climate change in any capacity in GMO articles article talk pages, and an acknowledgement that the two areas are completely unrelated, would be a good start.Dialectric (talk) 19:27, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Following the threading, I'm replying to SoftLavender. You're suggestion though is that I violate policy by restricting content when sources describe a topic as pseduoscientific, fringe, and all the other nuances of those terms, including when sources say they are similar to other fringe points of view. That's what I'm currently looking into expanding in some articles. If someone is opposed to that, that's a content discussion and not something suited for ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I have clarified that I meant talk pages, which are being discussed here.Dialectric (talk) 19:42, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, if you're going work on developing content, you can't restrict mention of that content from talk pages. That would toss WP:CONSENSUS policy out the window. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Self-censoring in a controversial area in no way violates policy. I am not suggesting it as a punishment, rather as a voluntary route for you to avoid further distracting digressions over this issue which I don't see coming to any resolution here unless you agree to one. I can't see how not mentioning climate change will prove any real impediment to work on GM articles.Dialectric (talk) 20:06, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

That's violating WP:NOTCENSORED if some editors have gotten offended because of what sources say on the matter and the solution is to not talk about the offending content. We're not here to WP:RGW on content as some people may perceive them to be. We just write about reality as sources describe and leave it at that regardless of whether the content offends some group. If someone consistently has trouble with NOTCENSORED policy, that can be taken up at ArbCom enforcement. I don't see any reason to continue this particular conversation beyond that. Kingofaces43 (talk) 20:34, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is irrelevant to this discussion. This is about behavior not about content as I explained here --David Tornheim (talk) 16:51, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

This sure reminds me of the debates about enforcing WP:CIVIL. One editor's reaction to the word "cunt" ends up being far different than another editor's. And one editor's reactions to "climate deniers" and "companies with deep pockets" ends up being far different than another editor's. I really do not know what to do. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You could begin by refraining from using a word you know will insult people. Please use "the C word" to get the point across without offending people, in this case large numbers of women. petrarchan47คุก 00:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I did not intend to offend anyone. There is a specific history on Wikipedia about that word, with some editors feeling about it the way that you do (and I pretty much agree with you!) and other editors feeling very much the opposite. It even became the centerpiece of an ArbCom case. (For context: some editors from the UK consider the word to be not much different than "buddy"; to US ears, that seems surprising.) I'd rather not link to the past dramas, but my intention was to utilize a word that has been Exhibit 1 in Wikipedia's inability to get to consensus about WP:CIVIL. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I know the history, as do you, which is why you cannot claim that you meant not to offend, you've just admitted you know the word is highly inflammatory, especially to many women on this site. I'm suggesting you can make the same point in the future without using the word and potentially upsetting people. There is no reason to spell it out unless you want to inflame, or if there is no other way to convey your point. petrarchan47คุก 01:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

That does not even make sense, which illustrates how far this dispute has become intractable. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I am staggered to hear that any English editor would consider that word as meaning "buddy" except in a very private conversation between people who know each other extremely well. I am not fanning flames here. I will go away and do my own research, but I am shocked by this possibility.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I live in the US, and my understanding of the word is in accordance with US customs, and I am no expert on UK culture. I was not endorsing the use of the word. Rather, I was trying to point out to grown-up people that Wikipedia has had a history with it. Given WP:NOTCENSORED, I assumed that other editors would understand it that way. The background for it is what led up to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility enforcement/Evidence. If anyone wants to argue about it, you can identify editors to argue about it with by looking there. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Trypto, I did not mean in anyway to comment on your use or interpretation of the word. What I was doing was expressing "to the world" my amazement that some English editors would make such an argument. I am striking my comment above so that hopefully there can not be any misunderstanding.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much for that! That was very kind of you. For what it's worth, I find it rather surprising too, but if I've learned anything from editing Wikipedia, it's the diversity of human experiences and perspectives. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:58, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it just has to be done on a case-by-case basis. If someone is making strong attacks directly at editors or casting aspersions, then sanctions should deal with that. If it's actually a focus on content like in my case, that's not any sort of violation (could be a boomerang situation potentially). Let's take a parallel example from the "other side" of the topic. Saying the statements and literature that GMOs are safe are just bought off by industry could technically be twisted to be a personal attack too if someone was pointy about this. Some examples:

1. An editor trying to discuss potential source conflict of interest, etc. would be fine in terms of civility, aspersions, etc. (not going to get into validity as content).
2. Saying that the editor is just siding with Monsanto, etc. is crossing the line into aspersions territory or more.
3. If they said Nazis would use those arguments (unless pig's fly and it's amazingly sourced), that would still be aspersions territory even though it's discussing content as it's unwarranted guilt by association rather than solely content. Nazis just get mention because some people triggered Godwin's law and trying to frame that mentioning fringe subjects is equivalent.
4. If they said the arguments for GMOs were just fringe (e.g., if the scientific consensus was GMOs are unsafe) and reasoning trying to push the fringe idea is pseudoscientific in nature similar to that pushed by industry in climate change, that's not inherently an aspersion, and definitely not if it's sourced (again talking scenarios and not actual content validity).

Basically, I'm sitting in situation 4 right now. I can think of some situations where editors have made a very similar argument as 4 though, so if we're going to consider that inappropriate and blockable, I think we could clear out a lot of editors from the GMO topic. I highly doubt anyone is going to seriously consider that valid though. Any thoughts on this framework though? Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Even if we accept that such statements aren't aspersions, what purpose do they serve? When is 'you sound like the climate change deniers' ever the best argument in a given discussion? Any forward progress we've seen in the GMO articles has come from finding and discussing good sources, not on pigeonholing editors into an objectionable association.Dialectric (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Exactly. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

What is a good argument when you are trying to convince someone who has rejected reasonable approaches? I think it can be helpful at times to get people to see what others see of them. It's not always effective, but let's take a particular editor here, prokaryotes. This particular editor is topic banned from vaccines for promoting anti-vaccine nonsense. And yet the editor has been very good in certain climate change articles. Here they are seeming to fall into the same habits as their anti-vaccine editing rather than in the good habits of their climate change editing. At the very least, it seems to have gotten their attention. Now, whether it is persuasive or not is hard to say. I'm not sure what the best persuasive technique is when it comes to these hot-button points. But it's not fair to accuse someone of pigeonholing when discussion at times needs to break free of the usual litany of bad sourcing, poor science, and, yes, denial of facts that characterize poor editing practices in this area as well as the other areas herein referenced. jps (talk) 23:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Disagree. I think your argument has fallacies. (a) Calling someone names is not a reasonable argument against a poor edit (b) Suggesting someone is unreasonable is to suggest that your argument is perfectly reasonable and that you have absolute knowledge of the facts and truth. Wikipedia has a procedure called Dispute Resolution for dealing with content issues that does not include incivility. If editors can not control themselves, they should not be here. --Iantresman (talk) 10:46, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

^Agree, especially with (a). --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware of your preference for form over substance. It is part of the reason you're topic banned. jps (talk) 14:47, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That would fall into 2; I'm pretty sure I was clear that wasn't ok at all. It's entirely different to discuss there are similar scientific denialism methods within content at play like in climate change to obfuscate scientific consensus, especially when discussed in sources (#4). That's part of this controversial topic, and even if someone doesn't like that, they need to accept that it's going to be part of the content discussion just as claims came up that there is nefarious doing within sources related to industry on the other end. We can't have double standards here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Softlavender -- this is a serious obstacle to constructive editing and dispute resolution, and must be addressed by the community to avert many more instances of future conflict. GAB^Hello! 23:16, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with Softlavender These comparisons and labels simply make a tense situation into a battleground. It lumps editors into categories and is contrary to consensus building. The results is a WP:BATTLEGROUND. AlbinoFerret 13:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with SoftLavender and many others, that dialog must be open to all, without prejudice, and name-calling disallowed. It's not okay to frame some ideas a "fringe" and therefore to poison the well against them. Simply rely on sources. You may find that there is a lot of nuance in the results. Some concepts have some validity and some falsity. There are indeed power dynamics that shape knowledge. If we rely on sources and act with integrity, then it will not be necessary to engage in witch-hunts or inquisitions, and the finer edge of reality will reveal itself, instead of a caricature version of what's real. SageRad (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• 'Oppose While well-meaning, I think that any policy or guideline level advice like this would only be used to shut one side down, by ignoring the content of argument in favour of some specific of how it's phrased. Especially as, in this specific case, pointing out similarities of tactics in denialist movements is the subject of major academic texts, e.g. The Merchants of Doubt, which compares and shows continuity in, offhand, denial that tobacco causes cancer, denial of the nuclear winter/support for Reagan's Star Wars initiative, climate change denial, etc. No personal attacks is a rule, but no attacks on viewpoints cannot be without harming the encyclopedia. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no article for The Merchants of Doubt. Can you please provide a proper citation? Also, you did not say this source mentions arguments related to GMO's in the context we have been talking about. As far as I can tell it is irrelevant to this discussion. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

No comment on whether it is relevant, but the wikipedia article is Merchants of Doubt.Dialectric (talk) 22:29, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Agree with SoftLavender...such labeling and name-calling of editors is clearly being used to taunt and harass. It makes for a battleground atmosphere which could so easily be stopped.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:36, 29 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with SoftLavender - Adopting this policy, with sanctions for repeat violations, would remove a tactic long used by POV warriors to shame and blame those opposing their cherished views. Jusdafax 01:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
• Agree with SoftLavender As per my earlier comments. Comparing the questioning of GMO safety to climate change denial is a talking point pushed by Jon Entine[47] who does this on behalf of industry.[48] This comparison, and claims of fringe, are not encyclopedic and have no place here. Further, as I wrote earlier, questioning GMO safety is becoming the majority viewpoint in some areas, and has a true scientific basis, as evidenced by the amount of countries now banning them, the fact that 93% of Americans want them labeled, and the findings of harm reviewed in Domingo 2011, for instance. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Several problems, but one simple solution

Problem 1: A small number of editors hold fringe beliefs which they hate to be characterised as WP:FRINGE. A small group of editors are sympathetic to climate change denial and hate it being called climate change denial. A small group of editors are sympathetic to pseudoscientific ideas and hate them being characterised as pseudoscience. Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of cherished beliefs.

Problem 2: These editors are persistent, and most others long ago bored of arguing with them. That risks one of two outcomes: either those who remain, burn out and end up in trouble; or, everyone wanders off and the POV-pushers get to dominate the article and this claim "consensus". Neither of these is good.

Problem 3: Some people who advocate fringe beliefs are hurt badly in the feels by Wikipedia's unashamedly reality-based stance. This is not our problem to fix.

Problem 4: Some people interpret a polite response as an invitation to keep advocating content that violates policy (e.g. by pretending that climate change "skeptics" are Just Asking Questions), and interpret any forthright response as "bullying" (see Wikipedia:Reform of Wikipedia for an example of what happens when you get a climate change denier, a holder of multiple topic bans and a serial WP:OWNer to collaborate on how to make Wikipedia "better").

Problem 5: Most Wikipedians could not care less about any of this bullshit and just leave the toxic areas alone, thus leaving only warring factions active there.

Problem 6: I am a nasty suspicious bastard and every time I see anybody trying to suppress mention of climate change denial, I want to stand them on a piece of low lying ground just before the next unprecedented arctic melt (i.e. each successive summer right now).

There is a solution. People with fringe beliefs who want to make changes to articles that do not achieve consensus on Talk are free to start an RfC with a specific, actionable request. They should then abide by the outcome. The policy Wikipedia needs is not WP:CUDDLYBUNNIES, it is WP:STFU. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

In trying to think of a practical solution that can be discussed meaningfully at ANI, I am especially drawn to points 2 and 5. I would be delighted to see more fresh eyes on the pages where the disputes are happening. Please, let's have more uninvolved editors taking a look. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

• I had to google "Wikipedia STFU", this is the first entry, https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/STFU prokaryotes (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

You have led a sheltered life, clearly. However, now you understand. The solution to 90% of "uncivil", "bullying" comments is for POV-pushers to start taking "no" for an answer. Guy (Help!) 22:17, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

The first sentence is problematic. You start out by grouping people into categories with the word "fringe". It's a grating word to some who see how it's applied. It's a McCarthyism. It's a silencing. We come down to sources and sensible dialog. There is no need for a slanderous word to group some people together in that way. It's off-putting and makes a toxic environment. SageRad (talk) 21:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support Guy's statement. Oppose SageRad's hysterical and ahistorical response. BMK (talk) 00:43, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

My position is based in principle, and is based on observing what is happening within Wikipedia. The proposal buy Guy is a foundation for people like you and Guy to rule what becomes "acceptable" knowledge according to your prejudices. That is not how Wikipedia works. Wikipedia works by requiring sourcing, and having good dialogue about the sources. There are good policies that result in good articles when applied with integrity. We do not need an over-layer of pre-determining some things "fringe" and others things "acceptable". That creates a hierarchy of control that is unacceptable within Wikipedia, and i have observed for a year now the way it leads to a flavor too similar to McCarthyism. It removed nuance from discussions. It creates caricatures of reality. It is an unnecessary layer, and it leads to a bad editing environment. I personally know that climate change denial is denial, but i don't declare that this is the new rule on Wikipedia. That's against policy and spirit, and it's not necessary, and in fact it gets in the way of good editing. The sources alone, and reasonable dialogue, are powerful enough to maintain the articles in good form. There may be a constant conversation and that's okay. On other topics, it's not as clear. There may be nuance. Some things may be partly A and partly B -- partly correct and partly incorrect. We need to admit this possibility, and not set up a panel of judges who determine "This is A!" and "That is B!" -- That is the format of fascism. That leads to binary versions of reality in articles, not the richness that Wikipedia can achieve if we simple follow the policies. SageRad (talk) 06:54, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

In this crazy mixed-up world, you are actually trying to argue that your preference for people not to say what they think will somehow lead to a freer exchange of ideas. I guess that's because you think it will somehow raise the level of discourse. But if people are forbidden from discussing their preferences for what ideas should and should not be stated plainly in articlespace, this clearly will not allow for a free exchange of ideas. jps (talk) 00:54, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support SageRad's statement. This thread started with KingOfAces referring to "tactics" seen in climate change denial and "arguments" being used to deny the GMO consensus, while making references to alleged groups isn't helpful, it's also not harmful to an individual editor. The related topic of assigning an editors work to this or that disparaged group is harmful, there is an intention to invalidate the editor by association. If you really want to challenge an editors work, do it one on one and be specific. Dougmcdonell (talk) 20:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does

Once upon a time, the self-described "climate change skeptics" were mad about being called "climate change deniers". Because holocaust deniers were evil and they were good. The presence of lots of sources that eventually pointed out that the term "denier" was more accurate than "skeptic" put to bed these concerns. I'm sure there are lots of threads in the archives complaining about the uncivil way in which climate change deniers were characterized.

Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers. Because the climate change deniers are evil and they are good. I sense a similar story a-brewing.

Bad science is bad science regardless of the venue in which it is found. Comparing bad science to bad science is simply to say that it is not good science. To argue that climate change denial and anti-GMO activism are "unrelated" is to miss the point of the comparison just as it was missing the point to argue that climate change denial and holocaust denial are "unrelated".

jps (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm really struggling with this issue, in terms of what is the right thing for Wikipedia. My personal opinion (as a not-reliable source) is that you are correct. In the present, there is a clear scientific consensus about GMOs, albeit with caveats, and Wikipedia needs to push back against POV-pushers who want us to obscure that fact, and there is a pattern that is very obvious to me of, as you say, they consider themselves good whereas climate change deniers are evil (WP:RGW). On the other hand, as of right this second, I don't think that we can say that the science about GMOs has gotten to the point where we can place skeptics in the same category as holocaust deniers. Maybe five years from now, the science will be at the point where fear of GM foods will be widely seen as being on a par with thinking the earth is flat. But maybe not, and Wikipedia does not predict the future. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Shades of gray certainly draw the short straws on Wikipedia. Nevertheless, for me, the point stands that current evaluation reveals a general anti-scientific bent found in the anti-genetic engineering arguments. This is true even while there is a reasonable broader argument to be had over public health, safety, risk management, and environmental protection which form part of a WP:MAINSTREAM corpus and are part of the overarching goals for many of the same activists who adopt the pseudoscientific thinking. Where they seem to lose the plot is in an over-reliance on categorical claims about genetic modification that lack empirical backing. It is, of course, possible to genetically engineer dangerous organisms. It does not follow that all genetically engineered organisms are dangerous. It is also, of course, possible that certain genetically engineered organisms are dangerous unintentionally. These are questions of empirical science and they have to be interrogated empirically. There are lots and lots of papers on these subjects and the consensus is pretty clear to me that genetic engineering as a process is no more dangerous than any other form of artificial selection. This fundamental point is utterly lost on those in the anti-GMO movement, and it is a point of departure that strikes me as being entirely denialist. jps (talk) 23:11, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Comment' Can we please stick to the point of the thread. The above and several other postings are simply POV unrelated to the subject of the thread.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

My god but you are tiresome. If you don't like a conversation, don't comment in it! For someone who complains about harassment, you sure do seem to like to wikihound. jps (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on content, not the contributor WP:FOC. My comment was that postings are increasingly off-topic. I suggest someone looks at hatting these.DrChrissy ^(talk) 00:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My comment is that your contributions here are garbage. jps (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

@I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc: I am sure that the vast majority of editors here will understand that your last comment is totally inappropriate for this noticeboard. My replying to you here would be just as inappropriate. Am I welcome to post at your Talk page regarding your unacceptable behaviour?DrChrissy ^(talk) 17:13, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

For someone who links to WP:FOC as much as you do, you certainly don't practice what you preach. You are always free to post at my talkpage. Don't expect the conversation to be fruitful if all you want to do is declare what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable behavior. Open and honest discussions are always welcome. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Quote from admin Guy/Jzg: "Now we have a group of anti-GMO paranoiacs upset over being identified as using tactics and argumentation similar to climate change deniers." Can you identify the editors of your so called group of anti-GMO paranoiacs? I edit GMO topics and I am unaware of such a group. Also can you maybe provide a link to an example where this "group" you claim exists at Wikipedia, where this group displays anti-GMO paranoia, which is similar to climate change denier arguments? prokaryotes (talk) 21:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

He said that in the talk section before this one, so you really should ask him about it there, instead of implying that other editors said it here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually Prokaryotes displays all of his customary care to follow factual accuracy over predefined agenda: it was someone else entirely who said that. It is, however, true, that the anti-GMO brigade and the climate deniers do use many common tactics, which is ironic as they are generally at opposite poles politically - and sources often considered left-leaning are the ones who say this, by the way: Slate, New Scientist, Grauniad. Anti-GMO activists are as passionate in their promotion of the pharma shill gambit as they are indignant over the activities of the fossil fuel industry. As an outsider to both worlds, it amuses and perplexes me in equal measure. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Look, the problem is with these "opinion pieces", that they are or potentially are biased (based on past incidents), For instance the Slate article is by Keith Kloor, someone with ties to the industry, http://usrtk.org/gmo/a-short-report-on-journalists-mentioned-in-our-foias/ The second article by Fred Pearce is not really supporting your claims you make here, and besides Pearce has written in the past critical about Monsanto http://www.theguardian.com/environment/cif-green/2009/sep/03/monsanto-water-greenwash Didn't checked the 3rd opinion piece authors background. prokaryotes (talk) 00:00, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• The truth is, even this conversation is riddled with aspersions. You're making a leap from editors rightly questioning your use of wording and sources based on the results of a previous RfC, to the assumption that this is motivated by a desire to push an "anti-GMO" POV. The ArbCom case made very clear that casting aspersions in order to kneecap critics of your editing is forbidden.

An encyclopedic approach to this issue would be to list the various opinions and statements, credited to their sources, rather than what we have presently: written as a summary using WP's voice, without proper sourcing. A recent article in TIME puts our coverage to shame with this balanced, accurate wording: The science community holds a variety of opinions on GMOs... and then goes on to list of few of them. The article is titled Over Half of E.U. Countries Are Opting Out of GMOs, which makes these proclaimations that any questioning of GMO is fringe, look a bit absurd. I would argue that this language has the effect of discrediting opponents in place of having actual support for arguments.

The present editor in chief of Elsevier, Jose Domingo, reviewed the literature regarding GM food safety. It is the only review of these studies that exists, and meets WP:MEDRS requirements. Of the studies done not by industry, but by independent researchers, roughly half showed what Domingo called "serious cause for concern", meaning that there is no possible way to claim that the science is settled. Further, this review is being disallowed from not only our summarizing statement, but from gracing any page on WP.

The NYT states that 93% of US citizens support GMO labels (fringe?) and even this fact has been disallowed from WP articles. It is only because of the bias that is being allowed to rule the GMO suite that you can make claims that some bad faith editors are pushing an anti-science, fringe POV.

The World Health Organization states, "it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." But we have been disallowed from properly quoting them.

The problem does not rest with some anti-GMO faction on WP, no matter how many echo this claim. petrarchan47คุก 23:38, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

^Excellent argumentation. V Opinion and with no RS to back it up + unnecessary ad hominem --David Tornheim (talk) 05:52, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

This is really poor argumentation, akin to a lot of what I've seen at climate denial points as well. Yes, it is well known that Europe's Frankenfood paranoia is about as pseudoscientific as certain countries' uncritical acceptance of homeopathy or their belief in hudenfolk. That goes for the WHO as well which doesn't make scientific pronouncements as a general rule and is sadly held hostage to the political whims of the member states when it comes to its white literature (there is a godawful WHO statement on acupuncture I can point to). Labeling arguments, while not being based in science at all, miss the point that 1) organic food already works as a perfectly good label and 2) strict labeling would require identifying precisely what a "GMO" entails which is why any labeling regulation or law would be subject to massive legal wrangling and not a small amount of impossible to verify claims about how you can tell when something is "GMO" or not. Not exactly a ringing endorsement for empirical points. So whadya got? A much criticized review article by Domingo. Hell, I can point to some pretty damning review articles by climate science deniers too. Right now, the issue that petrarchan47 and his clan are pseudoscientist POV-pushers and probably shouldn't be allowed to touch articles on the subject. They just aren't competent. Just like the global warming deniers aren't competent to edit articles on global warming. jps (talk) 23:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. That's a lot of opinion, not a lot of fact. In fact, you are wrong. Domingo's review has never received one iota of criticism. Encyclopedias should be based on science, not hand-waving rhetoric and downright lies. petrarchan47คุก 23:57, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Ummmm.. you're just plain wrong about that. jps (talk) 00:12, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

A much criticized review article by Domingo. Prove it. Domingo's review has not been criticized; I find this apparent inability to accurately read or understand science highly troubling. petrarchan47คุก 02:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Here ends the lesson. Evidence provided and dismissed. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The first study you link above, Matt Demont's project has received millions in grants, including from Syngenta and several grants from Monsanto. I don't have access to the study, so i can not say if this conflict of interests is mentioned by the study authors.prokaryotes (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The 3rd study from Italy, is not ruling out risks from GMOs, the abstract "The scientific research conducted so far has not detected any significant hazards directly connected with the use of GE crops; however, the debate is still intense." So what are the indirect hazards? Probably pesticide residues. prokaryotes (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The point is that the claim that there isn't one iota of criticism is just plain false. jps (talk) 09:33, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are 3 studies you linked above, how are these criticism of another study? Can't find anything, unless you suggest that their findings indirectly critic other study findings. Bu this would be considered WP:SYN prokaryotes (talk) 17:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

There are direct criticisms of the study championed above in each of the papers. jps (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Obviously credible criticism able to discredit the review and the studies, as you suggested had been done, was what I was referring to. petrarchan47คุก 00:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

So provided. Sorry if you can't understand that. jps (talk) 02:08, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

jps: You have not provided any evidence of the criticism of the Domingo's 2011 study. Please provide quotes from the articles. Although I was unable to find copies of the first two, the last study is available here and it does not criticize Domingo's 2011 review. Why did you say it did? And you are throwing around accusations of incompetence? --David Tornheim (talk) 07:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm not here to do your research work for you. The study most certainly does criticize Domingo as is seen in the list immediately following the citation. It's fairly easy to read the part where it is cited. jps (talk) 13:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not asking you to do any research for me; I am asking you to prove that you did not lie. You said above that Domingo 2011 was a "much criticized review article by Domingo." As evidence to support your claim you provided three sources, the last of which is this in abstract. I reviewed the full article of this last source, and the article does not say what you contend it says. I asked you for quotes from the article to prove that you are not misrepresenting the contents of the article. Again you are unable to do so. Instead, you say to look at where Domingo 2011 is cited and the list that follows. That material is here and it does not criticize Domingo 2011, but instead is used to support the author's review:

However, as indicated by the significant increment of the publications after 2006, it seems that the GE crop developers acknowledged the necessity of an improved transparency (Domingo & Bordonaba, 2011). The experimental data collected so far on authorized GE crops can be summarized as follows:

(a) there is no scientific evidence of toxic or allergenic effects;

(b) some concern has been raised against GE corn MON 810, MON863 and NK603 (de Vendoˆmois et al., 2009; Se´ralini et al., 2007, 2012), but these experimental results have been deemed of no significance (EFSA 2007, 2012; Houllier, 2012; Parrot & Chassy, 2009);

(c) only two cases are known about the potential allergenicity of transgenic proteins, the verified case of the brazilnut storage protein in soybean, which has not been marketed (Nordlee et al., 1996) and the not verified case of maize Starlink (Siruguri et al., 2004);

(d) during the digestion process the proteins generally undergo degradation that leads to the loss of activity (Delaney et al., 2008);

(e) even though there are examples of some ingested proteins that are absorbed in minute quantities in an essentially intact form (e.g. ovalbumin, ovomucoid, b-lactoglobulin) (Kier & Petrick, 2008) or proteins that are hydrolyzed into smaller absorbed bioactive peptides (Udenigwe & Aluko, 2012), the consumption of transgenic proteins contained in the authorized GE crop does not result in any detectable systemic uptake (Kier & Petrick, 2008) and transgenic proteins are usually rapidly degraded and not detectable in animal derived products (e.g. milk, meat, eggs) (Ramessar et al., 2007);

References

Domingo JL, Gine´ Bordonaba J. (2011). A literature review on the safety assessment of genetically modified plants. Environment Int, 37, 734–2.

This kind of dishonesty falls under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY and should be sanctioned. The entire demeanor and name calling behavior of this editor starting this section is uncivil as well, for all the reasons mentioned in this AN/I. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You have demonstrated that you don't even have basic reading comprehension. Go back, read what I wrote, read what's written here, and see if you can find your mistake. I'll give you a redo. jps (talk) 00:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I was able to obtain full copies of the other two journal articles you cited that you claimed are evidence that the Domingo 2011 literature review is "much criticized". They both cited Domingo, but neither of the other two criticized the review either. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:07, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Wow. You did not learn. Sorry, fellow. You're not only wrong, you appear to not be able to understand what you are reading. jps (talk) 02:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm late to the dance and really can't stay, but as a part-time DRN volunteer, I wanted to express my concerns over the unsupported criticisms and downright aspersions being cast against editors who did nothing to deserve such treatment except disagree with a very strong POV that favors censorship or extraordinary downplay of information in our articles. According to PAGs, our articles are supposed to include information that is compliant with WP:V and WP:RS. The constant bickering and aspersions by those who apparently want to censor general information under the guise of fringe are turning this into a behavioral issue, and appear to have made Petrarchan47, Prokaryotes and David Tornheim the targets of their misbehavior. I don't understand why because those 3 editors have presented excellent arguments without castigating anyone or using any unacceptable terminology except to condemn the bad behavior by others. I also researched how our PAGs support the fringe claims that have been thrown about, and used against the 3 named editors and quite frankly, our PAGs say quite the opposite and condemn such behavior - as did the recent ArbCom hearing on GMOs. As for the fringe/ps claims made against the 3 editors, our PAGs read:WP:FRINGE/PS

Questionable science: Hypotheses which have a substantial following but which critics describe as pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect; however it should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point. Those editors who are aggressively asserting their POV with objections to different academic points of view and labeling it fringe/ps and casting aspersions against other editors as a result have already been advised by Drmies to stop that behavior, yet they appear to have ignored the warning and have chosen to continue as evidenced above. This thread is not progressing as a result, and while some interesting points have been made on both sides regarding the issues that plague this topic, it is actually information that belongs IN THE ARTICLE, not on this noticeboard. Just saying.....Atsme^📞📧 17:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You cannot stop me from pointing out that people who are afraid of GMOs because they use genetic engineering are advocating for pseudoscientific claims. I will continue to make that point over and over and over and over and over again until we get the encyclopedia in a shape that makes this point abundantly clear. We're almost there, but it does help to be placed in the crucible once in a while in order so that we can make it clear. People who think that GMOs are dangerous because they are genetically engineered are arguing a basic pseudoscientific conceit of the GMO paranoiac group. See what I did there? I pointed it out again! Naughty! jps (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It isn't me who will stop you. I'm quite happy to feed you as much rope as your little heart desires. Atsme^📞📧 07:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Of the 3 sources Jps used in his failed attempts to prove a false claim, one of them was from the "Genetic Literacy Project", which our Jon Entine article calls "a pro-GMO biotechnology and genetics outreach organization"; Entine is the founder and executive director. Mother Jones calls him an "agribusiness apologist", and he was recently found via FOIA records to have received Monsanto funding, written pro-GM articles, and failed to disclose that funding.

Jps is arguing a claim that hasn't been made. He is arguing against the RS showing that questioning the safety of GMOs is far from "fringe" by lying about Domingo 2011, and claiming that over half of the EU suffers from "Europe's Frankenfood paranoia". These hollow arguments are being used to keep well sourced facts out of the encyclopedia. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It is pretty clear this is rapidly becoming another GMO conspiracy theory for Petrarchan47. Do we have any benefit from keeping his crazed argumentation around? Wouldn't he feel better posting on a blog dedicated to conspiracy theories? It certainly doesn't fit here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:28, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Canvassing by Kingofaces

Kingofaces is now canvassing here. prokaryotes (talk) 23:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

A single comment at the venue where the whole shitstorm appears to have started, is not canvassing. Guy (Help!) 23:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may want to read Wikipedia:Canvassing#Appropriate_notification, especially the parts about getting relevant noticeboards involved. This thread has devolved (or evolved) into a wide conversation of how we deal with discussing fringe topics. WP:FTN is more than appropriate when we need people familiar with how to deal with exactly this. It seems like we're reaching the point that accusations are just being thrown to see what sticks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:53, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that is canvassing. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree with JzG - it is not canvassing. In fact, WP:Canvassing clearly states An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following:

• The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.
• A central location (such as the Village pump or other relevant noticeboards) for discussions that have a wider impact such as policy or guideline discussions.

The verbiage probably needs to eliminate "uninvolved" because it is somewhat of a contradiction. Atsme^📞📧 07:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Request close

This has gone on long enough. At the end of the day I made two comments[49][50] that were focusing on the fact that sources describe many of the arguments that there isn't a consensus on GMO safety as tactics similar to climate change, vaccine controversy, etc. with that direct comparison being made by sources. That was direct mention of content that conflicted in a WP:WEIGHT perspective with the content previously being mentioned at the board very similar to how many of those same editors bring up source conflict of interest in weight discussion.

Editors such as Prokaryotes, who were heavily involved in the ArbCom case and nearly sanctioned, have tried to twist that into saying I was commenting on editors. I made it repeatedly clear to those editors I was talking about the content aspect of opposition to the scientific consensus on GMOs, not editors both before and during this thread.[51][52][53] The only instances of me actually commenting on editors (appropriately) even loosely was: 1. Some editors were misunderstanding some technical details in sources. 2. Mentioning that Prokaryotes' false claim I was commenting on editors as climate-change deniers was a behavior issue (misrepresentation) I wasn't going to mention further so we could focus on content at NORN (more here).

Seeing as some editors are unwilling to drop the stick at this point in claiming I was commenting on editors in terms of climate-change denialism even after repeated clarification, they are either purposely misrepresenting my comments and ignoring clarification, or insinuating I'm lying. Both are direct violations of WP:NPA Repeating calls that I intended to direct the climate-change denial remark in any way towards editors either directly or by aspersion after this post will be taken up at WP:AE to impose sanctions where things belong for this topic. People who still try that can't claim they didn't get ample warning. The open case related to Prokaryotes behavior here and elsewhere will still be handled at AE, and there's nothing left to deal with here at ANI, especially since I've asked admins at AE that I'd even open a case on myself if they thought my actions legitimately needed a look. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:43, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no action. It's time to wrap this up. Clearly, there is not going to be anything remotely close to a consensus for admin action here. Arguments about content belong elsewhere. And proposals about civility on related talk pages should probably either be made as formal RfCs or dropped. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose close - The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way, especially with SoftLavender's proposal above. Gee, what a surprise. I for one am utterly sick of this gaming the system. Jusdafax 01:17, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There being only two editors commenting before your comment, and with me being one of them, I want to make it clear that I am not trying to shut down discussion of anything, but rather asking that the discussion be done at the right place. This is ANI, and the issue of blocking anyone as a result of this discussion is clearly done with. Nor do I think that it's not going my way. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. While they have been interesting, meta discussions belong at their respective noticeboards or guideline talk pages. I'm all for addressing this in the proper forum if admins at AE think these specific claims actually need a look, but ANI was no longer the place to deal with this after the GMO case ended. Kingofaces43 (talk) 05:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

I purposefully did not involve myself in the GMO case because I have a dim view of arbitration, but it sure looks like it made things worse rather than better. The biggest problems I have is that the fundamental dispute has not been addressed. The pseudoscientific argumentation promoted by anti-GMO activists continues to infect the decisions relating to content and apparently the activists were under the impression that they could be insulated from such plain words about their positions. See below. jps (talk) 13:51, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Close -- at a minimum the discussion started by jps (aka I9Q79oL78KiL0QTFHgyc) titled "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does" needs to be concluded and assessed. After a long diatribe, asserting the existence of group of editors who are "anti-GMO paranoiacs" (who jps compared to both "climate change deniers" -and- "holocaust deniers" (see Godwin's Law)), Jps went on to make some highly questionable factual assertions that have been challenged without an adequate response. Jps's behavior and credibility should be brought under scrutiny too. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:30, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Laughable. The lack of WP:COMPETENCE is strong with this one. Beware of the WP:BOOMERANG, David Tornheim. jps (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The insults and threats just keep on comin', don't they? David's comment goes to the heart of the issue: the ongoing attempts to intimidate respected editors and equate them with mass murder apologists. This has gone too far and per David, I now call on an uninvolved admin to take prompt corrective action. Jusdafax 16:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

You guys don't seem very intimidated. Whoever feels intimidated, raise their hands. And "murder apologists"? If I wasn't so amüsierten, I'd be verklemmt. jps (talk) 00:10, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

You are creating a hostile work environment. I do not mean it in the legal sense, but just in terms of behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I have no idea what this means. jps (talk) 19:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Does it count as an insult to say "The same couple people want to shut down onging discussion, seeing it's not going their way"? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• As a follow up, in the section above "Pseudoscience is as pseudoscience does", jps cited three journal articles as proof that the Domingo 2011 literature review was "much criticized". Because I (and others) did not have access to all the journal articles, I asked jps to provide quotes proving the point. None were provided, just further taunting. However, I was able to obtain all three full articles. He lied. None of the articles criticized Domingo 2011 as jps purported. Such lying about what is in the RS is a major waste of time for editors (or worse Wikipedia's readers) who wrongfully rely on such misinformation. Lying is properly designated as uncivil behavior under §2(d) of WP:INCIVILITY. The combination of the lengthy diatribes of ad hominem attacks and dishonesty about RS warrants a strong message and sanction to this editor. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
  • You persist in parading your inability to comprehend a simple discussion and read the basic texts that criticize the particular claim in particular. Your tendentiousness is rather astounding, but entirely predictable. I used to accuse people of lying and people got mad at me. Here's one for you. You're not WP:COMPETENT enough to be editing and probably should be banned from Wikipedia for lacking basic reading skills. jps (talk) 01:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Admins, please do something. I can't even believe what I'm reading here. petrarchan47คุก 05:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What would you like admins to do? Indefinitely block David Tornheim for the reasons asserted by jps? Block jps for making those assertions? What if the assertions are correct—should admins care about that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:46, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• I would like Admins to check into the assertions, yes. Jps is lying about sources above, and this rant against David is pure projection of the highest order; it is Jps who has displayed tendentiousness and incompetency. Admins will have to get access to the papers her has cited to determine which assertions are correct. Beyond that, the way that this person talks about other editors is unacceptable, sophomoric, and completely disruptive to building an encyclopedia, and to the process at hand: KingofAces43. petrarchan47คุก 19:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

^Of course you should find out if he is lying or not and make a decision on what to do based partially on that (please see my response to Bishonen below), but additionally consider his other incredibly uncivil behavior. If a decision about my claims that he is lying without out any investigation of the claims and only relying on my or jps (and others statements) about what is in the sources is about as useful as relying on heresay--a waste of our time and prejudicial. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I think the admins should also investigate whether jps is guilty of heresy, a much more serious crime that was overlooked by his good faith accusers. Also, I hear that aside from projection, he is also guilty of introjection, injection, reinjection, rejection, objection and perhaps even surjection. The bastard. I hate him! jps (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, jps needs to be warned that questioning editor competence as a rhetorical tactic in a thread of this nature is a blockable offense. However, the ugly nature of the continuing hostile badgering by jps, clearly observable just above, in my view calls for an immediate preventitave block, with unblock conditional on agreement to knock of the problematic comments. For crying out loud, this is the admin's noticeboard, and if there isn't one admin willing to stand up here and now, then we as a community are circling the drain towards all-out "Wild West" warfare. Please, administrators, let's enforce existing policy on your own turf. Jusdafax 15:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about I block Johnuniq for implying jps's assertions may be true — will that do? Bishonen | talk 16:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC).

Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is the war room! jps (talk) 18:21, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Seriously? All you have to do is find out if jps is lying or not. If you want me to email the PDFs of the sources to you I can. Once you have the sources, it is easy to see he is lying. Judging others' statements about the veracity of the claim who have not bothered to investigate the claim by editors who have not investigated the veracity of the claim is a waste of time. Having a grand jury indictment of such an editor is also a waste of time until the facts are checked. Just look and see if he is lying and we can move forward. We are here to write was is in RS, not speculate about it without even looking at it. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I feel like I'm in some parallel Idiocracy universe where the people present evidence that I am right and then triumphantly declare that I am wrong. Playing chess with a pigeon comes to mind. jps (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

For those who do not have the time or motivation to look up such links, Playing chess with a pigeon is actually a redirect to Internet troll. It is widely regarded that referring to editors as trolls is incivil. I leave it up to Jps to clarify who the comment was directed at.DrChrissy ^(talk) 19:32, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

What's worse, he made the redirect himself. For that horrible behavior, I vote that he be drawn and quartered and made a mockery of on the front page. Also, he should be indeterminately blocked for at least one second for accusing himself of bad behavior. And then you should annotate his block log with a clear reference to WP:TROUT. Yes. Yes. Excellent! jps (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

• Request to closer I have just noticed that another discussion (WP:ANI#Incivility on the Parapsychology Talk Page) with similar evidence of incivility has been closed by a non-admin with no action taken. I am not making any comment whatsoever on the closer of that discussion, but I suggest that this discussion should only be closed by a non-involved admin.DrChrissy ^(talk) 16:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
• Support close with no action taken. This is an incident reporting board, not a forum for content disputes. For content disputes, other venues and mechanisms are there (RfC, etc.). Additionally, if someone wants to go and call fellow editors "paranoiacs", he/she should perhaps rethink his/her further participation in this collaborative editing project. — kashmiri ^TALK 19:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@Kashmiri: I do agree with you that there are other venues for content disputes and indeed these issues are being discussed there. This AN/I is about using ad hominem attacks, such as calling other editors "paranoiacs". I agree with your assessment which seems to be that such language is highly objectionable; otherwise, why would you suggest an editor who uses that language consider leaving the project? What I do not understand is why you think this matter should be closed with no action when editors are using ad hominem attacks like this? If nothing is done, this adage comes to mind: "What is allowed is being taught." At an absolute minimum, the editors who have shown no restraint whatsoever and seem to take pleasure in using such fallacious and uncivil reasoning, should be warned, but for jps, the intransigence warrants a more severe reprimand, such as a 24+ hour block perhaps or perhaps being topic banned from GMOs for several months for disrupting this AN/I having to do with ad hominems used against editors working on the GMO pages. Allowing the behavior creates a needlessly unpleasant editing environment, and makes us have to waste our time with these extensive AN/I's. Doing nothing means we will just have this issue come up again here, or in ArbCom, where editors were topic banned and ibanned for such uncivil behavior. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: Correct, but the dynamics of this venue is such that the tide hardly ever turns against the reporting editor. — kashmiri ^TALK 09:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with David totally here...well almost totally. Please take a look at the block log for jps here.[54] I have doubts a 24+ hour block will have any effect whatsoever. I suggest the starting point should be a one (1) month+ block.DrChrissy ^(talk) 14:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Kashmiri: You have again confused me with the comment "but the dynamics of this venue is such that the tide hardly ever turns against the reporting editor". The reporting editor for this ANI was Prokaryotes reporting KingofAces43 for comparing the argumentation of editors similar to climate change deniers, fringe and incompetence. Jps came to King's defense and doubled-down in this AN/I repeatedly asserting that it was fine to use such ad hominems and using even more that were more severe, including calling editors incompetent, conspiracy theorists [55], comparing editors to pigeons [56] and making a mockery of the process [57], [58], [59]. This participation is disruptive to AN/I and to the project. I was not aware of the previous blocks which obviously have not been effective. A strong message needs to be sent to this editor to behavior with civility. This behavior should not be tolerated. --David Tornheim (talk) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support close with no action taken. The diffs originally at issue do not warrant sanctions and this entire discussion is a trainwreck. Alsee (talk) 00:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

An inescapable fact

Last year's GMO case at ArbCom was intended, as all ArbCom cases are intended, to bring a difficult dispute to a resolution, for once and for all. Clearly, it did not accomplish that. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:55, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Very much so. Despite the imposition of wide-ranging topic bans which should not have been administered but which have been adhered to, it has clearly failed.DrChrissy ^(talk) 21:16, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

No, it has not failed. It is being constantly attemptedly-undermined by repeated WP:WIKILAWYERING by those who refuse to accept the fact that their editing has fallen under it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:45, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh I think there is very little doubt that the bans were amply justified. The remaining question is whether sitebans should have been used instead. You make a good case for sitebans being a better solution. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The other question might be why DrChrissy and SageRad are here commenting on a thread entirely focused on GMOs in violation of their GMO topic bans even though there were directly told even standing on the sidelines of ANI discussions like this was a no-go. It might be slightly different if it was a tangent on a policy or guideline page. I'm not opening a case myself at AE though to avoid even the illusion that I'm going to mimic what Prokaryotes did in opening this thread with their AE case open. Broadly construed topic bans need to be respected though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the inescapable fact is that the subject of this thread is "Editor KingOfAces casts aspersions". The irony is obvious.DrChrissy ^(talk) 18:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Are you certain we can't escape the fact? Seems like there are quite a few active here trying to escape facts. Maybe if we all try really, really hard.... jps (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Can editors at the ref desks offer legal and financial advice?

The Wikipedia:General disclaimer says, in part Not professional advice If you need specific advice (for example, medical, legal, financial or risk management), please seek a professional who is licensed or knowledgeable in that area.

Yet we have a repeatedly posted/unblocked question by a single-purpose user asking whether someone offering to transfer him money out of the blue is a "scam".

By definition a scam is illegal. Our disclaimer, and the ref desk guidelines both make it quite explicit that we don't give legal or financial advice. Yet editors keep insisting on answering and reposting the question when it is posted. Do we, or do we not, by policy, offer advice about manners dealing with finances and possible money laundering schemes?

At this point we've got User:Reference Desk Fan, User:71.119.131.184, User:76.69.45.64, User:Graeme Bartlett, User:Nil Einne, User:SteveBaker, User:ShakespeareFan00, User:Dbfirs, and User:StuRat entertaining this discussion that potentially deals with the felonies of fraud, mail fraud, and money laundering not to mention other crimes. I have closed the discussion repeatedly per the ref desk guidelines and the general disclaimer. Am I wrong to think that a single individual asking about $70,000 transfers to his bank account from a stranger is outside our purview as an encyclopedia based on referenced sources? If I am not wrong, will an admin please remove this item from the ref desks? Thank. μηδείς (talk) 02:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

User Medeis's hatting can become disruptive. The answer to the question posed is that editors are not supposed to offer such advice. However discussion of the hatting should take place at the reference desk talk page, and not here under WP:BRD. For the section that is being hatted, this cannot be really considered legal advice, as it is so obvious, and there is a fairly clear advice to contact police (not a lawyer). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

My involvmennt here, was soley to post a reference link, to an official (in the instance FBI site) on the subject of Advance Fee Frauds, which given the original posters concerns was felt to be the most appropriate response. If there's going to be a 'Do Not Answer' policy, some guidance on when to apply it would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:03, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• It's blatantly clear the OP for that question (Reference Desk Fan) is one of our regular trolls trying to get someone to close down his breaching experiment and generate maximum drama. It worked. --Jayron32 03:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The question is not asking for legal advice, and suggesting someone contact the police is not offering legal advice, and I do not see how any normally competent person could, in good faith, say it was. DuncanHill (talk) 03:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Similar behaviour from User:Medeis is found in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&curid=2535910&diff=702204069&oldid=702201315 where a troll like question and some answers were removed without an edit summary. I would expect at least an edit summary, and preferably if people ahve already answered the question should not be removed. Remove the question when not one has responded. This will upset less people. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:34, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I didn't put an edit summary, given past discussions on the talk page that said we should try to keep comments to a minimum when dealing with trolling. In this case I did both comment inside the hat, and link to the disclaimer. μηδείς (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• We're feeding a troll and stretching AGF to the breaking point. The ref desk, in entertaining such questions, has little to do with the encyclopedia's mission. I participate at the ref desk from time to time and it's interesting, but it's peripheral to the purpose of the encyclopedia and should not be a distraction from our mission, which is to write an encyclopedia, not to be an advice column. Given the extensive history of disruptive trolling at the ref desk, the name of the OP at the ref desk doesn't create confidence. Acroterion (talk) 04:45, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

The OP should also note that his signature violates WP:NLS in that it consists entirely of unreadable non latin characters. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Violates? Nil Einne (talk) 11:39, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If the IP is worried about signatures, he should check out this one. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:02, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The general disclaimer says what you claim (but see below). However, the reference desk guidelines (at the top of the page) do not. They state "We don't answer (and may remove) questions that require medical diagnosis or legal advice" - no mention of finacial (which the subject question qualifies as). The linked guidelines like the general disclaimer page says "The reference desk does not provide answers where an opinion from a qualified professional is needed, such as advice of a medical, legal or financial nature ...". But for the subject question, the opinion of a qualified professional is not required. Any reasonable competent contributor can answer the question. 86.153.133.193 (talk) 11:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I like the reference desk.

Its original purpose was to help improve Wikipedia articles.

Over time, it has become more a place where people ask questions, maybe give answers, and have interesting discussions.

Trolling there is a perennial problem: just as Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit and can also troll, WP:RD is the Quora or Stack Exchange that anyone can troll.

There have been any of discussions at WT:RD about how to address that problem.

(Quite frankly, it would seem to me that the problem with ref desk trolling is that the ref desk regulars are quite happy to respond to the trolls.)

The best solution is for the ref desk regulars to simply ignore the trolling questions. This is not going to happen.

So maybe a least worst solution is to have each ref desk semi-protected or given pending changes protection, with a clerking system of community-nominated clerks with a sub-page where questions or pending edits are discussed and evaluated. Again, this is not going to happen.

Medeis has taken it upon herself to be a self-appointed WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner. And. that. is. fine. with. me. Who better to be a WP:RD trolling clerk, judge, jury and executioner? As a second least worst solution, accepting Medeis's hatting and just moving on seems to me a way to move forward, and get on with writing an encyclopedia.

--Shirt58 (talk) 12:42, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

• WP:BOSTONTEAPARTY --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

It must be disruptive to repeatedly hat a discussion that multiple established editors are un-hatting in good faith. It's very presumptive, if nothing else, to assume that your judgement must be correct and theirs must be wrong. Also, so far as I can see, this was not taken to the reference desk talk page, which suggests μηδείς is not certain consensus there would go in his or her favor. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Too many of those so-called "good faith" editors don't like the rules against professional advice and will fight over anything that looks like a borderline case. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Something Caustic in Ohio

Should we be answering questions about drinking caustic acidic and basic solutions to see what they taste like? See the latest OP question: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science#If_I_drink_10_mL_of_HCl_.281M.29_and_drink_10_mL_of_NaOH.2C_would_it_just_taste_like_salty_water.3F. These questions are not requests for references, but for comments on personal risks. I think we really need serious oversight of this, as the regulars seem all too happy to speculate without sources. μηδείς (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Bigger Picture

I could be in the wrong here, but I'm led to wonder whether the Reference Desk is worth the trouble it causes, and if it really helps us build an encyclopedia. I admit I'm far from a regular, but every time I've ended up at the Reference Desk it looks like a toxic mix of (a.) trolling (b.) inappropriate requests for legal/medical help (c.) do-my-homework-for-me requests (d.) simple requests that could have been answered in a 10-second Google search. It all seems more like a waste of time than a useful or productive part of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:14, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

I have to say I find the reference desks an excellent source of information, when they are properly used. Ask evanh2008 whether or not he has found ref desk help helpful. That being said, I simply can't understand the "we...must...entertain...every...policy-violating...troll" attitude. For this reason I think we could do with stricter guidelines and oversight. But the last thing I would want to see is doing away with the ref desks. They are perhaps the best source on the internet to look for actual scholarly information, when they are not filled with scatological or racist questions about felonies, fraud, and BLP violations. μηδείς (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

If it were possible to move to a question/answer format more closely modeled on StackExchange or one of its close relatives, I think quality would go up. That's a proven formula that pretty clearly works better than wiki talk page, which was never really designed for Q/A. (For example, on sites powered by StackExchange, both questions and answers can be voted up and down. If a post hits a certain negative threshold it is automatically hidden. No need to argue over which questions are unworthy trolls, or which answers are blatantly wrong, just cast your vote and don't worry about it. It eliminates a lot of drama and stress.) Sadly, I assume making that kind of change would probably require a lot of technical effort that just isn't worth it for what is basically a side mini-project of the encyclopedia. ApLundell (talk) 23:15, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

How about changing the ref desks to nothing but external links to that site. Then the trolls would become their problem, and from what you're saying, they have low tolerance for trolls or flaming. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:36, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, this thing again. While I rarely use it now, I've found the reference desk extremely helpful in the past. I think it's not only a good thing (particularly given the abundance of Yahoo! Answers and similarly useless venues), but also a logical extension of the WMF's mission to "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge." Wikipedia is fairly unique in that it is a broadly respected outlet with contributors who are, to varying degrees, serious about being helpful and communicating knowledge. This is the fundamental problem with statements like "If you want to get laid, go to college. If you want an education, go to the library." There is irreplaceable value in "oral" (for lack of a better word) instruction: A static written text cannot be interrogated and cannot adapt itself to a given reader's needs or to an unforeseen context. The most fruitful ref desk questions are those that are (neologism alert) "unGoogleable." Wikipedia is not an educational institution in any traditional sense, but our mission is explicitly educational in nature.

As Medeis alludes to, I've actually made tangible academic use of sources I've been referred to by ref desk users (Medeis among them). There are a fair number of "Is battery acid really that bad for you?" questions, but analogies regarding babies and bathwater come to mind. I'm not familiar with StackExchange, but the idea of censoring comments on a popularity contest model seems counter to the open nature of this project. My basic perspective on this is all very idealistic and very forward-looking, perhaps naively so. I think the ref desk is a good example of what the Internet in general, and Wikipedia specifically, actually has to offer from a "knowledge-growing" point of view. I have access to Britannica and the OED and dozens of other resources that duplicate virtually all the WP article content I'm ever going to need to access, but the reference desk is the kind of thing that cannot be duplicated, specifically because it is available 24/7 and brings together people with different areas of interest with access to different sources. It's worth noting that I'm typically opposed to the kind of proposals that get branded with words like "open" and "free"—I still find it unconscionable that we allow unregistered edits. But the reference desk is a resource with real value to our readers. The idea of doing away with it is silly and short-sighted.

In con-freaking-conclusion, I'm short on time and am not familiar with the incident that precipitated this thread. But I am profoundly annoyed that this idea of blaming the ref desk for users' disruptive behavior is still being tossed around. It's the equivalent of dealing with an edit war by deleting the article. Hell, if people were as quick to jump to drastic solutions with article content as they are when the reference desk comes up, based on a dispute I was involved with a few years ago we might have banned the word "Tthe." Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:56, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia an encyclopedia? Yes. Is the reference desk part of an encyclopedia? No. The solution is that there should be refdesk.wikimedia.org created, for Wikipedia and the Online Reference Desk to go their seperate ways, and then Wikipedia won't be saying the Ref Desk needs to go and the issues that the Ref Desk creates for the encylopedia won't be being created anymore. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

I can't oppose that suggestion on principle, but I'm not exactly thrilled at the idea either. Without going into detail, I've seen problems at Wikimedia Commons languish for months without being resolved, mostly because, well, very few people are actually active at Commons. My worry is that if the Ref Desk were forked it would be forgotten and die of neglect. Evan ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I actually love this idea, though I share Evanh2008's concern that forking may lead to decreased attention. Really, my conception of what RD should do is to work like the resource exchange, except perhaps less specific: A place where editors looking to improve articles can request information (and related sources) to subjects from research-knowledgable helpers who don't have the level of interest to dedicate to editing those articles themselves. So, an open-ended question like "is battery acid really bad for you?" would get removed/turfed to an external RD because it doesn't request information in the context of improving articles. Moving the full RD elsewhere lets it be governed by a more appropriate body of policies. I don't know, it just strikes me that Bushranger's suggestion that the RD falls out of Wikipedia's project scope makes a lot of sense: Many questions call for original research and attract responses containing unverifiable information; the RD, when combined with its archives, resembles a a collection of indiscriminate information; and while the project namespace doesn't explicitly place RD-like boards out of its scope, it seems the main intent of that namespace is to provide information about Wikipedia and deal with "meta-issues" of encyclopedia building, such as providing policies and guidelines, essays, important processes to managing the project, information about editing tools, and similar. I know this isn't exactly the right place to hold this particular discussion, but it's an intriguing one that perhaps should be held sometime soon. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Evan wrote : "It's the equivalent of dealing with an edit war by deleting the article"

The refdesk is a unique feature of WP. And needs to be treated uniquely.

When crafting an article for the encyclopedia, it's OK that it be wrong now, but right eventually. It's worth putting a considerable amount of time and effort into figuring out what "right" even is. It's OK if it takes a hundred man-hours to figure out the best way to write the lede of an article, because that article will stand forever and educate millions of people for many years to come.

With the refdesk the opposite is true. Decisions must be made quickly, because in a week, nobody will care. (And numerous more questions will have come in.) It doesn't make sense to spend a lot of collective man-hours on any individual RefDesk thread.

A mechanism is needed to deal with troll questions and badly wrong answers in a timely way.

Right now that mechanism is revert-wars, long pointless arguments, and regular threats to "take this to AN/I". I honestly think that a new mechanism is needed, and I'm surprised that this is a controversial opinion.

Treating a question/answer service as though it was substantially the same as writing an encyclopedia is a fundamental mistake that is the biggest barrier to the refdesk's usefulness, and the root cause of the never-ending disputes that have caused so many useful contributors to the desk to get frustrated and leave. (including the dispute that prompted this discussion.) ApLundell (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've been advocating a similar perspective for years now, but with a few very important caveats, many of which Mendaliv touched upon immediately above. Yes, I absolutely agree that the role of the ref desks on this project is unique, and that some degree of latitude in the methodology there is justifiable. Unfortunately, there is a severe and persistent problem there with regard to a handful of consistently-active regulars who have completely lost the thread on what the purpose of the refdesks is. The desks were constituted under the presumption that they would serve to improve sourcing for the encyclopedia and to help editors improve and contextualize content, not as a kind of extended Dear Abby experiment meant to serve as a playground for wild speculation on any topic that tangentially relates to any question asked there, for any purpose.

The refdesks are a part of Wikipedia, not Reddit and, as such, WP:NOTAFORUM applies there as absolutely as it does on any other space on this project--unless and until the broader Wikipedia community decides to stipulate otherwise. Unfortunately, some of the afore-mentioned over-eager regulars clearly view the desks an excuse for them to validate their notions that they are absolute polymaths, capable of answering every question imaginable, often leading to meandering tangents into WP:Original research and WP:synthesis of the most unabashed and unambiguous sort. After years of some of these users being told, on an almost daily basis, that this kind of speculation is not appropriate on this project, whatever the space, I'm afraid to say that its time that we recognize that some of these users are clearly WP:NOTHERE to help build the encyclopedia, but rather to serve their own intellectual exercises and engage in casual discussion of empirical topics as if the desks were an open forum. This is unfortunate because most all of these users are very civil and collegial members of the Ref Desk community--but the fact of the matter is that if one cannot reference a contentious/speculative claim, it has no place in a Wikipedia discussion, be it on a talk page or in a reference desk thread. And it's past time that the RefDesk guidelines were overhauled to reflect this, since these contributors cannot accept that broader community standards still apply in that space, without it being stated explicitly. I surely wish this step wasn't necessary, because it will clearly slow the process there for all contributors, including those who can tell the difference between speculation and non-synthesized original research and thus might wish to omit sourcing for straight forward statements that they know can be sourced, but unfortunately we dragged down to the lowest common denominator here, vis-a-vis those with no breaks on their perception of their own mental gifts, inclinations towards synthesis and an inability to distinguish speculation from sourceable claims.

Now let's also acknowledge a dirty little (non)secret concerning the RefDesks; only a small fraction of the questions asked there are ever intended to serve improvement of an article, as opposed to satisfying personal curiosity (or indeed to troll on some occasions). However, as a practical matter, it is clearly impossible to police these questions in the sense of determining which are in fact for WP:HERE purposes. So I'm inclined to always give the benefit of the doubt as to possible utility for the project, even when the evidence clearly points in the other direction. But when the answers fail to even pay lip service to the notion of sourceability (as opposed to an intellectual fishing expedition), it becomes obvious that Wikipedia is not the priority. So, yes, a serious and broad discussion needs to take place soon in which the broader community's input is requested to set down some standards to constrain the RefDesk's activities to those that might at least have some potential for serving the needs of the encyclopedia, rather than the egos and the whimsical intellectual pursuits of those of us regulars there. But not here; WP:VPP, WP:CD, and a number of other central community spaces might serve as an appropriate locality for that discussion, but ANI is clearly not the place to have it, as everyone here surely knows. As a matter of fact... Snow ^{let's rap} 03:40, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy close, please?

ANI is clearly not the place to be having a substantive policy discussion on the topics implicit in Medeis' inquiries. If Medeis, or any party, wants a resolution to these issues, backed by broad community consensus, WP:Central discussion and WP:VPP would provide the appropriate forum for that discussion and significant community involvement.

Indeed, I'm inclined to say that Medeis deserves, at the very least, a severe trouting for raising this drama here with essential zero chance of reaching any kind of resolution but to amp up the acrimony. They should especially be aware of the impropriety of raising the issues here in light of the fact that it was just a few weeks ago that they were brought here for as the subject of discussion of perceived disruption stemming from their activities in that area--nor indeed was this the first (or even the tenth?) time that their behaviour in this exact vein (contentious removal of threads at the RefDesks) has come under the examination of their fellow contributors here at ANI. In the last such discussion, as on several other occasions, I acted in defense of Medeis in light of strong calls for a TBAN or other strong sanction with regard to their involvement on the desks, because I didn't think it was appropriate in those circumstances. But enough is enough--this is the point where I lose the ability to assume good faith for Medeis' actions in light of exceptional context. I have to say that I now feel very ambivalent about my !vote in the last proposal on a sanction and wonder if I should have headed the predictions of others that there was no chance that Medeis could stay clear of contentious, battleground behaviours on this issue. Creating this thread, and baiting this discord, especially so close on the heels of the last round of complaints of their behaviour in this area shows that they just cannot disengage. I'm not calling for a new TBAN proposal, but I seriously, seriously recommend to Medeis that they take my comments here as an indication that the last of the patience is evaporating even amongst those editors who have defended them in the past.

In the meantime, I suggest this discussion be closed as outside the purpose an ANI thread and that it be moved to a more appropriate platform that is actually meant to serve to discuss policy, as opposed to behavioural issues. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

So;

1. WP:Village pump (policy)
2. WP:Village pump (proposal)
3. WP:Centralised discussion
4. WT:Reference_desk
5. Any other ideas? I'm sure one of these pages would love to host this discussion. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 04:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think any of those would do in a pinch, although I'd argue the RefDesk talk page is not ideal, as it has almost invariably proven ineffective at resolving differences of opinion amongst the regulars in recent years, owing to the fact that positions are so entrenched, leading to a more or less perpetual maintenance of the status quo for just about every major point of contention amongst regulars. In some respects, I'm very much concerned about the implications of what it might mean for the desks to solicit broad community involvement in resolving how the desks should operate, but I just don't see any other way forward but to seek those opinions. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:42, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The UAE troll is back again, new range block and page-protections needed

The troll operating from dynamic IPs in the UAE and who repeatedly targets both myself and other users is back again. For previous discussions leading to extensive range blocks, see ANI discussion in January ANI discussion in November]. The same trade marks, using different UAE IPs and going after my edits, calling me a troll etc. [60], [61], [62], [63]. As we've seen both in November and January, the only thing that works tends to be semi-protection of the articles this troll targets and range blocks of the ranges he uses. @Diannaa:, it appears that his preferred range this time is 5.107.XXX. Would be good if somebody could semi-protect Punjab, Pakistan as well. The troll has been duplication a section that already exists in the article, severely misrepresented sources and messed with tags, all of it pretty "standard" vandalism. Jeppiz (talk) 19:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Jeppiz, has an SPI been created for this editor? I'm not sure which IP they used the most, so I can't search their archives. There should be a page somewhere where the relevant IP numbers are kept track of. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked 5.107.13.237 and 5.107.7.39. (The range seemed a bit too big and busy to block.) The way these IPs have edited User talk:Gerua18, removing warnings and attacking you, Jeppiz, is interesting.[64] I'm thinking of blocking Gerua18 per WP:DUCK, especially considering they're disruptive anyway. Do you think it's all the same person, Jeppiz? Bishonen | talk 21:01, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

Bishonen, I don't think it's Gerua18. My impression is that Gerua18 is a new and infrequent user with an interest in the Punjab region. Perhaps with a bit of a POV, but no other problem. The IP in the UAE is more a typical troll. He (trolls are usually males) does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great) but several users already in November pointed out that this seems more done to troll, not any genuine Muslim conviction. It could be somebody genuinely hating "Christianity" (broadly construed) but it could just as likely be a troll trying to give Muslims a bad name. The very repeated attacks on DeCausa ([65]), myself ([66]) and others seem more indicative of a troll, perhaps a blocked user with whom we interacted some time in the past. If we could do something more than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks, it would of course be good. Jeppiz (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, indeed it would be good, but Wikipedia is not set up to stop trolls. That's putting it mildly. I hope @Diannaa: takes a look, she's better with ranges and similar. Bishonen | talk 21:34, 30 January 2016 (UTC).

I did have a quick look when I was pinged, but since there's been no activity on Punjab, Pakistan since 16:09, I did not see the matter as urgent (and he likely has already left this range). The range is 5.107.0.0/17, which is busy, with 80 edits in the last 10 days, most of which are not from this guy. But I see this is the same range as was harrassing a user at Talk:Mia Khalifa yesterday. We don't actually have any weapons other than temporary semi-protections and IP blocks. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Liz, Bishonen and Diannaa. I originally had no idea who the sockmaster is, but Diannaa's comment above makes it almost a WP:DUCK that it is Xtremedood. What do we know about the troll in the UAE? That he is harassing users at Mia Khalifa, at articles related to Punjab, at articles related to Christianity and at articles related to Islam, as can be seen from this and previous ANI discussions about the troll. And what do know of Xtremedood? That he's an active puppet master [67] with an interest in Mia Khalifa [68], [69], in Punjab [70], [71], in Christianity [72], [73] and in Islam [74], [75]. We know the UAE troll goes after me, and I've disagreed with Xtremedood about Islam. Diannaa tells us the troll goes after Jobas and Jobas has disagreed with Xtremedood after Mia Khalifa. So we have a know sock-master, Xtremedood, with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me, and we have an active IP troll with an interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity, Islam and disputes with Jobas and me. I don't think WP:DUCK gets any duckier than that. Jeppiz (talk) 22:41, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The IP in the UAE used to edit and to have account's in Arabic wikipedia and Wikimedia commons, (where he used to upload Anti christian files as here). He as user Jeppiz said does have a tendency of targeting articles related to Christianity (to attack it) or Islam (to claim it's great). He used to targeting articles related to Christianity in the Arabic Wikipdia (as insulting, trying to force false information, comments hostile to Christians) where he was blocked for vandalism the Christian articles and and having more than 53 sockpuppeteers, After blcoking him in the Arabic Wikipida he began to targeting our personal talk pages (From his UAE IP) - This was in 2014-. So we had in Arabic Wikipedia trageting form the UAE IP toll.

He also was editing befor blocking him for vandalim and sock puppet in these acount or what used to called anti cross 25 and here, as we found in the arabic wikipeida was related to the UAE IP.

I feel uncertain about the relation between this IP and user:Xtremedood, for his sudden appearance and for his strong defense to the user:Xtremedood, after i brougth up the sockpuppet of user:Xtremedood and had after i had disagreed with him in Mia Kahlifa artcile, and accusing the User:Capitals00 (who had a problem recently with user:Xtremedood) having sockpuppet, which is the same accusing that user:Xtremedood did. I think it's a strange thing that this IP defend in that strong way of the user:Xtremedood and torolling after me after having issue with user.--Jobas (talk) 23:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

A list of the UAE troll's IPs during the last months

@Liz, Bishonen, Diannaa, Jobas, Bbb23, Ponyo, Cliftonian, Harrias, Elockid, Drmies and DeCausa, I ping you as you've been involved in this matter either as victims or admins during the past months. Liz, I'm not very good at SPIs but I put together this list of IPs Xtremedood has used to troll Wikipedia in the last nine months. I'm sure there are others, but these are all obvious ones. After Diannaa's post, I don't think anyone doubts it's Xtremedood who's the puppet master behind all these troll IPs. Jobas already told us about Xtremedood's similar behavior at Arabic Wikipedia. Then we have the trolls' and Xtremedood's shared interest in Mia Khalifa, Punjab, Christianity (to insult), Islam (to extoll) (see diffs in the post above). Four topics so random that the combination can hardly be a coincidence. If further evidence was still needed, these IP trolls have targeted in particular DeCausa, Jobas and myself (and perhaps others I don't know of), and if the shared interests between Xtremedood and the troll IPs weren't enough, then there's the fact that Xtremedood is probably the only user who has locked horns with all main "victims" of the troll IPs not only at articles but at our talk pages as well. Here's is a non-exhaustive list of the troll IPs, I hope someone can move this matter forward.

List of IPs

103.10.199.149 103.9.77.106 104.236.132.30 129.232.129.157 153.207.109.188 176.204.171.201 176.204.179.35 176.204.181.45 176.204.186.17 176.204.25.226 176.204.27.80 176.204.38.78 176.204.42.122 176.204.44.189 176.204.45.69 176.204.48.40 176.204.60.56 176.204.60.82 178.159.10.78 178.73.210.178 185.65.206.157 189.196.129.102 192.71.213.26 2.48.131.211 2.48.32.105 2.48.45.231 2.48.52.205 2.48.58.235 200.122.128.152 200.73.20.100 200.80.48.34 206.191.148.66 2606:2E00:0:50:EC4:7AFF:FE55:69DE 2A00:1D70:ED15:151:236:23:165:1 2A03:F80:44:37:235:55:44:1 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:161:1 2A03:F80:972:193:182:144:75:1 31.218.179.2 31.218.181.117 31.219.124.159 31.219.97.154 45.56.155.8 5.107.112.47 5.107.13.237 5.107.7.39 5.107.72.200 69.65.15.114 77.247.180.147 85.9.20.155 86.96.39.39 91.233.116.79 94.58.137.75 95.153.32.3 92.96.139.88

Jeppiz (talk) 01:11, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia, this IP creates hundreds of IP and account's. Is there a solution to stop this toll, Because the solution to blocking him, according to my opinion it is useless. He will come back and continue to the same vandalism.--Jobas (talk) 01:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Just a passing not. I realized this IP was cursing in Arabic in the Arabic Levantine dialect (Specifically syrian), abd the IP or the blocked who used to tragic christian article in Arabic Wikipeida, through what we have know in Arabic Wikipedia (through the dialect) is from Syria, but he lives in the United Arab Emirates. I am currently unsure of conclusively link that the UAE IP here and the UAE IP who used to edit in the Arabic Wikipeida and who has hostile ideasto Christianity, and who has always sabotaging these christian articles and harassment the users who have been in trouble or disagree with him.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

@Jobas: Is there anything we can make an edit filter for? Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 18:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes sure the UAE IP was cursing the user Jeppiz in sickening way, through experience in the Arabic Wikipedia has always used the classic insults as he it here, So @Discuss-Dubious: we can edit filter here.--Jobas (talk) 18:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Good, we have some good strings. You should email the mailing list with this. I'm thinking we should send them a list of his favorite articles as well.@Jobas: Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 19:26, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Now edit warring and trolling at WP:SPI

For your informartion, I filed an SPI here The UAE troll has now moved on to the SPI with the usual edit warring and personal insults [76], [77], [78], [79]. Rather tellingly, the UAE troll IP almost verbatim repeated the phrases Bbb23 used when blocking Xtremedood a week ago [80]. Jeppiz (talk) 16:24, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

An edit filter might be very effect in reducing the personal insults. Right now, the SPI is in the hands of the CUers who have put it on hold while they decide what might be done against the persistent troll. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Gotta say though...editor might be on to something...Jobas and Jeppiz...Jeppiz and Jobas...Jebbis and Jopaz...there's totally something there. Don't y'all see it? Drmies (talk) 04:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sarcasm doesn't always translate well. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:24, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Even if the socks aren't related to XD or G18, they are still ENT 70 ducks, and maybe he just agrees with Xtremedood. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Comment by Xtremedood

Hello, since I was mentioned a lot here, I would like to say that I have nothing to do with the IP's mentioned above. I have been stalked by IP's that both are hostile to my positions as well as seemingly supportive. I do not support such tactics and I do not have anything to do with these trolls. I request those who are operating these accounts to stop following me and I request that they adopt more civil mannerisms and behavior. I think the accusations by Jeppiz are baseless and it should be mentioned that Jeppiz, Jobas and I have an ongoing dispute here Talk:List of converts to Christianity from Islam. So I hope this is not an attempt to try and censor me so that they may post what they want in the article without disagreement from others, like myself. Xtremedood (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

St Mary's Church, Haddenham - copy/paste from ext website

Two editors have been repeatedly adding copy/pasted material from an external website. The website has an "All rights reserved" notice, but the book itself is apparently public domain. I am adding this here as I do not know whether it belongs on 3RR, or due to possible copyvio, here, or somewhere else.

• Apparent source: William Henry Page (1 January 1902). A History of the County of Buckingham: Volume 2, Parishes: Haddenham. pp. 281–286. ASIN B00MG5KYIK. Retrieved January 2016. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
• 80.177.210.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dog7005 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

• Dog7005 Has restored content once, but not since an EW notice was left on talk page.
• 80.177.210.212 Has added / restored content five times or more. Once since a EW notice was added to 80.177.210.212's talk page.

Dog7005's account was created about when 80.177.210.212 reached uw-delete4. Page's book was cited by Dog7005, but then the cite was removed by 90.17.210.212 Much, if not all, of both editors' edits appear to be copy/pasted from Page's book. I have left a number of messages and suggestions on the editors' talk pages w/o a reply. Jim1138 (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Probably one to take to WP:SPI I'd say. Mike1901 (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The text is the public domain and available here, so it's not a copyvio. It is however, disruptive to copy/paste the entire text into the article, and he's edit warring to keep it in. I've semi-protected the page for a week to stop that disruption; perhaps in the meantime someone can take this PD source, distill it into some cited references, and remove those maintenance tags. Katie^talk 12:15, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

User:Giovannigiulio continues to block evade using IPs - rangeblock needed

I have been banreverting numerous IPs beginning with 5.90... for about a year now ever since Giovannigiulio was indeffed for abusing multiple accounts. While he has used some registered accounts to block evade, the vast majority of his block evasion came from these IP addresses, which he usually uses to make a few edits, then stops using, only to use another IP address afterwards, thus making these IP socks harder to block. Worst of all, this user typically flies under the radar of admins, leaving me to report and/or tag these socks.

So, I personally think we should calculate a rangeblock for all IPs in the 5.90... range, so that this user can no longer use these IPs to block evade. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 20:50, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

That'd be 65534 hosts blocked if my calculations are correct (they may not be at this time of day). No idea what the collateral on that would be but I suspect it may be high. Amortias (T)(C) 00:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I suspect it may be high ... Someone just got their Masters Degree in Understatement. It likely would be, but would it be balanced with the removal of a SockMaster? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 01:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I remember correctly, I've run into this sockmaster before. He was annoying but not so bad that I'd do a massive rangeblock. Maybe I didn't get the worst of it. As I recall, it was mostly nationalistic, Italian POV-pushing on film articles. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: True that, but to get a bigger picture of what I'm dealing with here, and how to identify socks of this user, take a gander at his LTA page, which I created based on what I knew about him. ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 18:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Hey, my words have been immortalized. Yeah, that's pretty frustrating. It might help if you gathered IP addresses, like User:NinjaRobotPirate/Plot blanker. Sometimes you can get a limited rangeblock on the most commonly-used IP range. That's what happened with this list. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Drcrazy102 British editor, British humour, British stiff upper lip. Amortias (T)(C) 18:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You're humour does seem to fit Amortias ... but I'm a bit sus' - waitaminute, the userpage saayyyssss ... *checks userpage* ... "Suffolk", that clears up my confusion. Good to meet a Suffolk-in-resident. How's the move to the horrible English going for you? Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@NinjaRobotPirate: Sounds like a good solution to this, instead of the suspectedly high amount of IPs that may be impacted. Then we keep an eye on those rogues that get through the ranges. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 00:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Drcrazy102: Based on the IPs I had already tagged, the most commonly used range by the sockmaster is "5.90.**.**". ElectricBurst^{(Electron firings)}_(Zaps) 08:08, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Is this something an AbuseFilter can help with - makes it easier to find which IPs have been used in the last spree by detecting (and possibly blocking) some signature edits. I do the same with an editor who just can't stay away in defiance of a block (I block what I can with the filter, and the rest I revert per WP:RBI). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

SPA Account - Highly POV Slanted edits on Israel / Palestine

Fgz1995 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

[81],[82],[83]

Newly registered account, making a lot of POV edits on articles likely to have little oversight. All uncited and definitely POV, does this come under sanctions related to this topic? WCM_email 01:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Might fall under WP:ARBPIA3, especially since they're a new account. clpo13_(talk) 01:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:RolandR has already left a discretionary sanctions plus a 500/30 prohibition notification on their talk page. Blackmane (talk) 04:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It does fall under PIA3. RolandR has dealt with it. NativeForeigner ^Talk 10:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Should those changes be reverted? WCM_email 12:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Uncited ethnicity categories added again by User:Eruditescholar

Last February, I brought the issue of uncited ethnicity categories being added to BLPs based on very flimsy evidence by Eruditescholar. It has come to my attention that this is happening again, again and again. This is at least the second if not third time that this editor has been notified that WP:BLP requires that BLPs require affirmative proof of ethnicity.--TM 02:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@TM, This is beginning to look like you have a personal issue with me based on past discussions on this topic. Your basis for bringing this issue here is unwarranted for because I have observed that you make hasty revertions to some of my ethnic categorizations without checking the references first. For example, Candido Da Rocha and Sola Abolaji. I don't need to remind you that only Yoruba people use their native Yoruba language names for their ethnicity. Sometimes, I cite any of the first, middle or last name for males and only the fist, middle or maiden name for females. This is usually evident from the fact that they have multiple names in the Yoruba language. This is sometimes reinforced by the fact that they or their ancestors either have Yoruba ethnicity or originate from Yorubaland which comprises about 1/4 of Nigeria's population. If I can't find name sources, I look for other sources to cite their ethnicity. I don't add ethnic categories to BLPs unless I am sure of it. I have recommended before and I re-iterate that you keep away from Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk)

Adding ethnic categories based on a name is Original Research which is not permitted. It is also not permitted to try to enforce ownership over articles or topics by telling other editors not to edit. So stop doing both of those things Eruditescholar, or you may face sanctions. It is not a requirement that articles be categorized by ethnicity, and policy is to omit such classification in the absence of explicit support in reliable sources. ·maunus · snunɐɯ· 03:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@·maunus. Thanks and I understand your explanation but Wikipedia's rule for ethnic categorizations easily applies to ethnic groups outside Africa. Africans have unique ways of identifying with their ethnic groups and it may not be in concord with non-Africans. Besides, there's too much under-representation of African ethnic groups in Wikipedia. I have not claimed ownership of any article but only gave my recommendation regarding the other editor's unwarranted edits and reverts on Yoruba-related articles. Eruditescholar (talk) 05:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

As long as Wikipedia does not have special rules applying to African ethnicgroups you will have to follow the rules we have in the way you categorize African people.·maunus · snunɐɯ· 05:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Eruditescholar has persisted with this form of disruptive editing even since this issue was brought here. I think we need administrative action since clearly the editor is unwilling to stop.--TM 22:49, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

It is now clear that inspite of the glaring evidence of ethnicity stated in most of these articles, especially on Abayomi Olonisakin, you have decided to be irrationale. You happen to be the only editor who brings this issue here for discussion. This a continuation of your grudges on past admin discussions regarding this topic and not necessarily because you want the articles in question to be good or informative. If you have personal issues with me or my editing, this is the wrong place to let it out. Eruditescholar (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 5:00, 2 February 2016

I have some sympathy with Eruditescholar's POV in the sense that it is true assumptions are commonly made and accepted in certain places based on name, look, place of origin or whatever and so it's often simply not stated as it's considered unnecessary. However our standards for living people are clear, WP:BLPCAT and Euriditescholar needs to follow them. If they wish to make exceptions or change the general guidelines, they'll need the WP:RFC before, not after. (And frankly despite my sympathies, I don't think I'll support any such exceptions.) BTW, if you are persistently adding WP:OR to WP:BLPs despite clear requests to stop, this is indeed the right place to deal with it. You should also learn to WP:AGF as even before you were replied, you were already told by another editor who isn't Namiba that adding cats based on OR was unacceptable. Also remember it is your responsibility if you are adding ethnicity categories to ensure that such categories are supported by the article with references. The fact that it's in one of the references somewhere, doesn't make it acceptable to add categories to the article if it isn't actually mentioned in the article (at least in the infobox) with references. Mentioning some references in the edit summary also isn't the way to handle it. People should be able to see the support for the categories by looking at the article, they should not need to look through the edit history. Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

BTW, I see in the previous discussion you were warned about our requirements by multiple people Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive874#Continued addition of uncited ethnicity categories by User:Eruditescholar. Personalising this as some sort of grudge by Namiba, when you were not only already informed of our requirements by someone else here, but the 'grudge' you refer to was actually your failure to follow our sourcing requirements which you were warned about by multiple other people, is extremely disappointing. It's entirely reasonable for people who've observed your poor behaviour before to follow your contribs to make sure it isn't happening again. And I suspect Namiba probably wasn't even following your contribs but happened to notice the problem when you edited an article they were watching. Problematic behaviour that an editor isn't willing to change is generally an appropriate topic of discussion at ANI. If it's repeated bad behaviour that they've already been warned about it's even more appropriate. In other words, the only "grudge" that anyone has is that we want you to stop adding categories without appropriate sourcing because consensus is that it does damage wikipedia and our articles when you do so. While you're welcome to disagree with out sourcing requirements for ethnicity categories until and unless you get them changed, you do have to follow them. Nil Einne (talk) 11:34, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Still more of the same adding of ethnicity categories without reliable sources saying that a BLP is in fact of a certain group. Will an admin please take action against this user who refuses to comply with WP rules?--TM 22:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Claudebone reported by Jim1138

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

---

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

• Personal attacks and uncivil behavior towards a number of editors
• Repeated unsupported accusations of socking
• Accusations of editors "being obsessed with a 13 year old boy"
• Accusations of incompetence of other editors

Other editors involved

• 888AlexanderAranda888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (Arada) Claudebone personally attacks, accuses of being "obsessed with a 13 year old boy", accuses of socking
• Paulvincentcable (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (PVC) Claudebone accuses of being "obsessed with a 13 year old boy", accuses of socking w/ Arada
• King of Hearts (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (KoA) is an administrator, much of this discussion taking place on his talk page. Claudebone accuses KoA of being incompetent more than once:.
• Jim1138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The reporter also a target of personal attacks by Claudebone
• Callanecc an administrator warned Claudebone w/ NPA more than once
• Uncle Milty an administrator advised and warned Claudebone on reporting on socks

I seem to have started this after twice reverting Claudebone redirecting Ayrton Cable to Vince Cable (his grandfather) 1 2 without adequate reason. After which Claudebone opened an AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayrton Cable The AfD was closed by KoH

• a Claudebone to KoH Discussion on KoH's page starts here. Please review this yourself or I will otherwise have to do it properly.'
• b Claudebone to KoH: There is a subtlety in understanding nuances of AFD debates that you seem to be missing.
• c Jim1138 to Claudebone questioning assertions
• d Claudebone It would help if we didn't have absurd and angry ranty off-topic contributions from those so lacking in basic understanding of WP:HOWWPWORKS that they tried to use WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS in a deletion !vote. Let's just say if an SPA smells like a sock it usually is.
• e Jim1138 to Claudebone A major issue here is that you have repeatedly accused others of socking without addressing questions made to you about your evidence for this. So, please answer.
• f Claudebone reply Oh For fuck sake stop being such a prig. It's quite clear that we have 2 SPAs, with non-overlapping histories, who are obsessed with 1 13 year old kid. I'd put my fucking mortgage on them both being the same person and both being Master Cable. You're not being helpful here to Wikipedia, which is deeply concerning.
• g Callanecc NPAs Claudebone's first sentence above.
• h Uncle Milty re civility and sock reporting procedures
• i Claudebone accusation of incompetence.
• j Callanecc NPAs part of Claudebone's comment
• k Callanecc NPAs a second part of Claudebone's comment
• l Claudebone: ...Just to clarify - I did not personally attack (KoH),despite my comments being disgracefully edited above...
• m Claudebone to Arada: ...I'm not an SPA with both an unhealthy obsession with a 13 year old boy and a mysterious twin who agrees with everything I say, am I?
• n Claudebone "about" Arada: I am not talking to you - I am talking about you. Overwhelming evidence suggests you ARE indeed an SPA, personally intimate with Master Cable's father, with an unhealthy obsession with a 13 year old boy and a mysterious twin who agrees with everything you say. This is ringing so many alarm bells particularly related to WP:MINOR that it's almost impossible to hear myself think.
• o Jim1138 to Claudebone: Again, asking for socking evidence
• p Claudebone: Oh For fuck sake Jim1138. Even if your pathetic screed is true and we have a separate bunch of puppets...
• q Jim1138 reverts - NPA
• r Claudebone reverts - ES: FUCK YOU
• s Claudebone adds: Meanwhile, I note that user:Jim1138 continues to beahvae innappropriately by vandalising my comments for perceived (not intended) personal attacks. I am astounded at how much restraint I am actually showing.

Warnings to Claudebone on his talk page

• a Uncle Milty on how to tag SPAs
• b Uncle Milty first warning on personal attacks
• c Callanecc's first warning
• d Callanecc's final warning
• e Callanecc addition on implying incompetence

End of post Jim1138 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: Moved above Callanecc's notice for readability. Jim1138 (talk) 08:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Other personal attacks and accusations of incompetence by Claudebone

• a Claudebone on Uncle Milty's talk page
• b ES: you're a fucking idiot.

Jim1138 (talk) 08:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Edits after block

• a Claudebone ES Jim1138 can go fuck himself he's a retard.
• b Claudebone unblock request?

End of post Jim1138 (talk) 08:45, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'd just like to point out that I am not an administrator on any Wiki and if something I said led anyone to believe I was I apologize. I do appreciate the compliment, though. --| Uncle Milty | talk | 11:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I've blocked Claudebone for personal attacks and harassment and because the account seems to be WP:NOTHERE. As I said in the block log, if Claudebone appeals and actually understands the issues and agrees not to repeat them feel free to unblock. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:31, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
  • The fact he continues to accuse editors of an "unhealthy obsession" after being blocked is decidedly the opposite of promising. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:17, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Yep. Let them rant, I say. If there's ever an unblock request it'll show up on our to-do list; in the meantime I think we're done with business there. Thanks, Bushranger, for trying. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
      • I gave one final old college try, but after his most recent response, that's all folks, he's solidly WP:NOTHERE. If he doesn't do a 180 on his tune if he answers again his TPA should be revoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

EauZenCashHaveIt

Seems this user at Talk:Harold Holt has very strong opinions about me personally. He has multiple times insisted on placing my name in an unflattering manner in a section title ("‎Sources confirm Gillespie was his lover. It has been User:Collect vs. formed consensus for the past two discussions. Move to close please") on the article talk page, has told me in crude terms to go away, and has ignored my posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#smithsonianmag.com where another editor specifically agreed with me that where a person says an affair was not "intimate" that using the term "lover" about that person as a fact in Wikipedia's voice where the sources make clear the use is not implying sex, that there is a misuse of the sources. He refuses to allow the word "rumoured" in the article. And the posts at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_202#Sydney_Daily_Telegraph_.22Sydney_Confidential.22_article about the same claim in the past, sourced to a self-described "gossip column." By the way, there is no sound reason at all for any of this speculation in the biography of Harold Holt in the first place.

[84], [85], [86], [87] etc. etc. I pointed out that using an attack in a talk page section name was improper, and you can see his response. Collect (talk) 14:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

In the words of the late great Abe Vigoda, nothing personal here. Anyone reviewing this, please note the length of the section with all its subsections. Then please note the amount of editors who repeatedly displayed an array of sources to reach a consensus. Then please note the amount of replies by Collect which ignore a good chunk of those sources in favor of making their point at all cost. Then please note the amount of times Collect was asked to quit fighting against consensus. Then notice my own polite replies, reminders of policy, and bringing of actual sources to the article. I could go on for a while, but the reality is that Collect has been exhaustinfont color="000FF">Electricg the editor community on that talk page for days now, and someone needs to put an end to it. What I am noticing is that this very report is a staggering display of stubborn and warrior-like behavior, since each and every point they are currently raising has already been disproven on the talk page, and all of us found a plethora of other sources. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: as for the matter at hand, "lover" is her own quote from several reputable sources, brought up numerous times by myself and every other participating editor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 15:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

"Consensus" can never allow any source to be misused. The source provided specifies that the person denied being in an "intimate" relationship. In the US, "lover" is generally reserved (as a claim of fact) to "intimate" relationships and not to "intellectual" relationships, which is what the source specifically states in pretty much the next sentence. Cheers. And yes - I am known for loathing abuse of sources, especially when the claim has no encyclopedic value to the subject of the article. Collect (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute, with no real call for admin intervention. It's understandable that there is frustration among editors in that discussion, but I see nothing that requires use of admin tools. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:34, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• You seem to have missed the use of a section title as a place to make a personal attack on another editor, etc. And there remains an issue about misuse of sources (including use of a "gossip column") as detailed in the two RS/N discussions as well. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, other users pointed out, and justly so, that you have been trolling that page for a while. The section title merely states that it has been you vs. a formed consensus, which is far from a personal attack. The gossip column is ancient history - I personally replaced it a while ago. The "misuse" of sources has been disproven to you numerous times. The RS/N discussions were not brought up until right before you went here. You accuse other editors of canvassing (without a valid reason), yet you keep canvassing across multiple noticeboards in spite of a formed consensus - now you are here. Just accept that the consensus exists and move on. Your obsession with this issue is affecting other editors, and is detrimental to our community. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 23:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• I closed the RfC. I doubt wither side will like the close much. Guy (Help!) 13:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

[88] is the close - which is exactly what I was asking for. "There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it." (more follows which does not alter the basic premise for the close). Thanks. Collect (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• "[T]he subject of the claim appears not to have used it" - another false claim that has been disproven by a direct quote. Christ, do you have anything new to present? EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 06:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that Collect reverted back to his desired version after the discussion had been officially closed and it had been determined that the RfC was not in his favor. EauZenCashHaveIt (I'm All Ears) 03:14, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Ticket to Sydney, anyone? Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm going to post the RfC close in its entirety below so that there is no question of what it says. Softlavender (talk) 07:26, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

There is a remarkable degree of heat given that this is basically tabloid tittle-tattle. As Collect notes, agreement of various editors cannot trump policy: independent sources establish that the term is at least somewhat speculative, and even the subject of the claim appears not to have used it in the unambiguous sense supported by some editors here. The solution is to use attribution and to take care not to exceed what is stated by the sources (e.g: "Mrs Gillespie was once the secret lover of Australian prime minister Harold Holt - or the alleged secret lover, as has frequently been recorded in the years following Holt's disappearance and prior to her own - as is reporting convention." from the Aus. Daily Telegraph). Terms such as "claimed lover" or "alleged lover" would not violate policy, an overt claim of "lover" probably does, from my reading of this debate, the sources and the relevant policies. And omitting it altogether? That would be perfect. Guy (Help!) 13:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Troll reverting my edits

86.187.163.250 is the latest IP of a troll with a vendetta against me. Eik Corell (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I notified the IP User of this on their talkpage. RickinBaltimore (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Don't waste your time. The user does not communicate. They do this until they're banned, then they come back under a new IP. Instead, give me a hand by reverting all their edits. I sure do need the help. Eik Corell (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I have blocked this IP for disruptive editing. When an IPs only edits are to revert a single person it is pretty clear they are not new here and are using an IP to avoid edit warring blocks. If this same thing happens you can drop a note on my talk page. HighInBC 17:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• They're back as 86.187.162.202. Maybe someone can keep an eye on the affected articles and throw a rangeblock this way. I'll ping DVdm and ScrapIronIV since they've been on the case, knowingly or not. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

  Yup, all of those contribs have been reverted. And they are all on my Watchlist. Scr★pIron^IV 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

They're back again, this time as as 86.187.165.250. Scr★pIron^IV 21:43, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've put in a rangeblock (86.187.160.0/21) for a few days. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I am glad someone better with range blocks was able to help here. HighInBC 22:29, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:NMMGG. Persistent refusal to stop suggesting my editing at Ezra Nawi has personal motives.

At Ezra Nawi, I thought on a WP:BLP article, it was obligatory to get the precise nature of the conviction clear as given in reports of Israeli court records which judged the relationship ‘consensual’. Every attempt to explain this necessity has been met by personal innuendoes as to my putative motivations. In repeating these innuendoes User:Bad Dryer was indeffed (see here).

The author of the innuendo, User:No More Mr Nice Guy persists in alluding to this, and suggests I am embarrassed by what I have written, embarrassed to the point of backpedalling, and too embarrassed to report him. The record is:

• (1) Did you get that from NAMBLA promotional material?
• (2) Considering you repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old having sex with a 15 year old, NAMBLA does indeed come to mind. 20:35, 29 January 2016
• (3) That's not what you said on the Ezra Nawi talk page, but kudos for feeling embarrassed enough to try to backpedal 21:31, 31 January 2016‎
• (4)Duly registered, meaning you won't report it because you're too embarrassed that what you said will get a wider audience.

WP:NPA Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. . . Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks.

These insinuations, fishing expeditions, challenges, and suggestions that on the topic of statutory rape I am 'embarrassed' or 'backtracking' and 'justify' it are as repetitive as those made by Bad Dryer. The editor some years ago tried to put it over I was an anti-Semite, and the case led to his banning from WP:AE. In both cases, the behavior is the same, language crafted to provoke some personal exchange by insinuating I have some dubious personal fixations. Nishidani (talk) 20:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Here is the statement I was responding to. The discussion is about a minor who was the the cause of a statutory rape conviction against the topic of the article. I think the statement speaks for itself. I will only note that there's not a single source that makes this argument (unsurprisingly) or that puts the word "victim" in quotes (again, unsurprisingly).

As for the AE case, if someone wants to look into how a single admin closed an harassment case within 24 hours based on an assumption of bad faith, I would welcome that. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

• NMMGG's diff shows Nishidani adding a comment, but let's start from the beginning of that section, namely the first post at Talk:Ezra Nawi#NMMGG WP:OR. That post shows this diff of NMMNG editing the article to insert "statutory rape" at the beginning of a list of reasons for the BLP subject being convicted. Problem: the source does not mention "rape", statutory or otherwise. The source (nytimes.com) uses Nishidani's text that NMMNG replaced with rape in primary position. Johnuniq (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

NMMGG construed (a) as personal advocacy (b)and said I repeatedly asserted this (putative)personal advocacy when I was, on the talk page, justifying an edit by citing what the sources stated (not my views). He then furthered suggested my position was identical to that of NAMBLA, an organization I'd never heard of.

The text he cites for my views is a patchwork of paraphrases and quotations.

'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him. And it was consensual, as his minimal sentence indicated. A victim is 'person who has been attacked, injured, robbed, or killed by someone else. : a person who is cheated or fooled by someone else. : someone or something that is harmed by an unpleasant event (such as an illness or accident)', which, from the sources does not appear to be how the Palestinian saw this. In five years he never laid a complaint.

I let this pass, but leaving it go, has only lead to a follow-up train of nudging insinuations about what he fantasies to be my personal views. I can't see how this is not talking about the editor, rather than focusing on the content, as is required under WP:NPA. I am not calling for a ban. I am asking the board to get him to drop his puerile attempt to be a psychologist, which is proving disruptive to editing that page.Nishidani (talk) 16:25, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A. Those are indeed your views. Not a single source says the minor was not a victim or puts quotes around the word "victim", not to mention argues about the dictionary definition of "victim". B. Anyone following the diffs above can clearly see that every single time I was responding to you bringing the subject up. All you have to do is drop it. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

'Not a single source says the minor was not a victim'. Put that another way: 'What sources state that the minor was a victim'? as opposed to the sources that mention the case and do not use the word 'victim'?Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You can't have consensual sex with a minor, so regardless if it was "consensual" and the victim allowed it, and there was not enough evidence in the court of law to convict, just because the victim didn't testify doesn't mean there was no victim. What is the age of consent? Victims often times don't testify because they are scared or because they don't want to relive the rape. That doesn't mean that there was no victim. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:37, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

This is not the point. It is obvious Nawi broke the law and deserved a prison sentence of at least 6 months (unlike the 30 IDF soldiers who had 'consensual' sex with a 12-13 year old Israeli girl for 2 years, and got 3-6 weeks camp detention. They got off lightly, being neither homosexual or human rights activists.)

NMMGG said I repeatedly tried to justify a 45 year old (sic=37-8 year old) having sex with a 15 year old.All we have is a link to my summary of sources. He is obliged to document where I (suppoadly) repeatedly did this. If he can prove his claim is validated by several remarks I made, fine. If he can't then he has been engaged with a decidedly serious piece of calumny, which he repeated above, in the face of my objections ('Those are indeed your views.').Nishidani (talk) 20:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That could be because you still say you should put victim in quotes. Just because the kid didn't testify doesn't make him not a victim. That is all I'm saying. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 20:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh good grief. I made an argument for that proposition. When the consensus said no, I didn't engage in a revert war or persist ('still'). I think the word 'victim' contradicts the word 'consensual', since it implies 'violence'. But, nota bene, I did not erase it, or substitute it with another term. It was a WP:BLP fine line call. Everyone in this area should know I am extremely finicky about niceties of usage. If, we have only Nawi's word for it, the 15 year old persisted in phoning him and wanting to stay at his home, then that doesn't fit the normal sense of 'victim'. Massie for one says there was 'no real victim'. John Costello and Dearbhail McDonald instead say the minor was a victim. You have a split in opinion in the sources, and when that occurs one has a simple choice, battle over 'victim' to keep or excise it according to a POV, or, as I did retain 'victim' in inverted commas, to signal the controversy. It's as simple as that, so simple NMMGG, convinced he has some specialist insight into my personal outlook, thinks he can smear me as pushing some NAMBLA agenda, when I am simply trying to edit a difficult article according to commonsense. Nishidani (talk) 21:00, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Bad Dryer was blocked indefinitely by Drmies, and the block upheld by both Liz and HighInBC, for insinuating that Nishidani's BLP concerns at Ezra Nawi are motivated by some kind of paedophilic tendency.

Sir Joseph maintains the blocks result from Wikipedia's "shameful" bias against "pro-Israeli" editors [89], and No More Mr Nice Guy agrees. Despite this, NMMNG has themselves, at talk:Ezra Nawi, three times repeated the gross and insulting ad hominem that insinuates Nishidani's somehow pro-NAMBLA editing. NMMNG also defended Bad Dryer's insinuations before that user was indeff'd - which isn't surprising since they've repeated this themselves.

If NMMNG can't accept how disruptive it is to approach this topic while accusing other editors of some kind of paedophilia, they should not be editing here. -Darouet (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I am coming here in response to the ping. In my opinion trying to gain advantage of a content dispute by accusing someone of child abuse is about the most egregious violation of WP:NPA that I can think of off the topic of my head. This includes hinting at it and slyly(or not so slyly) insinuating it. It was an easy decision to decline that unblock request.

I find it difficult to imagine a context where this would be appropriate, however as I have not looked into the context I will leave it for others to decide. HighInBC 00:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Pointing out that an editor is using similar tactics and justifications as groups like NAMBLA is not a violation of NPA when someone is using scare quotes around 'victim' in order to whitewash someones criminal acts. That last diff you posted was in response to this comment - "'Victim' in quotes is required because the ostensible victim of his statutory rape refused to testify against him. The complaint was brought by the boy's parents, not him." - that is straight out of a rape-apologists arsenal and a very common justification for abuse of minors. From a child-protection point of view I will straight away suspect someone who uses that reasoning. It effectively boils down to 'they wanted it'. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Max Araldi

Max Araldi is an obvious sock of indeffed editor Alec Smithson (more than half of his 12 edits are to pages created by Smithson, note also the userspace tabs copied from mine). Bringing this here because he also claims to be a checkuser, edit filter manager and oversighter. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I've struck the claims of them being an Oversighter, Edit Filter manager and OTRS volunteer least anyone who is looking for help is misled. Amortias (T)(C) 21:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone? Isn't there something we usually do when a blocked editor creates a sock? Smithson is straight back to his old ways: Gazzetta di Venezia, which "Max Araldi" created today, is an unattributed and totally incompetent translation from the corresponding article on it.wp, and thus yet another copyright violation. This is a highly disruptive editor, and I'm still working through his articles providing attribution where necessary. Please, at the very least, prevent him from creating any more. Of course, if anyone can suggest how the IP block evasion could be stopped as well, that'd be better still; I'm not clever enough to see any pattern in the IPs, other than them all being in Italy. The discussion that led to Smithson being blocked is in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive908. Thanks, Amortias, for removing those deceptive claims. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I blocked them based on behavioral similarity to Alec Smithson; note that I am not a CU.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

MfD of WP:Reform of Wikipedia

Could I please request that several admins go through this discussion and stop the incivility and bludgeoning that is occurring in various !votes and comments by various users on both sides. I am aware that this is not the 'typical' board for this type of request, but several users may need to be brought here because of comments on the essay/proposal's talkpage and the MfD. Cheers, Doctor Crazy in Room 102 of The Mental Asylum 02:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Also posting on WP:AN

@Drcrazy102: I have put a general note on the discussion for everyone to keep calm. I thought about closing the discussion, but that would probably cause more disruption that it solves, so I've !voted (to userfy) and suggest the MfD runs for the full 7 days. I have dropped an NPA warning on James500's talk as he seems to be making the most ad hominem comments. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. You are right that I and several others would be fine with this in user space, as the correct venue for quixotic proposals by people with - ahem - certain fixed views on content that have failed to gain consensus. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Block needed

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

---

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

---

User:Ensign Harry S. L. Kim is making implausible redirects to Muhammad and will not stop. Could an admin please block to get this person to talk about it? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay. --Bongwarrior (talk) 02:54, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

You are aware that Ensign Harry S. Kim is a fictional character aboard the enterprise, just like User:Tom Parris and Neelix right? I'm not saying this is Neelix, it would be too obvious, what I'm suggesting someone's doing a joe job and you'd probably want to block Ensign Harry S. L Kim for more than a day KoshVorlon 12:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Cough* Voyager *Cough* Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a troll trying to impersonate Neelix using other characters from Voyager (it's not Neelix, but a separate SPA troll). I'll see if I can find the SPI. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• There wasn't an SPI, the other accounts were just blocked for being obvious, so I created one: please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Helmsman Tom Paris. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Possible block evasion of KrazyKlimber and IP 101.182.100.189 as IPs 203.17.215.22 and 203.17.215.26

Both users make repetitive similar edits of Jonathan Mitchell that contribute nothing. Both are from Australia. Is there anything that can be done about it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=50&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=KrazyKlimber&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2016&month=-1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/101.182.100.189

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.17.215.22

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/203.17.215.26

Yes, I am aware that I shouldn't have directly edited the article as a CoI, but he put undue pressure on me as KrazyKlimber to disclose it when I didn't think it was necessary, as my relationship is tangential. Also, KrazyKlimber has a CoI with him, but I will say no more on the matter.

Ylevental (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, he is making personal off-site accusations about me as he did under KrazyKlimber at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=702879655 Namely "I know however where he's going otherwise and that I admit to. He's trouble with a capital T and is creating a reputation for himself as a troublemaker within the Autistic community. I am quite entitled to pull him up on it" Ylevental (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

181.134.2.199 reported by Meters

181.134.2.199 (contributions) appears to be trolling but since it is just barely possible this is a case of incompetence instead I'll take this here rather than to AIV. Either way it seems time for a block.

Every edit has been a comment or question that had no place in the article and was immediately undone by other users or bots. There has been no response or change in behaviour after multiple warnings on the user's talk page (other than perhaps just enough of a break for warnings to start over at level 1).

See [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], and [97] Meters (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• Yeah, you never know... I left a note; if this happens again we should block. Thanks Meters. Drmies (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Feels like I'm bending over backwards here, but if it isn't good faith it's just sneaky enough to raise a whisper of a doubt. Meters (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

• It looks like the user isn't aware that articles have talkpages, or that they themselves have one. If this condition persists after Drmies' warning, I agree there will be no other recourse than to block. The edits are timed quite far apart, so I'd suggest a block of a couple of weeks; we don't want them to miss it. (It's a static IP.) Once, or if, they respond constructively, they can be unblocked. Bishonen | talk 11:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC).

Edit summary delete request per WP:CHILD

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

---

Please delete this IP edit and edit summary and this one per WP:CHILD. TomCat4680 (talk) 18:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's a 9 year old, then I'm the King of Siam. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah, BB, that's a good one - a thigh-slapper in fact. BMK (talk) 21:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done --Jayron32 19:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Harassment by User:Rpo.castro

Rpo.castro has been harrassing me on my talk page by reverting my cleanups - he is aware that he shouldn't do it-, following a dispute in S.C. Braga. It's not the first time he harrasses me. He has been blocked for using multiple accounts after I reported it (I reported him for that). He also wrote once that he would not mind to vandalize S.L. Benfica. SLBedit (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Better check first here to check harrassement. This is one of its attemps of harrassing me, which I didn't have reason, again. Rpo.castro (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

You didn't put a notice on my talk. SLBedit (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

That was months ago, and doesn't excuse your behavior. You should not be reverting anything on his talk page.142.105.159.60 (talk) 21:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Rpo.castro | this edit isn't vandalism. He was blanking your entry | here . To me this looks like an edit war, in which neither party has clean hands. SLBedit is edit waring and claiming vandalism, it also looks like SLBedit is edit warring as well on the page, and is claiming WP:Footy as a reason not to use the term "Runner up", which looks like local consensus to me.

To his credit, SLBedit looks to have | discussed "runner up" status with WP:FOOTY here , and it looks like that topic has come up | a few | times in | the past . I'd suggest locking the page so that a consensus can be reached on that page, for that page . KoshVorlon 22:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I reported harassment/disruptive editing by Rpo.castro in talk page. SLBedit (talk) 22:46, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Fastifex

Can someone please take a look into Fastifex (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? (I'm off to sleep.) He has been around since 2006, reactivated recently, and seem to have WP:CIR issues. He moves pages around at a pretty high rate, creating totally uncalled-for dab pages [98] and [99]. His talk page is littered with bot notifications and explanations how Wikipedia works, but he seems to continue his Mission unabated. No such user (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. I can't even follow all these moves, redirects, and double redirects. You need charts and graphs and an easel to wrap your head around it all. He was blocked four times in 2006 for this kind of thing so he definitely knows better. Katie^talk 02:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. This is definitely concerning. I suggest warning the user to stop all of these moves and redirects until all of the concerns are resolved in this ANI thread. If the activity continues despite the warning and request for a discussion here, I'd almost say go ahead with a block until we hear back. The rate in which this is occurring is too high for comfort in my opinion. ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 03:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

66.94.202.246

IP editor previously banned 2 weeks (Jan 18) for unsourced changes, no edit summaries, and not engaging on Talk. Block has now expired and IP immediately resumed prior behavior. User talk:66.94.202.246#February 2016. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The disruption caused by this editor is tremendous. We'll need an army to go through his numerous year and number changes to check for the many, many errors he's introduced into articles. 02:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I have been policing this user's edits (their IP address seems to change every few months but the editing style is identical, one IP address was blocked for a month) on and off for over a year now and while the user has gotten somewhat "better," they continue to be unresponsive. The editor has actually found some factual inaccuracies and recently has seemed to be acting in good faith. Unfortunately, they also don't seem to fact check many of the dates and have never used the Edit Summary to explain why they are making the changes. With their continually switching IP address I am not sure how long a block will last, but it is better than nothing. (see User talk:66.94.206.60, User talk:66.94.209.81, User talk:66.94.195.79, and User talk:66.94.205.235 in reverse chronological order) Yosemiter (talk) 03:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Craig Busch

This article has a long history consisting of single-purpose accounts deleting all material critical of the subject. I am not really sure how best to proceed. There are neutrality concerns in the article, and the subject is a living person, but I don't see the section blanking and censorship to be appropriate. Some administrator insight into this page would be useful. --Azure Anteater (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Such issues are generally handled at WP:RPP, but I doubt the article will be protected as it doesn't appear to get much activity. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

James British

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

---

One potentially offensive material I've found on OSX's talk page: the f-bomb.

Today, which is the 2nd, I decided to go to his talk page, and, one I scrolled down to the beginning of the page, I found an f-bomb wrote by the above user. It scared me, and I was like, "WTF?! What's this word all about?!" I made my first attempt to remove the f-bomb, and warned James that, if he swears one more time, he will be indefinitely blocked. I could explain how dumb he is.

On the way back to the page, I discovered that an anonymous user reverted my change. I was shocked, and had to undo it. What the hell is his problem? I redid the change, but got reverted again by the owner of the account. I was shocked again, and redid it for the second time. And, that's all I know.

Here are some of the revisions between the reverting user and me. (CAUTION: it may not be suitable for you guys, but you may be brave, except for me.) 66.87.65.115 (talk) 04:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Profanity is not covered one way or the other in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. While it stands to reason that avoiding profanity helps keep conversation going smoothly and civilly, that's not an absolute. (If we wanted to get picky, we'd take the IP to task for using h-e-double-hockey-sticks in his comment above. :) ) There are a few words—which there's no need to enumerate here—that derail civil discourse so severely that they need dealt with immediately. The f-bomb is not quite to that level, IMHO.

That said, the phrase it's used in could be taken as a personal attack. However, if the owner of the talk page—the person being addressed in the comment—restored the content, then it's not a personal attack. So, there's no reason to edit James British's message.

Finally, I think the IP is acting in good faith, so there's nothing further that needs done here. —C.Fred (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Some people don't mind profanity on their talk pages, others do. If OSX doesn't mind the swear, there's no problem and you should respect that. What a user wants on their talk page outside of inflaming or outrageous content that violates community standards is their business, and you should move on from this before you end up with a block. I've also removed your warning from James English's page; it was a year ago and both parties seem to be well over it. We don't block on an absurdly late warning. Nate • (chatter) 04:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Sometimes, when being assaulted by low-life talk, it can feel like a badge of honor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

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

Golbez

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

Golbez wrote, "What should happen: People ignore Victor and return this talk page to the business of discussing the page instead of politics. What will happen: TheVirginiaHistorian, The Four Deuces will respond to Victor telling him how wrong his babby's-first-libertarian politics are, Victor will respond back with another couple paragraphs about how awesome Republicans are and how evil liberals are, and this bullshit will continue unabated.[100]

I told Golbez to remove the personal attacks,[101] and he replied, "Yay, adult supervision!"[102]

This is part of Talk:United States#Edit break for Proposals, where VictorD7 asked editors to choose between two alternatives. I opposed both.[103]

Golbez's comments are not helpful and I would ask other editors to explain that to him.

TFD (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Comments like this are pretty uncivil, but I'm not sure it's a personal attack. I also think this is a content dispute, not a matter for ANI. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:13, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, since we're here... There is a discussion on the talk page as to how to describe the political parties. I'm guessing that roughly 90% of it is incessant political arguing, mostly from VictorD7, but then people - sometimes TheVirginiaHistorian, sometimes our friend TFD here - will respond, and the cycle starts again. It's less a content dispute and more a massively-off-topic dispute that is really monopolizing the traffic of the talk page. It's clear I'm over it. I just don't have the energy or, frankly, knowledge to do anything about it; where does one go to complain that a talk page is being abused? Here? Hardly seems like an admin issue at this juncture. But it is an issue. So, I offer my pointed complaints as to how they're conducting themselves. I know my remarks are not helpful, but yet they are somehow more on topic than what the remarks are snarking against. But considering I have an intense dislike for the three loudest voices in the talk page, I suppose I should do what I said I'd do, hit alt-W, and go on with life. I was once the top contributor to the article, but it's moved on, though not in a direction I'd like (well, the talk page has moved on... the actual article, very little gets accomplished there, in large part because the talk page is so toxic). --Golbez (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Old-as-dirt content dispute. Golbez is right that the talk page is toxic, though. Nevertheless, definitely not an ANI matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Clarification on the use of socks

Hi. I'd like to ask for clarification on whether it's ok to use socks under the following circumstances: (a) I am unable to use my main account due to COI arising from previous edits (b) I will surrender the sock account once its purpose has expired

Obviously it won't be a block evading or vandalizing sock, so should be fine right?

Regards, (Anon. for now) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.231.1 (talk) 07:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Er... if you're using it because you can't use your main account, then aren't you by definition block evading? And if the other account isn't blocked, then why not use that one? --Golbez (talk) 07:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you do have COI of some sort, just declare it on your user page. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Editor and a possible sock embedding hardcore porn in Wikipedia article

A year ago I uploaded a full copy of Debbie Does Dallas to Commons, after discovering it had fallen into the public domain: [104]. I then embedded it into the Debbie Does Dallas article: [105]. Several months later an editor removed the video asking me to "get a third opinion, and have them agree that we can add pornographic films in full to articles.": [106]. I subsequently did at Talk:Debbie_Does_Dallas#Censorship_of_article. Four editors participated in the discussion and we arrived at a unanimous consensus to provide a direct link to the film on Commons, instead of embedding it: [107]. The outcome was satisfactory since my goal is to make public domain films easily accessible to readers; I usually do this by embedding the films, but just adding a clear link instead is acceptable to me. I have no wish to force porn on to people.

However, since this consensus was achieved, Right Hand Drive (a single-purpose account) embedded the film back into the article in the Fall. The direct link to the film on Commons was subsequently removed by Yann: [108]. I restored the Commons link but it was once again removed by both Yann ([109]) and Right Hand Drive ([110]).

I have a couple of concerns. First of all I don't see this as a censorship issue: excluding a link altogether from the article on the basis the film is pornographic would be censorship, but I do not interpret WP:CENSOR as a mandate to embed as much porn as we can into Wikipedia articles. I personally thought a direct link rather than embedding the film took full account of WP:CENSOR and balanced the need to to be sensitive to readers' concerns. Secondly, we have a couple of accounts (one of them an established editor) explicitly editing against a clear consensus. If they feel so strongly that the content is not being a provided in a way that is in the best interests of the readers they are free to challenge the consensus on the talk page and to build a fresh one. Tag-team edit-warring is not acceptable, especially when the issue has been discussed and there is a consensus in place. Finally I also have concerns about the nature of the relationship between Yann and Right Hand Drive. Right Hand Drive is a SPA with just two article edits to his name, the first and only edit (until today) being in September. Within hours of me warning Yann about his actions this account suddenly comes back to life and makes the exact same edit. I doubt it is a coincidence; even if the account is not a sockpuppet operated by Yann, the account is clearly someone who is already active on Wikipedia and possibly has the article on their watchlist. I would appreciate it if somebody could look into this. If the consensus to link rather than embed is not policy compliant then it would be useful to know this for other projects. Betty Logan (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, This is a joke, isn't? You accuse me of socking to pursue a prudish agenda. I explained the issue quite well in the talk page. Regards, Yann (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)