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

User G-Zay and BLP concerns

Per a discussion here, I have decided to open a thread here concerning G-Zay (talk · contribs) and claims that he is violating the BLP guidelines. My main concern, and that of the other editor who chimed in is that he is taking advantage of our trust in foreign language sources (in this case, Japanese), in order to write libel about persons and companies.

Yesterday, I responded to a request on OTRS here that details quite thoroughly what he is doing. This includes falsifying information from the Japanese sources, as well as mixing it up with legitimate truth. He also does not use page numbers for this information, and I invite him to provide page numbers that corroborate this. One example is this section, which cites the "Final Fantasy VI Advance Official Complete Guide" for information on the game's development. The problem is, the book does not mention anything on the development of the book, including claims that are outright contradicted in reliable sources. Rumors are also included, as seen here, and then added to gaming forums as something that was found on Wikipedia and needs attention drawn to it. Articles most affected by these issues include Hiroyuki Ito, Yoshinori Kitase, Motomu Toriyama, Final Fantasy VI, Final Fantasy Versus XIII, and Chrono Trigger. This would all be fine and well, but this information is now finding its way into news articles as “fact” and could lead to issues of circular referencing of these fallacies down the line.

He has also been banned from other sites for doing these things, and has engaged in sockpuppetry on those sites as well. This includes creating accounts in online cafes in order to avoid topic bans, so I any action taken here should take that into account.

I think a topic ban needs to be explored, as this user has already been reported to ANI in December, and nothing came of it, even though there was evidence that he performed the issues brought up above. This includes the part where he said, "There was also a rumour I created in July 2012 about GamesMaster magazine revealing Final Fantasy XV having already been in development for 4 years with Hiroyuki Ito as the director. The rumour spread around the internet but was eventually debunked once the deputy editor of the magazine confirmed the rumour was not published in the magazine. However, my intention making that rumour was not to mislead people, but for the rumour to eventually reach Square Enix so they could publicly debunk it themselves or provide statement about it." The fact that they have admitted to doing this on another site means that there are likely many issues that are on this site as well. The whole thread ended with nothing being done, but it is still concerning to have this brought up before nonetheless.

The user who sent the request has offered to send us the pages in question if we would like to check these claims, and I would like it if G-Zay could respond to these accusations, as they are pretty serious no matter what the truth is. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

This looks really serious in my opinion and Ktr101's examination of the situation is accurate. Also, damaging the integrity to Wikipedia is not acceptable behavior. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

These are very concerning allegations. Diffs would be helpful, but from a sense of G-Zay's contribs, I see that there's some merit in the allegations. So, support a topic ban. Chutznik (talk) 02:49, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Of specific concern to me when I saw the ticket is the claim that the editor allegedly added this, referencing an offline source (which may or may not have been Japanese), and then one day later allegedly posted this in a forum, stating that he had "found" it in Wikipedia. The previous ANI report seems to back up the use of the "Galvanizer" alias. This is very troubling for obvious reasons, not the least of which are the possible real-life effects a rumour started in a supposedly trustworthy source (Wikipedia) might have on a company, its products or employees. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 03:36, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see the OTRS matter, but the timing of these two allegedlys are really close. 17:20 Nov 25th versus Nov 26th and it just happens to be by the guy who essentially wrote the Ito article and still does? [1] This is highly suspicious. It doesn't seem to be the first time either. 'Fake news' removed by an I.P editor. [2] The content was also added by G-Zay. If true... I think we need to react appropriately, this is a major concern. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisGualtieri (talk • contribs) 04:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

BLP or not, the subject of the articles doesn't matter here. What matters is someone who appears to be introducing subtle hoaxing in numerous articles. Hoaxers don't get topic-banned: they get sitebanned or simply blocked indefinitely, since we have no reason to trust anything that they've written. Nyttend (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

While true, we should at least have hard evidence of this matter before we commit to the ban. Right now it looks bad, real bad, but I'd say we should at least see the evidence before banning. If we have clear evidence of the information being false, anyone who attempts to use it in a circular referencing or tries to reintroduce it can be notified and directed to why it is false. That and I do not believe in banning before seeing and verifying evidence of wrongdoing. I'm tagging Hiroyuki Ito as disputed for the time being, other things may be wrong with it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

That's why I said "appears" — the evidence hasn't yet been presented, and I didn't have time to investigate myself. I expect that I'll support a siteban request or a simple "please levy an indefinite block" request if they're presented with more evidence; my point was simply that we shouldn't just try a topic ban. Nyttend (talk) 11:06, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Deliberately gaming the project to support factually inaccurate claims about living persons? Let me put it this way - how could we ever trust this person's edits on any topic, ever? I would absolutely support an indefinite ban, if the allegations are proved to the satisfaction of the community. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Should I go ahead and blank the majority of these pages until we figure out what to do/what exactly is wrong with these pages? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, post-haste. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have blanked the person pages, except for the intros, and I cleared out the section on Final Fantasy IV. In terms of the other two, I am hesitant to do anything since I don't know of any issues being presented. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a reason why no action was taken before? It looks pretty clear cut here; he openly admitted to adding false info to a BLP article in order for his own selfish desire of weaseling information out of a corporation. What was the hold up a few months ago from action being taken? Sergecross73 msg me 13:53, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Final Fantasy VI needs to be really checked out. I don't think everything has been potentially sought through. The recent contributions have been purged, but the ones stemming from 2011 are still included. As per this edit by G-Zay.[3] For a FA article, this is unacceptable. I will gladly add my support for an immediate ban whenever evidence is conclusive. I did not look back further then 2011 to see if G-Zay has other contributions here, but it hasn't been dealt with completely yet. Also... I have not removed it, I'm no expert on that game. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Further details: the earliest content edit G-Zay did to the page was February 13, 2011, with one previous edit to the infobox on January 7, 2011 that has long since been overwritten. The "creation" section currently in the article is a copy I made of the last edit prior to February 13, 2011, and as such includes nothing that G-Zay added. Any edits that he made to other sections of the article have not been checked/removed; based on his general editing habits, I would expect these to only deal with the lead and the infobox. I can take care of combing through the FF6 article when this thread is finished (I'm both an admin and a lead contributor to other Final Fantasy video game articles); it's the BLP articles that are going to need the real work, seeing the massive amount of content that had to get removed from them as G-Zay was the primary author. --PresN 19:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure? "Final Fantasy VI was originally directed by series creator Hironobu Sakaguchi, but he eventually stepped down as director due to becoming too busy with other commitments at the time." is in the lede with no source and no mention in the article and was added by G-Zay. That jumps right at out at me. And the edit summary is 'all sourced' with the issues as the m.o. of G-zay. [4] Could you double check it real quick? And secondly, I find no German magazine by the name of 'Gamezone'. A legit Japanese magazine and a terrible U.S. magazine existed, but even counting a translation issue, the closest source would be the new 'Spielplatz' magazine and it most certainly did not do an interview with Ito in volume 57... And as everyone should know, Volume represents the number of years the magazine has been in existence and not the issue number. I'm moving to ban and purge. Real information mixed in with deliberate hoaxes. This kind of thing is inexcusable. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, I removed his contributions from the "creation" section; I haven't touched the lead yet or any other section. I'm sure his edits to the lead refer to things that have now been removed from "creation" and will need to be removed as well. I'll be going through all his contributions to the article later today. --PresN 20:04, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I only blanked the pages because there was the potential for so much harm occurring, and it was best to take the precaution of that instead of waiting for our reputation to be destroyed. I'm sure he hasn't touched all of the article, so that should be kept in mind when reviewing and selectively adding things back in. I just reverted this edit from earlier which includes an unexplained refactoring of the information. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted some of G-Zay's edits, not that they were so contentious, but the communities trust in him have been questioned and rather then coming to a notified ANI, G-Zay insisted on putting back information. Here is my revert at Hiroyuki Ito. [5] While it is bold, I believe that this user should not be placing anything into these pages. The edit to respond to the axing was 'updating with verified sources'.[6] Despite the questioned material remaining with, while self cut down in this edit,[7] this is not good response to an ANI. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

And a final warning has been issued on G-Zay's talk page. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't actually see Chris' notice until later, but I don't suppose it will hurt at this point. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:03, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

When I first learned about what G-Zay had done to the encyclopedia, I was bewildered by what has happened. While something really needs to be done here at this point, I agree that the final warning would not hurt unless G-Zay ignores it. I assume that G-Zay was doing things in good faith, but I feel that he is chronically incompetent. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Sadly... I do not think it is a matter of (in)competence. Quite clearly, we have valid and well written material mixed with false material that is supported via filled out templates and such. It is more unnerving because incompetence would be material that is easily disproven or amiss right from the beginning, this is far worse because the references were filled out with the templates and they consisted of foreign language print media that is not online and very hard to come by. And some of the false material cites an existing source that is mixed in with real material. The deliberate creation of false references to fake material which does not exist is not a matter of 'competency', it is a simple matter of bad faith. A clerical error for page or dates is fine, but making them up and fabricating sources for any purpose is wrong. Even more so that it was used to compel a company or the subject to respond to this false information. G-Zay is plenty competent and appears to be gloating about the material with the alias of Galvinator, G-Zay should speak up about this or face ban for the confirmed hoax material already known and done under the Wikipedia account alone. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:45, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Yep. At first, I thought what G-Zay contributed was useful, but after learning about what had happened over the course of a few months, my opinion him mostly changed. I think this is kind of like a certain incident involving User:Legolas2186, who was also involved in creating hoaxes in Wikipedia. The evidence is way beyond my control to stand up for him now. Something truly needs to be done about this. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Evidence

Making this for evidence with diffs or other details that shows G-zay is not here to build an encyclopedia.

1. Added deliberate false information in this edit.[8] iOS Gamer magazine does not exist. The real iOS Gamer is a wordpress last active in 2011. Later changes magazine to the nonexistent iOS Gamezone. [9] Which also doesn't exist. A real Japanese and U.S. magazine named Gamezone existed, but not a German one and definitely not with 57 volumes (years of publication) when removed by an IP editor.[10] Content remained for a month. (Added by ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2013 (UTC))

What GZay has done has caused some consternation between myself and other users. These edits are profoundly detrimental to Wikipedia as a whole. I will add some more evidence a little later. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:25, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Ban discussion

• Support ban for the obvious reasons. KillerChihuahua 13:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban Per reasons above. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 14:00, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban per the above reasons. Damaging the integrity of Wikipedia is seriously unacceptable. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - Confirmed systematic creation of hoaxes and is not an isolated case, it disrupts and poisons Wikipedia's articles including our FAs. Off wiki interaction aside, the edits alone are enough to warrant ban even without confirmation on G-zay = Galvanizer identity. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - I still want to see difs before this happens, but if true, and unless he gets on his hands and knees to ask for a topic ban and ongoing supervision, he can't be trusted to edit on his own at all. It is a real shame. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - Per arguments given, and the fact that 1) He hasn't bothered to come defend himself and 2) his only reaction to all of this seems to be "Darn, the company didn't confirm or deny my hoax theory directly". That's all he seems to care about, not that he's used Wikipedia as a medium for knowingly spreading lies and trying to trick companies into disclosing information to him. WP:NOTHERE. Sergecross73 msg me 14:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban massive waste of other editors time in fixing the mess he's created. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban manipulating Wikipedia through false sources in order to further manipulate a company is disgusting behaviour, and for fear of WP:NLT I would also say borderline (if not over the line) illegal. There's no place on this project for that level of discrediting activity (✉→BWilkins←✎) 14:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban on grounds of betrayed trust. Shii (tock) 16:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban This type of thing is extremely troubling. The evidence I see is enough to make me believe the editor may be passionate about these topics, and I don't believe his intention was to hurt Wikipedia, but nonetheless that's exactly what he could have done, assuming the damage isn't done already. We can't trust people like these. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - Hello. I think I should chime in here seeing as I'm the centre of this discussion. I freely admit to posting poorly referenced information on Wikipedia. Granted, not 100% of my contributions have been poorly sourced and anybody who has closely monitored my contributions can testify to that; there have been numerous legit and well referenced contributions I have made. However, I've abused the system and my knowledge. If I knew something as fact but couldn't find a valid reference for it, I would add it anyway and include a reference to verify it, usually from one of the official books in Japanese. In essence, what I was doing was not spreading lies, but spreading the truth with references that were lies. I freely testify that my action was wrong. I also believe that this method of contributing gave me the motivation and drive to write such lengthy and in-depth articles for the Hiroyuki Ito and Motomu Toriyama pages. Looking back, I feel I became absorbed in my own deceitful tactic and used it as a spring board to write such long articles. It was even worrying for me as when I looked back at those aforementioned pages, I saw bloated and excessive articles that lacked brevity; I went overboard with how much content I added and how much detail I provided, even if I knew that it was all true. A simple short bio and table of works would have been suitable for most readers. Anyway, I digress. I support this ban for two reasons:

1. My actions have been wrong and I believe I should be excluded from editing ASAP. I say this for the sake of Wikipedia readers, other contributors and for my own psychological well being. If nobody discovered what I was doing, I fear it would have eventually spread over to other pages outside of Square Enix staff.
2. It's become an addiction for me. Not just my misleading edits, but editing Wikipedia in general. It was something I started just correcting some spelling and grammar and it has now evolved into typing entire, lengthy pages with fake references. I think my ban is a much needed rehabilitation.

Having said all this, I apologise for my actions. If possible, please IP ban me, too. That way I will have no way to edit pages should the temptation crawl back. Once again, my sincere apologies to you all. I saw a gap in the reference system and abused it to the point of it almost becoming a natural way for me to contribute. Please make sure I can never do such a thing again. I only hope there are other people out there that are as knowledgeable about Square Enix staff as I am and also have the references to back up their contributions. Thanks for reading and sincere regards. --G-Zay (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Very well, your apology has been accepted. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:35, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support Ban - Since the user himself agreed and requested a full ban/block, I was about to go ahead and implement it, but then remembered I had opened the December AN/I thread and that my neutrality could be in question; I'll let another admin complete this. But I'd like it to be noted that the ban is community-endorsed, but also endorsed by the user himself, and that should hold weight if an eventual return to editing is requested. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 00:37, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Ban per G-Zay. Wikibreaks can be nice sometimes, whether voluntary or mandatory, and this one is going to be both. Steel1943 (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
•  Done I took care of the indef block part, others can handle the ban stuff and closing of this thread. — Ched :  ?  10:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Good block. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Unforgettableid reported by User:Yworo

That's all folks. Let's move on to something that's actually important. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:15, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've asked User:Unforgettableid twice not to post on my talk page, but he refuses to comply, continuing to harass me for "proof" that it's considered ill form to continue to do so after being so requested. Someone enlighten him, he's lacking in plain WP:COMMONSENSE. Of course, he's removed both requests from his talk page before his last post on mine. Guess he imagines admins won't look at the history. Thanks. Yworo (talk) 05:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Unforgettableid notified of WP:HUSH. Yworo, please stay off his talk page as well. Poking at him after telling him not to poke at you is not collegial or reasonable. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:13, 5 April 2013 (UTC) Dear sirs: Yworo claims harassment because of some user warning templates I put on his talk page. He made some edits, and I responded with the templates. First: Yworo edit 1; my response. Later: Yworo edit 2; my response. Even later: Yworo edit 3; Yworo edit 4; my two-part response. In my two-part response, {{uw-npa2}} is in response to Yworo edit 3. Do you agree that there was merit to my responses, and that I responded coolly and calmly? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Were you asked to stay off their talkpage, and did you understand the request? There are millions of editors who could place a valid warning if needed and nearly a couple of thousand admins. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 09:39, 7 April 2013 (UTC) if Yworo has banned Unforgettableid from commenting on his/her talk page but continues to post on Unforgettableid's [11] then it's not unexpected for Unforgettableid to post on Yworo's. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC) You both need to avoid each other then. And Yworo, you need to dial back the "pimping", "common sense" and the calling someone an ass. Seriously, you are asking for trouble and you accomplish nothing by this type of inflammatory language, regardless of the reasons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:15, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Thank you for your replies. I would like to try to avoid Yworo by avoiding editing the same pages as he does. But this would currently be difficult. He has lately been looking carefully into my past contributions, visiting various pages I have created or edited, and modifying the pages. Some examples of pages which I have created in the past decade, and he has touched in the past week, include: Alameda County Study, Linux conference, Scrabble variants, Go Home Lake, Desktop Developers' Conference, Linux Symposium, and List of open-access journals. Many of his edits have been helpful. But he has sometimes reverted my work without stating why he doesn't like it: example 1; example 2; I can provide more if you like. Do the reversions seem like WP:WIKIHOUNDING to you? About WP:HUSH: Does the policy create a posting prohibition if Yworo merely requests it, or does it only apply if I have been " placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' " on his talk page? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC) If someone asks you to not post on their talk page, you shouldn't unless you really have to, and if you really have to, you take extra steps to be respectful. This is just how you would treat someone in the real world, and Wikipedia is the real world. Policy quotes aren't necessary for this. Common sense and basic respect overrule policy. This is because they are the basis for the policies. The WP:Five pillars cover this, in particular #4 and #5. If people would just treat others here the same way they would if they were face to face and knew each other's real names, most problems here would go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:08, 7 April 2013 (UTC) Fair explanation. Thank you. Bumping thread for 10 days — dear admins: I wonder if you could please also respond to my question about Wikihounding? Cheers, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) Quite obviously no (if you had read WP:HOUND you would already know the answer)...although it may be Wikipoodling. PLEASE stop bumping threads that are not going anywhere. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Behavior dispute at Male privilege

I am reporting myself for this edit, which another user found to be inflammatory. There is already a hostile atmosphere there. Intervention in whatever form is appropriate would be appreciated. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see the need for the strike. We aren't censored and people are free to express themselves in a variety of ways assuming they stick to the merits of the article. It isn't necessary that you or I like the phrasing. Sometimes discussions are heated, which is why you need thick skin if you participate in a collaborative project. The rest of it needs to go to WP:DRN, not here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material.

Hi there. Recently, I came across Male Privilege and found it to be lacking encyclopedic quality. One section in particular, Male privilege#Male privilege in the U.S., had multiple issues: it is poorly sourced, appears to be a copy-paste from a college-student's essay with inline APA style citations and no actual references, and it solely covers the topic of Gender pay gap, without any sources clearly linking pay gap to the concept of male privilege. I attempted to delete this section, stating that it was inappropriate subject matter for the article, even if sources were found, because it belongs in the Gender pay gap article. I also erroneously removed primary journal articles that were used as sources, attempting to follow WP:RS, which was discussed on the talk page and I conceded that they should be re-added. Anyways, user:UseTheCommandLine, proceeded to revert all of the edits I had made, and then complained that I removed sourced (no it wasn't) content. She also still seems to fail to understand that inequality does not always mean oppression, and that a whole section on gender pay gap, which has its own article, doesn't belong, when it does absolutely, positively, nothing to demonstrate how it relates to male privilege.

When I proceeded to then go through the article, not removing any content, but instead adding inline tags on the material I wished to discuss on the talk page and remove or cite, User:UseTheCommandLine again reverted my edit, without first discussing on the talk page. She also went on to edit content that I had written on the talk page, which I find deeply offensive and also worthy of administrator intervention. It is not appropriate for another wikipedia editor to edit my signed content on a talk page. She appears to have reverted it, though refused to apologize, and decided to instead fork the discussion into a new topic because she felt the word "terrible" was too "hostile" (Essentially, "I don't like you, so I'm just going to ignore you"). I have tried to AGF through this entire thing, but frankly she has been violating WP:OWN the entire time by not allowing other editors access to the page, demanding that I run every edit by her before making them, and then making her own edits without discussion on the talk page first. She has a history of displaying this sort of behavior on the similar page, White privilege, which recently was locked for a week due to her edit warring, immature behavior, and inability to reach consensus with the other editors on that page. She appears to have a strong feminist ideology, which she has been POV pushing onto these two topics and possibly others for quite some time, without offering anything constructive. I would very much like to be able to edit Male Privilege so that it meets the basic criteria for encyclopedic standards, and I believe User:UseTheCommandLine has been actively opposing my ability to do so, not because I have violated any wikipedia policies, but because she has an agenda to push. Although there is a pending WP:DRN, which I started, I felt that her continued behavior following my request for dispute resolution has crossed the line into something an Administrator needs to be involved in.

Kindly, Rgambord (talk) 03:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Note: as this is now under discussion here I have closed the WP:DRN case as per DRN guidelines Cameron11598 (Converse) 06:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to agree with your assessment. I just read over Talk:Male_privilege#This_article_is_terrible. and it appears to me the editor may lack knowledge of some of the intricacies of encyclopedia writing. For instance, when you mentioned you wanted to remove the gender wage gap section because the source didn't discuss the link between that and male privilege, he or she didn't seem to understand this was problematic, which indicates they might be writing the way they would a research paper. The editor also seems to have opened two separate AN/I reports at the same time, including one on his/herself. Perhaps a bit of mentoring would help. Sædon^talk 10:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It appears that User:UseTheCommandLine has decided to take an extended wikibreak. I would like to revert to my most recent edit prior to the beginning of the edit war, here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Male_privilege&oldid=549106687 I am aware that this leaves the article POV (critical of the concept), but I intend to continue editing it to add more balance. I feel that the bad parts need to be cut out before I am ready to start adding in content; after some basic editing, I will attempt to find an interested editor on one of the feminism groups on wikipedia who will be willing to collaborate with me to provide a balanced and informative article. Also, I would like to request that User:UseTheCommandLine be blocked from editing this page, so that we don't end up with another edit war should she decide to return to wikipedia. I will attempt to collaborate with the editors on White privilege and Christian privilege to reach a consensus on how to format these pages. As I stated on Talk:Male_privilege, I also think the most neutral and encyclopedic thing to do might be to rename articles to: Gendered privilege, Religious privilege, and Racial (or ethnic) privilege. Though I do agree that white christian males enjoy a great deal of privilege in the western world, I would argue both that this does not adequately cover other regions of the world where these groups may be a minority, and also that white christian males experiencing privilege does not mean other groups or minorities do not enjoy certain privileges, and that those privileges aren't detailed in credible sources. I await input before I take any action so as not to further inflame the situation. Thanks! Rgambord (talk) 14:17, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, it has been 24 hours since my previous edit. I'm going to go ahead with editing the page as I detailed above, and add this to the article's talk page. If any objections are raised, please notify me on my talk page, or on the article's talk page. Thank you, Rgambord (talk) 14:24, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTFORUM at White privilege

Apostle12, despite having been on WP for many years, consistently breaks WP:NOTFORUM or WP:SOAP, and has just done so, again, at White privilege with these edits. This is a consistent, recurring pattern over that this editor engages in over many different pages. The list is far to extensive to delve into here, but these these examples might be sufficient to establish a pattern. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 04:47, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(I should also mention that I have many, many times called this behavior out as WP:SOAP, which seemed to be the appropriate guideline, though perhaps in retrospect WP:NOTFORUM might have been more clearly applicable. Mea culpa. But in no case was the response anything other than a flat denial of violating any of WP's policies, either in spirit or letter.) -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 06:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Umm, I read the first diff and I'm not seeing what you mean by WP:NOTFORUM. He seems to be clearly discussing the article and proposing changes.--v/r - TP 12:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with TParis. Seems to be using sources to discuss the merits. He is sharing some personal experiences but acknowledging they don't belong in the article. These are controversial topics, and I don't see fault in his attempts to discuss. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 12:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

the mention of sexually transmitted infection rates is clearly off-topic. Honestly, I'm tired of the thinly veiled racism he displays at every turn. So, fuck this place. I'm gone. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 13:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

So based on your new user page, I'm guessing that in "UTCL Land" that folks who do not explicitly agree with your viewpoint are racist and sexist? Clearly your POV is beyond ranges that allows collaboration and open discussion. The user is trying to discuss statistics. Statistics do not tell racist stories, they don't tell any stories. It's what you interpret from the statistics that can become racist. Discussing the topic, even proposing to discuss it, is not automatically racist and sexist. But that's beyond your alarmist and extreme viewpoint so what's the point of trying to reason with you?--v/r - TP 15:13, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Relevant to this discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Behavior dispute at Male privilege Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine violating WP:OWN, and reverting removal of unsourced, biased material. Rgambord (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@Rgambord. Looks to me from the edit history like you were the one in the wrong removing masses of sourced material from male privilege under flimsy (probably POV-driiven) pretexts. My opinion. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I will make two last posts before commencing my wikibreak. This will be one of them.

If you have any doubts as to whether I an simply a WP:POVPUSHer, or whether I can WP:AGF and come to consensus even on contentious topics, then I urge you to review my edit history. It will speak for itself, either reinforcing the judgement you have clearly made about me already, or, I hope, undermining that preconception.

I have tried my hardest to listen and operate within the stated boundaries of policy. I have asked for help, I have asked for input on my behavior, and have not found it forthcoming. For instance, I have had a request for editor review up that is as-yet unreviewed, that has been there since my third or fourth month of editing. I have been diligent in my attempts to become a better editor.

But this is all a moot point. I happen to edit sometimes at topics which some people take offense at. I have a thick skin, but have been accused, upthread, of needing to be moreso. This is dismissive of the very real and corrosive effect that a hostile editing environment has on the fundamental goal of WP, to produce an encyclopedia. Tone matters. I try and give every possible opportunity, when faced with a hostile environment, for everyone, myself included, to ratchet down a hostile tone. And then I go to noticeboards, which by and large have proven to be less than useful in the face of concerted POVPUSH.

"Washing one's hands of the conflict between the powerful and the powerless means to side with the powerful, not to be neutral." -- Paolo Freire

My last edit for the time being will be at Talk:White privilege pointing to the discussion here. I will also note that another editor there who has in the past been quite critical of this concept has taken Apostle12 to task for the statement I reference in my initial posting. I do not expect to edit at WP for at least 3 months, if not longer. I have found many people here to be intelligent and good hearted, but I have no time or inclination to continue dealing with racists, sexists, or trolls of any stripe. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 16:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Taking on the cabal, brother! 'luck. Basket _Feudalist 16:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

You don't get it, you opening this thread makes you part of that hostile environment. You are having an effect on another editor that is hostile. Do you want to try again with them in a way that is more welcoming to their POV?--v/r - TP 16:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Wait a minute. The "POV" expressed here (for example) by Apostle12 (talk · contribs) is racist. Why should we be more accommodating to people who use this site to express racist views? Perhaps I'm alone on this one, but it seems to me that the problem here is that our articles on racial topics are being heavily edited by people with racist views - to the point that other editors are being driven off. We're pretending that UTCL is the problem, and demanding that he be more "accommodating" of people who say things like:

If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men... Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior. ([12]).

People here talk endlessly about WP:CIVILity. Here's what civility actually means in the real world: it means that racism isn't acceptable, and we don't ask people to "accommodate" it. MastCell ^Talk 17:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hear, hear. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 17:53, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Amen.Slp1 (talk) 18:01, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more. This isn't the kind of POV we should be more accommodating of, and suggesting we should be shows one of the many problems with Wikipedia. AniMate 18:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, in the above quote box you have artificially, and I believe disingenuously, compressed my statements, eliminating anything that does not support your erroneous premise that what I wrote is racist. For the record, here is what I wrote:

This article (Criminal black man stereotype) fails adequately to address some unfortunate realities.

I and other family members have been the victims of violent crime on a number of occasions--both on the street and in our homes. On each and every one of these occasions, the perpetrators of the violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with a deadly weapon, rape) have been black males. When I look at the statistics for violent crime in ANY large American city, black males outnumber any other group as perpetrators of violent crime; this disparity becomes even more striking when one looks at the percentage of violent crimes committed as compared to the percentage of black males in the population of those cities.

The "criminal black man stereotype" exists, not for historical reasons, and not because of racial prejudice, but because black males commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes--in other words the stereotype is NOT wrong. In the private sphere, I am committed to judging all individuals based on what I can learn of their characters; in the public sphere (on the street, for example) I do not have the time or ability to discern character, therefore I cannot afford to give unknown black males the benefit of the doubt. If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior.

It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

It might be accurate to call me a pragmatist when it comes to considerations of race. It is not accurate to call me a racist, and in fact my own heritage is multiracial. Apostle12 (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This edit, isn't. As for that edit, I continue to hold that discussing racial stats on racial topics, although controversial, is not racist by itself. Apostle12's error was in adding in his own personal commentary and mixing it in with claims of statistics. My suggestion would be that Apostle12 should remove his personal remarks and fill in the blank spaces with links to these statistics he is referring to. Other than that, a warning to Apostle12 maybe that he is stretching good faith. Except for pedophilia, I haven't seen blocks for editors having opinions. I've seen blocks for racist actions, I've seen blocks for racial slurs, but I've never seen a block because an editor (on a topic about crime based on race) made a comment that was personal and contained racial remarks. Hell, we have neo-nazis editing around this place and the topic has been brought up a few times of Nazi or national socialist (however the name ends) userboxes on user pages. Thanks to all the worthless "yeah me too" comments that added nothing of substance but edit conflicted with me x3--v/r - TP 18:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

But TParis, it is indeed racist. The worst kind of racist original research: the cherry picking of (unsourced) statistics purported to dispute the existence of "white privilege", culminating with claims about the high level of STDs in African Americans. Do you not see that something here does not compute here?

And I am sorry about your edit conflicts but actually, showing that there are several admins who disagree with the way this has been going down is extremely important. Slp1 (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of the differential outcomes (white people v people of color) I referenced, S1p1, could be interpreted as complimentary with respect to African Americans, some not--I offered no such interpretation or analysis. My point was merely that so far the White privilege article has cherry-picked differential outcomes that could plausibly be linked to privileges that white people enjoy. My point is simply that many such differential outcomes do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege; I believe some relevant discussion should be included in the article.

With respect to original research, I am a stickler about that. If I were to create a section within the White privilege article discussing differential outcomes that do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege, I assure you that impeccable sourcing would be included. Apostle12 (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but your very statement here shows that what you are doing is the epitome of WP:OR. Here and elsewhere you are discussing the truth or otherwise of "white privilege" using your own arguments (in this case cherry picked statistics). If you want to create a section about differential outcomes that do not fit into the conceptual framework of white privilege in the article, then you need to find sources about white privilege that discuss precisely that. If it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims.Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely that "if it deserves a mention in the WP article then there will be scholarly journal articles and book chapters, or other high quality sources discussing these differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims." I assure you that any section I write will be based entirely on RS. Many of these sources, some of which already appear in the article, caution against over-reliance on the white privilege conceptual framework and point out the limitations of this framework. My original comments had to do with UsetheCommandLine's proposal to change the first sentence of the lede, which I generally supported. My only objection was that the first sentence not include a reductive list cherry-picking those topics where the impact of white privilege might be plausible. So I spot-lighted a few examples of differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible. Apostle12 (talk) 22:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Breaking my rule already. You say you've seen people blocked for racial slurs?

While I'm here, two points.

1. statistics are not immune to criticism or judgement simply because they are numbers. statistics can be collected in a biased way, or presented in a racist manner. taking statistics out of context is a big red flag for this, which is exactly what this editor was doing. It was not in any way germane to the discussion about the content of the article.
2. you seem to be suggesting that goint to DRN or ANI is prima facie evidence of hostility. that seems to imply that my options when dealing with hostile editors are either to tolerate them, or to leave. why, then, do we even have a noticeboard, if it is not to have some kind of enforcement mechanism for acceptable behavior?

I also want to call attention to the other filing about Male privilege, above. It seems to be to be mostly the same issue.

I am seriously gone now, for real, no takebacks. olly olly oxen free. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 18:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@TParis Actually, I think much of what you wrote here is pretty worthless, and if you're concerned about edit conflicts, the "worthless" messages were posted 8 minutes apart. That's hardly a deluge that would stop you from replying in a timely manner. As for your reaction to the original complaint, it looks like you only read the first link, which I agree is the least problematic. However the other three are, each relying to some extent on Apostle12's real world interactions with scary black people, are problematic. Looking at those three along with the edit that MastCell brought here make me distinctly uncomfortable about this editor's interactions in race related articles. A block may not be in order, but a topic ban certainly may be in his future. I get that you are apparently super sympathetic to Apostle12 for some unknown reason, but I think a firm clear warning about keeping his personal life and personal opinions about other races off article talk pages is much more helpful than the hand-holding you've been giving him here.

And for the record, I worthlessly agree with what Slp1 wrote above as well. AniMate 18:40, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still with TParis. The comments may be unintentionally inflammatory (and worded awkwardly, note the last of this comment admitting it was a stereotype), but some saw the Pound Cake speech in a similar light. Anytime someone has an opinion on the culture surrounding race, they are treading on thin ice, but not the same as racially motivated vandalism either. Was it insensitive? Perhaps. Was he intentionally claiming one race is inferior to another? I didn't see it that way. Like TParis, I think he is pushing the boundaries a bit more than he should, and maybe more than he realizes, but when discussing statistics and race, this is always a risk. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 18:45, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Animate, for more nonsense. Anytime a sensitive topic is approached from an unpopular viewpoint, labels are thrown out. Pause for a moment and consider that maybe fear of unpopular opinion has contributed to bias in the popular direction. I'm going beyond the topic of racism here, whether it's religion, sexism, racism, sexual orientation, politics, you name it, there are degrees of opinion. Folks are too quick to draw a line and say your one side or the other. It's a load of crap. If Apostle12 has actual statistics to refer back to, they should be discussed in the context of those articles. If not, then he's as you describe him. But until you know which one it is, hold your labels. The correct response, from UTCL to Apostle12, before coming here should have been "Hey Apostle, put up or shut up." Instead, UTCL ran here to scream racism/sexism because their viewpoint is not being explicitly agreed to. That is what makes Wikipedia hostile. Has anyone yet asked Apostle to show us what stats he is referring to? Hell, we're being accused of being hostile to Christians, Pagans, and atheists at the same time because no one stops to think they should have to get along with whatever labels they can come up with to throw at the other person.--v/r - TP 19:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

@DennisI couldn't disagree with you more. He's cherry picked statistics to make a point and has made several really inflammatory, completely unhelpful or encyclopedic remarks about black people, from how often he and his family are victims of crimes by black people to his college girlfriend who lived across the street from the Black Panthers. Not only are his actions completely inappropriate, they also make for a hostile editing environment. For someone so interested in editor retention, I'm surprised by your reaction here. UTCL hasn't behaved perfectly by any means, and I would advise all involved to kick this up the ladder of dispute resolution as it may be to complex or a noticeboard. In the past, surveys have shown that Wikipedia is overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly male. Dismissing a report like this and minimizing the actions of someone who appears to be pushing a racist POV does nothing to make this an environment any minorities would enjoy participating in. Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you.

@TParis Ironically, I received a couple of edit conflicts while trying to post this reply. I'm tempted to characterize what you wrote as nonsense, but I don't think that's going to be helpful. Also striking out where I called your statements worthless. Attacks like that aren't helpful, so I'll let you be the only one that throws them out. I think most people reading the links provided by UTCL and MastCell can see how problematic his personal stories are and that they do nothing to help the articles or editing environment.

I again encourage those involved in the dispute to kick it up the steps of DR. If an RfC/U has been tried, why not go to mediation. Getting rid of civil POV pushers can be a hassle, and I know it can be frustrating when the admins that happen to be active don't see what you see when you lodge a complaint. Unfortunately, I don't think there is something immediately actionable here, so I'm going to recommend closing this. AniMate 19:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Great, I had hoped someone would ec with me. You don't know he's cherry picked anything until he points out what he's looking at. Please put the argumentative tactics away and ask the guy to support his claims before you throw them away. He's probably wrong about the stats, he's definitely wrong about his personal perspective (stats show that white males commit the most gun massacres), but the primary issue here is that he hasn't shown where he is getting his stats and instead of addressing that, you're rolling over it at racist instead because it's easier to ignore him that way.--v/r - TP 20:29, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I am going to put what you say a different way, if you don't mind. I actually don't doubt that Apostle is right about the stats- in that he could probably find citations showing that his claims are true. But the problem is, as you point out TParis, that it is equally possible to find stats proving the opposite point. That's why I strongly disagree that asking Apostle to support his claims about the statistics is actually productive. WP needs and wants secondary sources about white privilege that analyze, contextualize and draw conclusion from all the various statistics. Then we summarize them. The talkpage of the article is simply not the spot to discuss personal experiences of black violence or to develop one's own research about whether white privilege exists or not. And, as an addendum, if anything shows what the intent, it is, as I pointed out previously, the inclusion of the STD stats of African Americans which has absolutely zero to do with even the topic Apostle was claiming to be proving. Slp1 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the talk page is the wrong place for discussing his personal opinion; all of Wikipedia is. But the first diff wasn't about his opinion, for the most part, and that was the diff UTCL highlighted as problematic. If he has reliable sources, he should produce them so their value can be considered for the article. They shouldn't be dismissed as racist having never seen them. If he can't produce them, or if he has misconstrued their context, then we shrug it off as racism.--v/r - TP 21:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree totally that sources are required. But it is critical that the sources be about the topic, not just sources that "prove" the individual points Apostle wants to make about "differential outcomes in the context of white privilege claims". What was inappropriate about that edit was that it was cherry picked original research, and unhelpful for the building WP. I can do the same thing with golfball dimples. I can easily find sources for the fact that there are between 350-400 dimples on golfballs [13][14][15], but that would be ignoring those that have fewer [16] and those than have more [17]. That's why we need secondary sources to bring it all together for us. Answer for the record: typically 300-500 dimples, up to a max of 1040). Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I find it interesting that some of the commentators here have chosen to focus on the last point I listed (the over representation of African Americans among those who contract STDs each year) while discussing the fact that many differential outcomes (white people v. people of color) do not fit within the conceptual framework of white privilege. Was I racist when I referred to the over representation of black females among those who enjoy very high levels of self-esteem, with more positive outcomes (fewer eating disorders, less depression, less suicide) than other ethnic groups? Or was that merely sexist? Was I racist when I referred to the overrepresentation of Japanese, Chinese and Korean students at American institutions of higher learning - or was I merely demonstrating "inter-asian" racism for contrasting them with Laotian and Cambodian students? Perhaps I was stereotyping Ashkenazi Jews (as opposed to Sephardic Jews) for their overrepresentation in the sciences and among Nobel Prize winners. There also seems to be an assumption that I must be white (actually I am multiracial), or that family members victimized by black criminals (the discussion from "Criminal black man stereotype" talk page) were not "people of color" (some are). Lots of assumptions, all intended to paint me as a racist. I am particularly concerned about MastCell's distortion (see above) when he created a quote box that excluded any of my statements that might detract from his apparent intent to portray what I wrote as racist, especially when I wrote about the tragedy of the criminal black man stereotype for the majority of black men who are not criminal.

The fact is I seldom reference personal history on Wikipedia talk pages, despite UsetheCommandLine's efforts to create the opposite impression. When I do so, it is to explain why I might be committed to a certain editorial perspective that relates specifically to article content. As for personal opinions, it seems to me that talk pages are the appropriate place to express such opinions. Almost all of what appears on this page has to do with the sharing of personal opinion. In my opinion, entirely necessary and entirely appropriate, as long as opinion and original research stays out of Wikipedia articles. Apostle12 (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Look dude, your rants are getting annoying at this point. I am trying to defend your position, so it'd be helpful to me if you could just go ahead and start backing up your remarks with reliable sources.--v/r - TP 22:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, as multiple editors and administrators have stated here, the talkpages are not the place for your personal opinions, and that the specific personal opinions you expressed were inappropriate in the context of building this encyclopedia. And no, racism has not been the main argument for why that edit was inappropriate. See above. Anyway, that's my last here. I agree that this should be closed, as no administrator action is required for the moment. Hopefully Apostle12 will take note of the various comments here.Slp1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Please be assured, S1P1, that I have taken note of the comments here. With regard to my comments on "White privilege" Talk, I could simply have eliminated the last example I gave, and next time I probably will. Even though multiple sources support the facts I offered (e.g.http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/docs/AAs-and-STD-Fact-Sheet-042011.pdf), it seems apparent that truth is no defense here.

In this regard, TParis, I see little point offering reliable sources for each of the points I made. It would not be difficult to do so, but the primary objection seems to be that I spotlighted realities that have negative connotations for certain ethnic groups. If you truly believe backng up my remarks with reliable sources would still be useful (other editors thought not), I will do so. At this point I don't think it even matters that I am indeed a member of some of the ethnic groups affected--as Dennis Brown pointed out, Bill Cosby discovered this unhappy fact when he endured intense fallout after delivering his "Pound Cake" speech. I am surprised that you saw my attempts to defend myself as "rants." In any case, thank you for defending my right to frankly discuss controversial topics here at Wikipedia, even if it riles certain sensitivities. Apostle12 (talk) 23:23, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

MastCell, I concur.

As a rule the problem has not been UTCL. I was an editor at White privilege for over four years, and during that time I encountered only one editor who was more abusive than Apostle12. Besides violating WP:NOTFORUM and WP:SOAP Apostle12 has shown little regard for WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:CANVAS, among others. After a recent RfC/U went nowhere, I decided to take a step back from editing White privilege; frankly I was exhausted from getting bullied.

Personally I think this is a loss. UTCL and I both made a lot of uncontroversial edits (e.g. spelling changes to conform to Standard American English) to help maintain the quality of the article in addition to the ones that drew Apostle12's wrath. But whatever you might think of me and UTCL, it is hardly unthinkable that allowing Apostle12 to continue to violate Wikipedia policy, especially those that are aimed at protecting other users from abuse, will drive good editors from the article.

-- Marie Paradox (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• I just want to step in here and mention that I am not siding with or lumping myself in with any of the editors on White privilege. I'm fully interested in collaboration, however. I'm not going to entertain UTCLs accusations that I am sexist for my edits to Male privilege. I have edited numerous articles on wikipedia and I have not treated the topic any differently than other articles. I removed content which was unsourced or dubious, with the intention of recruiting an interested editor to add reliably sourced sections concerning privilege, but UTCL immediately reverted my edits and violated WP:OWN in her actions and language. There is no requirement that I leave poor content in an article until good content is found to replace it. UTCLs actions have been, on the whole, unhelpful and bullying, and she refused to AGF from the outset, or to follow WP policies or common sense, because she immediately characterized me as a sexist without any basis for that claim. For someone like her, who is so concerned with a hostile atmosphere, she sure doesn't mind contributing to it. I have never before had a problem with another editor, or found another editor's actions to be so childish and unprofessional. UTCL epitomizes the angry feminist stereotype. I will copy my most recent post from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#User:UseTheCommandLine_violating_WP:OWN.2C_and_reverting_removal_of_unsourced.2C_biased_material. to Talk:Male privilege, and I'd appreciate if those involved in this discussion would civilly comment on my suggestions. Thanks,Rgambord (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The people who try to bring a POV'd article to the center are the ones most often accused of being "POV warriors" (and other wiki-nasty things) by POV warriors, because they are much more credible and harder to "get rid of" and thus a much bigger threat to the imbalanced status quo at an article than actual POV warriors. North8000 (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Animate, your comment " Try to remember that in the future, especially if you want to try and retain people who don't look like you." could be construed as calling me a racist, as if my objective is to retain only white people. (That I'm relatively white is already known since I publish my image on my user page.) Am I going to make a deal of it? No. It is called opinion, and in the heat of a discussion and I allow for such things. It is also wildly inaccurate. We retain editors by allowing them to express and discuss freely, without shoving political correctness down their gullets. As long as discussion is focused on the merits of the subject matter and not overtly and intentionally offensive, I'm pretty tolerant of opinions I disagree with if they aren't founded in hate. If you want to run people off the project, the quickest way to do it is to tell people what to say, what to think, and make damn sure they don't color outside the lines. Or insinuate that someone who disagrees with you is a racist.Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 23:06, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• In no way did I mean to insinuate that you're a racist. I should have stated more clearly that the project has real problems when it comes to outreach to and retention of minorities. What Apostle12 is doing here seems absolutely crystal clear to me, and I was honestly stunned to see more than one administrator defending it. What I was trying to suggest, poorly apparently, was that this situation needed to be looked at in a different way than you were seeing it. I think it was a wonderful opportunity for you to attempt some editor retention. I also think you blew it. That doesn't make you racist, and I reject fully that you have done anything racist here. I also think if you had read all of what Apostle12 wrote and tried looking at it from UTCL's position, you would have had an excellent opportunity to retain an editor. AniMate 23:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sometimes, a comment is accidentally worded so that it sounds much worse than the original intent. I did have to look at your comments twice, but I've seen you around enough that you weren't trying to insult me, it was just worded poorly. The timing was perfect to demonstrate my point, however, that we all word things poorly in our rush to communicate from time to time. Honestly, I don't know his history, but I'm not prepared to take strong action based solely on the diffs presented here. What I do focus on is getting people to overlook simple things, and the comments presented here were not so strong as to demand action. Sometimes, we tend to overreact as a community and push people away by over-policing, and we do this too frequently. Again, I don't have the full history but I saw reason to slow down and have doubt. Perhaps it is so subtle is requires looking deeper, perhaps we are not being as tolerant as we should. I'm not condoning anything, but before we block or topic ban someone, I think we should be damn sure it is the right choice and the only option, and the evidence is more solid than just the diffs presented here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed topic-ban

Based on the foregoing and his overall record of contributions, I propose to topic-ban Apostle12 from editing in the area of human race and ethnicity, in light of this principle. Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

This just seems like a complete no-brainer to me. Apostle12 has absolutely no business writing commentary like this on article talk pages. When somebody posts long screeds on talk pages about how such-and-such an actor is obviously the best actor in the world, it's irritating. When another editor spends volumes on trying to defend their country's ownership of some disputed territory, it's troublesome. When another editor, here Apostle12, uses our talk pages to interlace personal (i.e., arbitrary and capricious) commentary with cherry-picked statistics, without reference to secondary sources (or, given the nature of this topic, ideally tertiary review articles or really high quality academic books), and then lumps all of that together to draw a conclusion that (surprise!) proves that, in fact, there really is a legitimate justification for racism, well, that person should be shown the door. Quickly. If a topic ban will get rid of the problem, fine. If it won't--if this points to an underlying attitude that will simply be perpetuated in other, similar topics, then a block. Wikipedia is not a free speech zone where whoever wants to rant is given a forum and a microphone. We have a purpose: building articles out of high quality sources (and the topic itself will indicate what types of sources are needed). Apostle's editing directly hurts that goal, by 1) demanding an answer, thus transforming a talk page into a waste-of-time battleground and possibly trapping other editors, 2) creating a hostile environment that makes others less willing to contribute, if they know they have to wade through thinly veiled racist crap to actually get to the article. I could imagine a commitment that Apostle12 could give that would make this unnecessary, but me feeding it to him won't work--if he can articulate what was wrong with the aforesaid commentary and specifically state what he won't do in the future, I could see him avoiding the need for this. But, if not, he needs to be stopped, ASAP. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:41, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Where's the evidence of wrong-doing? I see some borderline comments that I find questionable, but nothing that warrants a topic ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support The personal commentary about his first hand knowledge of how bad black people are has no business on Wikipedia, and he clearly shouldn't be editing in the area. As Qwyrxian said, this is a no brainer. AniMate 23:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

• Can you please provide some diffs where Apostle12 talks about "how bad black people are? If we are to topic-ban someone, there needs to be concrete evidence of wrong-doing.A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• The best example of the commentary is his story about his family's experience with violent crimes here that apparently justifies the criminal black man stereotype. Stating that non criminal black men they need to emulate stereotypical asians.... if you can't see the problems there, you must be blind. AniMate 00:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support for sustained breaching of the required focus on reliable sources and the arguments of reliable sources, per WP:NOR and WP:V. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support Apostle12 has a long history of using White privilege as a forum to voice his political viewpoint while choosing words that hurt others. With the addition of racial bias we can see that Apostle12 has not learned from previous warnings and is instead getting bolder. My only question is why none of us proposed a topic ban sooner. (Qwyrxian and A Quest For Knowledge, if you need examples, read UseTheCommandLine's initial post to this thread, and be sure to read all the examples he gives.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marie Paradox (talk • contribs) 00:13, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support: The editor has been misusing WP as a platform to air his own positions. "No-brainer" sums it up nicely. Surprised that the proposal is only for a topic ban. I would have supported a community ban. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 00:58, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Defense

I offered no "personal commentary about (my) first hand knowledge of how bad black people are." I referenced the fact that I and several members of my immediate family have been victims of serious violent crimes (armed robbery, felonious assualt, criminal trespass, assault with deadly weapons, and rape) and the perpetrators were all black males. Some of my ancestors were white, some black, some native American, some Ashkenazi Jews; and various family members are white, asian or, like me, multiracial and multiethnic. The only thing we have in common with respect to the "Criminal black man stereotype" I was discussing is that we have at times been attacked, held at gunpoint, robbed, threatened or raped by black men. As an early participant in the civil rights movement (efforts to expand voting rights in the American South, 1963) I have supported all efforts to end race-based discrimination in the United States and I continue to be committed to racial and ethnic equality in all realms. I do not believe black people are "bad." Quite the contrary, I am an admirer of black culture and its contributions to American life, both in general and the contributions my many black friends have made to my own personal life. I do lament the violent subculture that has taken hold in every American city, beginning with the Black Panthers during the late 1960s and continuing to the present; in this respect I am no different than most black conservatives. At the risk of sounding like Archie Bunker ("Some of my best friends are black"), I have maintained close friendships with blacks since my youth, our children have grown up together, and all of my children and friends know that I am a person committed to judging people solely on the basis of their characters. That said, as I pointed out in my commentary, I have found it necessary in the public realm, where I do not have the ability instantly to assess character, to be wary of black men who present themselves, through dress or demeanor, as members of violent subcultures. This necessary caution does not please me, and I wish it were not so, however I do not think it is racist; my wariness merely represents prudence, learned through long, harsh experience.

When it comes to editing Wikipedia articles having to do with race or ethnicity, I challenge anyone to point up instances of wrongdoing. Even in my editing of controversial articles, like The Black Panthers article I have consistently guarded against any editor who attempts to insert racist content, or who strives to bend the article in a non-neutral direction. Sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with mitigating harsh judgments of the Panthers by adding more supportive material (many Panthers were good people committed to racial justice), and sometimes achieving neutrality has to do with adding sourced material that is highly critical of Panther methods (anti-white rhetoric, criminality and violence).

But, I am getting off-topic. My point is that I am capable, despite certain negative personal experiences and defined perspectives, of editing without racial bias here at Wikipedia.

With respect to the objections UsetheCommandLine originally raised regarding some examples of differential outcomes that would be difficult to attribute to white privilege, I can see that the last example I offered, while true and easily sourced, came too close to that invisible line where offense can be taken. The other differential outcomes might be interpreted as congratulatory of positive black outcomes (high self-esteem among black girls), supportive of positive black outcomes (majority black presence among NBA and NFL players), or more or less neutral with respect to black outcomes - I should have stuck to those.

I do believe it is counterproductive to penalize Wikipedia editors who are willing to discuss racial matters frankly. Apostle12 (talk) 00:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

We are here to discuss reliable sources and represent them fairly in our coverage. These representations of your experiences are simply not germane. There is nothing there in your experiences for anyone to reply to or comment upon. Your friends, your assailants, your activism, your race, your family's race, are all off-topic (as you note). So long disquisitions on them are bound to be disruptive. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Weak oppose - AQFK pretty much sums it up, but I wanted to point out that the editor has supplied a RS that supports some of the comments he's made ([18]). I propose an alternative: this editor is warned to keep his personal opinion to himself and stick strictly to reliable sources which he is required to present at the time of comment on racial topics.--v/r - TP 01:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually they haven't supplied a reliable source for the comments in any way. Precisely the opposite in fact. Exactly as I predicted, they provided a source simply showing that African-Americans have higher levels of STD. But that is exactly like me providing a source for a golfball with 350 dimples... the question is does the source support the notion that there are "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" as claimed by Apostle12? No. In fact the text says the exact the opposite: "While everyone should have the opportunity to make choices that allow them to live healthy lives regardless of their income, education, or racial/ethnic background, the reality is that inadequate resources and challenging living conditions make the journey to health and wellness harder for some, and can lead to circumstances that increase a person's risk for STDs. African Americans sometimes face barriers that contribute to increased rates of STDs" and goes on to list as factors (amongst others) the higher levels poverty, and poorer access to health care of African Americans as compared to other populations. It finishes up with the statement that "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." This source does nothing to support Apostle12's use of the talkage to speak about theories that "the impact of white privilege is less plausible". It says the precise opposite. --Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still. He supports "differential outcomes where the impact of white privilege is less plausible" with this source by this line "The quality and consistency of STD care can also be affected by the fact that African Americans tend to use medical care services and treatments less than whites, which research suggests may be partly related to mistrust of the medical system." He is arguing that it is not white privillage, but mistrust of the healthcare system which affects the STD care of African Americans. A counter argument is made in the same sentence, "In addition, research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience." But the point he is making is supported by that source.--v/r - TP 16:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I have to disagree with you still! It is disingenuous to claim that this sentence is making any claim abou that "white privilege" is less plausible. Why do you think that "mistrust" is there? If it isn't clear enough for you, the article actually spells it out for you "research shows that the legacy effects of social discrimination can impact the quality of STD care many African Americans experience" --Slp1 (talk) 17:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

After ec: I'm sorry, but that's your own WP:SYNTH about what the author means. Before (edit conflict): Striking oppose. I'm fighting a barely defensible case that I barely believe in on principal grounds and it's just not worth the effort when Apostle12 continues to do the crap we're discussing here. I'll save my efforts for a user who is legitimately interested in the topic and not trying to toe the line while pushing his own agenda.--v/r - TP 17:28, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - The editor has a COI but has attempted to bring some sources to it, while the personal history and preferences of editors are something that come easily, Apostle12 just went to a great deal of trouble with the 'defense' statement and at least tried to keep personal matters out of it. The subject matter is going to be a nightmare for just about any of our editors. This has gotten the attention of more eyes and as a result might introduce a better atmosphere. Warn Apostle12 as per TParis's suggestion and I second that any controversial (not just racial topics) be backed up with reliable sources pre-emptively and doubly so for contentious material. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per TParis. Unquestionably, he has ruffled some feathers and many of his comments leave much to be desired, but I think TP's idea is more likely to have a lasting positive impact here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• I will limit myself to saying that I agree with Brad's proposal for a topic ban, and that some of the responses in this thread make me ashamed to be part of this project. We're talking about someone who goes around talking about the criminality of black men and how they should try to act more like Asians. In any reputable volunteer organiation, someone like that would politely but firmly be told that he or she was no longer welcome. But here, the first admin responding couldn't be bothered even to click on the supplied diffs before dismissing the complaint, and the second views this as simply a matter of "ruffled feathers". MastCell ^Talk 03:45, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Absolutely. What he wrote on those talk pages was insanely offensive and the response here is embarrassing and shameful. AniMate 04:51, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Look, it comes down to this. The threat of being called a racist, homophobic, sexist, bigot, fascist, elitist, ect has the exact same chilling effect as legal threats. When you use them unrestrained (because some people, maybe even the subject, do deserve the title), then you are biasing Wikipedia to popular opinions. I'm not saying unpopular ones deserve equal attention or weight. I'm saying the OP didn't even both asking for sources and immediately started this thread calling the subject a racist and you've propagated that name-calling. So, Animate, yes, you should be ashamed.--v/r - TP 14:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Sandstein's warning of WP:ARBR&I sanctions to Apostle12 seems appropriate. Various sanctioned users, some subsequently topic-banned, extensively edited articles like Race and crime in the United States. The articles might have been slightly different, but the general drift was the same. Mathsci (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• I agree, but mine as well let the proposal run it's course.--v/r - TP 14:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

TP, I agree that terms like racist can be used too cavalierly. But this is a case of "If the shoe fits, wear it." Honestly, can this be taken any way other than racist?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
If black males wish not to be stereotyped as violent criminals, they must not commit violent crimes themselves; they must abandon the personal power afforded them by mimicing the dress, demeanor and speech of black criminals; and they must speak out against, and otherwise ostracize, black men who exhibit violent criminal behavior. It is not up to those of us who have been victimized by violent black criminals to abandon our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype" AHEAD of actual changes in behavior among black men. Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, especially in the public sphere. I acknowledge that the stereotype is a tragedy for black men who are not violent criminals, which is thoroughly regrettable. Perhaps non-criminal black men should emulate asian men, whose stereotype is one of studious reflection and harmlessness--a stereotype that can be just as misleading when it comes to individual behavior.

Seriously, which part of this isn't racist? That black men have not met his standard of speaking out against crime, so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety? Or the bit where he says they should "emulate asian men" because their stereotype is "studious reflection and harmlessness."

Yes, he points out that stereotypes don't fit everyone... but he still treats them as valid. That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals and, besides, they should act like another group's stereotype!

I just don't see any way to avoid the fact that this is a racist statement. And it should not be endorsed on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:37, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

"so it's okay to treat them all as criminals for his safety?"

"That it's okay to treat all black men as if they were criminals" Ummm...he didn't actually say those things. That's your original research. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? Right there in his statement: Often this is a matter of preserving life, limb and integrity, referring to our well-founded "criminal black man stereotype". That's not OR, that's fucking blatant. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:05, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Nowhere does he state that it's okay to treat all black men as criminals. Sorry, it's just not there. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Then you're willfully blind. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:36, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

No, I just don't believe in imaginary things. But we don't see to be making any progress here, so let's just agree to disagree, OK? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Addendum: Okay, as Kyohyi points out, this statement is from last year. It's pretty clear in its intent but, if it hasn't happened since (and doesn't happen again), there's no point pursuing it now. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Response by Apostle 12

The request for sourcing at time of comment on racial (or other controversial) topics is an easy one to observe. While I am a stickler for sourcing when editing articles, this is the first time sourcing has been requested for Talk comments. Perhaps this should become a WP policy for all Talk commentary. Question: Would it be useful for me to go back and provide reliable sourcing for each of the examples I gave on White Privilege Talk and on Criminal Black Man Stereotype Talk? I can certainly do so, however I suspect it might turn out to be more disruptive than not.

For the record, I have never referenced personal experiences or perspectives while editing any article, especially those having to do with race; at most such experiences have served as a reality check, and the emotions associated with such experiences serve only to increase my commitment to racial impartiality.

There is also no need to relate further personal experiences on Talk if the consensus is that such storytelling is objectionable. I have done so only rarely (UseTheCommandLine mined my edit history to provide examples) and this is the first time anyone has objected. Except for UseTheCommandLine, other editor comments have been positive. I do believe occasional storytelling is a positive endeavor, as long as it is not heavily laden with agenda.

I have observed that legal sanctions against racial commentary have been counterproductive in repressive societies (the former Soviet Union and Singapore come to mind), and those societies tend to make little progress in this area. My personal preference would be for more open dialogue. Apostle12 (talk) 02:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

This is not a forum to dialogue about race. This is not a blog or a chatroom. This Project is not about your personal opinions of the Soviet Union or Indonesia, or how their societies deal with race, nor is it about your opinions about how black men, or asians, or urban areas, are or should be. The Pedia has a specific mission and your purported autobiographical material, personal observations, and the conclusions that you draw from them (your "storytelling") are getting in the way of it to such an extent that it has wound up here. However this goes, the advice you have received is to discontinue. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Irrespective of how this community sanctions discussion concludes, the conduct at issue here is also within the scope of the discretionary sanctions provision at WP:ARBR&I#Editors reminded and discretionary sanctions (amended), that is, "the intersection of race/ethnicity and human abilities and behaviour, broadly construed". On the basis of the talk page contributions linked to initially, which are at least prima facie problematic in the light of the principle linked to by Newyorkbrad, I am issuing Apostle12 with a discretionary sanctions warning as provided for at WP:AC/DS#Warnings. This allows any further potentially problematic conduct to be reported and sanctioned via WP:AE.  Sandstein  10:49, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support. I was earlier prepared to let this off with a warning, but two factors lead me to see that this is not enough. First, Apostle12 has continued to use this very page as forum for their personal experiences and for arguments that "racial commentary" and "storytelling" should continue. Second, and much more seriously, despite the extensive comments above about the kind of reliable sources required to avoid OR, and promises from Apostle12 that they are stickler for good sources etc etc, the source they have come up with to support their cherry-picked statistic about "white privilege" being less plausible, [19], while confirming the statistic about STDs in African Americans, draws precisely the opposite conclusion from the one Apostle12 was trying to use it for. It is this misuse of sources to make a completely different point, despite extensive and recent coaching that tips me over the edge. Slp1 (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I haven't seen any evidence that would warrant such a drastic sanction as topic-banning. I think that a reminder that talk pages are for improving an article, not for telling personal stories or general discussion should be sufficient. @Apostle12: You've ruffled a lot of people's feathers. While I don't agree with them, the fact is that this is a collaborative enviroment. You have to figure out a way to get along with everyone. If you're saying things that are pissing other people off, stop saying them. Otherwise, you will get topic-banned the next time around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support due to consistent soap boxing and consistently using his own personal experience for the basis of profoundly negative comments on talk pages. as an aside; I'm generally sympathetic to a very limited amount of off-topic posting if a person has a particularly salient point which may have some possible relevance, but the editors comments are determined from his own limited experiences with little critical analysis. There is a reason why people shouldn't base arguments off personal experience; it's subject to "hidden persuaders" like cognitive bias, hidden variables etc. IRWolfie- (talk) 17:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban On all race related topics at Wikipedia, editors with unpopular viewpoints are sanctioned for far less than their opponents are. If Apostle12 is topic banned, he will be another example. He has done much less than what people with the opposite perspective can get away with. For the diffs presented in this thread, Sandstein's warning is enough. Akuri (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The one instance that is being discussed is over eight months old. At this point I believe any sanctions would become punitive, instead we should take him up on his offer of not having any more personal commentary on these articles, and remind him that he should stick to talking about article content. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:56, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's a valid point. (And it's the only valid objection so far, IMO.) Though the comment he made was pretty blatant, 8 months really is long enough for this to be stale. If it doesn't happen again, that should be the end of it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any reasonable basis for a topic ban. The claim of "racism" seems terribly weak to me and based more on personal attitudes on the subject, which is why people shouldn't be sanctioned merely for expressing an objectionable opinion or being perceived as having a certain attitude on a subject. Detailing one's personal experiences or personal opinion is hardly a problem unless that is all the editor is doing and this does not appear to be the case here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

So I got a couple of people emailing me about this. I should have turned emails off, frankly. I logged in to change my user page slightly. But I wanted to clear some things up and hopefully, provoke a little more discussion here.

I, of course, Strongly support the topic ban. But I challenge anyone to show where I called Apostle12 a racist. I may have said something at one time like "that sounds racist" or perhaps "it's very hard for me to AGF based on that comment" or the like, but it was users like TParis who initially made hay of the connection between racism and Apostle12's statements. I left in a huff, certainly, and I do not dispute that.

In going over this discussion, one of the things that troubles me is that people are focusing on these statements in particular. They were simply the most egregious ones I was aware of, and knew roughly the dates and times and places. But to be absolutely clear, the reason I filed this incident in the first place is because of the extensive, consistent, counterproductive soapboxing that i had repeatedly attempted to civilly suggest was unwelcome, and which despite this was continued.

And honestly, some of you who are admins are clearly not doing your due diligence. I am quite sure that this pattern of violating WP:NOTFORUM can be demonstrated throughout Apostle12's edits. Take a look at some of his speculations on Project MKULTRA or the 1951 Pont-saint-esprit mass poisoning. or look at the sourcing dispute I had with him about Huey P. Newton. Take a look at his comments on the Franklin child prostitution ring. Take a look at the failed RfC/U. This is an editor who flaunts or ignores policy when it pleases him and has a long history of doing so. And to see policy flaunted, especially for relatively new editors like myself who take great pains to learn policies and try and follow them, falsely believing that they are "the ropes" to be learned here, seeing them undermined, especially in this way, leaves me little faith in this Project.

Which, at base, is why I have decided to leave. I am still not sure whether this will be temporary. I have things in my life going on that require me to be less distracted for the next several months, and WP is one of my major distractions, so there will be, as noted, a minimum of 3 months of proverbial radio silence. I know I've broken that already, but I wanted to publicly acknowledge the words of affirmation I have received, and correct what I felt to be mischaracterizations.

I admonish all of you, please, look at the history of Apostle12's edits. I did not simply fly off the handle here. This was simply the last straw for a sustained pattern of abusive and policy-violating behavior, and for which I had no other recourse. Whatever you think of his racism-or-not-racism, that is not specifically why i filed the dispute, simply a strongly aggravating factor. I also challenge you to find similar disruptive or tendentious behavior or edits in my own history. [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ shutdown -h now 01:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The MKULTRA comments seemed completely legitimate to me. WP:NOTAFORUM is not some absolute prohibition on all comments that do not explicitly concern edits. So long as editors stay mostly focused on content, commenting about the subject shouldn't be a big deal.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is likely, that what is being pointed to is Apostle12 calling the other editor a troll. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

tangential discussion and unrelated accusations
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is not clear either whether the views of the small tag team currently editing Race and intelligence from a race realist perspective should be taken into account. On previous occasions that group has accused Dougweller and KillerChihuahua of various misdeeds (meatpuppetry, sockpuppetry). Accusations of bias are now being made about MastCell following his comments in this thread.[20][21][22][23] Mathsci (talk) 03:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC) If you want to call me and The Devil's Advocate scientific racists, do it outright. It would be a personal attack, but it would be less passive-aggressive than your hiding the link to the scientific racism article behind the words "race realism". Why should our opinions count for less than yours and your own little group of supporters? Akuri (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2013 (UTC) I have no opinions or supporters. Very few editors edit the mathematics articles I edit. I have the same reaction to you as MastCell. Bewilderment and astonishment at the degree of gamesmanship and attempted wiki-litigation in your edits. BTW "race realism" is the term used by the late J. P. Rushton to describe his own work. Try clicking on race realism to see the problem with the redirect. You have on several occasions explained how you have apparently been "studying" past arbcom cases or failed arbcom requests. That seems to be a misplaced effort. Wikipedia is about building an encyclopedia. Even after making only 45 edits, a large proportion of them seem wholly unrelated to that goal. I have no idea why you grilled Dougweller on his talk page as you did (when editing in the range 101.0.71.0/24) or why you have apparently done the same to MastCell. They are fine administrators, well aware of how to perform administrative tasks as well knowledgeable in their own areas of expertise (archaeology and medicine). For your 40th edit you posted a "discretionary sanctions" warning on the talk page of ArtifexMayhem.[24] In the circumstances it would seem to carry no weight at all (e.g. it's unlogged). All very odd for a newly arrived user. Mathsci (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2013 (UTC) You have no opinions or supporters? Really? And this finding of fact and this one, those are about what you did in a topic area where you have no opinions? Most people who have no opinion in a topic don't become so involved that they are the subject of multiple ArbCom rulings about said topic. You see, if I'm going to edit race and intelligence articles, and you're going to show up to claim things like that in every discussion that's even remotely related, it's essential that I know about this history. If I didn't, I couldn't tell so easily when you say things that make no sense. 101.0.79.22 (talk) 09:29, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It is your conduct that is the problem. Newyorkbrad already remarked that you appear to have registered the account Akuri on wikipedia with one of the main purposes being to "stir things up" in project space, as you are doing here. You have so far made unjustified attacks on Dougweller, Mastcell and me. The previous IP range that you used before was blocked because of that kind of disruption. You still persist in IP hopping.[25] You have already stated that you lack theWP:COMPETENCE to make edits in your chosen topic area (R&I) and that you will just lend your support to what others suggest.[26] Nothing about your edits looks good. Mathsci (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC) You think I'M trying to stir things up here? The Devil's Advocate and I weren't paying any attention to you in this discussion before you showed up and claimed maybe our opinions should be discounted. He can't respond to your claims because he has a one-way interaction ban with you. I'm commenting here because if he isn't allowed to defend himself, he should have someone else to defend him. You also showed up just to attack him here, on another article you don't normally edit. If you're going to accuse me of trying to stir things up, why don't you explain why you're following another editor around the project, making accusations against him that he isn't allowed to reply to. Akuri (talk) 22:22, 11 April 2013 (UTC) It was Newyorkbrad who described you as stirring things up at RfAr. Regarding your own "analysis", I have been editing the talk page of the Jared Diamond book since 2012 on the same issue, so your own reading of the situation makes no sense at all. The same applies to your comments about MastCell and Dougweller. Now, barely at your fiftieth edit, you are in dispute with KillerChihuahua on Talk:Race and intelligence.[27][28][29] You subsequently supported The Devil's Advocate's frivolous report on KillerChihuahua at WP:AE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to cause endless amounts of disruption. Mathsci (talk) 06:48, 12 April 2013 (UTC) I just looked at [30], and the only other time you ever participated in the talk page of that article was when you followed Academia Orientalis there, who is another editor who you followed wherever he went on the project. So yes, your participation in that article consists entirely of wikihounding your various enemies. Why not answer the question I asked you in my last post? You've now done the same thing to The Devil's Advocate again in his AE report. 101.0.79.14 (talk) 11:50, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose weak oppose It appears the comments in question are 8 months old. The noriuser may have a troubling POV, but nothing has been presented to indicate he can't work within the ruleng s. Hobit (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Theseyour aren't 8 months old: chidishBlack_Panther_Party&diff=prev&oldid=540863572[31]. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't know if those had been raised before, I'd not seem them. One is still quite old (5 months?) the other much more recent. I'm not certain that topic-banning this person is the right call, but my AGF bucket is now empty. I'd prefer we wait an see if the warning is enough, but the topic ban isn't unreasonable, so moving to weak oppose. I'd like an acknowledgement from the user that personal stories and feelings on issues don't belong on the talk pages. I will say that on a quick pass the article appears to be fairly balanced. If this user is contributing in a useful way in mainspace on the article, I'd hope the closing admin would take that into account. Hobit (talk) 14:42, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

That is kind of my point, all the problems were on talk pages, not articles, and they weren't overt. The solution isn't the ban hammer, not yet anyway. We do ourselves a favor if we use the least aggressive method of dealing with a problem that will get the job done. Since the person is communicative, there is a lot of time between problem edits and he is not combative, then a warning and education are a better first solution. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 20:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per NewYorkBrad, Mastcell, et al. With all respect to those opposing, there is no need to let things get worse before taking this action. KillerChihuahua 13:24, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I've been dealing with editors who are far worse than this. At least Apostle12 supplies sources when he makes edits. No point in topic banning someone who's willing to observe NPOV on articles and do research. Shii (tock) 04:36, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't believe Apostle12 is a racist. Don't believe his experiences are racist. Don't believe his statistics are racist. Don't believe his comments are racist. Believe liberals can't handle the truth. Believe in free speech (for EVERYONE). --108.45.72.196 (talk) 04:55, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • WP:FREESPEECH might be an enlightening read. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:16, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support per the editor's pattern (see [32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39] [40][41][42]) of making unsourced comments such as "it may be instructive to realize that many Jim Crow laws in the American South were instituted as a kind of "affirmative action" for whites, who found it difficult to compete in the labor market with skilled slaves freed at the end of the Civil War" (actually made twice [43][44]) and their (ab)use sources that either don't satisfy WP:RS or have been misrepresented so they appear to support a WP:POV that is not reflected in the source (see [45][46][47][48][49][50]). — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:54, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I looked at some of the edits and I don't see how those sources were being misrepresented. As to his comment about Jim Crow laws, that would be a reasonable, albeit controversial, interpretation. One should probably see that aspect of the Jim Crow labor perspective more as being akin to the current attitudes regarding outsourcing or the employment of illegal immigrants in that you had skilled labor that would do the same work at less expense to the employer. Thus wanting to retain jobs for the preferred class, restrictions are made to prevent the aforementioned class from losing wage opportunities.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:03, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I see them being misrepresented like this...

Misrepresentation of sources

(diff) POV pushing by using sources that fail WP:RS nine ways from Sunday. The article entitled "White Privilege" Re-education, published in The Michigan Review, is not a reliable source. "The Michigan Review is the independent, student-run journal of conservative and libertarian opinion at the University of Michigan. We neither solicit nor accept monetary donations from the U-M. Contributions to the Michigan Review are tax -deductible under Section 501 (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. The Review is not affiliated with any political party or university political group." And? Are you objecting because it is opinion or because it states its political bias or because it is a college publication? I'm not fond of this publication, but I know it fairly well and it has been a reliable, if biased, source in my experience. Of course, I'm also okay with taking larger school papers when needed and would agree that digging down to the Review is digging farther than one should need to for a topic like this. Hobit (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC) I'm objecting because 1) it is opinion, 2) it is biased, and 3) it is not a publication associated with the University. Taken all together, in the context of this topic, I the source does not meet WP:RS. Determining the reliability of a source turns on the context in which it is used. At least that's the way I see it, I could be wrong. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC) Hugh Murray's article, White Male Privilege? A Social Construct for Political Oppression, in the Journal of Libertarian Studies (published by Ludwig von Mises Institute) is not a reliable source on this topic (even ignoring the fact that Hugh Murray doesn't actually exist). (diff) This is a huge pile of WP:SYNTH. Just read the sources: [51][52] Conservative scholar and opponent of affirmative action programs, Shelby Steele at the Hoover Institution, believes that the effects of white privilege are exaggerated. Steele argues that irresponsibility is a larger problem for blacks, who may incorrectly blame their personal failures on white oppression. — cite (diff) POV pushing by misrepresenting Steele's comments. In discussing unequal test scores between public school students, opinion columnist Matt Rosenberg laments the Seattle Public Schools' emphasis on "institutional racism" and "white privilege":" — cite (diff)The opinion's of Matt Rosenberg, Director of Public Affairs for Dick's Drive-In Restaurants, carry absolutely no weight on the topic of white privilege. Lawrence Blum posits that white privilege analysis has been too narrow in its focus. Specifically it has failed to acknowledge important ethnic differences, especially among whites. And it has not adequately distinguished between "spared injustice, unjust enrichment and "non-injustice-related" privileges. — cite (diff) POV pushing by misrepresenting the source. Blum fully supports the reality of white privilege and is suggesting new ways to teach it, "Those of us who teach US American White students think it morally and politically important for them to learn to acknowledge their White privilege, and to do something morally constructive with that acknowledgment." The current University of Michigan Duluth "unfair campaign" has come under fire for implying that all whites enjoy unfair privileges, when it fact it is qualified minority applicants who are often shown preference in education and corporate hiring. — cite (diff) POV pushing by misrepresenting the source. "The campaign has attracted its fair share of criticism" from anonymous comments posted "to the university webpage". That's who.

As to your comment about Jim Crow laws, that would a ludicrous interpretation with no basis in fact. Of course, if you can supply some reliable sources to backup your claim, then I'll stand corrected. I'm also very selective when it comes to Sushi. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support per the evidence provided by ArtifexMayhem. We don't need POV-pushing editors of any kind. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

IP 50.37.147.15 disruption

User:50.37.147.15 has made 29 edits to article space in one month, solely to remove {{Marriage}} usage, for which they apparently misunderstand the purpose. Having been warned twice for doing so, they've now nominated the template for deletion. While I will try to trust the process and hope enough editors will notice the proposal, I happened to see it just by accident. I'm more concerned at the strange pattern of an IP editor doing nothing more in a month than attack a particular template – not something that one expects from a newbie. Admin opinion and attention is therefore requested. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 18:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

User notified at User talk:50.37.147.15 § Notice of discussion at ANI —[AlanM1(talk)]— 19:02, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

What is the template's purpose? Questions to this effect on its talk page remain unanswered. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:32, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I tried in my response to the TfD. The purpose is to standardize the format of marriage information, particularly for use in Infoboxes, and to add microformat tagging for non-human consumption, much like {{Birth date}}, {{Coord}}, {{URL}}, etc. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 01:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You did not. We do not use, nor need, templates "to standardize the format" of text. The template applies no "microformat tagging". If you disagree, please explain how it does so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I'm part of the same "We" that you are, as am I that templates are routinely used to standardize presentation (e.g. {{Infobox}}), as others have stated at the TfD (where this discussion belongs). The template transcludes {{event}} which is documented to emit microformats. My reason for bringing this to ANI was, as stated above, because of the IP user's strange actions. I'll note that Andy TfD'd this template 3 months ago. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 13:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Infoboxes do more than "standardize the format of text". We don't use templates simply to standardize the format of text in individual template parameters. If {{Marriage}} calls {{event}} to emit a microformat; it does not do so itself. You have still not answered the questions on the template;s talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

TFD got closed as no-consensus. I've proposed modifications to the template; please see the "Removing parameters" section of Template talk:Marriage to offer input. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've done some further work or refresh my memory and check the facts. Pages using the template emit no more microformats than those that do not. The only microformat emitted by {{event}}, from the example on its own documentation page, is that emitted by the {{Coord}} template that it calls, for the coordinates. How many marriages do we have, for each we list coordinates? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Finnegas and category disruption

Finnegas (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly disrupting consensus formation relating to geographical categories for sportspeople in Ireland.

Finnegas has have emptied categories out-of-process before nominating them for CFD, and has continued to depopulate them while under discussion. This is disruptive, because if a CFD reaches a consensus to keep a category, that cannot be achieved if it has already been emptied.

Finnegas been repeatedly warned about this, but his latest response is to stop depopulating the categories for counties which he contests, and instead go in the opposite direction by creating a series of micro-categories, which are clearly intended as a piece of WP:POINTy disruption. I have nominated the categories for upmerger at WP:CFD 2013 April 12#Sportspeople_from_Irish_suburbs_and_towns, where I have set out in detail the history of this saga, with supporting diffs.

As noted at CFD, Finnegas has rejected repeated requests to stop this disruption. Please can something be done about this? It is becoming a huge time-waster for other editors, and leads to discussions being cluttered with procedural rows.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:34, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah - that's just clearly disruptive, especially the WP:POINT micro-categories; I think a final warning before a block is in order there. Black Kite (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
• Here he admits to emptying cats out of process - but leaving '1' article behind: [53]. I think a stern warning would do here. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
  • That's clearly a Wikipedia:Gaming the system statement. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 18:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed. Stunts like this are utterly unacceptable (and the tone there is not exactly collegial either). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:56, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not exactly a neutral party here. There has been a lot of bad blood between Finnegas, Brocach (who should also be the subject of the same censure) and I. Anything that I say here with inevitably smack of schadenfreude. Nevertheless, it has been most distressing having to clean up after their edits. Both editors have a severe case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU: discussion with them is utterly pointless. Only disciplinary action has any impact. Take, for example, the silly edits at Ardfinnan GAA: ignore the ostensible excuses offered for reverting my edits - the real reason is a refusal to admit the words North Tipperary to any GAA article. To do so would be to admit that there are more than 32 counties in Ireland. That's an admission that will never come from the lips of either Finnegas or Brocach. Hence the silly edits. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:19, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

I accept the request to cease my edits which are viewed as disruptive. I promise to accept the consensus as regards to Categories and not create so called micro categories or empty out of process. I will conduct myself in a more civil professional manner in the future.In addition, I would like to highlight that I have never edited the Ardfinnan GAA article. Finnegas (talk) 11:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Finnegas. It's a welcome assurance, tho it's a great pity that it has taken so long to get it.

I'm glad that you say that you will stop emptying categories out-of-process. However, it has been noted above that you had been removing all-but one article so that category was not completely empty[54]. Will you stop that too? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes Finnegas (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In that case I think we are all done here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

thanks Finnegas. One quick note: "I promise to accept the consensus as regards to Categories" - I don't think the request is that you just accept whatever the current consensus is said to be, as that can certainly change - so there is no problem with you debating and challenging the consensus - just do so in the appropriate venue, eg talk pages and CFD, and not through emptying of categories, etc. But I appreciate your statement above. Best regards, --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

RFC to reinsert links to illicit drug website. Silk Road (marketplace)

Silk Road (marketplace) is an online black market which is only reachable by TOR. Editors are currently trying to do an RFC to place back the URL to access it. This website is unquestionably illegal and Wikipedia should not assist in allowing readers to access it. Previously at ANI, the decision to blacklist the url was achieved. [55] Revdel of the links is also done. Another case of it came up here.[56] Here is evidence of the revdel from that thread. [57] I'm bringing this matter here to ANI, it should probably go to the WMF as well because it may be in violation of the TOS, per this section.[58] Also... the link seems to be used as a source on the page with a dead link template, ref 18. I would think the RFC be stopped, the link removed and REVDEL as previously and a warning be made about its insertion since being blacklisted is not enough to stop its insertion. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

• Could you spell out what pare of the TOS you feel this violates? Hobit (talk) 00:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• I think that us knowingly publishing links to websites that exist solely to violate the laws in virtually every country is a bad idea. We do the same for copyright infringing sites, we cover the material but deny links to material we know is illegal. If there was some encyclopedic value in publishing the link, I might be more prone to accept it, but there isn't. Also, the site is accessible via TOR only, making it a burden to verify, so the potential for phishing abuse is much higher than for other types of URLs. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Not to mention it violates WP:ELNO #1, #3, #4, #5, and #16 (at least). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:25, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflicted/edited) And aside from that, the fact that WP:ELNEVER is against insertion of blacklisted sites, that the link is Revdel by an oversighter and concensus is already against in previous discussion? If the fact it is a black market and illegal by its very nature, then how about WP:IAR to allow for common sense? If WMF remains silent about the matter, that is. Though a second argument is that Wikipedia's previous hosting of the material has resulted in known cases of phishing which hit the blogs, reddit and such. By the nature of the garbled url, even if it was somehow valid and of use, it has proven to be a target. By all accounts there is nothing justified about having it for encyclopedic purposes. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I know an RFC can't override other policy considerations, but I'm not sure how to explain that at this RFC any more than I already have. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've linked back to this discussion at that RFC. Perhaps we would be better to create a proposal somewhere outside of that RFC to settle the issue of our liability and TOS. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 00:38, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Once this is dealt with, or if someone could, I think a heavy revdel is required as the url has numerous reinsertion and deletions including links to websites that host the url. Not sure where those are concerned... including [59] and this one containing it in the URL field (being removed by Dragon Booster) [60]. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:51, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've RevDel'ed everything that had the *onion address, per the previous ANI discussion. I didn't with the "how to" video, and it wasn't needed. Of course, we aren't a how-to website, so reverting it out was proper. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:53, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I have a feeling it won't be the last time it appears, but it is appreciated. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:14, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've made it clear I will block anyone that adds it, based on the previous ANI discussion, unless a consensus forms that overturns that previous decision. I'm not a big fan of preemptively threatening a block, but this is one of those times when I felt it might be best. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 02:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I think you opined in the RFC, did you not, Dennis? It would be better if somebody else wielded the big cudgel... I'm sure there are dozens of volunteers, this enforced Revision Deletion seems an easy call, essentially commercial promotion of a black market site which is anyways inaccessible as an ordinary link... Carrite (talk) 08:12, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not involved with that article as an editor, so WP:INVOLVED isn't at play. My comment in that RFC was the same as here and my participation is one of an outsider. I did see someone added back a link to an unreliable site that explains how to connect to that website, which fails WP:EL and WP:RS, but I will allow someone else to fight that battle. The larger issue isn't the single edit, it is the policy ramifications. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Ah, NOW I see why that editor seeks adding that gwern link back into the article, he owns that site (per his name and comments on the talk page) so he has a COI and keeps adding back his own domain to the external links. I'm not going to revert it back out since he thinks it was retaliation, but would ask someone else to look at it and determine if it meets WP:EL as a reliable source. Obviously, I would argue that it does not and is spam in this context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 13:36, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

As this person who filed the RfC, I wouldn't find it unreasonable if someone closed it, since it seems any consensus there has been deemed irrelevant due to policy considerations. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 20:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, there is enough dispute over that, that we need a stronger consensus to firmly establish that fact. To me, it is crystal clear that you don't add in links to websites that we have created filters explicitly to bar, but there is a shortage of participation there, particularly by experienced admin. I've considered raising the issue for formal discussion at WP:AN, but not sure if that is the proper venue. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

The RFC should not be closed, while I have upped my stakes by responding to the issues with additional information about legality of the site and its inability to be seized, the more it becomes clear that the website poses a risk to Wikipedia. I do not think this matter needs to go to the WMF, and given the nature of it, we seem capable of using existing policy for this and good discussion rather then opt for the 'thermonuclear option'. If it goes there, it goes there, but a response is not even a sure thing. It is best the community decide this as it typically does. And... the link is still visible in many of the pages in its history including the phishing links. Not sure if they should be Revdel out before the RFC closes or after it closes, not sure how the policy cuts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• • There are multiple problems, each of which should exclude the link, in my eyes. I would image that WMF wants to look at it, and I wouldn't be surprised if Alison drops a note. This is fine, I think the legal consideration is valid and by all means, the WMF has an interest (and a gaggle of lawyers) in this, as technically we work for them. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 10:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Actually, technically, we don't work for them, as the WMF insulates itself from the potentially legally culpable contributions of its volunteer editors by defining itself as the provider of infrastructure and the promulgator of basic policies, and not the "employer" of those editors. Our edits are not "work for hire" - we each own the copyright on our own contributions, although we automatically license them for use when we upload them. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree, though, that the WMF should probably weigh in on this. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mieszko 8 block evasion

• Mieszko 8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Confirmed sockpuppets used for prior block evasion per Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mieszko 8
  • 109.76.169.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 109.77.151.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 93.107.216.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
  • 93.107.93.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

After the sockpuppets were confirmed, User:GiantSnowman unambiguously clarified to them: "You, the editor, are blocked - not the account. If you continue to try and evade your block then I will increase your block to indefinite." That happened during their Nationality-of-Copernicus-EW-related block a month ago, and due to continued EW after unblock, Mieszko 8 has been re-blocked [61].

• Current block evasion:
  • 109.77.142.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([62] etc)
  • 109.77.175.43 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([63] etc)
  • 109.78.220.220 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([64] [65] [66] [67] etc)

I think in this case we can shortcut SPI per WP:DUCK (content of contribs and IP geolocate). The socks' posts are deceptive as they speak of Mieszko 8 in the 3rd person and are written to solicit support against the blocking admin. Thus, I ask for

• setting Mieszko 8's block to indef per GiantSnowman (who is on holidays, that is why I post here)
• tag and categorize the IPs just as it was done at Mieszko 8's prior block evasion.

Skäpperöd (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I extended Mieszko 8's block to indefinite per the prior recommendation of GiantSnowman, due to the continuous block evasion. I'll let GiantSnowman know about this action in case he has any further comments. Since Mieszko has an infinite supply of IP socks I suggest that we rely on semiprotection if it is needed in lieu of trying to chase the socks. Someone who is familiar with range blocks might see if there are any that would make sense. EdJohnston (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Shortcut to the WP:CBAN option? Blackmane (talk) 11:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• • 109.78.195.206 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) ([68] etc.) --- this one, too, for reference. Skäpperöd (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Strong oppose. User 109.78.195.206 posted a message on my talk page and did nothing else. Please stop the witch hunt. Skäpperöd is involved in a series of content disputes regarding German history in Eastern Europe right now, which needs to be taken into consideration also. This is not only about "Copernicus" (see above). Poeticbent talk 17:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi all, sorry for the delay in responding, been away for the weekend - fully support the indef block, if he continues to sock then we should consider a ban. GiantSnowman 08:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27

The user above name KahnJohn27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been committed a series a behavioral issues during a clash of reliable sources over box-office gross references as seen on this section on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard as well as this part on WP:FILM. He has been doing disruptive editing on several film articles and replace sources from Box Office Mojo with a less reputable source name Boxoffice.com on what he believes that he doesn't consider BOM (Box Office Mojo) reliable. The sole reason for this is that in some cases Box Office Mojo has not included the foreign grosses in its summary total on various films such as Red Dawn, which the foreign gross only shows n/a as well as some other films recently, including The Call, The Incredible Burt Wonderstone, Side Effects, The Man with the Iron Fists, 21 & Over and Snitch. While it seems to be good faith edit, his behavioral edits at some of our talk pages over the issue isn't really polite and friendly-community at anyway. This part of my talk page is one those examples, as well as the talk pages of MarnetteD on this part and Betty Logan as well as the two noticeboard sections above. According to many on RS/N on this issue, BOM is said to be the most reliable sources for box-office gross as seen here and get news references on Variety and The Hollywood Reporter. We don't even know if boxoffice.com gets any outside news reference in anyway. Sure, there is conflicting reports on BOM and boxoffice.com on production budget costs and box-office gross numbers on various movies, but it said that BOM is one of our most realible sources at this time. This issue was already discuss in the archeives section here. KahnJohn27 continues to stick to his opinions and rashly berates us on our talk pages and the noticeboards at us for contradicting accuracy on worldwide box-office gross and accusing most of us of such violations, not to mention he's a high-school student as well and his English grammar isn't really the best as well. We tried to be reasonable and polite with him, but he just won't stop being disruptive.

All I asking is to do something with him before this dispute with him gets any worse. BattleshipMan (talk) 07:00, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Notified user, which you should have done. Blackmane (talk) 10:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I have already told that they Red Dawn, Incredible Burt Wonderstone etc are not the only examples of BOM's unreliabilty. There are several other movies where this problem occurs. However I have never said that BOM should be completely discounted. Not only that I also proved that even where this so-called "n/a" problem is present, I have also proved that the total foreign box office gross is incorrect in case of many movies like Dredd and Man With the Iron Fists. And no I am not letting it go and the status of it being reliable or unreliable will be decided by the discussion. Because these users seem to be making up the same reason of BOM not updating their figures. How are we to believe what they are saying. I think until now except including some times I have been mostly civil. I've only passed one insult to you and I.already had apologised for that. If my behavior seems to be combative to you just because I do not mince words then that is a problem with your attitude not mine. I never personally attacked you and only reverted your edits at The Call and Incredible Burt Wonderstone once. Also after that I accepted it. You have forgotten that even if the consensus seems to be going in your favor reverting someone's edits still counts as edit-warring because consensus has not been reached yet. If this is a strong-arm tactic to stop me being able to discuss this matter then I'm afraid that will not work because that is not the way things work around here. Also I ask what is wrong with giving proof of innocence? You kept saying that I have combatic behavior so the only options I had was to show a proof of innocence that I didn't. Also you should know that Tenebrae deleted my comments on his talk page saying "rants of a high school user". I ask from which angle is this civil behavior? Unfortunately it's not me but you who have constantly induldged in combatic and implotic behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice.com and such. You've been bashing at us when we tried to be reasonable to you, but you continue to be disruptive and uncivil, not to mention you bully at us. You also been accusing with such violations that we never violated anything on this site, regardless of what you think. Do you think your bullying is going to help. It's not going to help out on this. BattleshipMan (talk) 17:02, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not trying to bully you. If I was trying to bully you instead of saying that everyone's opininions matters I would have said that I am right and you're wrong. Also I myself said that only by contacting the sources we can find out the truth. I don't think that is combative behavior at all. If you think my behavior is combative then it can only mean two things. Either you're misinterpreting my statements completely. MarnetteD said that anyone who says "they're trying to do.the right thing" is trying to enforce his opinion. That's a gross representation of my statement. Apart from that what you were calling as rants on his and Tenebrae's talkpage when in actual I was trying to prove myself innocent. I had particpated in a discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games here ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Archive_97#Statistic_Brain) and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources here ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Sources/Archive_7#Statistic_Brain). They never even said anything about any disruptive behavior and they were perfectly cooperative me. Also you say that my grammar is incorrect while you have made such mistakes yourself. That is no reason for discounting someone's opinion. Tenebrae called my comments as rants of high school student. I ask what kind of behavior is that? You have been induldging in combative behavior yourself. I agree I have been rash many times but I still have shown respect towards everyone's opinion. If I really have been combative then my punishment will be decided by the admins. I assure you that I'm not bullying anyone but simply speaking the truth. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 20:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

You're the reason that this dispute happened in the first place. You have been combative about the box-office issues and such. boxoffice.com is questionable at this point and I don't think it has any reliable outside online news reference that we know of. BOM has outside outline news references on The Hollywood Reporter and Variety. Don't you see? Box-office numbers and production budget costs differ in those sites, regardless of whatever it says n/a on the foreign gross and such, so we don't know whatever or not boxoffice.com is reliable and accurate, whatever it's domestic and foreign gross. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Also please note that BattleshipMan seems to have a habit of always exaggerating matters. I'm not trying to bully anyone but am saying what I see. I don't think statements like "KahnJohn27, some of us are real sick and tired of your disruptive behavior over your issue over BOM, Boxoffice." can be classified as civil. If you want to talk Boxoffice. com and BOM please talk about it on reliable sources noticenoard. Abd anyway unlike Box Office Mojo BOM doesn't have this n/a problem. Also Hollywood Reporter and Variety do not use BOM as a source for Red Dawn, Texas Chainsaw Massacare 3D and all other films where BOM has provided incorrect figures. Can you not see that? We all are trying to reach a peaceful solution and I humbly thank you for that. That's why I ask that please forget past transgressions and let's work towards making Wikipedia better. KahnJohn27 (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Wow, the irony! "always exaggerating matters" Doczilla _{@SUPERHEROLOGIST} 07:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Look, you may does some good faith editing, but it is not with the consensus that we should use boxoffice.com yet. You may think your not trying to bully anyone, but you are disruptive editor, whatever you realized or not and you bash us for reverting your edits on film articles. Good faith edits are not always right and no one can take someone's word for it. Sometimes someone can unintentionally cause an edit war, like you did with some of film articles and can put stress on other editors. BattleshipMan (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't wanna blame anyone but in actual it was MarnetteD and yourself who had reverted the edits at Incredible Burt Wonderstone and The Call respectively. Even though I agree that at that time consensus was not in my favor but it was already known that a clear decision still won't have been possible because it couldn't be ascertained why was this n/a problem there on BOM and the user knew also that admin intervention was to be requested. Also please note that User:MarnetteD has been accused of having combative behavior on ymy talk page. Technically I think it's more of her fault and if you think that I had participated in an edit warring then the blame for triggering it in first place should go on Marnette and you too while the discussion was going on. I hope you do not mistreat this an insult. Because this is what had really happened. Apart from that edit war means indiscriminately reverting each other's edits. However since we have reverted edits of each other 3 or 4 times I am not in favor of calling it an edit war. Also I'll like you to note about 2 of the 4 users who have said that my behavior is combative and implosive actually themselves behaved in such manner. Although user Tenebrae has ony gotten into once MarnetteD on the other hand has a much more serios combative behavior and from what I've seen on her talk page she has resorted to such behavior with multiple users and something must be done about this. I know and confirm that your's and Betty Logan behavior has been civil. That's why I request you to please ask MarnetteD to stop behaving in such a disrputive way with editors who oppose her view. I will be highly obliged. Thank you. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated issue; should be in its own discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
While it neither has any interest or relevance for me to comment on any of the above, I do have a concern about the general attitude of User:MarnetteD, which I want to add here in support of KahnJohn27. My brief experience (perhaps all too brief?) with her was not too pleasant. But it need not have been that way. You can see at the end of the section of the talk page HERE I'm taking the time to try to explain something as genuinely and as clearly as possible, which subsequently gets offhandedly dismissed as a "Wall of text" (by the way a few paragraphs does not a "wall of text" make, check HERE for a REAL wall of text and see how User Acroterion has shown considerable patience and fairness beyond what I would consider the "call of duty"). Having never heard the expression "wall-of-text" before the discussion with MarnetteD, I was deeply offended, as it completely missed the points I was trying to make. The discussion ended by another user actually providing some constructive input in the form of references, which is what MarnetteD should have done from the beginning. I think user MarnetteD is impatient, inconsiderate and ill-mannered and needs some diplomacy skills. Up until now I was considering my run-in with her a personal matter that I had to deal with myself, in my own way, under the restrictive umbrella of Wikipedia, but now I see she treats others the same way. I see also she removes comments on her talk page that happen to disagree with her point of view (check the revision history of her discussions)! Its no longer a personal matter, its a civil matter, which should be of interest to Wikipedia as a whole. I was reluctant to bring this to the attention of Wikipedia admin before because I just wanted to take it on the chin and chalk it up to experience, and frankly I didn't think the "abuse" was serious enough to report. I may have been wrong, now that I see its happening elsewhere. Its not just about me any more, its about other users as well. I added a comment to her talk page as part of KahnJohn27's discussion there, and she now has removed the whole discussion! See how she compared me to an "insect" in her edit summary (see the revision history)! Ha ha! What stupendous arrogance! I was providing an opportunity for "talking" on her "talk" page, and she then resorts to personal attack! It seems she's incapable of taking any constructive criticism, let alone actually responding to it in a civilized and humane manner! As a senior editor she has a responsibility (like all editors) to be more gracious with newer editors such as myself and KahnJohn27, and not be so dismissive, since it is well accepted that newer editors can add just as much value (sometimes more, with a fresh perspective) as established editors do. Newer editors should be encouraged, not dismissed. I've only started editing in the last few months (despite having an account for 3 years), learning about policy as I go along, but not unsympathetic to those also are still learning. I would have left Wikipedia after her dismissive attitude, had it not been for the timely and more encouraging intervention of other editors. -- Jodon | Talk 15:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I have to add my voice to those with concerns about KahnJohn27's disruptive behavior, which includes passive-aggressive bullying and threats. He already made a baseless claim against me at this noticeboard, which an admin quickly closed, and now he's threatening BattleshipMan at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com ("I'm sorry to say that if you continue to display this behavior I'll have no choice else to but to report it ANI.") KahnJohn27 completely doesn't seem to understand that beating a dead horse, bludgeoning other editors with huge, rambling walls of text with poor grammar and spelling, and digging in his heels so tightly that he keeps dragging other editors to several different pages now is disruptive behavior. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Tenebrae. Beating a dead horse and bludgeoning editors with a huge amount of text and forum shopping counts as disruptive editing. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:02, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I must concur with Tenebrae's assessment of this problematic editor. To get a full understanding of what several of us have had to put up with you will need to read through this thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Which box office number site that should be use for references. Here are a few items that need to be pointed out

1. KahnJohn 27 first post includes this statement "I'm not gonna just sit and let two inexperienced users decide which source is reliable on the basis of some worthless reason like publication in trade sources. You don't know what a reliable source actually means." You will note the combative tone, the insult to the two editors that had already posted there and the attitude about our policy regarding WP:RSs.
2. K implies with this statement "I'm not here to discuss who is honest or not" that everyone who has posted there is being dishonest. K again implies that all who disagree with K are inexperienced and that the reason that K has used that insult is "Why does teacher sometimes insult his student. Not to actually insult him but to clearly show them their mistakes." That never worked for any students that I have been around and it certainly won't work for long time and experienced Wikipedia editors.

Please read the rest of the thread to see other examples. K was then recommended to get input from the RS noticeboard and began this thread Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Box Office Mojo and Boxoffice.com. Again you will need to read through the various posts there but it should be noted that after K was not getting the responses K wanted K went on a spree [69] of posting [70] on the individual [71] talk pages of editors who had disagreed with K. Some of us got fed up with the continued insults and removed the threads from our talk pages which we have every right to do.

In my very first post I had suggested that K not turn this situation into a WP:BATTLEGROUND. That was ignored and K's behavior since then has hit most of the items in that section of WP:ISNOT as well as several others on that policy page. MarnetteD | Talk 00:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

What do you suggest we should do at this point? BattleshipMan (talk) 04:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

More unrelated
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
An apology from MarnetteD for her dismissive attitude to me, at least, would go a long way. I don't think I'm asking too much. -- Jodon | Talk 10:17, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

About BattleshipMan I stand by what I said. Not only he is continuously harassing me and he himself is beating a dead horse. If he continues this harrasment then there is no choice at all left for me. Continuously blaming someone is direct bullying. Especially WP:RS noticeboard which is no place for commenting about someone's If my remarks seems to be passive bullying then I suggest all uses MarnetteD to look at her behavior first. I have read her talk page and her seems to be the most disruptive. This user is constantly bullying other editors. Apart from that I agree my behavior is rash but I don't think it is combative or either disrespectful. I am now carefully selecting my words. Apart from that the point of a debate or consensus is to take all points. After passing that inexperienced insult I haven't passed any personal or bullying remark. I would like to know BattleshipMan and Betty Logan to know that the reason I insulted them was because I really thought they were new users. I sincerely apologise for that remark. A bullying or combative user never uses words like "please", "I apologise sincerely", "I accept my mistake", "I request you to". Also as I have already said that you are always misrepresenting my statements. I ask how does "I'm only trying to do the right thing" idms enforcing opinion. Yes I am trying to do the right thing by putting forward points with concrete proof. According to rules of consensus there is nothing wrong in disproving other's statement when you have proof for it. And last but not least I sincerely ask what does poor grammar have to do anything in determining someone's behavior or that their edits are in good faith or disruptive? KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Also what users are calling as rants or wall-text or spree they are merely just proof of my innocence. There is nothing wrong with proving yourself innocent no matter how long or cubersome the proof is. Removing somebody's comments as rants is however actual combative behavior. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Actually, KahnJohn, these editors are not beating a dead horse, but rather, trying to help you understand how policy works, and to show you that consensus is running against you. They've devoted an extraordinary amount of time and effort to doing so, long past what many editors would do in these circumstances, and yet you continue to push the issue beyond the point where there's any possibility of the resolution you demand.

I stumbled into this discussion and the one below as an outsider, and from that perspective, have real concerns about KahnJohn's ability to understand what constitutes a reliable source, and what doesn't. From my perspective, and for what that's worth, what we have here is one inexperienced editor who lacks much understanding of the basics of Wikipedia policy and so, when challenged, takes on a battleground stance on an issue. His arguments in the discussion cited by MarnetteD remind me of WP:SOUP argument; he's decided his source is right and he's going to go hunting for what he perceives as errors on the part of the established source, most easily explained, and attempts to use them to discredit the source as a whole in favor of the one he prefers. Meanwhile, he remains blind to the problems with the source he favors when they are pointed out to him. Worst, he goes through periods where he will calm down and discussion reasonably, then suddenly his rhetoric becomes aggressive and threatening (a threat couched in polite language is still a threat), which is what got us here. This user requires some decisive administrative action, perhaps a short cooling-off block and/or topic ban, and at the very least, a mentor. Otherwise, his future looks bleak, and will be littered with a succession of discussions such as this. --Drmargi (talk) 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I've already intervened on both KahnJohn's talk page and the RS noticeboard. We will not be taking administrative action at this time. Also, note that 'cool-off' blocks are not sanctioned by policy.

I'll discuss the rest of KahnJohn's comments on their talk page when I'm home from work. m.o.p 17:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Johncheverly

Johncheverly (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (prior ANI thread: here)

Johncheverly was indef blocked in September for, among other things, disruptive editing and incivility (see prior ANI for diffs). In January, he was unblocked by Yunshui (talk · contribs) and evidently was mentored by Go Phightins! (talk · contribs) and/or TheOriginalSoni (talk · contribs). I am coming here from a recent encounter with Johncheverly at WP:EAR, where he called for involvement in a dispute where there was "considerable discussion". There appears to be neither a dispute nor considerable discussion at Talk:Common Core State Standards Initiative (rather, one editor proposed expanding the criticism section, and two other editors agreed with the proposed wording). Johncheverly's only involvement there was to post a list of sources (mostly unreliable) calling for greater changes, spam the article with templates, and about 16 hours later simultaneously open EAR and DRN threads. I warned Johncheverly about the templates (with respect to that and two other recent cases of template misuse), which set off a discussion at my user talk that is frankly quite incivil.

Having looked at Johncheverly's other edits over the last month or so, I've noticed that little has changed since his last block and mentorship, except perhaps (until now) the incivility. We're still seeing some very poor editing choices including page blanking and incorrect/misleading edit summaries (diffs: [72], [73], [74], [75]) or both, as well as uncovering more instances of template abuse (diffs: [76], [77]), and other issues (such as this talk page comment that may run afoul of BLP, misuse of AIV).

I admit, I have not been extensively involved with this editor at this point, but I am greatly concerned with the tenor of his most recent comment at my user talk page, which significantly resembles the sorts of incivility and denigration of other editors' contributions that resulted in his original indef block. It really looks like mentorship has not worked for this editor. What can we do to resolve this? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Hi, John went through an adoption program (mine, though most is adapted from Worm's) and he was OK when it came to "theory" stuff, but when it was time to put it into practice, he rarely did too well. Same was true on his culminating test. He expressed an interest to work with templates, which is when TheOriginalSoni jumped in since my knowledge of templates is extraordinarily limited (that's about all I can do) and I haven't seen him do any work on what Soni posted to try to help him. I tried to warn him about tag-bombing articles, obviously to no avail. I think John is acting in good faith, but at this point it seems we have a major case of WP:IDHT and even some possible WP:COMPETENCE issues in some areas. Go Phightins! 14:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oh, dear... First he was blocked after I filed an ANI report over a threatening email and his harassment of IllaZilla, which is water under the bridge. Now, I think he is acting in good faith, but I agree with Go Phightins that we have a serious issue regarding his refusal to get the point and some competence issues. What should we do about this? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
• At this point, I think it is only fair that I be allowed to advocate for myself. This Noticeboard is all the result of Mendaliv . Specicifically, he got his nose out of joint after I tagged the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative article. Prior to tagging, I reviewed the talk page and found there were several users that felt the "Criticism" section of the main article was not reflecting all the criticisms of the federal education program due to be implemented next year. My main concern with the article is that it does not give equal time to Christian critics of the program. Five states have voted NOT to implement the program and seven more are having grave concerns and are in the middle of legislative debates as to whether they want to give the federal government that much control over their state education programs. Christians are particularly concerned about the effect that it will have on parochial, private Christian, and home schools.

Look at these very recent news releases on "The Core":

http://www.fox19.com/story/21967690/anderson-tea-party-hosts-info-session-on-common-core-standards

http://www.independentmail.com/news/2013/apr/12/letters-concerns-about-state-education-standards/

http://tbo.com/pasco-county/group-opposes-new-common-core-standards-b82476226z1

http://www.cabinet.com/bedfordjournal/bedfordletters/1000159-308/parents-should-know-new-academic-standards.html

I posted other critical news articles on the CCSI talk page the other day.

I don't why Mendaliv nose is so out of joint and he is coming down so hard. Is it because he she has a vested interest???johncheverly 20:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't know if there is such a thing as a mutual restraining order on Wikipedia, but maybe that would be in order, because apparently Mendaliv does not like my style and I don't particularly care for his abrasive manner.johncheverly 21:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Do watch out for the boomerang. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:04, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

• I apologize and am disengaging.johncheverly 00:16, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

So at this point, Johncheverly has apologized for his incivility, and that is a good sign, but there remains the problem of his editing issues that even my learned colleague Go Phightins!'s skilled mentorship has not resolved. As we say, competence is required. All I can say is to look at the diffs, comparing those from this and the last thread. It's not good. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:04, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• All right, so John has apologized. It seems to me, that at least in the civility department, he should be issued one final warning and let off blockless. The other issue would be his editing pattern. I tried to help him with this in adoption, and it may have had to do with me not having as much time as I normally do to dedicate, a communication breakdown, or something else, but at the end of the day, I did not, apparently, do a very good job teaching,so I will take the blame for that. That said, it is still an issue. Perhaps another adopter would be able to work on. I tried, but failed. . Go Phightins! 11:10, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I would not say that, GOPhigtens. You were a very good mentor. Why do we live in a sin/blame society? It didn't work before Immanuel was offered up by God as the Anointed Savior and it doesn't work now. This particular issue is with Wikipedia itself. And we have discussed this: It does not have a universally accepted, systemic editor training program in place. Instead of picking each other apart, competency tests should be developed by the Wikimedia Foundation and, after those tests are administered, both the individual and the Foundation can determine where the individual's strengths are and assign him accordingly. For instance, one person may be skilled at layout and design, another at fact checking, and so forth. Don't keep cursing the darkness, light a candle, for Jesus Christ's sake. johncheverly 12:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • John, I am not disparaging (or at least not trying to) you in any way. I am saying that it is my job as an adopter to get you to a point where you can apply policies and have a good idea how to edit without getting into too many conflicts. You are not at that point yet, so that is a failure on my part. I couldn't agree more that we would be a better place if everyone was fully competent with everything we have, but that seems rather unrealistic. This issue is bigger than you; it is a project wide issue, and it is something that should be getting discussion in contexts other than ANI and user disputes. I don't know what the answer is, but I certainly do hope we find a good one. Go Phightins! 16:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• • If I were "assigned" an area based on a WMF employee and was told to only work in that area, I wouldn't be here. Most people wouldn't be here. We are here because it brings joy, not because our proficiency has been deemed adequate using an arbitrary written exam. We depend on ourselves creating and maintaining a collegiate environment, which means give and take from everyone. That you and I are allowed to participate is solely due to the consent of the greater community here, which the WMF (the actual owner of Wikipedia) has given the authority to decide. Your utopian vision of Wikipedia would empty the place so fast, there would be no one left to blow out the candle. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Legal question

Resolved

I've got concerns about the question posed by an IP address (216.125.251.254 (talk · contribs) and also 209.174.186.165 (talk · contribs)) on a couple of the reference desks.[78][79] He's trying to figure out a way to figure out what e-mail addresses someone has besides the one he knows about. He claims it's legal and that he can get that info by paying, he just wants to get it for free. I don't think this is a proper ref desk question, because we don't do legal advice there, and I'm not at all sure that his claims are true. I'd like to hear from someone who's a bit more knowledgeable about this topic - and also about whether entertaining that question could get Wikipedia in trouble in some way. Thank you! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify with respect to where he's asking for legal advice? From what I'm able to discern, he's asking if anyone knows if and where he might find a free reverse-email look-up site, as opposed to a for-pay reverse-email look up site. As an aside, I don't think the former exists; the operators of those databases generally want to be paid for their services. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, to clarify, it is ME asking whether this is legal or not, and hence whether we should entertain such a question on the ref desk. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

No problem. As far as I know, these types of services are legal. Basically, the databases are built and acquired through legal means, then access to the information is sold, typically on a per-instance basis (maybe $5 to $10 USD). I would tell him we don't know of any "free" services and maybe he should try Google searching, but without a business model on which to base such a service, it's hard to imagine reasons why such a free service would exist. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

If I understand correctly what you're saying, such a service would compile a list of publicly known e-mail addresses and build a mix-and-match database. So there's no guarantee, whether pay or free, that such a list would be complete. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Right, their databases are guaranteed to be incomplete. How could they possibly know every email address that exists, etc.? Generally, the way such services work, the client queries to see if there is an email address on file for a given person before purchasing. If an address is on file, the service indicates it's available and how much it will cost to get the answer. Of course, the client may pay for it only to discover it's an old and non-responsive email address, and the person they are trying to reach does not write them back because they are no longer using it. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's generally how those services work, yes. I've always been fairly wary of this type of service anyway, because although the access to the data may be legal, what they then choose to do with that information is beyond our, or any service's, control. What would be our standing on this as Wikipedia, as there are very few particularly legal or moral reasons I can think of a user to want access to such information in this manner. It skirts the line of the target's privacy, and would we want to get involved with aiding this? drewmunn talk 21:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much weight to put on the privacy issue as long as the information was acquired legally by the service holding the database. While we would find it abhorrent if someone used such a service to find a target's email address and commenced harassing them, there are legitimate reasons why people might want to use this service, not much different from when people used to call 411 and try to look up people's phone numbers because they wanted to call them. I suppose you could say "if they want someone's email address, then ask them for it." But perhaps they can't reach the person any other way, and haven't been able to turn up an address or phone number through other means. AzureCitizen (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

For crying out loud, what is this doing at ANI??? 'EEng (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Because I wasn't sure where to take it. In any case, I got some good answers here and posted a summary on the ref desks. So, barring any unexpected new developments, this case is closed. Thank you for your help, support, and spare question marks. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Aichik

Myself, and several other users, have been having issues with Aichik (talk · contribs) since (around) February. I'm not completely involved in this, but I have overseen many of the instances and I was asked by Jivesh boodhun (talk · contribs) to help in filing a case (as he is not familiar), so he would be the one to explain in detail. To reference, a summary of events written by Jivesh last month can be viewed here and here. The latest problem took place on Madonna (entertainer). Aichik has an extreme issue with incivility and personal attacks. It has come to the point where it has become too much; except, for me, that was months and months ago, at him calling Jivesh a misogynist. Another discussion to see would be this GAR page, which he actually removed some of my words such as "Oh my god", "goddamn" and "hell" as personal attacks. I will be notifying all users involved in disputes with Aichik to comment here, as I can not speak for them myself.  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 03:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Status. It seems that Aichik always narrowly escapes after directing personal attacks. Committing a mistake is not the problem but repeating the same mistake is. I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him? How about warning the one who "poisons the atmosphere and disinclines collegiality" and stop "let(ting) the petty insults pass by without acknowledging them?" After all, we are all human beings. How far are we expected to be noble? And he is not among those who can change (in my opinion). How can you not see your own mistakes and instead ask (not once but twice already for me to be blocked? [80] [81] Jivesh1205 (Talk) 03:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment from somewhat involved Binksternet. Note that Aichik has recently been warned by Kww as the result of a February 24 discussion at AN: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive245#Personal attacks from Aichik (talk · contribs). There, The Bushranger said that if there was another instance of something as bad as the "misogynist" attack, then Aichik would be blocked very quickly. I am not seeing a more recent attack which is as bad as that, but I am seeing some attacks that are less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude. A sampling: "Wow, IndianBio continuing in his arrogant tone without actually helping matters"[82]. "You're acting like a cantankerous husband"[83]. Aichik said my reverting of news about a non-notable boyfriend of Madonna's was "a clear example of ageism"[84], which I assumed was a personal attack, though I did not bother to respond in kind. IndianBio threw that ageist comment back at Aichik several times, which I thought was a response based on emotions and frustration.
  I have looked at Aichik's recent work on Wikipedia and I think the editor is abrasive in personal style but correct in targeting the poor writing style in pop music articles that we have been promoting to GA. (For instance, the GA version of Beyoncé bio includes this grammar failure: "Knowles is one of the regarded sexually appealing artists in the industry.") Thus, I would caution Aichik to work more smoothly with other editors, to refrain from browbeating them or talking down to them. I would encourage Aichik to continue the cleanup of pop music articles, but to please treat other editors with respect. Binksternet (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Wow, I actually completely forgot about the other AN. Thanks for pointing that out. It appears I don't have a very good memory...  — Statυs (talk, contribs) 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
    • Only saying something as bad as "misogynist" should not be the big issue. I would also like to pint out that Aichik frequently write words "less severe, more like insulting, belittling attitude" and the frequency should also count. It is not necessary to drink poison at once; you can also consume it little by little but the outcome remains the same - death. That's the best way I can explain my views. Aichik may not use words as bad or worse than "misogynist" but he continuously misbehaves. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm kinda baffled as to what exactly is Aichik's problem that he/she cannot check these back-handed comments about every edit the person makes? As Binksternet pointed out, the editor is good in pointing out the problems occurring in the music related articles, but adds an extra unnecessary personal attack along with it. And seriously this needs to stop because it undermines the discussion to take place, aggravating other editors (including me, Jivesh etc) and leads to a mess. If you cannot edit in good faith and keeping a neutral tone, then no-one would be interested right? I hope he/she sees the err of their ways, else I believe administrative action should be taken. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 05:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• My finger constantly hovers over the block button when I review Aichik's edits, but he never quite crosses the threshold in my eyes. I will have no objection to any other admin blocking him.—Kww(talk) 06:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• There's one more belittling word Aichik used on Jennie--x's talk page: "darling", employed not lovingly but condescendingly. Binksternet (talk) 06:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• From the accused. First off, Binsternet, that word to Jennie is taken out of context. Jennie and I have been posting notes to each other back and forth for some time on various topics around the Beyoncé's article, and she attempted to end the conversation (though not with even close to the tone that Status, Jivesh and IndianBio employ when they try) by deleting my referenced edit, calling it based on a "minority point of view". So I wrote back without touching her edit, "That can be used to take out most of Wikipedia's content, darling. Don't use it as a hammer to drive your own preferences" out of frustration.

Now, for everything else, I've been warned on every one of these instances mentioned above, some several times in ways other editors could venture to call overkill. For Status, Jivesh, and IndianBio to not admit to their own indiscretions, their own building up of the poison, is completely intellectually dishonest but somewhat expected, given the way I've been treated by all three. (Oh, wait, Kwww included here too for not employing his criticality to anyone else involved and showing up randomly threatening to block me, "My finger constantly hovers over the block button" being his go-to expression.) It is a complete lie on Jivesh's part to write has been ignoring me, his commenting "I avoided replying to him for a certain period of time but till how long can we ignore him?" is completely laughable. See this this this and this. He's made it a habit to stalk and goad editors who don't agree with him since I got him warned by [Kwww here], or since perhaps I first touched his fault-ridden Beyoncé contributions.

• I'm not so convinced that "darling" was delivered in any but a condescending tone, intended to insult the target, to diminish her contribution. Binksternet (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Did you even bother to read what I just wrote, Binksternet? Not one word is in there about it being NOT condescending. That's not the point. Like you generously did with above with IndianBio's weird, over-the-top retaliation against my "personal insult" "directed at" you, I put what you take out back into its context. It's really digging, Binsternet since here it's from a thread that you didn't participate one iota in: Beyoncé not Madonna. Jivesh himself would [cut you down for mixing the two].--Aichik (talk) 12:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment, completely uninvolved I do not find a diff posted here that would should Aichik breaking WP:NPA. A bit heated language at times, definitely, though that seems to go for those who disagree with him as well. If there are diffs with clear violations, please post them. Otherwise I would agree with Kww that Aichik (and others) would do well to think about WP:CIVIL, but I see nothing that would warrant a block.Jeppiz (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• How would you define a personal attack? [85] [86] [87] [88] [89]

And I don't appreciate him asking for me to be blocked. [90] [91]

And according to him, I I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board. I NEVER asked for recognition for my work but what the hell is this? My work is now being questioned in such an unpleasant way? Telling other users that I have lowered Wikipedia's quality across the board? There is a limit to all nonsense. Such remarks hurt a lot. According to him, there are far too many Beyonce articles on Wikipedia and he does not like it because Jennifer Lopez and Diana Ross don't have? Pathetic!!! He even masked the information he removes through his edit summaries. Jivesh1205 (Talk) 04:05, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh, I've had a quick look at the diffs. Quite frankly, you seem to be at least as guilty of breaking WP:CIVIL. I would recommend both Aichik and you to seriously consider Wikipedia's guidelines.Jeppiz (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Jivesh calm down as Jeppiz says. Coming to Aichik, reviewing each and every of your edits and summaries and even each and every one of your comments in this as well as the previous ANI, I'm sorry to say, you have no understanding of civility policy and you are borderline making personal attacks to any user you interact with. As Kww said, you kinda are smart to remain within a tolerance level, but well again the question begets, how much is tolerable? I'm not saying he/she should be blocked or anything but this is a serious case of misbehavior that needs to be checked. Respect others and you would get equal respect Aichik. Learn to apologize for your behavior. —Indian:BIO · ^{[ ChitChat ]} 16:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Tenebrae

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

---

The user with above username Tenebrae (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly induldged in combatic behavior and has repeatedly passed personal remarks and insults. This user has repeatedly accused of me having combative and implotic behavior while he himself has induldged in combatic behavior with many users which can be seen from his talk page in order to enforce his personal opinions and also bullied them. He has behaved with me in the same manner. He has personally attacked me many times. It can be seen on [this section] of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film where he has said in one of comments that, "So if you're in high school now and you've been on Wikipedia for five years, I'm not sure exactly how seriously to take edits made at, what, age 11 or 12?". I'd like to ask what does the age of any person has to do with editing Wikpedia. Also what is his business in knowing what age I was or if I'm in a high school. He has also insulted me in [this section] of my talk page where he has said that " That barnstar you kept going on about was on March 19. It's got nothing to do with now. You talking barnstars? I've at least a dozen. What's your point? You constant haranguing of me is the definition of combative, "But I've had enough of being ranted at by a high school kid. Please stop leaving messages on my talk page." Even if I had been ranting this statement is a direct personal attack and he has absolutely no right to personally attack others. Also the comments which he had dismissed as rant were actually an attempt to prove my innocence and assure him that my behavior is not combative. He has also passed personal remarks in the [revision history] of his talk page. It is clearly visible that it is behavior which seems combative. Also he is grossly misrepresenting my statements. When I said that I suggest him to drop his accusations it was clearly meant as an advice. I had already said and accepted that while my behavior is rash it is not combative. In none of the discusions earlier anyone had said that my behavior is disruptive. That is because it is cooperative. Even after this I am being blamed of having disruptive behavior just because I have demanded proof for the statements said by users at [this section] of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film and this [this section] of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I ask what is wrong in demanding a proof? This user has made false accusations, has deliberately misrepresented my statements and has passed personal remarks and has personally attackec me. User:BattleshipMan has said that "it is my fault that this dispute happened" but he should know it is a Tenbrae's own responsibilty to keep my behavior in check. But at the same time Bluerules has also agreed that Tenbrae is passing unnecessary personal remarks. This kind of behavior is completely unnaceptable. I request the administrators to do something about this editor so that he never repeats such kind of behavior again in future. Thank you very much. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:23, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Tenebrae's comments, while not horrible, are fairly bitey, and you're right in saying that age isn't a factor here; if one can edit competently and learn how to contribute to Wikipedia, it doesn't matter if they're 10 or 100.

However, to be blunt - you're actively engaging the other editor, KahnJohn. Tenebrae did ask you to stay off their talk page, which is a fair request. There was no point in you coming back and saying things like "there are a hundred other editors like me".

Ultimately, I don't think this is that big of a deal. I'm sure Tenebrae can be persuaded to keep non-constructive statements about age tucked away. Meanwhile, you may benefit from not butting heads with other users; if you feel you are getting the short end of the stick, let an administrator know or find a way to resolve the dispute without antagonizing the editor even further. m.o.p 08:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I recommend the usual medicine. --Dweller (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The reason for commenting on Tenebrae was of trying to help him so that he didn't do this behavior with others too. Many users might have same behavior like that of mine. I didn't want him getting into trouble for that reason. I should have stayed away from his talk page but I thought it will be better to make him realise his mistake so he does not repeat it accidentally with someone else. I'll like to apologise if I ever had unintentionally insulted him and I'll like him to know that I respect him. Thank you very much for your help admins. KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

All I can say is: Look at the 545-word block of text at the start of this section, combined with his returning to my talk page when asked not to, and decide for oneself if that is not defensive, combative rhetoric. I also ask editors to go to KahnJohn27's talk page and look at the first words, which he himself chose to say and to put in that prominent position. I would disagree age and maturity don't matter on Wikipedia — any more that it wouldn't matter with any encyclopedia. I also find his starting an ANI to help me keep from "getting into trouble" to be remarkably passive-aggressive.

Several other editors have found him combative and disruptive at the WP:FILM talk page. That's not simply my position in a vacuum. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

KahnJohn: Tenebrae is a veteran editor who has been around for years. Your goodwill in attempting to help is appreciated, but I don't think you need to concern yourself about it. On Wikipedia, if someone has asked you to abstain from talking to them, it's best to find a third party who can liaise between you, just to avoid pressing anyone's buttons.

However, given that you both seem fairly calm and civil about this now, I don't think this is a matter for ANI anymore. I'll be archiving this topic. If either of you would like my assistance in mediating at WT:FILM then feel free to give me a shout on my talk page and I'll stop by. m.o.p 17:39, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

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

185.15.59.204

This IP, registered to the WMF, apparently got blocked (autoblocked maybe?), and WP:UTRS received 8 unblock requests from apparently completely different people all from this IP. Some of the users' accounts themselves were blocked, but happened to share the same IP (at least according to UTRS). It appears to no longer be blocked, but still I'm really confused right now. Does anyone know more about the nature of such an IP address? Or is this because Toolserver is acting up? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• I don't see any previous block for this, or a range around it (although I'm not sure the best way to check ranges). Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Certainly the basic range (185.15.59.192/27) isn't rangeblocked. I can only assume that this is/was an autoblock that has now expired. Black Kite (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• But that still doesn't explain the fact that several accounts were directly blocked, and they all happened to come from this IP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I noticed this a few days back - a lot of them were using private VPNs or the like and they, too, were autoblocked. No idea what's special about this IP, though. m.o.p 20:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Of Nangparbat, would somebody please block this guy. Darkness Shines (talk) 10:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

•  Done along with an IP that clinched it. Tread carefully on reverts DS, even with banned users. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 11:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Evan2003

Evan2003 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) The user, a self-described child, has changed without explanation a lot of dates in articles on politicians. A quick spot check indicates there may be some constructive contributions as well, but I have to be offline now so I don't have time to comb through them meticulously but am hesitant to mass-revert. Could someone please help with that and, if there is indeed a problem, issue a preventive block? Rivertorch (talk) 14:55, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Since the user is about 10 years according to his own information, I blanketed his userpage which had much private information. I think a deletion or oversighting of the page should be considered. Regards, Iselilja (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Support ban - I've reviewed his edits and compared the dates changed with sources from Google, and it's safe to say that he is changing correct dates to incorrect one. I guess I overestimated his ability to edit maturely... YuMaNuMa ^Contrib 15:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Let's not just slap a block template on him and call it a day. He is 10. I'm not sure his "maturity" should be questioned here. Preventative block to stop him from adding incorrect dates, fine, but someone needs to engage with him. Could be a teachable moment. Ditch ∝ 15:47, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Bung him on some mentoring program and let them deal with it.--Launchballer 16:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Just checking back in for a moment . . . thanks to all who reviewed the contributions. In looking them over more carefully now, I can see a couple that may have been in good faith but were unacceptable, and the rest were vandalism of the insidious sort that we can't afford to excuse. Between that and the user's inclination to add personal info to his userpage, I think an indefinite block is warranted. If that happens, the blocking admin might leave some friendly wording that won't scare the kid off forever but leaves the door open for a "teachable moment", per Ditch, later on. Scaring him off until he's ready to contribute constructively is probably in everyone's best interests. The alternative to a block is very close monitoring, and I, for one, am not about to volunteer. Rivertorch (talk) 18:18, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

please block User:Петр Утёс and his probable sock puppet User:DoubleVigie

This user proposed an edit on Talk:Pope Benedict XVI that was rather "out there" as most editors agreed. It seemed to fall into WP:HOAX and / or WP:ORIGINALSYN I happened to be the last commentor and the strongest against his proposal before User:Aunva6 closed the discussion citing issues with WP:BLP. User:Петр Утёс then copied the discussion onto User talk:MPSchneiderLC and added more commentary (I believe the closed discussion was copied correctly but the rest was added). I responded on his talk page and my own. User:DoubleVigie then responded on my talk page accusing of something that is not true (how did he know unless he is a sock puppet or user:Петр Утёс told him and thus violated WP:CAMPAIGNING?). I warned User:DoubleVigie and then deleted the whole commentary. User:Петр Утёс copied it back and made the exact same accusation as User:DoubleVigie. I will copy {{subst:ANI-notice}} on both users' talk page to inform them, is that all I need to do? Thank you. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

He also copied this discussion to User talk:Петр Утёс under the title Retaliation. I don't know if that changes anything. >> M.P.Schneider,LC (parlemus • feci) 16:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

• Comment Without a doubt the same user as NummerSechs as well. Quite obviously WP:NOTHERE and edit warring with other users at their talk pages is weird.Jeppiz (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
• Comment I have just re-removed a copy of the discussions that had been put into Talk:Resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, JacofOz had previously removed it. An I may have messed here too as I noticed they copied the whole business to M.P.Schneider talk page and removed it there too as it deleted a comment that M.P.Schneider had made to their own page. Dmcq (talk) 10:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Editor(s) using accounts solely to adverstise

Section Cross was just indeffed by Daniel Case for his username only. But the editor is obviously using the account solely to advertise some alleged political party similarly named Cross Section. I'm not sure if Daniel even looked at the edits to see if the account can be indeffed totally just for the editing, but check out the post the editor made at the help desk, and the article they created. That'll make it clear what's going on. And now there's a new account that's surely the same editor... a couple minutes after the block, MitchAnth popped up as a new editor and is making the same edits. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Daniel is very accomplished in this area, 76*, I wouldn't be too concerned WRT to the spam on the indeffed user. I'll check the other situation in the event Daniel's not around. Tiderolls 21:58, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I was going to write Daniel directly, but apparently IPs can't post on his talk page. Sorry, but I do get concerned when I see spramming like this and articles like this being created. And then more concerned when I see an apparent block-evader with a new account doing the same things. --76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:00, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

My intent was to assuage your concern, not condemn it in any way. Tiderolls 22:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

I understand. Sorry if I came across as less than appreciative. :) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

The username was sufficient to justify the indef block. Had it been reported at UAA, I might have used {{uw-spamublock}}, but it was at AIV instead so I wasn't thinking in a username frame of mind (and I was also using my iPad from a table at a meetup while conversing and eating, to add to the distraction). Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cmt: Per Wikipedia:Protection policy#User talk pages, Daniel Case should have "an unprotected user talk subpage linked conspicuously from their main talk page to allow good faith comments from non-autoconfirmed users." I would post this on his talk page, but.... ;) Rgrds. --69.95.62.119 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have thought about doing that, to be honest. Daniel Case (talk) 02:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi Daniel. My concern was not the spamming in and of itself, but the editor's clearly outrageous and disruptive behavior in how s/he executed the spamming... at the help desk, with the article they created, etc. So, to me, simply saying... hey, I'm only blocking you because of your username sends the message that the edits were acceptable (because nothing was said about it). There are many nice, cooperative spammers who simply don't understand the rules until someone teaches them, but this editor crossed the line not only by his editing, but by ignoring all admonitions.. One final thought... I think registered users, especially admins, should not treat IPs like second class citizens. I have to be honest, it hurt my feelings when I came to your page and realized I couldn't write to you. And I was really surprised... I was like... wow, I can't even post a message to him. That's why I came here. I'm sure you're a great admin, but I hope you'll consider opening up your talk page to everyone. Remember, it's not just IPs who occasionally cause trouble on people's talk pages. I've seen quite a bit of very hostile talk page posting from registered users. ;) 76.189.111.2 (talk) 04:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that username blocks and softerblocks are grossly overused. In my experience, in well over 90% of cases where a user is given a block message saying "your username is the only reason for the block", the user has been using Wikipedia for promotion. Telling such a user that there is no other reason for the block than their username is unhelpful for at least three reasons. (1) It is totally unfair to that user, as it encourages them to continue with the same kind of editing, which is likely to be a waste of their time and lead to another block. (2) It is unhelpful to Wikipedia, as it results in more spam, which could have been stopped. (3) It makes it difficult for administrators who assess unblock requests. I used to frequently assess unblock request from such users, and what do you say to someone who has explicitly been told that it is perfectly all right to carry on with the same kind of editing as before, provided they make a new account, when you decline a request to be allowed to do exactly that? Now, when I check for unblock requests, whenever I see "your username is the only reason for the block", I almost always move on to another request, leaving that one, because it is likely to be just too much hassle. Judging from how long such requests tend to stay in the queue, it seems likely that a lot of other admins do the same. Finally, it is not just matter of what message is given to the user. It is also a matter of blocking without disabling account creation, which means that a new account appears, and sometimes (though not always) it is not immediately obvious that it is the same spam-only user. As far as I am concerned, if I block a promotion-only account, I make it clear to the user that promotion is part, if not all, of the reason for the block, and I disable account creation, so that they have to undertake not to spam if they want a new account. I reserve "your username is the only reason for the block" for the much rarer situations where the username really is the only reason for the block. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree. In such cases I almost always use a spam username block, {{Uw-spamublock}}, which makes it clear that the promotional activity is the big problem but also covers the username problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

User:Brocach

Does this comment by Brocach (talk · contribs) merit some sort of warning? The comment is a week old, but the fact that it has not been redacted in that time suggests that it was a little more than a heat-of-the-moment line.

The conversation preceding it was not very civil, but I think that Brocach crossed a line there.

(I have a long history of disagreements with Brocach, which is why I will take no action myself). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You do indeed have such a history, as does the person who made the comment to which I reacted - on my own talk page. Have you nothing better to do than to assess the politeness or otherwise of an editor responding on his own talk page to an unsolicited insult from a notoriously disruptive editor, with whom you also frequently have rows? Grow up. Brocach (talk) 01:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

As a completely neutral third party in this matter, I would say while not the shinning example of WP:CIVIL, he was antagonized by this edit first -- while not as strong an insult, still an insult nonetheless. I won't even get into his response to BrownHairedGirls comment. Mkdw^talk 05:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

IP User 209.89.13.124 adding category Boy bands indiscriminately

is methodically adding the category Boy bands to articles about musical groups that consist entirely of males. That seems to be this user's only criteria. Almost none of the bands in question fit the definition of a boy band. Many predate the boy band concept and/or were way to old to have been considered a boy band (e.g., the Mills Brothers. Almost all the user's edits are to add this category. The user has been warned on his talk page but is ignoring the warnings. --hulmem (talk) 04:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I would be careful in labelling his edits as vandalism opposed to good faith edits that are incorrect. Wikipedia has very strict guidelines as to what constitutes as vandalism, nor does it appear any solid attempt has been made to explain why the category may not apply to certain bands whose members are all male. "Please stop! Just because a band has all male members does not make them a Boy band!" at the end of vandalism templates are likely not to be noticed nor does it really explain your position. Mkdw^talk 05:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a non-templated comment on his talk page from 9 April which very clearly explains why what he is doing is wrong and which asks him to stop. The subsequent warning templates from other users may be more generic in wording but are nonetheless very conspicuous and unambiguous. The user has had sufficient warning that their edits are disruptive and sufficient opportunity to engage in discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• This just seems to be a content dispute in which the issue is quite debatable. For example, the Mills Brothers mentioned above started their career quite young, when their ages were 13 to 18. The Beatles are mentioned on the user's talk page as being not a boy band but we have a book entitled Boy Bands: From the Beatles and the Jackson Five to Backstreet Boys and 'N Sync. Warden (talk) 10:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  • If it's a debatable issue, then the user should be debating it with the users who disagree with him. But he has no talk space edits and seems to have continued his behaviour after at least two users tried to engage with him. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• A minor thing, but Hulmem, can you please remember that newer talkpage messages go at the bottom of the user's talkpage? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• While I agree that the user should ideally discuss, I cannot really see the problem. Wikipedia defines 'boy band' as an all-male group, often vocal but sometime playing instruments as well, that was formed when the members were teenagers or in their twenties. Under that definition, most of IP's edits would be correct. One can disagree with that definition, but I see no reason to call it vandalism.Jeppiz (talk) 11:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which, of course, comes from Boy band (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Which isn't a reliable source anyway, and contradicts itself continuously through the article as to what a boy band is. The lede suggests they are vocal groups, then it goes on to list acts such as A-Ha (definitely not, under any definition), The Bay City Rollers and the Raspberries (who appealed to teenage girls, but that was it), and a number that are distinctly borderline. Black Kite (talk) 12:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Its often easier to use cultural memes that define a subject, but provides no hard context for what designates it. Boy band is one such term, while the formation and popularity of the band should be during the teen and early 20s, it is not specific and portrayal in media is the only real gauge backed by a tacit community approval that is largely silent on such topics... Because the definition cannot even be brought down, I'd not call it vandalism either, but make the template be permissible with RS naming the group as a boy band. A band of boys and a boy band are completely different, and some of it could be lost in translation as well. The users intentions are probably good, given the circumstances and confusion around the base definition, it is best to reach out about it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• Here's an idea: have a discussion on the talkpage of the catgeory or in WP:MUSIC and determine what the formal paramaters are for what Wikipedia wants as the definition of the term "boy band" as it relates to categories. Once consensus is reached, you have something to point them to. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:41, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Chronic vandalism

Resolved

This IP is guilty of chronic vandalism Can an Admin take appropriate action please? Thanks, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 12:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Final warning added to their talkpage. For future reference, AIV is thataway... Yunshui 雲‍水 13:08, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Ha ha, indeed.

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

---

Check it. Very funny also, but-

Basket _Feudalist 13:36, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

• I've left them a welcome template, a link to TLDR and answered one of their questions. Not really an ANI issue. You also didn't notify them, although I would prefer someone just close instead. Often when there is a person that needs proper greeting, WP:Teahouse is a good place to refer them to. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Righto, thanks for that. I wasn't reallly reporting for anything malicious, it just seemed slightly odd, as contrary to the message, i haven't had any interaction yet. Will try and find him the pic code he want to make up for it. Basket _Feudalist 14:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

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

Personal attack and false accusation by 5.65.40.227

Could someone address the content of this edit summary, and perhaps the other warnings that fill User: 5.65.40.227's talk page? Thank you. Nightscream (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Revdel'd. Oddly enough, the IP hadn't gotten a level 4 warning, so out of my fondness for bureaucracy, I've given them one. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 13:48, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Bureaucracy or no, no one would have blinked an eye for instablocking for that kind of hatred and vitriol, but I will leave it to you. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 14:14, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Repeated racism and personal attacks.

Reading about the reactions to Margaret Thatcher's death, I happened to come upon some very disturbing comments by Quis separabit?, with whom I don't think I've ever interacted. In several edits, the user calls other "scum" [92], calls Afro-Caribbeans "criminal/thugs/gaolbirds" and adds some attacks on the Irish [93], [94]. In another comment, the user expresses his joy over the murder of human rights lawyer Rosemary Nelson[95]. The user obviously has many valuable edits, but repeated racism of this kind is disturbing and violates quite a number of policies.Jeppiz (talk) 16:31, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Future Perfect at Sunrise is BLOKING talk page

I wanted add my concerns regarding Rouge administrator Future Perfect at Sunrise to his record: Mr. Future Perfect at Sunrise is blocking freedom of speech/ accademic disccussion on Talk Page. See his BLOCK for Talk Page for Nicolaus Copernicus Article. This is just blocking users with inconvenient arguments for keeping his POV on top, It also was busting up the investigation against me (207.112.105.233) and others; although I did not edited the article but only added historical facts to the Talk Page. See the unnecessary investigation aganis every person in oposite (Polish party) @ [96] --207.112.105.233 (talk) 17:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)