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:MilesMoney Personal attacks, non-reliable sources and general non-constructive editing.

User:MilesMoney Has been repeatedly using Think Progress and The Daily Kos as reliable sources in a BLP article, and then resorting to personal attacks. On the talk page this has been discussed, but he does not seem to care.

A simple notification to him that The Daily Kos, Think Progress, and The Colbert Report are not reliable sources for BLP issues would be appreciated. Arzel (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

User has been notified. Arzel (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't the context of the use be important? For example, I don't think Think Progress should be uniformly excluded as a source for BLP. A current discussion on thinkprogess, is taking place here. Second, as far as being insulting, I would be concerned about WP:boomerang.Casprings (talk) 03:47, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new here but Arzel has been on my tail from day one. He's following me around, undoing my work, threatening me and trying to get me to stop editing. His edit comments are full of lies, half-truths and insults. I'm really sick of him. Please send him away. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 07:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Since you are new, perhaps you are unaware that your claims will be much more plausible with diffs demonstrating them. JanetteDoe (talk) 13:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The main focus of his attacks have been on Steve King, where he's repeatedly lied about lack of sources. If you look at the section he keeps cutting, it refs ThinkProgress, Washington Post, and DailyKos. It is part of a larger paragraph that refs the Humane Society and Agri-Pulse. One of the secondary sources brings up the coverage of this scandal on the Colbert Report, so we include a link to the primary source for reference. Everything is cited, balanced and accurate, so BLP is not involved.

Since you asked, I tried to grab some diffs, but I'm sure I missed some and included a few that aren't important.

Arzel edit-warring over Steve King:

"Not reliably sourced"

"Now it is just vandalism"

"These ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES."

Censoring scarlet letter quote that is easily sourced [1]

Censoring Boehner quote cited by Politico, using false argument

"Repeated inclusion of non-reliable sourcing" but there were already three reliable sources and I then added more

(there may be more edit-war diffs that I missed)

Bonus:

Censoring another article about Steve King by deleting it

Here's where he acts like he owns the article and stays just barely over the line while baiting:

Aggressively attacking Robofish

Insulting Casprings

Attacking Caspring's motives again

"what is your problem?"

"you need to stop editing WP now"

Accusations of activism

Unreasonably taking insult and telling me to stop editing

Bottom line: he doesn't want this accurate stuff in the article so he's trying to intimidate me into silence. Stop him. MilesMoney (talk) 16:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I looked over the diffs. I am not seeing censorship, hounding, or intimidation. They seem mostly to be Arzel trying to get the page and you to follow policy, with a little impatience and some slow motion edit warring. Some suggestions: Assume good faith WP:AGF, ie don't assume the worst about someone's motives. Neither you nor I nor anyone else can mind read and discussions where someone assumes that they could get acrimonious very quickly. The archives for this page are full of examples. Second suggestion: slow down and learn the rules around sourcing for WP:BLP. They can be tricky and not everyone is born knowing them. JanetteDoe (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Asking me to learn the rules is reasonable. Demanding that I stop editing -- as Arzel has -- is not. MilesMoney (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Agreed and agreed. What's your position on being asked to slow down on editing biographies of living persons until you are more familiar with reliable sourcing rules? WP:BLP is a special case of reliable sourcing and can trip up even a very experienced editor. JanetteDoe (talk) 22:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have interacted with Miles a bit on a BLP. He is new, and obviously has a lot to learn policy-wise. But it strikes me as deeply wrong to sanction a noob (read: potential friend of and contributor to our community) for relatively garden variety bickering over a good-faith content dispute. This is particularly true since the above diffs indicate that Arzel is guilty of not only WP:BITE by harshly criticizing a newcomer but also of WP:PA against Miles, by saying Miles is "incapable of editing WP properly".

Given OP's own (and in my view, more egregious) violations of policy, and the need to provide noobs emotional encouragement as well as policy mentoring, I think it'd send the wrong message to formally warn or sanction Miles. I would however like to see Miles reiterate her or his commitment to abiding by WP:BLP standards, including in regards to sourcing, in any future edits to King's page, and to those of others. Steeletrap (talk) 05:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think that many personal attacks renders a block really. What positives has the user given to this project? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Am I the only person who questions Arzel's fundamental assertion - which frankly is at the heart of this issue? His claim that Think Progress and The Daily Kos are not reliable sources. Where does this bizarre notion come from and why is it being accepted as fact? It seems to me that if you can arbitrarily decide that partisan sources are inherently non-reliable, then we really should scrub ALL partisan sources cited throughout this project - not just the ones that some equally partisan individual objects to. If Think Progress and The Daily Kos are non-reliable to some, then others could make the identical claim about Fox News, Breitbart and/or World Net Daily. So where does it end? Do we also scrub the NY Post and the Wall Street Journal, since they're also Murdoch-owned, rendering them non-reliable to some? How about the New York Times and the major networks, whom some claim are also non-reliable? I mean, at what point do editors use common sense and put their own personal politics aside and actually let READERS decide what sources are reliable?! How arrogant that some editors try to act as censors, and use flimsy interpretations of WP rules to enforce their own biases. In reading WP's actual policy on RS, especially WP:NEWSORG under: "Biased or opinionated sources", it pretty clearly states that my common sense response is the actual policy! So if this policy is followed, doesn't that reduce the entire case against User:MilesMoney to nothing? I have no dog in this fight, but as an unbiased observer, perhaps Arzel's beef is with WP policies that can't be conveniently twisted to help advance partisan politics. Not with MilesMoney. Most notably, how can you folks attack MilesMoney for using a source when at this moment there is a heated debate on the very question of reliability re: ThinkProgress. By the way, the votes for "Reliable" are winning. Basically for citing the same policy as I have here. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:B4AF:4E3E:A87A:B57E (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is the wrong venue for discussing Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 14:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually you're wrong. If someone is being accused of using "non-reliable sources", then first there needs to be a clear understanding of what, according to WP policy, a "reliable source" IS. If the sources meet the policy - then this is done. 2602:306:BD61:E0F0:A855:82AC:20B1:BF6 (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources are judged by the claim being asserted. At RS/N the "winning" side is that TP is citable for its opinions properly attributed as opinions, but not for assertion of "fact" in Wikipedia's voice. O suggest you read the discussion at RS/N. Collect (talk) 15:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and his method of attempting to defame (yet again)

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

---

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

---

this editor continues to bring up issues unrelated to the topic at hand, and will not stop. He constantly makes claims of WP:BADFAITH and personal attacks, when it is he who's been doing it. I've gave him a warning several times but this time, he's done it again. shown here: [2] and i stress this isn't the first time he's done it. luckily i have access to a computer just to share this 1 quote, but i can't find the rest of the others this editor does. I'm tired of it, and i'm tired of ANI ignoring the things he does.Lucia Black (talk) 04:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia Black, your longstanding grudge against this other editor is clear for all to see, and in my opinion, you would be well advised to ignore the other editor and focus on other things. Continued repetition of your complaints on various administrative noticeboards is unlikely to result in an outcome any different from past complaints. Please move on. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Time for a two-way interaction ban between both editors, anyone? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 13:12, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The core of the problem is a simple one, whether or not a full article can and should be devoted to the manga. A second problem exists whether or not a topic level article should be made to handle the 30 something titles, of which 8-10 do not meet N or GNG for their own pages. I want the articles at FA for the anniversary of Toren Smith's passing. I am not dealing with Ryulong or Lucia Black outside of DRN venues; as I indicated in the post she brought me to ANI for. I am serious about going to DRN, Mediation and even Arb Com to solve this situation, but she believes I do not want the problem resolved.[3] I already agreed to formal mediation, but Lucia did not file and I doubt it would be taken without a fair DRN on the matter. So I made the DRN section. This was in response to Lucia's continued WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, after discussing how her concepts of "win, lose or defeat" are "not personal". Especially concerning is: "whether i associate it with defeat and victory is none of my concern."[4] Those post she cited is me defending myself from her accusations of PAs and bad faith. I still AGF and I don't believe her editing is malicious, but it often introduces major errors or cut good content when sourcing is widely available. Our interaction should be minimal, and for at least the time being; purely at DRN venues. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:42, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• I saw this and believe a two way interaction ban is best for both editors and for the community. I fully support Luke's proposal above. Nick (talk) 14:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• On an interaction ban: both users are (or at least were) pretty active in the same articles and talk pages. WP:IBAN forbids either of them to respond to the other's comments. This will, undoubtedly, make for some difficult discussions. That's not to say there shouldn't be an IBAN, but I am wondering what its effect will be in those discussions. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
• Perhaps a topic ban for one editor or the other is in order instead of, or in addition to, an IBAN; but I've not looked into the dispute properly, so can't tell which is being problematic (if either are) in that regard. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

All you can see is who throws the first punch, and it's obvious is ChrisGualtieri. This editor never stays directly on topic, he always has to bring up history, and i admitted i hated this editor FOR GOOD REASON because despite his "compliments", they don't come off as real because, not too long after those compliments, he raises strong issue. I'm sick and tired of not being able to prove the comments he does directly because i have had little access to a computer, and takes too long to look for every edit he's done just to show you. But if you look in talk:Dragon Ball, you can see how EASILY irritation gets to him and brings up topics that aren't relevant. and it goes on and on and on. And i'm not the only one who has a problem with him. You can see throughout WP:ANIME how he attacks other editors aswell.Lucia Black (talk) 00:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

He helped me get my article to GA status in less that three days, we expanded together and we stayed on topic the entire time, we expanded it and worked night and day pursuing our goal of getting the article to GA hes a productive and efficient editor in my opinion. Prabash.Akmeemana 01:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Prabash, it doesn't matter who he gets along with, if there is anyone out there that he doesn't get along with, it's going to be more valid. When it comes to anime and manga, this editor simply gets too bias. And you're bias yourself, don't you remember how you even got to know him in the first place? It's too bias to mention your personal (yet minor) experience. Right now taking account of the bad is more important than taking account of the "good". He helps who he chooses, and i admit i hate this editor, but i know how to not let it bother me, and this editor continues to throw it in my face. Think he's a productive and efficient editor? No one is denying that, but the ability to take wevery discussion personally? Thats what counts.Lucia Black (talk) 01:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

And that's why Lucia Black is a disruptive presence: some unqualified and unproven claim that Chris always starts it, followed by a semi-coherent rant ("it's going to be more valid"? what is?) that typically includes the statement that one way or another diffs cannot be provided. What Chris is supposed to do with wevery discussion (take it personally? or not?) is not clear, though it is pretty clear that the first person to claim Chris is a helpful editor gets his ass chewed out ("and you're bias yourself").

ANI sees this periodically, and I suppose it will continue until someone presses that block button for longer than I did--for disruption and personal attacks and frivolous threads, maybe. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the long post, but if you want an understanding of the origin and nature of the entire matter, please read it in full. Our first interactions at Talk:Ghost_in_the_Shell/GA1 is rather indicative of the entire matter you see here today. I took the GAN for Ghost in the Shell because it is something I know extremely well, and I professed my affinity for it. Its philosophy, symbolism and even base details are all critically analyzed by scholars, with essays and sections of books dedicated to it.[5][6] And I know the material extremely well as a result of this interest. Lucia took issue with that knowledge and affection as a claim of “bias” in her second response, ever, to me.[7] She raised the issues with my "bias" at multiple venues at once, [8] and even using (EMERGENCY) in the title at the Wikiproject.[9] A second opinion was made by user Aircorn, who suggested failing the article. Another editor Niemti would later add additional comments for its failure. For more reasons then I care to list, the GA was a complete and utter disgrace which couldn't even get the plot summary right, had vast amounts of incorrect assertions, bad prose, OR and Synthesis and Lucia's axing of good content. Let's be clear; Lucia hates me, as she admits here. The original content dispute is exceedingly simple; but it is hard to improve content when it gets moved, altered and cut down. I can and have proven myself capable of adding detailed production and critical analysis of the material to topics. The most recent is the entire production section at Ghost in the Shell (film).[10] I can do this for each title of the property; but every time I make changes they are “fancruft” or gets deleted including a list of artbooks and official works. I want DRN to handle the content dispute over whether or not the international bestseller mangas warrant their own page, but I think that a one-way interaction ban (Lucia's comments towards me) be considered until she can get over her professed hatred. Over a month ago she professed, “I hate [Chrisgualtieri], and I hate [Chrisgualtieri] with a passion. I see [Chrisgualtieri]'s name on my talkpage and I see red.”[11] (Note: “that editor” is swapped with my name for context here) And given how she feels over a month later, I doubt Lucia will be feeling any more friendly in the foreseeable future. I'm not going to feed her hatred, and I probably shouldn't defend myself so vigerously, but I'm all but compelled to voice my side or be swept up in the drama. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I support a topic ban, but honestly more because of how Lucia handles herself in the discussions. Kind of a boomerang if you ask me, but boh editors are more productive when not interacting... Sergecross73 msg me 04:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Having watched and been involved in a few disputes and discussions with Lucia, I've always had concerns about the tone and attitude (as well as quality of language), and this is yet one more example. See previous discussion, and few sections down in the same archive. It led to a block and a community-suggested break. Chris is not blameless but the issues are evident; I considered the potential for a one-way IBAN but the AN/I discussions I linked to above reassured me that it can only be helpful for Chris also. Obviously support an indefinite interaction ban, and in addition, a narrow topic ban from Ghost in the Shell topics, which seems to be the core of their dispute, as per the concerns raised above by @Drmies:; I worry than any IBAN is doomed to failed if not accompanied by a narrow TBAN of the main dispute. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 05:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uh "It led to a block and a community-suggested break." Huh? This never happened to either Lucia or me from any ANI. The "Wikihounding" section was made by a troll who was blocked, I didn't sock and Lucia didn't sock.[12] Other ones popped up like User:Lucia Block and such. Please don't confuse those with us; I've not been blocked and I don't sock. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry for the confusion, and thanks for allowing me to clarify. In regards to the AN/I thread, Lucia was blocked. After further verification, I'll admit there doesn't seem to have been a significant break. :) ·Salvidrim!· ✉ 14:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia should ideally be decided on the merits of arguments and I wanted a process to be followed, but it has not yet been done. Of the 8 other editors who commented on the GITS matter, many shared my views, but they were drowned out in the discussion. I've begged to work together on this; I've begged for assistance with the RFC and DRN... I'm still begging that someone here can sit us down, make a call and we will be bound to accept it, because both of us have agreed to mediation. I'll be indebted to you regardless of the decision you make; I need someone to make the final choice that is not me or Lucia Black on the GITS matter.I'd even propose a single 2k word argument to represent each parties side because debate back and forth is utterly pointless. Barring that, I have planned to do two pages in my sandbox to deal with the topic-level and manga page. It would take me some time, but I will be glad to provide the sandboxes as evidence of my assertions under N, GNG, and SS. Even if the decision will require a GA or FA level article before my page goes live, the mere promise that a professional article can exist after reaching such a point will allow me complete such a mammoth undertaking. Also, given my expressed desire for GA and FA hopes, I'd hate to be punished for striving for accuracy and correctness and completeness of the material. Any editor willing to do this will have my full support and cooperation and deepest thanks. Please do not dismiss this plea; I've tried to make peace with Lucia, three times in fact, even Drmies saw the last of these efforts. I cannot solve this by myself; I desperately need assistance and Lucia too seems to want this resolution. Please help us resolve it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It does not look like this is something ANI can solve because of the interwoven content and personality disputes [13]. Given the shared interests of the two editors, an interaction ban will only add to the drama another procedural layer. So, I suggest taking this case to Arbcom, even though their track record lately seems to be poor. (The Tea Party case appears to have been dragging its feet for something like six months!) Someone not using his real name (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

  I've been kind of avoiding this but I should point out Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters is still current. If that cannot solve things then ArbCom is obviously the next step.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

My "Hate" for this editor, is completely true. Whenever a discussion is made, no matter HOW neutral i try to be, he makes quick accusations, he brings up topics that aren't even related to the subject just to defame, and this is when he doesn't get his way as you can see in talk:Dragon Ball. I'm not the one trying to bring up "Hate" constantly in a discussion, he's the one bringing it up. this editor always changes topic, he deliberately tries to make things personal and you can see it constantly throughout WT:ANIME. And these things happen BEFORE i proclaimed my hate. And whatever "peace" he attempts, doesn't come off as genuine. He makes compliments right after insults and vice versa. so his compliments or any praise don't come off as genuine, they just come off as insulting. User Drmies seeing whether or not Chris tried to make peace may not be completely true, and i know I've accused someone else of bias in this discussion, but this one seems much more apparent. For example: When an editor claimed to be ChrisGualtieri. it would be BADFAITH to assume it was someone else's sock, so why would Drmies come to me and tell me something insulting? He didn't need to give his opinion of me, nor did he have to give me a warning for something that can be completely justified. If someone claimed to make an alternate user, would you believe it the first time it happens? [14][15] And it doesn't help that this editor tries to use the same accusations Drmies used for 1 situation, in every new discussion. For example, constantly accusing me of WP:IDHT when there is hardly a consensus that has been reached, which WP:IDHT is heavily based on. this editor can accuse me of WP:HOUNDING as much as he likes, the discussions were made public in WP:ANIME, and for everyone to see and considering i've been active in that wikiproject, so "hounding" is HIGHLY inappropriate. Also accuses me of a liar so blatantly. He has no idea how much poison he spreads in a discussion. My hate for this editor just continues to grow, because this editor brings up things that arent relevant to the topic. ANd i could care less that i hate him, and his ways, but i warned him before DO NOT BRING UP THINGS IRRELEVANT TO THE DISCUSSION. He WANTS to defame me, and it's obvious in that edit, which i EXPECT admins will see it and remove it. Because it's not right for him to do that [16] and only poisons the discussion, and causes more hate.Lucia Black (talk) 20:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is literally nothing wrong with Chris' edit there. It's a perfectly understandable reaction to your edits. I'm beginning to think more and more that you deserve a topic ban, since it appears to be you that is the disruptive presence - and you've laden that statement above with personal attacks. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

You say that, but that's not true. You can see my following comment is completely CIVIL, but he does the exact opposite. What does he do Luke? Did he in fact quote me of something completely unrelated to the issue at hand? yes or no? It fathoms me, that an admin can't see what he's doing. there is no justification for that, and i WOULD never do that UNLESS it was directly related to the topic at hand. WHich in this case it's not.Lucia Black (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just a note, Lucia's claims above are false and is just distracting drama. User:KuroiNekoko-chan made the "wikihounding" report.[17] User:Chibi Kusanagi, was similiar, but no where did this troll claim to be me despite Lucia's claim.[18] While I don't want to probe this too far, Lucia made this statement to Drmies and now at this discussion.[19] The word "lie" is indeed strong, but given the context of the event, it seemed that these false claims were knowingly used to redirect suspicion on me and protect herself. It was not the best term to use, I'll admit that, but my reasoning is likely justified. Lastly, it should also be noted that I requested Kuroi's last three edits be revdeleted because it was likely to be used to for a conspiracy - which Chibi Kusanagi referenced. Unless I am mistaken about the "deal". With that being said, please understand my frustration in dealing with Lucia and my desire to protect myself from personal attacks whose details are grossly exaggerated or unfounded. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Chris, there was no reason to mention that in said topic. You're the one trying to make things personal. It's not my fault, these issues are being brought up in WP:ANIME. But in every discussion, you always reference past encounters unrelated to the issue at hand. i'm not lying and i'm not being dramatic.Lucia Black (talk) 03:39, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposal: BOOMERANG topic ban for User:Lucia Black

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

---

I think it's become apparent to all that this user is an enormous time sink. They constantly drag things to ANI for invalid reasons, so I think it is time for a topic ban from both WP:ANI, and all articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed, for an initial period of three months. Throwing an IBAN in here might not be a bad idea either.`

• Support as proposer. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support All - She seems unable to compromise or work with others, and keeps on starting up these bogus ANI threads. I'm all for it. Sergecross73 msg me 12:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Lucia's level of disruption seems to far outstrip her constructive editing behaviour these days and seems to be going out of her way to pick fights that aren't needed. Canterbury Tail talk 13:18, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Spending an hour reading the talk pages and this grudge match I can feel the emotional heat from Lucia. Several talk page examples show User:ChrisGualtieri attempting to squash the heat repeatedly but his words are constantly twisted in attempts to make them look like personal attacks. Lucia's responses look like polished trolling and absolute refusal to stick to content discussion, IMHO. Topic ban should be preceeded with something stronger to allow this emotional level to lower some. Perhaps a 1 week ban, first? Wow! 99.251.120.60 (talk) 13:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - Keeping alive as we need more eyes on this one. Canterbury Tail talk 16:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, Support interaction ban. Bans should not be punitive, and we should start low on the chain and work up as needed. If necessary, we can always impose a topic ban later. GregJackP Boomer! 16:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• How is this at all punitive? Lucia Black drags Chris here at the slightest opportunity, has dragged other users here inappropriately on several occasions, and there are clearly issues with their editing within the ANIME scope. You perhaps could argue a case for the latter being punitive (which I would disagree with, but let's put that to one side briefly) - but the ANI topic ban is not only preventative, it's necessary, and necessary now. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• In this situation a topic ban for one party is the 'lowest' form of restriction to resolve the problem. A two way interaction ban would prevent both parties editing efficiently in the same topic area. One way bans dont work. So the least restrictive solution is to remove the source of the problem from the topic area. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support Interaction ban at minimum. Seems necessary at this point. Mark Arsten (talk) 17:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Support topic ban and and the interaction ban, draginng productive editors to AN/I is not wise considering the amount of trouble this has caused. Prabash.Akmeemana 17:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban and interaction ban. Repeatedly expressing "hatred" of another editor is strong evidence that these bans are needed. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:09, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Topic ban from anime & manga. Interaction ban needless as with topic ban in place, there will be zero interaction. And Chris has repeatedly, over a sustained time, attempted to work with and address issues when brought to him. Its not his problem. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support Both Topic and interaction Ban. At least for next 3 months twenty editors would not be wasting their time.  A m i t  웃   19:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Right now, consensus for an interaction ban is pretty much watertight. Consensus for the topic ban from both ANI and the ANIME project is also quite clear as well - perhaps this should be enacted? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be happier to see the discussion continue a bit more. A topic ban is a lot for a user who edits mainly in those areas, it's not something that should be implemented on the say so of only a dozen editors. While I support the ban, I'd like to see more support from other editors/administrators before we enact such a thing. Canterbury Tail talk 21:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban I don't think one way interaction bans work at all, and since they both work extensively in anime/manga related areas an interaction ban would make work difficult in the area. I think removing Lucia from editing there with a topic ban is probably the best solution. This will give things a chance to cool down and hopefully once the ban expires she'll be able to work more cooperatively without baselessly dragging others here without a solid reasoning. AniMate 02:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support (maybe I should note here I'm personally prejuiced in this case) (oh, and also that I'd probably return to editing GitS things after that) --Niemti (talk) 06:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Some form of interaction ban, possibly supplemented by banning from several talk pages such as WT:WikiProject Anime and manga, is evidently necessary. In the case of further problems with Lucia Black (but not before it) restrictions can be escalated up to complete ejection from here. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic & interaction ban - As another editor has pointed out, an interaction ban would likely not be sufficient as they both work extensively in the same area. Keeping them appart would be like herding cats. The simple solution is to remove one editor from the area. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 09:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic & interaction ban - A very easy call per WP:BATTLE. And if this continues any further in any form, a robust preventative block. Jusdafax 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic & interaction ban. It is clear from the response below that Lucia Black will read any consensus here as confirmation of her conspiracy theory about ANI etc., and that's a pretty clear hallmark of battleground mentality. In addition, the proclaimed hate (with or without quotes) is evidence of the same mentality. This is taking up (yet again) a lot of space and time, here and on the project pages, and it's time for it to stop. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• A conspiracy is 1)A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful. 2)The action of plotting or conspiring. So i am not making a conspiracy theory because i dont believe it's a secret plan to cause harm. I'm announcing how this could've been avoided easily if admins acted quicker to any issue (regardless of small or big) and how FLAWED ANI really is by focusing more on "how much time have we wasted dismissing these ANI to the point that ban MUST be carried out in the first place". And by act, i dont mean "ban" mean "give a warning on the spot". And you stating "taking up time" is the type of mentality that affects ANI. I've been watching ANI closely. And how much is dismissed, and how much action is taken care of.Lucia Black (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic & interaction ban: Clear disruptive behavior that continues unabated and will continue without the bans, as will wasting of time here on ANI. Massive case of WP:IDHT. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This wont help, and formally request a solution that allows us to edit

This is what ANI is about. Whoever ANI gathers the most attention, will act accordingly. it's not whether who is the most disruptive OUTSIDE of ANI, but who get's bothers the admins in ANI the most. Bans only solve the disruption, but not the editing. I read opposes and supports for such bans.

I report things here not to force a ban or block on someone, but to stop things from escalating as in a formal warning OUTSIDE of those who are involved and on the spot. Where were all of you when ChrisGualtieri made yet another edit war for the third time on the same subject on something he CLEARLY had no consensus on doing? it's like you all knowingly dismiss disruption. And when you dismiss it, it makes those who disrupted Wikipedia to keep doing the same thing!!! And have evidence of it. User:Lukeno94, didn't have to say my name exclusively onto the section heading if it involved Chris as well. User:Sergecross constantly violates WP:INVOLVED and doesn't necessarily follow my comments as he used to considering he edits more in WP:VG and i haven't made a single comment there in a while. And completely un-admin like to call these ANI reports "bogus". Niemti's vote admittedly is BIAS, this editor has had issues with me due to me finding a more appropriate image for an article and debating about it. This editor was subject of a topic ban AND does the same thing. Attempt to defame. ANd when i reported that, no one did anything, which is why Niemti is here again to do the exact thing i initially reported (anther sign of how ANI is severely flawed) Anonymous IP is giving just complete provoking comments.

I'm sorry for all of you who consider this a waste of your time, and perhaps this is a sign of how truly flawed ANI really is. And I'm seeing more and more how less involved admins are and how editors aren't balanced about their votes. I'm sorry, but it is NOT ok to constantly bring up subjects that AREN'T related to the topic at hand just to make the other editor look bad. What's that rule that constantly comes up? Oh yes, "Keep you comments about content" and I follow that rule mostly (when it's an issue of content, o when it's obvious the editor is using personal issues against something perfectly fine, then the subject s not really about content, but within the editor.). In WT:ANIME you can see who is the first one to attack (as in bringing unrelated personal issues of this editor). It doesn't matter how you view me, If someone else is throwing the punches first, and someone reports it, who is going to act on it? My faith in the ANI system has failed. I've literally seen admins blocks without the need of ANI for much smaller things, and I've seen some ignore some heavy disruptive behavior after being reported in ANI. This ban is more about shutting me up, more than actually solving something

I REQUEST a better, more positive SOLUTION. Because this topic and interaction ban only solves one thing, me or Chris NOT coming to you guys at ANI (which in this case, if you don't want to get involved, don't answer, but thats what caused this in the first place: Trying a little too had to perform any administrative action on the spot). I really don't want this, all i wanted was a fair warning for disruptive behavior on the spot. But if this is a viable third solution, i request some form of mediation between chris and I. I truly detest this editor, but now i see its ANI who has not only failed me, but Chris as well. And just to be clear, I'm not the only one who thinks that, i see other ANI entries who have it worst with little to no action.Lucia Black (talk) 17:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• This wall of text is only going to emphasize the validity of the topic ban. Why is your name in the section above? Because it's about you, and sanctions for your disruptive behaviour. Chris is not being disruptive. When will this sink in? Attacking everyone who raises issues with your conduct is a one-way trip to sanctions. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

But you haven't actually "proven" it. Just stating it, doesn't make it true. And by what stance do you consider disruptive? You're practically PROVOKING me to use WP:POINT by acting the same way Chris does in an argument, which will hurt me, but prove my point regardless. You see nothing wrong with bringing up unrelated issues just to make the other editor look bad? Constant edit was he clearly had no consensus of doing?

Just to make sure. I'm going to bring an entire series of conversations, and you tell me how he's NOT being disruptive, and how I am.Lucia Black (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, this topic isn't about Chris, an Chris should not be mentioned. It's about you. Stop trying to prove others are disruptive or use others as excuses, you should be explaining to us why you shouldn't be topic banned and using your behaviour, not trying to deflect onto others. If you continue this then you will definitely be topic banned. This thread is solely about you, don't bring others into it. Canterbury Tail talk 18:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Lucia, every single thing you add here is disruptive, because you misrepresent what other people say, either deliberately, or due to a lack of competence. The fact that not a single person has opposed any kind of sanction on you speaks volumes. I don't need to prove anything; you've proved it all yourself, and I'm not remotely provoking you. Everything I've said is correct, and appears to be based by a consensus; the same can't be said for you. And this disruptive subthread is precisely why I asked for this to be closed yesterday; yet since then, the consensus has swung even further away from you. To any uninvolved admins: - can we have this actioned on now please, to prevent more disruptive behaviour? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry Canterbury Tail, but the boomerang issue is still under Chris (that i brought up). Luke said Chris isn't being disruptive, so my response is obviously going to be how he is. And i'm proving how things get escalated quickly, and how ANI focus on what they want to focus on, not what needs to be done. Topic ban me, but it only shows how one-sided things really are, and your comment again continues to prove this is more of an issue of WP:ANI simply not wanting to hear it rather than actually finding a solution that actually solves anything. And this is common with Admins, i once brought up something to an admin and was about to get dismissed until he actually listened to what the issue was about. I brought up 3 edit wars here over the same issue. 2 years ago or maybe 1 year ago, that would've been taken care of easily (regardless if that editor claimed to have wanted to discuss it after the ANI). You can accuse me of everything you see fit, but i wont let it slide that Chris is seen as a saint and gets not even a warning. The ONLY thing that can be viable is that I admit to having negative feelings toward this editor and I've brought more ANI's about him than me. And i seem to recall, another editor placed an ANI against him, but was dismissed because it involved me. So maybe that's just it? Rather conspiracy-like of me to say, but it leads me to ask, why are these ANI reports, dismissed so easily without even a hint of reasoning?

I dont take this too personal, but i find it heavily reliant on who's posting ANI reports than what the issue is. It has been mentioned before in Village pump how quickly things get dismissed just by focusing on the reputation of that editor rather than actually focusing on what that editor is saying. I previously reported how an editor was quick to spread bad rep of me. 1 editor dismissed it because he believed it was well-deserved. And after that, no matter how much i commented about it, the discussion was closed without answer. How is this ANI or previous ani reports closures fair? Honestly, no matter how much i begged for this not to happen or look for a more positive solution, no one here has given me a reason to objectively look at what have to show.

• [20] Here, he had no business at all mentioning me and completely inaccurate. would've let it slide if this was on a talkpage, but it's public and most of all, i wasn't even involved. How is that civil?

• WT:ANIME#XXXX in anime I've attempted to STOP discussing considering there is an RfC for other editors, and Chrisi attempts to bring up something completely irrelevant to the issue and attempts to make things personal. Constantly misusing WP:BADFAITH. also blatantly calls me a liar and states that I've lied multiple times before.

• talk:Dragon Ball#RfC: Is it relevant to demerge Dragon Ball and Dragon Ball Z as separate articles? again, a rather neutral comment (and this was still before i detested this editor), and attempts to make yet another personal attack.

• talk:Lightning (Final Fantasy) and WT:ANIME#XXXX in anime constantly accusing me with WP:IDHT, which is heavily dependent on consensus (something he didn't have in neither discussion). It's like if im accusing him of being WP:INCOMPETENT in every discussion regardless of the subject. It's not civil at all to use.

• WT:ANIME#Same issue thats plagued this entire year. Ghost in the Shell manga/franchise pagemust i even try to explain the number of issues here? This editor quickly makes it personal. Not that it's about "content" but the claims this editor makes is constantly about how well informed he is about a subject rarther than bringing up issues. and it shows i'm not the only one.Lucia Black (talk) 19:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Item 1: Given its location, you could be presumed to be watching the thread. That shows you in far worse a light than him. Item 2: You called for the speedy deletion of something Chris wrote; anything that resulted in that thread can be blamed on you. Particularly as speedy deletion would've been inappropriate. Item 3: Chris starts off with the negativity, but again, you're hardly a saint there. Chris' isn't being disruptive; although he didn't really need to bring that particular bit up. Item 4: WP:IDHT could've been written for you. Care to add anything else that further emphasizes that you are the problem? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:29, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

1) I've been watching the entire wikiproject's talkpage as much as any member. would've noticed eventually considering the size wasn't too long, that doesn't paint me in a far worse light. and not the point 2) How is that a valid reason??? Are you actually looking at this objectively? I didn't speedily delete them, placed an RfC for them so that it can be viewed more objectively. The issue was still whether they were encyclopedic or not which could be deleted or merged. Right now, you're just trying to excuse Chris by something that wasn't disruptive at all. Are you sayng that if someone requested speedliy delete an article you wrote, whatever you say, it's on them???? 3) Of course I'm no saint, no one in this ANI report is, but i'm not the one who starts it. And thats what i'm emphasizing here. 4)That's not very civil of you to say. and most of all, still have not disproves a single thing that I brought up. its painfully obvious what you're doing. still haven't bought up the 3 edit wars, manly because they were dismissed by previous ANI.Lucia Black (talk) 19:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You know what. do what you want. I'm far too tired of this. Do what you want, i'm taking a wikibreak because of family-related issues and have no time, to discuss whats painfully obvious.Lucia Black (talk) 19:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't/haven't violated WP:INVOLVED because I didn't/haven't ever taken administrative action towards you. I've merely given my two cents on you, which I feel is warranted, as I have experienced the complaints against you both first and second hand with your behavior on Wikipedia. Other than that, I second Lukeno's request for an uninvolved admin to wrap this up. There's almost unanimous support for the bans, and yet all Lucia is willing to talk about is how it's "painfully obvious" she's in the right here. There's a lack of self-awareness here; if she doesn't get it yet, I don't know what further discussion is going to get us... Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I second all that Sergecross73 stated above. Lucia, if you have personal issues to attend to just state it (you just did, I believe) let things cool down, and let people, and yourself, forget about this, giving yourself a break. Whatever the result, not inflaming the situ here would probably be best. Best to you. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Giving your opinion as an admin tho, but do what you want. Eveything i brought up is relevant tho. but it doesn't matter to you guys. You dont care right? I've already been advised how ANI is useless, and is only going to ruin my experience of wikipedia. so do what you want, it's already too late right? i have real issues outside WP so i'll be gone for a long time. Yes, I'm aware of how ironic IDHT is here, but then again, all ii have is to prove how things really.Lucia Black (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

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

Unhelpful IP editor

For the past week or so, someone on Hanaro Telecom in Seoul (dynamic IP) has been making a series of unnecessary changes ot several articles. In the past 24 hours, he has been edit warring at Super Sentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on the following IP addresses:

• 114.205.127.39 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.216.183.163 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He has also edited as

• 118.216.183.15 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 118.216.183.20 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.159 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 114.205.127.90 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

He does not seem to know the proper rules and regulations or etiquette of the project and because his IP is dynamic it is hard to prevent abuse from him. As he is now edit warring, this raises other problems. I think we need to block him so we can at least stop further disruption.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:23, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After researching the article Zord edit history, I see you have some issues there. You clearly need to read WP:OWNERSHIP. Many details and additions have been attempted by various editors and you have just reverted them all. Perhaps if you supply specific diffs that you are concerned about, other editors can zero in on your problem. This article seems particularly specific in interest to editors of this geographic area and of course they would use similar IPs. I see no abuse or editwarring in this article other than multiple complaints on the talk page regarding yourself since May 2013. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

After further reading of the Zord talk page I have noticed your edits can be very nasty, insulting, and rude to other editors there. I don't know if this is classic behavior on your part in other articles but with 15 seconds of reading your own talk page I found this with another editor complaining of the same attitude. I would find it very disturbing to have my length of appearance here used to win a content dispute ridiculing my opinion. How is it related to accuracy? Perhaps a wikiBreak could help somewhat for you to respond in a less aggressive manner in content discussions? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 14:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

None of these concerns of yours, all of which have been addressed by now, have anyhing to do with the issue at hand. That diff you attempt to link to I immediately apologized for, and the issues at Talk:Zord have also been addressed as evident from the talk page.

And it is quite obvious that the operators of these IP addresses I listed above are all the same individual. The first three listed all perform the same edit and act as if they are the same person by intending to put the exact same information onto the page.

You seem to be very knowledgeable about Wikipedia considering these two comments here are the only ones that have ever been made from this particular IP address. That in itself seems a little suspicious.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:16, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

When were you going to notify any of these editors of your attempted case against them? This seems like the same consideration given all your "conquests" and another example of your lack of consideration towards other editors. Your talk page alone is enough evidence you need a kick in the pants for your behavior, foul language and bold demanding text. For example: in response to a question of you

...if I institute a spelling change you better fucking accept it as having a damn good reason

Proper progressive discipline may have turned that vicious attitude towards others into a helpful co-operative editor. This should have been dealt with a long time ago. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Digging further I have come across another WP:BULLYing example from your talk page history. In article Halcyon_Days_(Ellie_Goulding_album) [21] (see history) you have clearly editwarred in your attempt to delete the article without any prior discussion and three other separate editors reverted your edits. You were warned of this on your talk page where your response was "What the eff are you doing" and removed it without any consideration. I am not sure this behavior should be tolerated from such an experienced editor here. This is the stuff that drives other editors away in droves. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 11:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I have already determined that this is a dynamic IP address so it is going to be impossible to contact them in any form. Several have been left messages but it's obvious that they have not been read. Now, pardon my French, but why the fuck are you attempting to dig up all of these less than perfect instances of my behavior? Everything you're bringing up is currently being dealt with in the proper channels (apology to Saluki.N, discussion with Status). What purpose is this? And why are you acting on this from an unregistered IP address? I came here seeking assistance and it's almost as if you want me to be punished for something else. Who are you? I have the right to know because WP:SOCK says "Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address" is considered a violation of said policy.—Ryulong (琉竜) 14:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to this unnecessary sideshow, the operator of the IPs I initially reported has continued his deleterious edits as 118.217.145.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I will leave this to an admin to evaluate your WP:Ownership of these articles in the edit history of Kyoryugers and Zord. Ryulong has made hundreds of edits in these articles and about half of them have been reverts to many dozens of other editors contributions. Many of them include foul language and insulting tone in the edit histories of his reverts. It won't take long to identify this behavior. This complaint appears to be just a general content dispute with an attempt to squash contributions from these IPs. There may be some dynamically allocated multiple IP usage and language fluency problems but I see no abuse or attempt to deceive using multiple IPs (self support). I also see no attempt to resolve, help or advise any of these IP editors on personal or article talk pages. Overall behavior towards others has been atrocious, as noted above.99.251.120.60 (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Seriously who are you and what is your beef with me?—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just a drive-by editor, part of a study of the process on WP:AN(I). I have never used a named account and randomly researched your claims about an alleged multiple IP abuser. The case attracted me due to a complaint from an editor with so much experience claimed and yet cannot provide any diff evidence. Some sample results of my simple research are stated above. I have had no previous contact with any of the IPs or yourself and certainly have no bias against you. You have dedicated a lot of your own time for the project. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Diff evidence seems unnecessary when the IP addresses only possess a total of 20 edits between the 8 of them. And I find your story very hard to believe.—Ryulong (琉竜) 04:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Page is protected as of 27-jul-2013, is there any other issue needing ANI assistance? If this above discussion is not part of the context of the ANI then both should probably leave this page now.  A m i t  웃   15:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

  The IP is still causing problems on countless other pages as 118.217.145.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"countless other pages". This IP has only done 7 edits total. I see no problems but rather an editor attempting to improve articles that neither of you have provided any references for. To me these articles could be cut down to a simple paragraph or two, like most movies, but then I am not a cartoon watcher. We need an admin to do a quick reviewing the nonexistent edits being whined about. This fakery is a waste of ANI time and very disruptive to Wikipedia. After all this Wikipedia experience (since Feb. 2006 and 179K edits!) this editor doesn't seem to be aware of content discussion or etiquette. Watch out for WP:BOOMERANG. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry if preventing unhelpful and unconstructive edits such as "This is the first time in the game the main protagonists were actually talk." or requesting assistance with an IP hopper who was repeatedly edit warring on what was at the time an unprotected page are a waste of ANI time. You have been of no help in this and all you have been doing is essentially trying to turn this thread into a WP:BOOMERANG issue on unrelated topics on which anything you've pointed out were resolved. I still seriously doubt your claim that you have had no prior experience with Wikipedia. You seem to be able to gather a lot of information that the casual IP editor would have no knowledge of.—Ryulong (琉竜) 07:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to make you realize that what you are complaining about is mostly what you have put out. I see examples of you as editwarring, spewing insulting tone out at other editors in your edits and ownership of articles that you have worked so hard on since 2006. Just look at your own talk page and edit history of same. Look at your behavior here (ANI). No AGF when you basically stated I was lying.[[22]] You have been requested to supply some diffs by two editors for your complaint but we still see only grossly exaggerated claims.[[23]][[24]]

Here (ANI) you need to get more specific with what and where you are claiming these policy violations, other than he edited your article. Also it may be necessary to see where you have addressed these issues with this participating editor. You haven't done any of this, here. I have spent hours researching this problem after seeing nothing of what you claimed and only an overly aggressive editor. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I crossed out "countless" as you are right that was an exaggeration and I do not have to believe what you say about yourself considering the time and energy you are expending in order to turn this report into a WP:BOOMERANG situation, but please respond to me below.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Is there a specific set of pages or a topic/category that this these IPs is messing up? That might help the admin to take appropriate action if needed.  A m i t  웃   12:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

He seems to be centering on articles within Category:Super Sentai and its subcategories (episode lists and character lists). He's made a few other edits to other pages, but they're all generally coming from a single IP now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• If Ryulong cannot supply any diffs to substantiate his unspecific claim(s), I suggest that an admin close this discussion. This case appears to be a clear attempt at WP:OWNERSHIP of articles (please examine edit history) to "clear the playing ground". We have a dynamic IP editor, that hasn't exhibited perfect English grammar, but raising this issue here, with no previous attempted communication with the editor on the issues or policies, is a complete waste of other contributor's time. Heck the IP has not even been notified by this experienced editor making this report. 99.251.120.60 (talk) 18:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

  Editors operating solely from dynamic IP addresses cannot be adequately communicated with. If you hadn't begun trying to turn this report against me no one's time would have been wasted. In fact the only time you are wasting is yours and mine. a.amitkumar has responded only twice.

  But here are diffs of edit warring ([25] [26] [27]), poorly formatted and worded unconstructive edits ([28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35]), generally unconstructive but good faith edits ([36] [37] [38] [39] [40]). I've listed eight total IPs above. Do you really expect that I should have to contact each and every one of them and notify them of this discussion when for all I know he could have stopped editing as any particular one of them? Regardless, I've made an attempt to push them in a better direction.

  And now the issue returns back to yourself, 99.251.120.60. I still find your story that you are just some observer of this website hard to believe. No one who has not been on this project before would spend as much time as you claimed you have done in order to get me in trouble. I know my reputation precedes me both on Wikipedia and in the people who would be interested in this topic area. There are dozens of threads on fan forums complaining about the level of editorial influence I have on these articles because I want to prevent insider fan information that fails WP:RS and WP:V from being pushed on them and I attempt to push for proper sourcing of everything. Now from your edits to other discussions on this page, it does not seem you are of the second group, the fans who for whatever reason I have pissed off by simply editing this project. So that leaves the situation that you are someone who has previously been on this project that I have been in opposition with and are either logged out from your account to avoid scrutiny or you are someone who has been blocked or banned from editing through some association with myself. Now which is it?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User: Oh Yeaaahh creating many short unsourced articles and not responding to talk page requests

Over the past few days, Oh Yeaaahh (talk · contribs) has created 34+ short, unsourced articles, mostly about train stations. They have not responded to multiple communication attempts and warnings. This may be a promotion only account, or a well intentioned editor; it's difficult to tell because there's no response. Perhaps an admin could offer them some Kool-aid and, if they still don't respond, perhaps a brief block will get their attention. - MrX 17:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with Oh Yeaaahh's station articles except that he copy/pastes infoboxes & text from one to another without remembering to make the needed changes in geographical coordinates and other data. If Dr. Blofeld and others can mass-create unsourced articles consisting only of "X is a village in Y", what's the problem with these? We have articles on just about every railroad station, both current and defunct, in Britain and the United States, for example. Deor (talk) 17:59, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know that we allow substantial latitude for geographical articles, but WP:STATION#Stations (apologies to Bowie) does not indicate that we do the same for railway stations. In any case, I may be mistaken in thinking that it's a problem that a new editor is creating many short articles and not discussing them with other editors.- MrX 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Most of Oh Yeaaahh's articles are decent enough to move ahead with a stub and/or citation needed tag, but I do see a hint of forum shopping in MrX behavior, first he AFD's all of Oh Yeaaahh's articles which doesn't go well(an editor even mentioned WP:DONTBITE to him), then he reports him as a vandal to admins, and then he is here.  A m i t  웃   18:09, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Don't confuse yourself a.amitkumar. The AfD was made in good faith. You will also notice that I specifically asked for guidance at AIV, which I received, thus my post here. Let's stop this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests. - MrX 18:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You expected to come to ANI and not have your interactions with or about the editor you are complaining about scrutinized? What do you mean by this trend of making minor issues into full-fledged dramafests? If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place. How many editors do you need to convince you that this is not a major issue? Why did you have to report the user to AIV as a compromised or a promotion only account and ask for suggestions (link to this AIV report is present in my previous comment) when AfD consensus swayed against your nomination and has not even been closed yet(AfD was logged 2 days ago and link for this too is provided in my previous comment)? These remarks are not going to help you in your case especially when you fail to clarify your own actions.  A m i t  웃   20:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I find MrX's blatantly inappropriate use of warnings to be more problematic than any of Oh Yeaaahh's articles. Quite simply, if you do not have the time nor the inclination to communicate with the editor and explain why you consider these articles to be inappropriate, rather than to tag them all for deletion and stack warnings on the talk page, you should not involve yourself in this issue. And people complain about editor retention issues. —Dark 08:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your perspective, I guess.

I thank Deor for addressing the topic and not engaging in ad hominem. - MrX 12:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Talking about editor retention, I just want to ask a question. After the dressing down MrX got for his actions does anyone care to retain him? Or are retention worries only reserved for newbies? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think an editor who has some experience in WP should also have some experience in handling pressures of the WP. The above might have been harsh, but as I mentioned an action against an editor involving AfD's on his article then an AIV and then an ANI report within a span of 2 days surely raises questions, Editor has the option to call this as ad-hominem/drama-fest/dressing down and not add any clarifications or respond with the so called patience to explain his actions especially when he expects the same from other editors (This is how I reacted in my first week of WP but don't expect the same from an editor with 20 thousand edits). Even ignoring commenting editors comment would have helped in this situation and the admin looking into the matter would have had full rights to reprimand other non-involved editors if our questions or points were not helping dig further into the case. Admins in this forum have a high volume of incidents to handle and some editors will have to discuss and analyze the situation to get a better picture for the admins to take action. 4 lines of a case without diff's is surely going to be analyzed from multiple angles. If these things on ANI are going to be an issue then I think no one can retain him. Communicating is important for a user but not mandatory and if ten warnings on the talk page did not obtain a response the suggestion of a brief block for such things is quite negative. (This does not mean that Oh Yeaaahh is doing great work, his contributions are incomplete and mostly stubs and is needing some attention from other editors to make it better).  A m i t  웃   20:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

So you think when an experienced editor behaves in a "bad" way a dresssing down or stern rebuke is the only option when communicating with him? Is gunboat diplomacy the only option in a case such as this? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 20:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are misreading, First there is no bad behavior by the reporting user and such scrutiny is not dressing down but is an opportunity for the user to clarify his stance. How can the admin know this is not a bullying case or not a new user bite if there are no answers to the questions above?  A m i t  웃   21:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ah. The "misreading" card. An often used tactic to discredit an opponent. Not so. I think MrX was subjected to loud, reprimanding comments. I see some of the comments above as a classic case of severely criticising the behaviour of a longterm editor. For instance you bolded this comment: If the issue was so minor then you shouldn't be on ANI in the first place. That's shouting at the guy and it is a form of incivility. What I am trying to say is you could have phrased your criticism at a much lower decibel level without shouting at MrX. Why don't you try that next time? As far as your comment How can the admin know this is not a bullying case, in that case I think AGF is a real solution, at least in the beginning. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 21:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You are free to claim and understand what you wish. right now I am just going to ignore this drama.  A m i t  웃   21:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I will follow your lead. I'm outta here. :) Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 22:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• This is concerning, and I note that they are failing to change geographic information and coordinates in some of their copies, have still not responded, and have now created an article with a copy of the AfD template that had been placed on one of their previous articles. I am reminded of a now indefinitely blocked user, but am holding off on mentioning the name here because it may be User:Oh Yeaaah will take the messages to heart and demonstrate himself/herself to be either a new user who is not going to be so disruptive, or a valid clean start. However, that user's poor, inaccurate and unreferenced articles were a serious problem requiring a lot of clean up; when such problems persist, they are serious. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:18, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Does the name of the indeffed user start with the letter "P"? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 18:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't see anything wrong here. User Oh Yeaaahh has simply created multiple rail station articles that the community has embraced since the beginning of WP, just as thousands of other users have done, and there is nothing wrong with that. Articles could ALWAYS use improvement, but that's not a reason for Mr. X to be discouraging users from broadly attacking a new user's good faith work. --Oakshade (talk) 05:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Creating articles without any evidence that they satisfy WP:V and WP:GNG is a Bad Thing. To the extent that such failings have been overlooked in the past, we need to change how we deal with these failings. If other people in the past failed to comply with the encyclopædia's basic norms, that's not carte blanche to ignore WP:V and WP:GNG (or to copy-and-paste errors in article-space). bobrayner (talk) 15:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that, with the exception of BLPs, sources proving the passing of WP:V and WP:GNG need only exist, they are not required to be in the article at all. (Until you move up the ladder to DYK/GA/FA/etc., but not for a "basic" article, no.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Accusations at Talk:March Against Monsanto that need to be resolved

There is a difficult POV dispute at this talk page. In the discussion thread at Talk:March Against Monsanto#Fringe?, some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations. The main statement of these accusations is this: [41]. Three of the accused editors have explicitly denied the accusations: [42], [43], and [44]. I have attempted to suggest that these concerns be raised at the appropriate noticeboards instead of repeating them at the article talk page: [45]. Unfortunately, all that is happening is that the accusations are being repeated and the back-and-forth is continuing on the article talk page, and it is making it very difficult to get to any consensus about content.

If the accusations are true, then offending editors are violating WP:NPOV and WP:COI. If the accusations are groundless, then those continuing to make the accusations are violating WP:NPA and WP:AGF. Whatever the case may be, I think that it needs to be figured out (to the extent of what can be determined on-Wiki) and dealt with (at least to the point of moving the accusations to the proper place). I have put a link to here on the article talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

This discussion began when another editor raised the point that Monsanto had recently chosen Fleishman-Hillard to handle their PR in the wake of the protests against the company. I mentioned that this thing has been going on for a long time, with George Monbiot noting in "The Covert Biotech War" that Monsanto shills were running around the Internet in 2002 playing all sorts of dirty tricks. Is there some kind of PR operation occurring on Wikipedia? It's possible. Reliably sourced content critical of Monsanto is removed on daily basis by editors who seem to just "show up" out of the blue from absolutely nowhere. Firemylasers (talk · contribs) is one of the latest obvious WP:SPA's. Then you've got SpectraValor (talk · contribs), whose first edit was to remove a reference to the Monsanto Protection Act in the lead section.[46] User:Thargor Orlando has been at this nonsense for months, recently removing the fact that the "HCIA is "partly funded by Monsanto"[47] while three editors, SpectraValor, User:Arzel, and User:Thargor Orlando all removed the fact that "American journalist Jake Tapper of CNN says that Monsanto has "a history of questionable ethics practices and close ties to the government".[[48]][49][50] Today, Thargor went hog wild, removing critical commentary about Monsanto and the media from The Louisiana Weekly, Thom Hartmann, and the Wisconsin Rapids Daily Tribune, replacing it with an absolutely hilarious personal paraphrase that makes no sense to any human being on the planet,[51] except for maybe SpectraValor who tried the same thing just a few days ago[52] and User:Alexbrn who tried it earlier in the month.[53] I have dozens more of these diffs showing anything critical about Monsanto is deleted, watered down, or altered in a way that it no longer reflects the original source, while new user accounts and users who have never touched this article before seem to just "appear" out of the blue to revert to each other's versions. They tried to get the article deleted and they failed.[54] Now they are trying to delete the content. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You've pointed out that an obvious SPA is an obvious SPA. Great. You've also accused a number of other editors, including some who have been here for quite a long time, of being "paid shills" simply because they disagree with you on an article about an event that's only a few months old. This is eminently unproductive. You certainly managed to run me away from the article by escalating the rhetoric.

This may be an issue that some people have strong feelings about, but that's no excuse for broadly failing to remain civil and refrain from personal attacks. a13ean (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

A13ean, I'm sorry you feel falsely accused, and perhaps my wording confused you, but you did remove the content about the march sourced to the AP in this diff while replacing it with off-topic sources that have nothing to do with this subject in violation of WP:NOR. Yes, you left the AP source in the article, but the content it cited was no longer there. Viriditas (talk) 06:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I changed

Currently in the US most corn, soybean and cotton are genetically modified crops. Critics say GMOs can lead to serious health problems and cause harm to the environment. Though the US government and many scientists say the technology is safe, health advocates have recently been pushing for mandatory GMO labeling.[13] Although 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[14]

to this

Most of the corn, soybeans and cotton currently grown in the United States are genetically modified. There is broad scientific consensus that food on the market derived from GM crops pose no greater risk to human health than conventional food.[13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21] However, critics have objected to GM foods on several grounds, including safety issues,[16] ecological concerns, and economic concerns raised by the fact GM plants (and potentially animals) that are food sources are subject to intellectual property law. Some advocates have pushed for mandatory GMO labeling, [22] and while 90% of Americans favor GMO labeling, attempts to require labeling have been unsuccessful.[23]'

I understand that you objected to the sourced statement I added about the scientific consensus. However, the rest of my edit in that section only expands on the concerns of the protestors, and continues to rely on the AP source in question. We disagree on one point; you could have addressed it in a reasonable manner. Instead you responded with this. This is no way to act in a collaborative effort. a13ean (talk) 17:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas has acted with extreme hostility towards myself and has accused me of being a SPA, editing in bad faith, trolling, astroturfing, etc numerous times. Here are some diffs: [55] (unfounded accusation of bad faith), [56] (direct accusation of being some sort of astroturf/shill), [57] (direct accusation of being here to disrupt), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566206688&oldid=566204885 (direct accusation of being SPA in a manner that violates AGF), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566376264&oldid=566371720 (accusation of trolling, astroturfing, bad faith, etc).

Here's two more general examples of this kind of behavior (with other users/generalized): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566199730&oldid=566180385 (accusation of grand conspiracy to protest Monsanto or something), http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:March_Against_Monsanto&diff=566200209&oldid=566199730 (same thing but slightly more direct).

At this point I'm attempting to back away, but Viriditas babysitting of the article and constant attacks mean that it is impossible to discuss anything with the other editors without Viriditas popping up and interfering. He/she is being extremely disruptive and is actively denying that WP:FRINGE claims are fringe, as well as attempting to spread discredited studies and completely ignoring the scientific evidence on the matter.

To be quite frank I am disappointed with this reaction. I was hoping to have a discussion over the page's issues, not some sort of massive argument over simple things like WP:FRINGE claims. And for the record I don't work for Monsanto, or a PR firm, or any of the places that Viriditas seems to think I work for, and am quite willing to prove it through whatever means are necessary if desired - these accusations are absurd. Firemylasers (talk) 05:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Your account was created approximately a year ago on 18 July 2012.[58] You never used it, preferring to let it "sleep" until 22 July 2013,[59] at which point you launched right into attacking the reliably sourced "Monsanto Protection Act" material (HR 933) in another thread.[60] You've also admitted[61] to creating another sleeper account, User:Garzfoth, which you created on April 30.[62] Further, you have disrupted virtually every discussion on the talk page, distracting away from the topic under discussion and efforts towards article improvement by attacking every editor who disagrees with your efforts to remove reliable sources as a "pseudoscientist" promoting "fringe" beliefs. Meanwhile, you continue to "challenge" every reliable source that criticizes Monsanto or quotes members of the March Against Monsanto, and claim that we can't write about this topic because the reliable sources violate every policy and guideline. The fact that you are an SPA dedicated to disrupting the talk page and the fact that you have admitted creating multiple accounts tells me that there are strict limits to AGF. You created your account a year ago, didn't use it, then created another account in April, and didn't use it. That implies questionable intent, and as any SPI/CU can tell you, follows the typical pattern. Viriditas (talk) 06:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In Viriditas' defence, his edits seem to me to be broadly in line with a coherent view of the Topic and tend toward a coherent article which could be defended as being in-line with WP policies ... although I think there are some problems to be resolved over whether/how fringe guidance applies to some aspects of the content. The problem is that it is difficult to have a genuine discussion when his assumption is that any holder of differing views is operating in bad faith (and I see I am included in his rogues' gallery above) - this makes progress towards consensus difficult or impossible because of the often combative and personalized nature of interactions with him on the Talk page (and he is not the only editor behaving in a less-than-civil fashion). The bad behaviour around this article is a problem which needs to be resolved. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 06:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I noted that you, SpectraValor, and Thargor all "coincidentally" happened to making similar edits to the same section stretched out over a period of a month, and this is not an isolated incident. Thargor might make an edit and talk page argument, disappear, than SpectraValor would come back and make similar edits and similar talk page arguments, and then disappear, and the cycle would repeat. Just yesterday, you complained on the talk page about the so-called pseudoscience in the article and how it needed to be balanced out. I asked you to point out this pseudoscience for me, and you could not, so you went ahead and added it to the article to support your argument.[63] Ironically, you engaged in WP:PROFRINGE while at the same time complaining about it. When confronted with this, you argued that we shouldn't whitewash their beliefs. So this kind of editing also appears to be disruptive. You complain about fringe concepts, and when asked to identify them, you fail to find them, so you decide to add them to the article! That's very strange editing behavior. Viriditas (talk) 06:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nothing in the wiki rules prohibits possessing multiple accounts. I have

A) Disclosed the only other account I have.

B) Have NO edits on the other account.

C) Am ONLY using THIS account.

D) Am using the account that was created FIRST.

E) Have done NOTHING to warrant these repeated accusations of grand conspiracy, astroturfing, bad faith, etc.

As such your accusations of bad faith are completely unfounded. There are no rules against a delay between account creation and first edit. You have NO excuse for your repeated attacks, nor does choosing MaM as my first article to contribute to mean that I am some sort of astroturfer or acting in bad faith. YOU have disrupted EVERY conversation ever created on that page - blaming it on me is highly amusing but ridiculous. I am not the one who decides to edit war over every minor change to the article. In fact I have not even made any contribs to the article proper - I wanted to discuss it on the talk page first, and instead was met with EXTREME hostility from you in reaction to every single comment I made. Your claims that I challenge every reliable source are false, as your sources are not reliable, and you have been actively attempting to use discredited research in order to justify your promotion of WP:FRINGE claims. You have attacked every editor on the page for attempting to provide a NPOV on the article. In no way am I dedicated to disrupting the talk page - in fact I argue the opposite, I argue that YOU are dedicated to edit warring your opinions into the article, disrupting every single attempt to discuss the article, pushing pseudoscience, and adding as many opinion pieces as possible in while simultaneously excluding any opinion pieces that you dislike. In no way are your violations of AGF justified by my actions. Firemylasers (talk) 06:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You have not made any contribs to any article on Wikipedia under this account except the talk page, highlighting the SPA issue I've raised. My "opinions" are not in this or any other article, Firemylasers. The entire purpose of your account seems to be to attack editors who are trying to actually improve the topic area. Every discussion you've participated in involves attacking reliable sources. Then when editors respond, you attack the editors. And you post large, unformatted, one line screeds that scrolls the discussion right off the page and makes it impossible to discuss anything with you. Further, you continue to make an enormous number of absurd and patently false claims, such as claiming that the COI between employees of Monsanto and the government is a "conspiracy theory", that economic losses by small farmers faced with Monsanto's patent rights and monopoly of the food supply "lacks evidence", and that every reliable source which describes the "Monsanto Protection Act" is a "misinterpretation". What you don't get is that we don't write from an editorial POV, we write from the POV of the sources and we attribute those views to the sources. This fact seems to keep eluding you, hence your continuing problem dealing with what you perceive as "conspiracy", "pseudooscience" and "fringe" theories. We are not dealing with editorial opinions, we are dealing with the opinions of the sources. Is this making sense yet? Viriditas (talk) 06:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I have avoided making contribs specifically to avoid having an edit war, which has been your default response to any contrib that you disagee with. I was initially going to follow the "be bold" directive, but after reading the page's edit history I decided to take it to talk. Your claim that the entire purpose of my account is to attack editors is completely false - you may notice from my contribs that I agree with other editors on the page and have attempted to discuss issues with the page, which was made rather difficult from your appearance and subsequent personal attacks and attempt at pushing fringe claims. The definition of reliable source is not yours to write Viritidas. You've been attempting to justify your fringe views with fringe sources. I merely pointed how said sources were pseudoscience/fringe. My responses were detailed because I felt that including detail and citing sources would help explain the issue in detail - unlike your responses, most of which consisted of blatant abuse of WP:ICANTHEARYOU and outright denialism of my sources. Claiming that a COI had been acted upon is what I was calling a conspiracy - this is exactly what that claim was implying. The economic losses indeed lack evidence, as was proven by OSGATA et al. v. Monsanto and the subsequent appeals. Your "reliable" sources on HR 933 were biased and did not provide a NPOV, and you explicitly attempted to exclude reputable sources such as NPR on the grounds that they were not providing the biased narrative used by a certain article. You have repeatably reverted changes made by other editors in order to ensure that the article is littered with opinion pieces and devoid of NPOV in as many sections as possible. Firemylasers (talk) 07:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

According to you, all sources that criticize Monsanto or represent the POV of the protesters and their march (the actual subject of the article in question!!) are "biased" and are full of "pseudoscience", "fringe", and "conspiracies". Such is the extent of your conversational skills. It sounds to me like you really need to read up on WP:NPOV before doing any editing. Again, we do not write from the POV of editors, we write from the POV of the sources. You keep confusing the two. It's really funny that you keep accusing me of POV pushing when all I am doing is representing the sources about the subject. On the other hand, you keep arguing that we cannot use this or that reliable source because you know as an editor it is "fringe", "conspiratorial", "pseudoscientific", or "lacks evidence". But that's not how we use sources. In fact, we use sources entirely independently of what editors believe or think about them. Whether you think sources are "biased" about HR 933 or not is irrelevant. We represent their significant views. Viriditas (talk) 07:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at the aggression in this comment. (Viriditas has been using POV sources) IRWolfie- (talk) 09:05, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you are mistaken. There is no "aggression" in my comment at all, and all sources are POV. You appear to share the same confusion as Firemylasers. All sources have a POV. Our job as editors is to best represent that POV using the framework of our policies and guidelines. This means using reliable sources. And when we are dealing with a topic about the March Against Monsanto, it is important to best use sources about the subject to avoid OR. We don't use sources about other subjects that have nothing to do with the topic we are writing about (which several editors, including the OP keep doing). I hope that makes sense. When we write about the March Against Monsanto, we use sources about the March Against Monsanto. Those sources will inevitably contain a POV that an editor disagrees with. Our job then becomes one of figuring out how to best represent that POV based "fairly, proportionately, and as far as possible without bias". It's actually very simple, but some editors bring so much baggage to the job, they begin to engage in a dispute about the content rather than describing what the sources say about the dispute. Seriously, this isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 09:27, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

As an initial disclaimer, I should mention I have had interactions with Viritidas before and I've never thought much of the way they interact with other editors and explain their POV. But I have to agree that some of Viritidas's accusations seem careless at best. For example, Viritidas accuses 'they' of trying to get the article deleted.

But looking at the linked AFD, of those who nominated to delete, we have the nominator who later agreed after the article was improved to keep it (although still felt the AFD was justified). RMcC remains involved in the article talk page but otherwise is an experienced editored with a wide range of interests, and in fact that's the only involvement a related area I noticed [64].

We have User:Matticusmadness who's comment may have been a little quirky but seems to have had little or no involvement in the subject area, instead involved in other things particular video game related article and they do sometimes participate in the AFD process [65] and has edited as an IP before again with no evidence of involvement in the topic area ignoring vandalism apparently from others using the IP.

We have User:Jytdog who does have a fair amount of involvement in this area but also other areas related to the health, medical and biological sciences, particularly from what I can see in opposition to fringe and pseudoscience and poorly sources claims; and other related areas like IP law and economics. They are a somewhat experienced editor including regular deleting spam like stuff.

Finally we have User:IRWolfie- who also has a fair amount of involvement in the area but also other science related areas particularly it looks like, fringe science and pseudoscience areas [66] as well as other stuff, for example, tech (IT) related areas and is also a fairly experienced editor.

There is one more editor who was initially a weak delete, later changed to a weak keep who I'm not mentioning. Meanwhile there was apparent external canvassing from someone with little involvement with wikipedia in favour of the 'keep'. While the 'keep' seems to stand regardless of the canvassing, it points even more to the suggestion there was any conspiracy involved in the AFD being unfounded considering the evidence shows none of the editors suggesting delete being SPAs or having any evidence of a COI.

While this doesn't preclude some of the editors named by Viritidas above as problematic SPAs and who's editing is worthy of analysis, it does demonstrate the problem when Viriditas accuses anyone who disagrees with them or undertakes edits they disagree with as being potential Monsanto shills, without even considering the editor's history and experience, and raises the likely negative effect this will have on any discussion.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nil Einne, I don't mind you mentioning me. I've had little-to-no involvement in the topic area in question but spend plenty of time at AFD. I was particularly put out by the suggestion that I was somehow a Monsanto "agent" trying to "censor" debate through standard WP processes and said so. It was a rediculous suggestion and one made by both SPA IPs and experienced editors alike, which was disappointing. I would feel the same if those sorts of things were still being thrown around on the talk page. Stalwart111 12:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I note those accusations continue even here, above - "They tried to get the article deleted and they failed". Lumping experienced and uninvolved editors in with silly, unsubstantiated conspiracy theories about pro-Monsanto "agents". We - those who initially supported the deletion of an article about an event that clearly failed WP:EVENT - are not part of some giant pro-GMO conspiracy. We are editors who tried to uphold policy in the face of hysterical and emotional personal attacks at that AFD from (ironically) clearly anti-Monsanto SPAs. Stalwart111 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't recall ever discussing you here, nor did I participate in the AFD. But, I am curious now. How do you maintain that this failed WP:EVENT when we have reliable sources saying just the opposite, commenting on its impact, its influence, and its lasting legacy? This is what irks me the most. I think the sources are at odds with your personal opinion, and we write articles (and determine their notability) from the sources, not from personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 13:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

You discussed me when you referred to the "they" who supported deleting the article, as I initially did. And I don't "maintain" that view - that's my point. As I said above - initially. The original article was a horrible mess started only days after the event with basically only social media for sources. As the AFD continued, coverage increased and some of that substantiated a potential legacy. Thus my changed !vote (and the nom's). Despite our obvious willingness to be convinced (would a "Monsanto agent" be so willing?), we were still accused of trying to "censor" the subject organisation. Be glad you didn't participate - it was pretty disgraceful behaviour - but don't make the mistake of jumping on the bandwagon now. Stalwart111 14:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by uninvolved editor I've been watching the discussion and edits for a only short period, but find the statements made by Viriditas to reflect pertinent aspects of the situation from a balanced perspective with respect to policy covering content. With respect to the SPA comments, looking at the this Special:Contributions/Firemylasers would seem to support that observation.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 05:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry but no, Viriditas's believes currently marketed GM food is dangerous etc, and has been pushing this viewpoint. That is completely out of line with the sources. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's strange, since I have never said that anywhere. What I have said, is that the protesters believe that, and I have explored virtually every aspect of their argument since editors have been disputing every source about the subject. I have analyzed their claims in the sources and I've traced them back to the published evidence and studies, showing where their beliefs come from and how they started. In any case, let's test your claim. You said I believe that currently marketed GM food is dangerous and I've been pushing this viewpoint. Could you provide a single diff to the article showing this? No, you cannot, because all I have done is best represent our reliable sources. On the other hand, the OP and others keep adding off-topic sources to this article that have nothing to do with the march. That's called OR. Viriditas (talk) 09:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas's edits are very much in favor of his expressed POV (and the anti-scientific claim) that there is no scientific consensus on GM food and that they are unsafe. It's in basic violation of multiple policies and guidelines. He may be right on Firemylasers, he may be wrong, but Viriditas has a history of crusading against users he believes are socks beyond what the evidence suggests. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:55, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

It's pretty easy to refute you, Thargor. Here you go: [67][68][69][70][71] Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Viriditas has been aggressively pushing his points of view about this topic. He was even doing it on his userpage during his last block. I suggest uninvolved editors and admins have a look through some of his comments to see the sheer WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour. He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever, IRWolfie- (talk)

• On the contrary, you will not find a single diff or contribution showing that I have "minimized the mainstream position" at all. Here are my contributions for you to look at. Please provide the diff that shows me pushing a POV. The diffs will actually show that I have repeatedly promoted the mainstream position, and I am responsible for adding the vast majority of pro-GMO POV content to the article itself using sources about the march. The problem is that some editors don't understand writing for the enemy and have come to this article with a POV warrior chip on their shoulder intending to do battle with other editors and to add off-topic sources to push a singular POV that has nothing to do with the March Against Monsanto. Oh, and btw, here is a link to your contributions. What do we find? Well, your very first edit was to violate NPOV, by removing an Associated Press story that reflected the mainstream coverage of the event where "organizers said that two million people marched" around the world, and replacing it with content that misrepresented a single source noting that "an estimated 200,000 marched worldwide".[72] Should we look at more of your contributions, IRWolfie-? I suspect we will find more egregious violations. Another example of "he who smelt it, dealt it" at work. I mean, you got a lot of nerve complaining about me, IRWolfie-, when your very first edit is a NPOV violation. Viriditas (talk) 09:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding? The associated press story used the numbers reported by the organisers, The newspaper I included gives an actually decent estimate rather than swallowing whats reported wholesale by the organisers. That churnalists credously repeat the claim doesn't make it true, or reliably sourced. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I wake up to find notification of this in my E-Mail inbox? Well it's nice to know an issue I've been involved in is at ANI for it's third time etcetera. I only touched on the AFD because I was trying to better my AFD Record, didn't think I'd end up being part of an ANI Discussion! Anyway, as already established unless I read over the article all I could tell you about the subject is that it's a match that took place in Monsato. IP, yes, I have, but if you check its logs first of all it's a SHAREDIPEDU registered to my (at the time) school, one or two of its edits were me clearing up mess others have made on it generally. I dunno what else to say really, I'll cast my eyes over things if you need the extra head? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 11:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with IRWolfie on this one. And using terms which are noted as "being used by critics" as though they were the proper Wikilinks violated NPOV even here. In this case, Viriditas is quite "at fault" and his rejection of science and NPOV here as an editor is not helping him. We use what the reliable sources state (yes - including the anti-GM sources, properly attributed - I would not dream of being unbalanced in any article), but extensive side excursions attacking other editors without providing clear evidence of violations of Wikipedia policies is a violation of Wikipedia policy in itself. Viriditas - you are beating a very dead horse at this point. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• If we decide it is true, or simply probable, that Monsanto's PR team is manipulating Wikipedia articles, our problem is much bigger than perceived rudeness. Collect, I really appreciate you, but I'm surprised to see you describe Viriditas as "rejecting science". What do you mean by that? groupuscule (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah, Collect, where have I rejected science anywhere? Where have I rejected NPOV? Where did I make these edits and to which article? I suggest that we won't be getting any actual diffs anytime soon. Oh, and Collect? What are you talking about? Can I get the little bouncy ball thingy, cause I'm just not following you. Viriditas (talk) 13:03, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ask IRWolfie that (He has been attempting to minimise the mainstream position as much as possible in that article as have a number of other editors who think they are saving wikipedia from the corporations or whatever) - it appears that you have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view on certain products which have undergone rigorous scientific examination. Perhaps I ought to have said "dislikes the scientific consensus on GM foods"? Collect (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• What an unusual response! Am I talking to you or IRWolfie through you? (Could you ask him to pass the salt?) In any case, do these diffs support your claim that I have a strong view which contradicts the mainstream view?[73][74][75][76][77] Viriditas (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

We are posting on a noticeboard -- no need for nice personalized commentary. [78] shows you removing "scientific consensus" and changing it to "many scientists" and then adding Some people are concerned, reports the Associated Press, about whether "genetically modified organisms can lead to serious health conditions and harm the environment". Due to these concerns, some consumers, companies, and organizations have advocated for mandatory labeling laws. The Biotechnology Industry Organization supports voluntary labeling but opposes mandatory labeling laws because it believes it would "mislead or confuse consumers into thinking the products aren't safe. I suggest this is reducing a sourced claim about scientific consensus and adding material quite specifically implying that the foods may not actually be safe. And removing a slew of reliable sources at the same time. Perhaps you did not intend it that way? Could the "consensus" be wrong? Yeah. Does that mean we reject and remove the reliable sources making that claim? Nope. Do we seek NPOV with all sides correctly presented? Yep. But removing the claim entirely is not how to do it. Cheers. `Collect (talk)

Your interpretation of the diff is in error. The sources about the march in that section said nothing about any "scientific consensus" regarding "food on the market derived from GM crops" and the fact that their "risk poses no greater risk than conventional food". I removed that statement as it had nothing to do with the subject of the march and was sourced to references that had nothing to do with the topic which the WP:NOR policy explicitly prohibits. On the other hand, the Associated Press news article about the March reported "The use of GMOs has been a growing issue of contention in recent years, with health advocates pushing for mandatory labeling of genetically modified products even though the federal government and many scientists say the technology is safe", which is exactly what was added—directly from a reliable secondary source about the subject. We only use sources about the subject. Editors don't get to pick and choose which sources they like to see in the article about other subjects. Viriditas (talk) 22:37, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

In an usual move, I fully agree with Collect, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you both support violating WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Per NOR, "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented...Take care not to go beyond what is expressed in the sources, or to use them in ways inconsistent with the intention of the source, such as using material out of context...precise analysis must have been published by a reliable source in relation to the topic before it can be published on Wikipedia." Per FRINGE: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." That's very clear and easy to understand. So then, one wonders why you both encourage others to violate it? Viriditas (talk) 22:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• As per the opening statement, seeking clarification; I am an independent, volunteer WIkipedia editor - as per my user page I work at a university and I work on WIkipedia for fun and because I think it is a good thing to do - it serves the public good. I do not work for Monsanto or any PR firm. I have no sock puppets. With respect to the March Against Monsanto article - I actually stopped watching and working on it because I find it too unpleasant to edit with Viriditas - his/her discussion style on Talk is generally (not always) too uncivil for me (which I have found sadly ironic since at the top of his/her Talk page, one finds a quote: "In this world, hatred has never been defeated by hatred. Only love can overcome hatred. This is an ancient and eternal law".) I have wondered if Viriditas was going to get him/herself in trouble for going too far with negatively commenting on other editors. Sorry it came to this. Viriditas - please stop focusing on other editors and please don't bring your battlefield style even here (as per your comments above). Please take this thread - which is not about the MaM article, but is rather about your behavior on Talk - as a wake-up call to try harder to meet the high ideals of your quote in your daily editing work; in Wikipedia terms, to meet the high ideals of the 4th pillar. More particularly, if you had focused your comments on content, not contributors, this thread would not even exist. Jytdog (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I thought you left because you were tired of blanket reverting my edits.[79] You can imagine that kind of behavior doesn't exactly encourage a civil response. Viriditas (talk) 13:12, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sarcasm. bummer. Please take this as an opportunity to hear the community. Please be more civil and focus your comments on content not contributors. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Just an observation but if you feel strongly about the SPA shouldn't you open an SPI over at AIV? That would get the checkuser run and either confirm or deny anything you can draw conclusions to. Just saying because multiple editors can have very similar writing styles, thought they tend not to be identical. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I've actually tried very hard to ignore the little guy. Viriditas (talk) 13:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Uninvolved tangential comment: I would be surprised if Monsanto is not working to influence our coverage of their business domain. I think Monsanto and GMO is an area where we should be very careful to use only high quality sources - the kind that is neither funded by the pro or anti lobby. Viriditas is right that all sources have a POV - but not all sources can be considered reliable sources of information about facts. We should prioritize academic treatments of this field because the scientific dialogue is the only dialogue that we can depend on to be influenced by facts and to be striving towards uncovering the actual risks and benefits of GMOs and the business models of Monsanto. Partisan sources should be given little priority.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 13:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't doubt that it's true on both sides. I think there's a lot of influence to get specific types of biased sources into the encyclopedia, and I think the March article has enough editors on both sides trying to keep good sourcing in. The issue is more the bad faith and the bad science (even if its from generally good sources). Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• The scientific consensus is that currently marketed GMOs are safe, yet Viriditas acknowledges he is pushing for claims of dubious safety (or that he would, at this point he was still blocked at the time) in the March Against Monsanto article at [80]. It is this insertion of fringe claims without the mainstream position that is at issue. Viriditas's commentary is that of the supporters ("Protesters are concerned that Monsanto's claim that their products are safe cannot be trusted because of many similar claims that turned out to be false", "Protesters want to end the conflict of interest which permits Monsanto to operate with impunity and promote their agenda within the halls of government and as members of supposedly independent scientific review boards. ", etc etc), and is not supported by the evidence (it's more like Seralini's position which was utterly discredited). As in all such monologues from Viriditas, it eventually comes down to a conspiracy about Monsanto. I suggest people read through some of his dialogues during his blocks (ironically one of his blocks was for making unsubstantiated allegations), it is most illuminating. Reading through his comments you see the aggressiveness and the same false allegations appearing in one way or the other. I asked Viriditas to stop calling people shills, he said he would, but he has continued. If I recall, Viriditas believes the statements by the March Against Monsanto people are in fact representative of the mainstream position about safety ("Questions and concerns about the safety of GMO food, crops, and associated herbicides are not fringe by any stretch of the imagination."), IRWolfie- (talk) 14:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • it seems that as far as the content aspect is concerned that you and some others have raised concerns about how the general issue of GMOs is addressed in this article about a protest movement whose existence is premised on raising public awareness about the potential dangers of GMOs. I would have to agree with Viriditas that much of that material is off topic and should be linked to the article on GMOs. This article is not directly about the science related to GMOs, but indirectly about the science related to GMOs through the related stances adopted by the March Against Monsanto that is the subject of the article; that is to say the topic upon which Wikipedia is supposed to be providing an informative article to the reading public.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a argument that can reasonably be made, and some people, such as yourself, have made this argument in a reasonable manner. I don't entirely agree with this, and think that there should be a brief mention of the mainstream view in the article, but this is something we can discuss like adults and come to a consensus or compromise on. However, it's never appropriate for any user on either side of the debate to personally attack, insult, and accuse of paid editing anyone everyone who disagrees with them. That's the concern here. a13ean (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
    • The problem is that fringe theories must be addressed wherever they occur. This is not to say that the March page must be littered with fact checks on every line, but the opposition to including scientific evidence to combat fringe claims (most importantly regarding the scientific consensus on GMO safety) is the problem. We even have sources that link the consensus to the March, which was also removed by the same person who thinks ALEC is bankrolling me. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• While reading through this discussion I began to get a knot in my stomach, and I realized that it was reminding me of several discussions at meetings that I have had in the real world in which I tried to speak against planned actions being supported by skilled PR people and management experts. In each case I was unable to get my point across because such a person was so good at turning the discussion into an extremely polite attack on me that my point about the topic of the meeting was ignored rather than refuted. I have nothing to say about Monsanto myself, and have never interacted with Viriditas, but I ask you not to dismiss his/her concerns simply because he/she is not very diplomatic. Even if every allegation made here against him/her is true, this is not a reason to assume that the concerns he/she brought forward are unfounded and should not be looked into. —Anne Delong (talk) 15:45, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, but you are missing the point. Uncivil behavior destroys Wikipedia. There are means within Wikipedia to deal with concerns about COI/sock - V's way of addressing concerns - by making harsh accusations in Talk - is the wrong way. The 4th pillar (a pillar, mind you!) exists so that even when editors disagree about content, Wikipedia remains a decent community to work within. And that is why there are specific means to address concerns about socks/COI - so they can looked at and dealt with carefully, intentionally, respectfully, and as per policy and guidelines. If this is not clear to you please revisit WP:CIVILITY and WP:No_Personal_Attacks. Jytdog (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Sometimes truth and honesty are favored over sticky-sweet speak. I've seen talk pages completely derailed whilst editors remained incredibly polite. We are adults with limited time trying to write an informative encyclopedia. petrarchan47tc 17:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting, Petrarachan. You are the other editor at Wikipedia that I have left pages on account of; your comments continually express a misunderstanding of WP:CIVILITY, as they do here. The 4th pillar has nothing to do with your opinion of other editors (positive or negative), nor with "sticky sweetness". Truth & honesty on the one hand, and civility on the other, are not mutually exclusive. Civility is a pillar of Wikipedia; it is not optional. I hope you come to understand civility and its importance one day. Jytdog (talk) 18:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I need no thanks. Your response is a case in point: though couched in politeness, your comments are ascerbic and condescending. I too have left the entire GMO issue alone, save for my efforts at MAM, because of my inability to deal with you (and the others who regularly work on GMO articles). And it's not because you aren't polite. I will say, you are the only editor on wiki to ever accuse me of being difficult to work with, that I can recall. I will also add that it was whilst trying to save this article from the trash bin that I was taken to the 3RR noticeboard (link sheds more light on the origins of this article and related editing problems) in an attempt to have me banned - the only time on wiki I have ever been taken to any noticeboard. The charges were trumped up, and the case failed. My behaviour is no different on this article than any other i work on, nor is it different towards you, jtydog, yet the reactions to my editing and behaviour when I work on anything GMO related, are wildly out of alignment. I also experienced my first complaints on my talk page whilst building this article - a slew of them from a whole team of editors. After over two years, all of the sudden people are outraged by my behaviour? I have to think the problem does not lie with me, but maybe a POV problem surrounding the GMO issue. petrarchan47tc 21:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Correction: I have now been taken to a noticeboard for my second time, again related to work on this article. There is a suggestion that I may need to take a break from working on it, although I haven't worked on the article in about a month, until yesterday. petrarchan47tc 00:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry you got into trouble, Petrarchan. You wrote above that my comments are "couched in politeness, but are acerbic and condescending." One of the huge limitations in Wiki is that this is all written-word and it is hard to convey tone and very easy to read tone into things. I re-read what I wrote and found nothing explicitly acerbic or condescending, and I would be interested to see what you found to be explicitly so. I can imagine you reading what i wrote, and imagining it was written with acerbic intent - and applying such intent while reading can indeed make it or any text very ugly (even "I love you" can be said nastily). But I didn't write it acerbicly - that was not my intention. I actually wrote it sadly. (if you would, re-read with that tone in your mind) Civility is hard. "Couching in politeness" is certainly part of it and is not to be discounted. It is much more. I try to be civil always, and I fail sometimes. Anyway, I wanted to respond, but we are way way off track of the ANI. I would be happy to try to work through this with you, on your page or mine. Jytdog (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Civil is nice, but honesty is better by far. I've heard you state numerous times that you were saddened by editors' behaviour (I'm including our work together at BP). This has always struck me as problematic. This place should not make us emotional on that level, and if it is a repeated phenomenon, the best thing is to walk away from Wikipedia until a level of detachment arises. A less passionate editor is always better, in my observations. petrarchan47tc 23:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What you were edit warring in there was "In the US the majority of the corn, soybean and cotton crops have been genetically modified, which anti-GMO advocates say can lead to "serious health conditions" and cause damage to the environment." This statement you were edit warring is a fringe claim which is against the scientific consensus. Just because you quote someone else as saying it doesn't mean it's suddenly acceptable. You can't insinuate something is dangerous in an article when the most reliable scientific sources disagree, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Here is the history of these "edit wars" where I quoted from a Guardian article, saying that the protesters believed GMOs were dangerous to their health.. (I've copied my recent remarks from the MAM talk page.):

I see a heck of a lot of policing, but little to no content creation related to the March Against Monsanto. What I have seen is a lot of trying to keep the article from being written, or stories spun about how all problems lie with two editors and their bickering. I do hope Admins come around, and thoroughly look through the archives. They will see exactly what type of content has been aggressively added and what has been removed, all with a very specific pro-Monsanto and pro-GMO POV, and wildly outside the bounds of this article's subject matter. It began for me here, and more pro-biotech was added here. I had to continually remove the Monsanto propaganda ( and again), but I was told over and over, by a variety of editors in numerous ways, "You can't put in the protest claims without pointing out that they are not supported scientifically" and we cannot allow fringe POVs to go unchecked in this article, and it was re-added again and again because "We cannot allow fringe viewpoints to go unchecked". One time, IRWolfie swept through and erased most of my work. We weren't allowed to say "Anti-GMO advocates point to studies they believe prove GMOs can lead to serious health consequences" because, according to A13ean, the source material from Truthout mentioned Séralini, who found that GM corn created large tumors in rats, and who according to this group of editors, was discredited. And here's when another SPI rolled through to "eliminate soapboxing". Then there was the time IRWolfie declared the entire article Fringe Theory. And of course, the various efforts to change the number of protesters from 2 million to "between 200,000 to 2 million" based on one local NY newspaper article written while the protest was still ongoing, which Jtydog started here... and which ended up ensconced in Wikipedia at the Monsanto article and the Genetically modified food article, as well as this one... meaning these editors support the use of this one reference to change the truth that was reported by literally every other media, and to this day, which is that the protest was attended by 2 million protesters (no "range" is ever mentioned, only on Wiki). "2 million" is the uncontested turnout number as for as RS is concerned, but we are not allowed to state that on Wikipedia. petrarchan47tc 10:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

An article is required to not advance a fringe theory, per WP:FRINGE. Pointing at studies and saying they "found that GM corn created large tumors in rats", when the same study have been completely discredited is part of the problem here. You are creating the idea that their views are well supported when they are not. You made a large amount of changes to an article in a short period, and I reverted it highlighting issues. You should be then discussing the issue per WP:BRD, but instead one of your friends re-inserted the material. That you think a statement from the worlds largest scientific organisation etc is Monsanto propaganda is quite frankly ridiculous, and that you were edit warring to remove this is in violation of discretionary sanctions in this area. Uninvolved editors and admins should reflect on how much of a conspiracy theory that is; we have people here claiming that position statements from the AAAS are Monsanto Propaganda. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Nonsense. Nobody, I repeat, nobody has created the idea that their views are well supported. What we have done is use reliable sources about the subject to best represent the topic. The statements from the AAS and other articles you keep adding have nothing to do with the subject of this article and actually violate our policy on original research and our very guideline on fringe theories. We can only use reliable sources directly related to the topic of the article that directly support the material under discussion. You can't use them out of context, and you can't synthesize prose in order to debunk ideas that the scientific community considers fringe. I suggest you actually read WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It is certainly propaganda in this context. I'm unsure who my friends are, are what they tried to add, but I will speak for myself if you don't mind. I never tried to add or mention Seralni or any science whatsoever. The quotation i sought to add was rejected simply because Seralini was mentioned in the referenced article. petrarchan47tc 18:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"You made a large amount of changes to the article in a short period of time", aka, as Robert states below, "At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep". I did that work. And you were the one who requested it. In the deletion discussion your complaint was that the article needed to be expanded. I took my cue directly from your comment. No one helped me at the time, many complained about the article at the deletion discussion, but didn't make efforts to improve it (which is somewhat the case to this day). I was alone because Viriditas was blocked for 3RR during his early attempts to improve the page. petrarchan47tc 20:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Much heat, but little light

Well, at least my post here got some responses! Unfortunately, it seems to be a dialog between users on one "side", who talk in principle about how bad PR manipulation of our content potentially could be, and those on the other "side", who deny that they are doing anything other than editing for what they believe to be NPOV.

It seems to me that, for an administrators' noticeboard, I'm seeing awfully little input from administrators here.

Allow me to make a modest proposal:

1. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:SOCK, please report it at WP:SPI.
2. If you believe that another editor is violating WP:COI, please report it at WP:COIN.
3. If you believe that we do not have an adequate policy for dealing with edits by PR accounts, please start a discussion about how to improve our procedures.
4. But if you are not willing to do any of those three things, then please stop making accusations.
5. Anyone who is unwilling to do any of the above, and continues to make accusations, should get attention from administrators, because throwing around accusations without being willing to back them up is just using WP:NPA violations to try to get the upper hand in a POV dispute.
6. I would like to see some administrators make sure that the above is actually being adhered to.

Thanks, --Tryptofish (talk) 22:02, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That is good advice also for non-administrators, and I agree with it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Seconded. a13ean (talk) 02:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thirded, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Also agree - this would improve things immensely. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 09:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all of you. OK, here is what is going to come next. I'm going to put a very conspicuous link to this part of the discussion here, on the article talk page. Then I'm going to watch the article talk page very carefully for any editor who goes against number 4 in the above list. If I see that happen from now going forward, I'm going to open a thread here on ANI about the editor(s) in question, specifically and by name. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Link: Talk:March Against Monsanto#Notice about accusations. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:39, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment About AFD and other matters

As was mentioned, I originally nominated the article for deletion. That happened after an unregistered editor (IP address) came to the Help Desk and complained that he or she had spent several hours formatting a table listing the cities in which the protests took place, only to have it deleted from the article without discussion. The unregistered editor whined that the deleting editor must have owned stock in Monsanto. That was the first accusation of conflict of interest in editing this article. Unfortunately, not much has changed in a few months. At the time, the article was badly structured and badly formatted, and I nominated it for deletion. Four days later, it was much improved, and I recommended an early close as a Keep. (When I said that my nomination had been justified, I meant that the article when I nominated it was not worth keeping, but that it was worth keeping after the work done on it.) The article has been contentious since then, with continued failure to assume good faith. As Tryptofish says, if you have evidence of bad faith or bad behavior, report it, but only if you have evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All this based on an IP accusing an Admin of having a COI? Did that request actually have any 'proof' ground to stand on? Call it a lack of 'WP:IPs are human too' if you must but I really think that the cause of his may actually have held no reason to escalate. (And no I haven't read the whole discussion.) MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 12:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

All this is not based on the originator of the article. Robert is saying his deletion nomination was based on that one incident. Attempts are being made to tie the present situation to the problems with the IP, but unfortunately the archives may need to be reviewed for the true story. petrarchan47tc 19:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Comment from relatively uninvolved Jusdafax

I have never edited the MAM article I believe, but I look in now and again and have ventured a Talk page comment or two, to the general effect that Viriditas raises some questions about the article that should be considered carefully by the community. Viriditas has made a lot of sense to me over the years on other topics. While I have worked with Tryptofish in the past, like him, and am puzzled by the seeming conflict he has with Viriditas, I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages. In my view, this ongoing conflict is a time-sink for a cautious editor or admin, and ANI is unlikely to solve what is basically a content dispute. The next step is either a well-advertised Rfc which will be interesting to word, or dispute resolution. Since the parties at odds appear intractable, that DR attempt probably means a subsequent trip to ArbCom, the final Wikipedia court of appeal. Perhaps that should be contemplated now, rather than waste months of time and then go there. Jusdafax 13:11, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I am further than this than Jusdafax. I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content. At a quick look a main issue seems to be the undue tagged media section. I assume it is there because of the claim that the media was told by Monsanto to play down the issue and we sourced it. I think this is very due in the article. If we don't include it without the tag then we could be just as guilty as the media. I agree that this should go to ArbCom quickly and be dealt with as it is a recent event. Btw, I live in Canada and don't care if they GMO my food or label it as such. I just want it to be cheap, nutritious, and taste ok. Soylent Green would be fine with me.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"I came across it offwiki because of a phone call. They knew I edited Wikipedia and wondered why Monsanto seemed to be controlling our content." ... "I am even more unclear as to the motivations of some of the other parties who seem so furiously determined to edit this article from its early stages" ... This illuminates the situation excellently. People have forgotten to WP:AGF in this area, and jumped to the conclusion that anyone who disagrees with them must be doing so at the behest of a big evil corporation. Please, let's take this to ArbCom. Any sort of rational discourse falls by the wayside when people can't even imagine for a second that those on the other side of the conflict are just doing their best to keep a neutral article, and accurately represent scientific consensus. a13ean (talk) 14:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

This is a wildly inappropriate action. Hopefully administrators step in on this. Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Jusdafax, please let me suggest doing the "thought experiment" of temporarily "forgetting" that you know either Viriditas or me. Pretend that we are both editors whom you have never come across before, and look at what we each have said on the article talk page, and evaluate what you see in that fashion. Myself, I became aware of the page in a rather odd way: I saw on my watchlist that an RfC that I hadn't noticed previously has been removed after a month from the RfC page by the bot, and I thought that the page about the March sounded interesting, and I started watching it then. What I have seen, just looking at it with whatever eyes I brought to it, was rather different than what Canoe1967 describes here. I saw a couple of editors who varied in how articulate and clueful they are, who appeared to be arguing in good faith for what seemed to me to be reasonable NPOV, and Viriditas and maybe a few others responding to them with spectacular suspicion and confrontation. I then tried to offer what I though were some middle-ground suggestions. The allegedly pro-Monsanto editors responded in ways that weren't always clueful, but which mostly seemed to me to be good faith and with willingness to compromise. Viriditas has consistently responded to me by insulting me and refusing to credit any good faith, or even basic intelligence, to anything I have said. It's really quite shocking, some of the nastiest stuff directed at me during my entire Wiki-career, and I've had a lot of experiences with some real characters. At the same time, I think that the possibility of POV-pushing by persons who are secretly working for someone, in this case Monsanto, is something that is intolerable, so I'm trying to keep an open mind.

Like some others above, I expect that this issue will eventually find its way to ArbCom, and I'm seriously considering making myself the filing editor. But doing that at this step would be premature. That's just the way things are. I want the administrative issues that I've raised here to be given a chance. If they fail, there should probably be an RfC/U. And if that reaches no conclusion, then, ArbCom here we come. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem of the POV. The article is about the protest. It should be the POV of the protest. I think others are trying to shove too much of the Monsanto POV into it. That balance should be in the Monsanto article. We don't include Judaism in Christian articles just to balance the POV. If the protestors call Monsanto a 'big evil corporation' that goes in the protest article and in the Monsanto article they can claim the protest is 'a brain dead fringe group full of quacks' if they wish and if they can source it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Then you should make that argument at the article talk page, not here (and be prepared to explain how that would not be WP:POVFORK). --Tryptofish (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I could care less about the article. What I do care about is the possible outside POV pressure on it which is why ArbCom should be consulted. It is an article on a protest. It should stress the POV of the protest. The Monsanto article would stress their POV of the protest. We have Abortion debate with NPOV but we also have Anti-abortion movements and Abortion-rights movements which each have their POVs stressed. Any NPOV in the protest article should be balanced in Genetically modified food controversies but the protest article itself should stress the POV of the protest.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the issue at the article. No one is opposed to the article being about the protest, that's sensible. The conflict comes from the anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy, the coatracking of other GM debates within the article based on thin association to the march, and a more minor sub-conflict about the media issue. That's it. To frame this as anyone trying to make the article into something other than that is simply wrong. You may have been told that when you were canvassed over the phone to rescue the article, but if you came to the talk page of the article, you might know these things. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

There are no "anti-science, fringe points of view being stated without question against policy" and there is no "coatracking", and there never has been. You've been making these ridiculous claims over and over and over again in an attempt to hold the article WP:HOSTAGE to your POV by removing anything that criticizes Monsanto or presents the views of the protesters as stated directly in reliable sources. More recently, Alexbrn noticed that the article didn't actually contain any of these fringe POV, so he took it upon himself to add it to the article to prove your point![81] So your newest tactic is not to concede you were wrong, but to actively turn this article into exactly what you are criticizing it for doing! I'm sorry, but that's very dishonest. Viriditas (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Your edit history speaks for itself at this point. That you still haven't chosen to retract your attacks on your fellow editors should say a lot. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

If the article is about a protest based on wing-nut anti-science then the article should mention their claims about wing-nut anti-science. We don't censor articles on other fringe theories and exclude their theories so we shouldn't with this one.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:17, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Of course, but it was properly summarized per policy as "concerns about the safety of genetically modified foods (GMOs) on human health", but now its been turned into "the belief that GM foods can adversely affect human health, causing "cancer, infertility and birth defects", which takes the concerns about food safty and turns into into an unscientific "belief" that GMOs can "cause" these things. The problem is, the sources never said that. What's going on here is that Thargor, Alexbrn, and others are purposefully trying to turn this article into the very things they are criticizing in order to substantiate their initial criticism, a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts. Viriditas (talk) 22:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that the claims about cancer, etc. are what the movement itself claims AND what it is reported as claiming in a reliable source, therefore is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to contain this material. We must not editorially sanitize the view of the protestors as this has the non-neutral effect of making their views appear less fringe than they verifiably are. This is Wikpedia 101. Your counter-arguments that draw on implications this is part of a plan by editors who are working in league, as well as being insulting, is just a tremendous waste of time for everyone involved, as this whole noticeboard discussion sadly shows. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 08:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am going to write this article off as another one that forces offwiki editor views onto yet another failed article. You should all take your personal POVs and go create blogs with them somewhere. Wikipedia is not the place for this crap. If I had my way I would topic ban the whole lot of you.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of the rotten apple/throw the baby out with the bathwater approach. I would settle for editors simply adhering to the most basic policies and guidelines and using sources about the subject. Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

If anyone was trying to censor the anti-science viewpoints from the article, I'd stand with you in opposition. The only desire is to ensure that the worst of the claims get the proper scientific context. Thargor Orlando (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:FRINGE: "...the purpose of Wikipedia is not to offer originally synthesized prose "debunking" notable ideas which the scientific community may consider to be absurd or unworthy. Criticisms of fringe theories should be reported on relative to the visibility, notability, and reliability of the sources that do the criticizing." Got it yet, Thargor? Viriditas (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

"A theory that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea." Thargor Orlando (talk) 15:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think this article is about a mainstream idea though. It involves a protest based on fringe theories as well as democratic change. Read a protest sign and then try to tell us they are not stating fringe theories.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been arguing that they've been stating fringe theories from the start. That's what got me labeled an "ALEC-funded" shill and got you involved in the first place. The mainstream idea, in this case, is protesting big corporate entities. The fringe theories not broadly supported by scholarship are their claims. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I am cofused by what you mean. Is the protest partially supported by fringe theories not backed by mainstream science? If so, then all of those fringe theories should be mentioned in a protest article about the fringe theories they are based on. We could also create GMO fringe theories since it seems they are notable and widely covered.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That would simply be a POV fork of the controversies article, IRWolfie- (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This article is not about the controversy though. It is about the protest and the protest was not controversial. If the protest is based on fringe theories that are controversial then that controversy should not coatrack this article about a protest. We could move this article to a section of GMO fringe theories and thus include both sides in more detail. It just seems to me that editors want to slam the protest article as much as they can with other science material that this protest wasn't based on.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue you're missing is that our guidelines insist that fringe theories be combated where they appear. If we present the fringe theories of the protesters without noting the consensus viewpoint, the article is out of balance and not in line with Wikipedia policies. No one is asking for point/counterpoint on each issue, simply on the issue of GM safety that we have a clear scientific consensus. Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you either didn't read Wikipedia:Fringe theories or are selecting material from it and paraphrasing it. I don't know why I continue to discuss an article that is doomed to be a mess. Editors are trying to coatrack it with both sides of the controversy which belongs in other articles. I still think you should all be topic banned for trying to force your personal POVs into Wikipedia articles. Go edit Pokémon for a while.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from alleged paid editor or sockpuppet SpectraValor

My work-derived income comes 100% from public funding of my research, and I have never studied genetically modified corn or any of the other products the March protests. I have never received money from Monsanto or any other GMO producer. I was never asked to edit this article. Several of my colleagues and employees and family members edit Wikipedia, and it is likely that I have at some point edited some of the same articles as them but I have never to my knowledge coordinated edits with anyone. I have never been paid to make an edit. I have never made an edit as the result of an off-Wiki request. These accusations made against me are disturbing and false. With the proper guarantees of confidentiality, I would be willing to share my standard financial disclosure form with Wales or another Wikipedia official. The question of paid editors is important, but I am not one. I came to the article because I had recently developed an intellectual interest in the science and social implications of GMOs, nothing more.

I will not edit this article again, and I regret my poor judgment in staying involved for several weeks. To those with the time and energy to stick with it, please remember that just as important as ensuring paid editors follow Wikipedia policy is ensuring anti-corporation editors and anti-paid-editor activists also follow Wikipedia policy. SpectraValor (talk) 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no reason for you to stop editing the page if you want to continue editing it. (And there is no reason for you to keep editing it if it is giving you aggravation.) I have observed that these accusations have been made against you at the article talk page, and I have observed that you denied the accusations there. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

In the discussion above, this comment: [82] seems to be a lot of the reason for the accusation, and it's worth evaluating for whether it's really evidence, or just seeing a coincidence when none exists. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:24, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I am a graduate student in physics and recently a part time scientific consultant (I have never edited any page related to my only paying customer or their industry). I have never received money from Monsanto, or any agriculture related business or NGO -- the same goes for every member of my family and my in-laws. I have never edited wikipedia under any other account, and you can see from my edit history I have no more interest in GMO safety than I have in several other subjects. I will gladly prove my real life identity to any administrator with whom I have worked productively in the past, including those who I disagree with on various subjects. I'll even send you a picture of me in my (100% organic) garden, if it get's people to stop the knee-jerk assumptions that everyone who disagrees with them is a "corporate shill". The behavior on this subject has gotten way out of hand. a13ean (talk) 01:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I walked away from the article some time ago. I'm not paid to edit; I'm not a shill; but I'm tired of being treated as one. bobrayner (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Some time ago, in the interests of transparency, I took the trouble to make pretty much everything about me discoverable from my User Page (TL;DR - no Monsanto connection whatsover). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Question for Viriditas

Viriditas: above, someone asked you why you did not pursue an SPI or other specific complaint procedure: [83]. At that time, this was your reply: [84] (lower part of the diff).

Setting aside how you would know how large or small the other user is, I can fully appreciate the value of not escalating things. However, given that you have chosen to continue to assert that there may be SOCK or COI violations going on, and given how important it is to control any paid POV pushing on-Wiki, why would you not ask for such an investigation, and would you be willing to request such investigations now? Thank you. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Focus and wrap-up please?

As (too often) happens in Wikipedia, this conversation has gotten completely derailed. Can everybody please get back on topic, rather than heatedly discussing things that belong on the Talk page of the relevant article? The point of this ANI is Viriditas' behavior, namely, "some editors have accused other editors of being paid advocates for Monsanto and pushing a pro-Monsanto POV, as well as some implied accusations of WP:SOCK violations." I think that the discussion has laid the accusations to rest and has also made it clear that the manner in which they were repeatedly made was inappropriate. Several participants (including me) have said that we stopped working on the article because it is too hostile there. So what about V's behavior? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You've left out a few observations from the discussion, namely, that regardless of Viriditas' possible lack of diplomacy, some issues he raised are seen as worthy of further consideration. It was suggested that the possibly of an effort by Monsanto to influence March Against Monsanto and other related pages here is not outside the realm of possibilities. Also, one editor mentioned that this is essentially a content dispute which may need to wind up at ArbCom, and a few called for this to happen sooner rather than later. Why not allow this thing to play out, as I doubt that Admins have had sufficient time to fully look into the records? Sunshine is always the best disinfectant. Covering up an open sore often ends with infection. petrarchan47tc 23:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Petrarchan47 (which may come as a surprise to them!). I'm in favor of focus, but it's premature to wrap-up. But what I would say is that it is long past time to stop discussing content here (as opposed to at the page) and long past time to stop discussing theoretical concepts of what might or might not be going on, on Wikipedia. The issue here is user conduct. The conduct of the accusers, and (simply by logical extension) the conduct of the accused. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Oops, you forgot to mention the issue is also whether we need pro-GMO science at the protest article, how policy regarding fringe affects our article, and whether there is some weird teamwork taking place at this and GMO articles on wiki that happens to coincide with Monsanto's interests. petrarchan47tc 23:49, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Now I'm back to not agreeing. But that comment certainly is an interesting example of conduct. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User talk:Whiggsgerm

User created a new account and used their Talk page to make an entry in German that appears to be an attack page, complaining about inappropriate treatment at German wikipedia. I initially nominated for speedy deletion and the tag was repeatedly deleted, however as it is not perfectly clear to me what the page says, I am listing here for review. This is a diff of the content. Flat Out let's discuss it 12:21, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• Pretty clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. Even if their concerns are valid, and I'm certainly not saying that they are, it's pointless to post them here as the English Wikipedia doesn't have any special dominion over what goes on at the German one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

This is not true. There is no polemic, there is no insult and there is no attack but only a copy of a page for memorizing to me. I repeatedly wrote to Flat Out, that there is no complaining or attack. I could not understand, why he is repeatetly spreading this untruth. Whiggsgerm (talk) 12:38, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

From WP:OWNTALK: ".... the purpose of user talk pages is to draw the attention or discuss the edits of a user. Wikipedia is not a social networking site, and all discussion should ultimately be directed solely toward the improvement of the encyclopedia." The talk page is not there for you, it's there for other members of English Wikipedia to communicate with you about your edits here. The purpose of your talk page is certainly NOT to preserve "a copy of a page for memorizing to me". You need to download it and save it to a Word document or similar, or save it to the Cloud, or email it to yourself. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• It's not an attack page, it's a request to have an indefinite block on the German WP overturned, including a request for sanctions against a couple of admins there (I've taken a look at what is behind this on the German WP, including reading the ANI-case about user BrummTiger, which is the user account that this is really about, and it seems like he might have a reason for complaining, having been unfairly treated there, including being blocked indefinitely for dubious reasons). But a user talk page on the English WP is hardly the right place for filing such a complaint. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 15:11, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• I made this advisory edit to the talk page, but my comments have been removed, as have those of the complainant here. I'm not comfortable with dealing with this myself since I have no German Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:48, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Comments are still there, at the top of the page. Whiggsgerm (talk) 07:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

A friendly advice to @Whiggsgerm: Move the German language text to a new subpage of your user talk page to avoid more problems/conflicts. If the text is only a personal reminder/memo, as you claim, it could just as well be kept on a subpage. If you don't move it, it will be seen as an attempt to seek a conflict here, and you will find yourself in trouble here too. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 09:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It looks like there's more going on here. he appears to have been locked out of de:wikipedia, with email disabled. this is what he's complaining about . My German isn't great either, hence the translation (Bing may be a bit better for this ).

He appears to be trying to right a great wrong from the German Wikipedia. I'd suggest removing his German notice from his page and locking it as well based on what i saw in the above report. I won't touch it due to voluntary restrictions  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  11:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a painful fact that there is next to nothing that the many smaller wikis users can do nada if they have a disagreement with the admin. You can try to talk to the Stewards but they'll just tell you to sort it out with the local Admins, but they already hate you so what can you do? It's a dead loop that kills off contributors to these smaller wikis. You have to agree with the Admins or not be allowed to edit and these guys know that higher powers won't intervene. Oftentimes what the Admins say is good and right but what about those times when the Admin is wrong? MM (Report findings) ^{(Past espionage)} 12:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I would hardly classify the German Wikipedia as a "smaller wiki": by some measures, it's the second-largest after the English Wikipedia. If none of the 261 admins there is willing to unblock, it's a good sign that it's the user, not the community, that's in the wrong. --Carnildo (talk) 00:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mikrul - disruptive behaviour

• Has repeatedly removed xfd and speedy deletion templates from his articles despite being informed that this is unacceptable.
• Vandalised templates.
• Has made no effort at bettering himself despite being told that his behaviour may have consequences.
• Most amusingly of all, he told a bot "fuck you".

All the evidence is On his talk page (permalink). Since he is clearly not acting in good faith, I suggest a permanent ban.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 17:07, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

there is a fucking reason why fuckin noone trusts you fags at wikipedia youre all fucking bots. youre always deleting my fuckin articles most of you fuckin fags on this motherfucking site are fuckin 10 year old cunts so go a fucking head fucking ban me you cunts i dare you faggots because ive had enough of you fucking twats. im going log the fuck out for the last fuckin time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikrul (talk • contribs)

• Hmm, Bwilkins was being very gracious with a 24-hr block. Drmies (talk) 17:23, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The funny part is that I EC'd with their above post - my comment was going to be "I see nothing worth a WP:BAN on their talkpage" ... then they posted the reply above - and you'll see my pesonalized block notice. Yes, I WP:AGF'd ... (✉→BWilkins←✎) 17:25, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we keeping stats on the number of times a user says fucking (or some variant) in one post? I wanna know if the above sets a record (probably not).--Bbb23 (talk) 20:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I've also surprised that a) I'm a "fag/faggot", b) I'm a "bot", c) I'm a "cunt", d) I'm a "twat", e) I'm 10 years old. Honestly, what are the odds of being all 5 of those at the exact same time!!!!!! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

At least you're not a nazi Communist (that'd be Bugs, if I remember the ghost of Trollmas Past right). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Bwilkins, if I said he was right on, say, two or three out of those five, would you block me? Drmies (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

BWilkins, you could block him just for asking the question. Better still, get a crat to make him an admin again. That'll teach him.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He should never have resigned his bit to begin with - that makes him at least 2 or 3 of the above too LOL (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Can a named account be faked or an account hacker commit suicide for another user as a personal favor to a content antagonist? Perhaps no A/C at home? 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Quick note. Rule of thumb: native speakers make spelling mistakes, non-native speakers make grammar mistakes. User:Mikrul is 100% positive an English native speaker. (As well, as anyone who has got up to a reasonable level in another language knows, unless you're some sorta genius, you can only dream of getting to that level of idiomatic fluency in cussin'.)--Shirt58 (talk) 09:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for calling me a genius :P Anyway, could we get back on topic? Is anyone opposed to a permaban here?--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 14:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd say that if the behavior continues, yes. Otherwise, just let his Pulp Fiction-esque vent be one of those amusing things that happened one day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move without discussion

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

---

Earlier today, Dan56 moved the film article Out of Sight to Out of Sight (1998 film), stating in his edit summary that there is no primary topic. Though I have no doubt his edits were well-intended, I still object to this page move and request that the article be moved back until a page move discussion can take place. ---The Old Jacobite_{The '45} 18:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd have to say that I agree with the move, 100% ... because "Out of sight" means something completely different to me, so the disambig makes sense (✉→BWilkins←✎) 18:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything here that warrants administrator intervention. I do hope a gnome has checked the inbound links to Out of Sight and moved them to the new page target, though, if the links were meant to refer to the 1998 film. —C.Fred (talk) 18:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm forced to agree, it's a good move. Dan's comment wasn't that there is no primary topic, but rather that the 1998 film wasn't it - and, factually, he seems to be correct. There is no administrator action warranted here. That said - TheOldJacobite, if you have a counter proposal as an alternative to the move/disambiguation, I'd suggest posting it at Talk:Out of Sight (disambiguation). You might consider asking Dan to discuss it there, along with other editors involved in the topic area. But I don't think reverting the move is justified at this point. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(I've also notified Dan56, as required by this noticeboard's rules.) UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:55, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

...this is at ANI because...? GiantSnowman 18:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Because I haven't said "f-you" to anyone yet today...any volunteers? (✉→BWilkins←✎) 20:58, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Disagree. Stats tool has thousands of visits for the film, barely hundreds for most of the others. I even went back to last year in case the hits were generated by the recent death of actor Dennis Farina. Nope, the same. But this isn't a topic for this board, it's a page move debate better held at WP:RM. I'm reverting per WP:BRD and that debate can happen in the appropriate venue. Gamaliel (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• There are two options, both at WP:RM. Undiscussed moves can be requested undone so that they can be discussed, in the Technical moves section, and a Requested move can be opened (on the article talk page), to discuss the name of the article. Apteva (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Gamaliel, why on Earth did you revert that when consensus is clearly in favor of the move? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 21:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Based on the criteria at Wikipedia:PRIMARYTOPIC. Consensus is not a vote and policy-based arguments are always given more weight. Regardless, this is going to involve a full move discussion and final decision at the proper venue anyway, so what the title is now doesn't matter much. Also, Dan56 hadn't fixed any of the incoming wikilinks yet, so might as well have them all point to the proper article until a final decision is determined. Gamaliel (talk) 21:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

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

BLP talk page being used for defamation

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

---

Talk:Sting has some revisions in its history that probably should be deleted because of BLP concerns. This would be a good example. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

That's very funny. My favorite part is another editor asking the IP if they have any reliable sources in support of the claim. It's a silly statement. Besides, it was never removed, and it was moved to the archives, so revdel'ing it would be a pain. Not needed or worth it.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:51, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he's a real rabble-rouser, that Sting guy. Wherever shit's happening to someone in the world, you'll find him in the middle of it. Kind of like seeing firefighters whenever you see a fire. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Reminds me of the TV advert where the insomniac with anxiety thinks "Maybe the hokie-pokie is what it's all about?" :) 99.251.120.60 (talk) 02:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Keeping the pictures in Desire's article

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

---

Hi! I need some help here User:Werieth is deleting the pictures that were posted to Desire (Geri Halliwell song)

• The first picture is alternate single cover which is completely different to the 1st single cover that was posted in the infobox.
• The second picture is the DVD single cover which is placed in a different infobox.
• The third picture is a music video screenshot which is related to the music video section.

I don't see any reason to remove those pictures. Since they serve their purpose very well.

User:Werieth also threatened me of blocking - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hotwiki#July_2013

--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• He's absolutely correct, and I have removed the images again. An article about a single doesn't need five non-free usages (including the music sample, which I'd argue doesn't meet Wikipedia:NFC#Audio_clips either). Each needs to be justified per all the criteria of WP:NFCC, of which one is minimal usage. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• What Black Kite says. If you had read the policy linked above and in one of Werieth's edit summaries you'd know that by now. You can't just copy and paste stuff from all over the internet into Wikipedia articles. Drmies (talk) 00:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like this isn't the only article, either; the user has uploaded a lot more alternate covers and video stills for pop music items (the latter almost never meet WP:NFCC unless the video itself is particularly notable). See, for example, Tell Me (Melanie B song). Black Kite (talk) 00:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Maybe you and Werieth can go alternate cover hunting in the field of K-pop. You won't be disappointed. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I learnt a long time ago that if anything is more likely to make you go "y'know what, fuck this" about Wikipedia it's trying to enforce NFCC in pop culture articles. I pretty much lost the enthusiasm for it around the 1,000th insult (and the fact that most other admins, understandably, run away from those issues like someone just took the stopper out of a test-tube of Ebola). Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Well go ahead, remove those pictures. The thing is those music video stills were uploaded to showcase the music video. And I'm pretty sure I've read somewhere that as long as the alternate cover is different to the first single cover, it can be included in the article. --SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Alternate album covers can sometimes be allowed; it depends if they pass all the criteria of NFCC - which means critical commentary of the actual cover itself. They shouldn't be used just to show "another different cover exists". Video clips, as I mentioned above, really do need to be notable in themselves. The one I mentioned above is just another photo of the singer. It wouldn't be allowed in the article about Mel B herself, so it definitely shouldn't be here. Black Kite (talk) 01:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Go ahead delete it now, if you think thats the right thing to do and the music video screenshot that I uploaded to the Desire song article has a caption that is related to what is written in the music video section.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 01:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well that's actually the problem, to an extent - the image doesn't show anything that isn't explained in the text - we don't need a non-free picture of Halliwell waking up in the morning to illustrate the fact that the video shows her waking up (WP:NFCC#1 is relevant here). As I said, if a video still is showing something genuinely notable about the video (or the video itself is notable and sourced as such) then it may pass, but most don't. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• And someone could close this now, as no admin action is being requested. Discussion could continue elsewhere. Black Kite (talk) 01:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Instaurare (NYyankees51) topic ban

An indefinite topic ban was imposed on Instaurare (talk · contribs) (aka NYyankees51 (talk · contribs) ) by the community here. Evidently, User:HJ Mitchell decided, (on his own?) to lift the topic ban here. As far as I understand, only the community or arbcom can lift such a topic ban, according to WP:UNBAN. Instaurare has resumed editing LGBT-related articles, for example here. - MrX 04:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this was a violation of UNBAN by HJ Mitchell. Binksternet (talk) 05:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit questioned was pretty much on the ragged edge of "broadly construed" and it is legitimately within the province of an admin to determine just how far he wishes to construe it. The wording from the admin, in fact, indicates he would still consider the general ban about making problem edits in that area to be actionable, but the Chick-Fil-A non-scientific poll likely was properly removed, and trying to judge HJ Mitchell here about his reasonable judgement call is not really going to aid the project. One problem is that virtually every article on current people and events now has some element relating in some way to LGBT, or could easily have such a connexion made. Where a topic ban is presumably so all-encompassing, a much larger group ought to be involved in making that definition hold. Note: I opined than and now draconian solutions do not work, and using them for any outside rationale is worse. Cheers. Collect (talk) 06:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Based on his phrasing here, it appears that HJ Mitchell thought this was an ArbCom ban. I should also mention that User:Collect was the only one who openly opposed the original topic ban, which otherwise had a crushing consensus. Someone not using his real name (talk) 09:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• And Istaurare has even edit warred over his clear topic ban violation [85] [86]. I think HJ Mitchell is largely responsible for this state of affairs (very poorly worded reply and arrogating himself powers not otherwise invested in him), but Istaurare certainly looks bent on continuing/resuming the behavior that got him topic banned. Someone not using his real name (talk) 10:33, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The "breakfast poll" which is not actually a "poll" of any real sort, is not something which belongs in any article posing as "fact." I suggest that if, in fact, 53% of Americans were boycotting Chick-Fik-A that their sales would have diminished quite sharply. In fact HuffPo reported that CFA sales rose 12% in 2012.[87], thus having a suggestion in the article that 53% were boycotting the company is a teensy bit ludicrous, and contrary to WP:RS as it is not a "fact" any more than "73% of Gnarph magazine site poll responders say that the country of Diperia is run by aliens" would be a fact in the Diperia article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI is not the place to hash out content disputes. Since you seem to agree with Instaurare's [repeated] edit, and you yourself are not topic banned, you're welcome to go to the article talk page and argue your content points over there. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• User:HJ Mitchell is not in a position to unilaterally lift Instaurare's community ban from LGBT subjects. There is still an entry in WP:RESTRICT for the ban, and the bannning discussion did not confer any special authority on one admin. NYyankees51 was previously banned for three months from abortion in 2012 under WP:ARBAB but that one is long expired. If Instaurare wants to edit in the LGBT area he needs to ask the community to lift the ban. EdJohnston (talk) 13:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Before people take up their pitchforks against HJ Mitchell, let's look at the history. If you look at the discussion above leading up to the topic ban [88] along with the block log [89] and their talkpage [90], it seems it happened at the same time as Instaurare was indefinitely blocked again by HJ Mitchell (they were quickly unblocked but only to discuss any putative community actions). In other words, Instaurare was topic banned even though they couldn't edit anyway, and weren't unblocked until about 4 months later at User talk:Instaurare/Archive1#Conditions for your return and Instaurare appeared to abide by the dejure block [91]. While there's nothing wrong with imposing a topic ban on an indef editor who may one day be allowed back (and I don't think it was entirely clear at the time what else was going to happen to Instaurare), it is a little unusual even if not unheard of. Now looking at the topic ban discussion, while HJ Mitchell was involved in the related discussions, they didn't discuss the topic ban itself. Are we even sure they were aware of the community topic ban?

As per the earlier link, HJ Mitchell did impose a LGBT topic ban when unblocking, along with a bunch of other restrictions and they were surely entitled to lift these restrictions which appears to me to be what they were doing in the linked comment from them. This doesn't affect the community imposed topic ban and HJ Mitchell probably should have reminded Instaurare when lifting the restrictions that community imposed topic bans remained in effect, including a topic ban on LGBT related articles. In fact they probably should have worded the restrictions clearer when unblocking; reminding Instaurare to abide by community imposed topic bans or other restrictions on them, and what they were, as seperate from any additional restrictions (not including redundant restrictions) imposed as a condition of the unblock. But as I suggested, perhaps HJ Mitchell was not aware of the community topic ban or simply forgot about it, a mistake but surely not a terrible one.

Even if HJ Mitchell was attempting to lift the community topic ban, considering their high involvement in the case and the strange way the topic ban came about, I can understand their feeling it was better for them to impose and lift the ban, even if I don't agree it was okay.

Now as for Instaurare, this may have been unfortunate confusion on their part. So I suggest for now, a reminder they still have to abide by a community imposed restrictions and appeal these seperately. And also a suggestion considering the reaction to their edits, it will be a mistake to appeal these restrictions any time soon. And perhaps a reminder that they will only get so many chances (I'm going by the suggestion I get from the comments above that the edits were problematic for reasons beyond being in violation of a topic ban, I didn't check the edits myself).

Nil Einne (talk) 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that HJ Mitchell's actions were probably not purposely intended to override the community ban. Also, I didn't post this to discuss the quality of Instaurare edits at the Chick-fil-A SSM controversy article, or to rehash arguments already concluded in the topic ban discussion. The fact seems to be that Instaurare is still topic banned from LGBT-related articles, broadly (or draconianly) construed, until such time that the community lifts the ban following a request from Instaurare and an ensuing discussion. - MrX 14:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: There was nothing strange or unusual about the way the community imposed topic ban was discussed or enacted. It had overwhelming consensus and NYyankees51 was allowed to participate in the AN discussion as the state of his talk page [92] demonstrates. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hi folks, you've got yourself a good burning at the stake going there, so I won't take too much of your time. I'll just clarify that my lifting of the restrictions was intended to apply only to those restrictions which I imposed as a condition of Instaurare's (or NYyankees51 as he was known then) return, listed at User_talk:Instaurare/Archive1#Conditions_for_your_return. Neither those restrictions nor my lifting of them should (nor were they intended to) supersede any restrictions imposed by the community. In all honesty, I'd forgotten about the community restrictions, and I apologise to Instaurare and the community for my ambiguity. Of course it is not within my gift to lift sanctions imposed by the community, and I apologise if I gave the impression I believed it was. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

HJ, thanks for the clarification. Indeed when I saw the post on your talk page I suspected you weren't talking about the community LGBT restriction, but something else. But Instaurare must have read your post and assumed he was now free of any LGBT limits. EdJohnston (talk) 15:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The topic ban discussion closed four days after I was indef'd, and the indef took all my attention. I honestly forgot about the community TB, though I'm not sure I knew about it at all; again, I was focused on the indef at the time. So I apologize; it was an honest mistake on my part and HJ's too. I seriously doubt my chances of ever getting the TB lifted, given that my two undoubtedly non-contentious edits (removing a clearly unreliable source and a simple re-sectioning) were swiftly and vociferously removed and the TB papers served immediately, with my fan club showing up with pitchforks for both me and HJ. So I doubt I will ever get a fair hearing regardless of past or future editing, but I intend to continue trying to rehabilitate my reputation as though I have a chance. Alas, the sanction stands, and I will abide by it, and I will continue editing constructively in other topic areas. Instaurare (talk) 17:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

You were notified of the community-imposed topic ban at the time it was enacted [93]. I WP:AGF that both you and HJ Mitchell somehow forgot about it given that HJ Mitchell imposed a more extensive topic ban himself (covering abortion as well) upon your unblock [94]. He is surely allowed to lift the additional restrictions he himself imposed, but not those were also covered by a community consensus. To have the latter restriction lifted, see the procedure at WP:UNBAN. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Your point is valid, but with the greatest respect, I think that's what Instaurare just said. Given the number of things going on and given that this all took place over a year ago, I would hope he could be forgiven for a slight lapse of memory (once); I don't think he is trying to claim that my action somehow negated the community-imposed topic ban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, right here and now he is not. Earlier, he was edit warring on a talk page trying to remove others' replies pointing out his topic ban [95] [96] and also raising doubts here. That did not smell good, so I'm making myself crystal clear here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't even look at the link he posted til now. I assumed it was linked to one of HJ's posts on my talk page. I apologize. Instaurare (talk) 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Armenians infobox

User:Avdav just created an infobox for the Armenians article. Nothing wrong here, but he simply messed up the nice collage made by me a while ago. And as you can see he put the pictures of notable Armenians arbitrarily removing a few.

I started a discussion on the talk page of Armenians. And I asked him to get involved in the discussion I opened on Armenians TP regarding the infobox. He removed my note from his talk page and announced "I have no time, fur disputing, keep reverting, it will be reverted back again".

• ANI notice [97]

--Երևանցի ^talk 06:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So far I'm seeing rather poor behaviour on both sides. Avdav's outright refusal to engage in communication is definitely troubling and is likely to lead to at least a sanction warning under WP:ARBAA2. Yerevanci's actions are slightly better, but he too has been edit-warring, and his only "talk" contributions so far have consisted in making demands that the other side should explain their preference, while not giving any explanation of his own preference himself [98]. His presentation of the case here is also hardly constructive, as it merely presents his statement of taste as a matter of fact (his own preferred collage is "nice", the other one "messed up"; the other guy's choices are "arbitrary", while his own presumedly aren't?) – Incidentally, about the image collages being edit-warred over, the version Yerevanci prefers contains a likely copyright violation and might have to be deleted (see Commons DR). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yerevanci, have you considered that instead of simply removing the entire infobox you make a WP:BOLD change to the infobox page to include a collage? Future Perfect makes a good point about the existing one possibly being deleted so consider making a new one. If Avdav continues to refuse to engage in discussion then perhaps further action can be taken at a later date. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 10:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The only difference between my and his versions is the collage. --Երևանցի ^talk 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Guys, you know what's sad? The fact that he says "I have no time, fur disputing, keep reverting, it will be reverted back again" and you still don't do anything about it. This is a big turn off. Like what else should I do? Some guy from nowhere comes and messes up the collage and says he has "no time to dispute".

I just replaced the problematic picture in the collage with a PD one. --Երևանցի ^talk 13:08, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My point was that you just blank reverted the whole template rather than just change the picture, which is probably why you got a snappy response. I suggest you go to the template talk page, propose the change and see if Avdav engages in discussion. If he doesn't respond then make the change yourself. If Avdav continues to revert he'll hit the WP:3RR anyway and most likely get a sanction Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, I see he continues to revert you when you add the collage to the template directly. I've posted a message on his page requesting he participate in this discussion so we can reach an amicable agreement. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, he just removed your message [99] --Երևանցի ^talk 14:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

My willingness to WP:AGF is running low. Perhaps an admin should step in with a short block for disruptive editing? Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That is probably the best option for now. A one-day block would be enough, I think. The guy has made some useful edits in the past. --Երևանցի ^talk 14:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I would still expect you to post on the template talk page with your proposal to change the image to give the other editor an area to respond if he choses to do so. Show you are willing to discuss it. Cabe6403 ^{(Talk•Sign)} 14:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Done. I don't have much hope though.--Երևանցի ^talk 14:39, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I have issued an AE warning to Avdav and made it clear that he'll be blocked if this reverting continues. On that note, I'd like to ask Yerevanci too to refrain from further edits on the two pages without consensus. De728631 (talk) 14:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, but I think users that "have no time for dispute" should be blocked for a day. He removed all the warnings on his talk page and doesn't seem to be willing to discuss anything. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, it seems that a discussion has just begun. Let's see how this turns out. De728631 (talk) 15:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't seem to be engaging in any discussion. "Well, as I already said before, I have no sufficient time to fight my point of view, if you think Vazgen Sargsyan deserves to be in the list instead of Vazgen I, keep him untouchable" He just seems to be pushing his POV and refuses to discuss. --Երևանցի ^talk 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry. I'll have to revert it. He doesn't cooperate in any way. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:25, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Watch that 3RR though; it goes for both editors. Since the reverts you make on the new template and the reverts you made in the article itself have essentially the same effect, exchanging the one set of pictures against the other, I would argue that both sets of reverts should be counted towards 3RR together, which means you are probably already both past it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you guys kidding me? The user constantly refuses to engage in any discussion. --Երևանցի ^talk 16:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I know, but as I said, your own discussion behaviour has not been that much better – as far as I can see, you have still not detailed just how and why you think your selection of images is better than the other. And of course you don't "have to revert" anything. There is no danger that either the one version or the other will seriously damage the encyclopedia if it stays on for a day or two. There is now at least one third party in the discussion. Convince him, and he will likely make the revert for you. So far, we only have one editor's statement of taste against another's. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Man are you serious right now? By that logic I can go to the Germans article and remove a guy from the infobox I don't like and get away with it? Avdav clearly stated "I have no sufficient time to fight my point of view, if you think Vazgen Sargsyan deserves to be in the list instead of Vazgen I, keep him untouchable." You think this behavior should be even tolerated on Wikipedia? --Երևանցի ^talk 16:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, I wonder what the waiting period is. If we don't get any response from him by tomorrow, would I be entitled the right to revert his edits because he refuses to engage in discussions? --Երևանցի ^talk 21:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

As Fut. Perf. has said, your responses are not much better. I'm trying to help you make the edits you want but so far it's just, "I don't like the way it looks" . --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't distort the facts. I clearly said that hHe removed a few notables without any explanation. The "better looking" part is also there, but I care more about why a few people were removed from the collage without any discussion whatsoever. --Երևանցի ^talk 22:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Threats of violence at Schurr High School

Your meme is under another troll's bridge. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. SlowBrozz (talk · contribs) posted this shortly after I reverted to a prior revision of Schurr High School - is this a credible death threat or mere trolling? I also suspect sockpuppetry, having seen Msmicle (talk · contribs) exuding similar traits to SB, sans the threat above. hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 09:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It's not a threat of violence, but an old and tired internet meme. See its page at knowyourmeme. In any event, I'v indeffed him for vandalism. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC) This isn't my party, but I have reported cases like this to the authorities myself in the past. But I'm not the first responder here. Still, I'd be curious to see what other editors think the policy should be on this case. I do think the indef block is a good first step. Jusdafax 09:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC) There's even a musical version for the meme, along with 9 variations...hmssolent\You rang? ship's log 11:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC) It's just a silly meme. There's an indefinite block, that is sufficient. Gamaliel (talk) 12:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Arctic Kangaroo (yet again)

Given the endless saga that User:Arctic Kangaroo has involved multiple individuals in, over an extended period, it might seem reasonable to assume that s/he has actually understood by now what the Creative Commons license implies. Apparently not. AK has recently posted on Jimbo's talk page a statement saying that "On a side note, all my works are always All rights reserved. [100] I pointed out to AK that that was "an assertion that you are claiming rights incompatible with the CC licence", and suggested that it be withdrawn. [101] AK's response:

"I will be sleeping soon, so may not be able to continue talking about this until the next time I log on. Just to clarify, what I mean by that is wherever else I upload them. Here though, how I wish it's the same as well. Anyway, I did not know that the consequences of a CC license can be that serious. I simply can't believe how immoral people are. Just 1 simple mistake, it's so hard to forgive and forget just "because CC said so, so I have to dump my morals into the bin" [102]

It is self-evident that AK has even now failed to understand the nature of the CC license - as applying everywhere, as irrevocable, and that s/he cannot impose conditions on it, or limit where it applies. Given this failure to understand licensing, after having it explained repeatedly, I have to suggest that a block per WP:COMPETENCE is not only advisable to avoid further disruption, but obligatory in that AK is (regardless of issues over age) incapable of giving consent to a licence s/he appears incapable of understanding. Far too much time has been wasted on this issue already, and I see no reason to drag this out any further. Accordingly, I formally propose that AK be blocked indefinitely, and that 'indefinitely' in this case shall be taken to mean until (a) AK can prove (via private communication with the WMF) that s/he is of a legal age where there can be no reasonable doubt that the CC license is applicable, and (b) when AK can demonstrate that s/he fully understands the implications of the CC license. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Some extracts from my email to Jimbo. Read more about the whole saga on Jimbo's page and the Commons DR.

1. When I uploaded those images, I did not know how severe the consequences are - I couldn't even think of it.
2. But anyway, I hope that you can forgive my mistake by deleting those images. It's quite disturbing to me now, with a very important final school exam and an even more important national exam just round the corner.
3. Deleting my images will give me peace of mind, so that I can take my time read through all the available licenses, comprehend them fully, clarify anything if need be, and then think about whether I'm fine with them, before uploading any further images (or even the deleted ones) back to Wikipedia. Because remember, I really want to contribute some good images to Wikipedia, but all I need now is some time to reconsider, and deleting the images will make me able to reconsider better. Because I also don't want them on Commons at all, just on en.wiki alone with a notice to keep it on en.wiki only and not upload them anywhere else.

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 11:10, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

More coming up when I'm back from dinner. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 11:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• i would prefer a ban to a block as that will make sockpuppet reverting easier and needed due to the licencing issue. Agathoclea (talk) 16:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef ban -User:Arctic Kangaroo also said: "I've never approved of CC licenses" on Jimbo talk page, which seems clear enough. We have already had other cases of people who (impossibly) wanted to revoke their licenses, and we correctly blocked them. If you don't agree with the CC, you can't edit Wikimedia project, simple as that. Indef should not be forever, but should be on the conditions listed by ATG above. Ban instead of block, per Agathoclea above. -- cyclopia^speak! 16:37, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Indef block, as explicitly says he has no intention of accepting TOS and obviously can't be bothered to read and understand the licensing terms he explicitly agreed to follow. "Indefinite" not "infinite", as he could come back when he's fully understood the licensing and we're comfortable that he is legally able to agree to them (if there's consensus that that is a problem), allow him to get himself corrected for any bad advice he received, etc. On the other hand, if there's any history of sock, that's abuse not newbie-negligence/bad-advice, and I would support ban as well. DMacks (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef ban per Agathoclea. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef, with regrets; it's a shame that an experienced editor, who is usually fairly solid (AfC and images obviously being exceptions) needs indeffing, but that's what it's come to. The statement quoted by Cyclopia is immensely troubling, and is not compatible with Wikipedia. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose the terms proposed, as they are basically "ban all editors under the age of 18" by the back door. Support indef block until such a time as AK acknowledges that material he contributes on English Wikipedia must be licensed appropriately, and that there is no way of making this "All Rights Reserved elsewhere" or whatever. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I am going to refrain from supporting or opposing a block or ban, as I don't feel I'm sufficiently familiar with the editor's history to judge one way or another. However, I do agree with Demiurge1000 that the conditions seem inappropriate. I don't think it's right to add a condition that the block/ban can be lifted when "AK can prove (via private communication with the WMF) that s/he is of a legal age where there can be no reasonable doubt that the CC license is applicable"—if we have concerns about underage editors not being legally capable of licensing their contributions under the CC license, this needs to be discussed in a broader sense, not just imposed randomly on young editors. – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not proposing we ban all editors under 18, by the back door or otherwise. I'm proposing we block one editor who has used the "I'm a minor" excuse to cause us no end of trouble, in order to prevent this one editor doing it again. As for the broader legal issue, if it did' turn out that CC licenses by minors aren't enforceable, and we had to ban all minors from editing, nothing we do here would make the slightest difference. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

AK's "I'm a minor" excuse is completely invalid, so I don't see why AK becoming of legal age should affect any block. For the record, User talk:Philippe (WMF)/Archive 6#Minors entering into contracts and meta:Wikilegal/Removal of photos of minors might be useful. The latter link says, "Licenses granted by minors are as valid as those granted by adults. Both minors and adults are protected by the same copyright laws and they can issue equal licenses." – GorillaWarfare (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support a WP:COMPETENCE indef block until the user is mature enough to contribute to this project, which given his track record, should include a clear and unambiguous statement, in their own words, about the licensing/reuse implications of submitting content here. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not quite sure I understand the problem - given Arctic Kangaroo's clarification, I took his "all rights reserved" comment as referring to stuff he uploads elsewhere - and unless he uploads or posts the same stuff to Wikipedia (which for all I can tell he does not, or at least will not do in the future), there's nothing wrong with that. Huon (talk) 18:30, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes; he was (probably) talking about his earlier media contributions (seven files; I think) to Commons [103], [104]; no way related to Wikipedia. That matter is pending for the decision of WMF legal; considering his age. I didn’t see a word by him about his current or future contributions against the CC terms (including both text and media). JKadavoor Jee 18:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I believe that at least the photo that prompted the dispute was uploaded to Wikipedia first, then deleted here once it was on Commons.[105] So the problem already affects files uploaded here on enWP. --Avenue (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, I didn't follow the dates correctly. It does seem that this file was uploaded to Commons first (though using the Wikipedia upload wizard). --Avenue (talk) 04:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with you that most likely what AK is saying is that on all other websites, he? releases his images with all rights reserved and that he wishes he could do so on wikipedia. However it still sounds to me like he doesn't understand there's nothing unique about wikimedia projects, some other websites require free licences and many websites even though not requiring free licences requiring you to irrevocably licence your content to them (often allowing them to do whatever they want including sublicence). And of course it doesn't matter what the websites requires if they allow CC and he choses CC he can't later revoke the licence. Or to put it a different way, it sounds like he still doesn't understand he can't just ignore what he's doing and imagine all rights are reserved and if he makes a mistake people have to accept that and follow his changes months later. Further it sounds like he still doesn't understand no one can revoke his licence, the only possibilities are a court could decide he didn't actually licence the content in that way or that even if he did he was entitled to revoke it because of his age (and of course without revoking people can voluntarily remove his content). Or in other words he still doesn't understand how the licence works. Nil Einne (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef per Someone. WP:CIR appears to be the real problem here, as AK seems not to be able to understand the nature of participation here and the requirements of the licensing which applies every time the "save" button is pushed. It's much too early to consider a ban instead of a block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:35, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment legal has already spoken about this issue and claims that there is no issue with allowing minors to edit. --Guerillero | My Talk 18:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment That page should be called "Removal of photos uploaded by minors". It gives the initial impression that it is about photographs of minors. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further it says "the claimed absence of ongoing consent as a "good rationale" to remove the photograph." JKadavoor Jee 19:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Wow! That page is only about consent of a minor in photos of minors; not photos by minors. JKadavoor Jee 19:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Well it is a bit of both: photos of minors by minors. As such it is hard to separate out the advice. Also it makes the mistake (in my non-lawyer interpretation) of confusing a licence with a contract. I licence has no return promise, which is necessary to make it a contract -- Commons does not promise to display your photograph. So the argument that a minor benefits from the "contract" since "A minor who posts photos on Commons, for example, receives a large benefit from the use of and international recognition and exposure gained from the global project" is false imo. So I continue to await some applicable legal advice. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• I assume this discussion is initiated without understanding what is discussing on Jimbo’s page. So I request to read it entirely prior to make any comment here. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 19:54, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

The other link here posted above contains I think more appropriate advice. Essentially, we don't know wrt a minor revoking a licence because it hasn't been handled by the court, but AK is affected by the contract he makes with WMF every time he presses the save button (to irrevocably agree to release your contribution) and he does benefit from that contract in various ways, making it difficult for him to renage on his side of the deal. Colin°^Talk 19:36, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks; but still it is very vague to me. Notice how cleverly that CC personnel ignored/abstained from making any comment on his mail regarding his younger age. JKadavoor Jee 20:15, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose a broad ban applied to all editing activity, or indef block. Support a topic ban on uploading images. I sympathise with those whose patience has run out and indeed when I saw AK's name here yet again I heaved a weary sigh. But I think a blanket ban would be unnecessarily harsh. There have been two areas of signal incompetence on AK's part: inappropriate decisions at AfC and the uploading of images. We have already topic banned AK from the former, and can perfectly well ban him/her from the latter as well. The rest of AK's contributions have not attracted any ire that I'm aware of and this would leave AK free to contribute (and possibly to grow in knowledge and experience.) I realise this is counter to the flow of opinions here but although AK's judgement has been monumentally poor in these two areas, I do think they are perhaps areas which can be cleanly isolated and we should give him/her the opportunity. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 20:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• @Kim: I think the problem goes beyond images, simply because of AK's lack of understanding (or willingness to understand) that he is invoking the CC/GFDL licenses each and every time he makes an edit to an article or posts a comment. The editing page is very clear about that, and there's no real distinction between uploading text and unloading an image. If AK doesn't understand (or agree) that he has voluntarily licensed his image by uploading it, then he also doesn't understand that he has similarly licensed his words by uploading text. Wikipedia is utterly dependent on every editor implicitly agreeing to the licensing sceme (whether they are a minor or not) - the whole house of cards falls down if that is undermined. Given that, AK's refusal to understand in regard to images cannot stand in isolation. He cannot say that everything's hunky-dory when he licenses his text, but not when he licenses his images. It is this fundamental lack of competence that concerns me, and lead me to support an indef block until he can show that he understand the way this system works. A topic ban on image uploads is not, I think, sufficient, since it's AK's global lack of understanding which is the underlying issue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support indef ban I actually have concerns beyond CIR. As I understand it, AK has now taken the copyright issue of the commons photos to OFFICE. While I had some sympathy to AK's position, I have little sympathy for that cause of actions. IMO, it's equivalent to WP:NLT, particularly since all evidence suggests AK voluntarily licenced their content under those licences and it sounds like having failed to convince the commons community to take them down (which I don't necessarily agree with but understand), they're not attempting legal means to force their way. Even though it may be commons, it affects here enough that I suggest action is justified. As long as the legal request continues, I would suggest that AK should be unwelcome. If the WMF decides to abide by the request, we're in a tricky situation, personally I would still be reluctant to allow them back based on the fact I would consider the legal issue unresolved and unresolvable (the proble, is the foundations decision doesn't necessarily mean AK has a credible case but we don't want to fight this) unless AK withdraws the request (which doesn't have to mean the images would be reuploaded). There's no way the community can trust that next time AK doesn't get their way, they're just going to try to force it by other means (not based on the fact they necessarily have a genuine case but that people won't want to fight them on it). It's true once they're of age, it may be more difficult but I'm not sure if this would be enough to me. Now if the WMF decides to ignore AK request (and if it actually goes to court we'e obviously respect the court's decision), I would support allowing AK back when we can be confident of their competence. Nil Einne (talk) 20:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Not AK; it is we who contacted and to legal, not to office for getting an advice. JKadavoor Jee 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Clarified below in detail JKadavoor Jee 03:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry it seems I misunderstood the comments, I've struck out the relevant parts of my reply. However I continue to support a block for competence reasons. As I mentioned in a discussion above, I'm not so much concerned over the 'all rights reserved' on other websites bit, as I think what AK means there is not quite what Andy suggested. But I am concerned over the continued lack of understanding of how licencing works, and what the CC is. Ultimately people have to understand what they're doing here, including understanding and accepting (not necessarily agreeing) with licencing and my impression is after all this time this still doesn't apply to AK. Failure to do so results in the nasty mess we are in now. (And AK's claims that text and images are different doesn't help their case, in fact it makes it worse.) P.S. I should clarify that the reason I worded my original response to refer to an indef ban is because I regarded the NLT thing as diff from what we normally deal with so neither community ban nor indef block seemed appropriate. Now it's no longer an issue I'm fine with either an indef block or a community ban. Nil Einne (talk) 04:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• support topic ban. weak support ifdef The images could probably be deleted under the assumption that he did not validly enter into a contract/license as there was no "meeting of the minds" regarding what the license meant. That is a severe WP:COMPETENCE issue, but not one that deserves an ifdef imo - on the other hand, that same licensing issue applies to all edits he makes in the project, which would mean if he is not agreeing to the license, or cannot understand it, he cannot contribute. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block until Arctic Kangaroo can demonstrate that they understand the terms of the CC-BY-SA license and accept that all contributions they make to Wikipedia will fall under this license irrevocably. Until then, AK should not be allowed to edit (or upload images to Commons, for that matter). CtP (t • c) 21:21, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• (Non-administrator comment) Arctic Kangaroo's comments "I'm never uploading anything to Commons again" and "I have no complaints about my text contributions being used" suggest that a block or ban over this may be unnecessary. —rybec 21:42, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• If I said "I'm never uploading anything to Commons again", would the same apply to me? What about User:Giano? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• @rybec: See my comment to Kim Dent-Brown above. The fact that AK "has no complaints" about his text uploading is not really relevant - he doesn't have any complaints about it now, but that situation could easily change in the future if he doesn't understand and agree that hitting the save button -- for text or for an image -- is implicitly agreeing to an irrevocable license. In point of fact, AK is not entitled to make one judgment about image uploading and another about text uploading, it's all the same thing, which is something he needs to understand before he can continue editing here, whether or not he intends to upload images. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• I echo Beyond My Ken. If he considers the license he used for his images to be invalid because he is a minor, then he must also consider the same license invalid here where he contributes text, and therefore should not be allowed to contribute. He can't have it both ways. CtP (t • c) 22:05, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• The first comment indicated to me that AK wouldn't be contributing any more images. The second could be construed as showing an understanding that making textual contributions is granting a license to use them: it was in response to a comment by Mattbuck which said so explicitly. Other photographers have donated images without understanding the licenses, then had second thoughts and asked for courtesy deletion; it's not always granted, but a cross-wiki block or ban for it would be highly unusual, wouldn't it? —rybec 23:40, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Important question for those !voting above: Quite a few are saying "indef ban". Is a WP:CBAN actually being suggested or is the indef block proposed by the OP what is meant? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block but oppose a ban I came here expecting to oppose the indef, but comments like:

  Let me warn you guys, I'm gonna continue protesting until the file is deleted. This is bullshit. You people at Commons have total disregard and no respect for others who contribute. And no respect for creators' rights too. I'm not gonna give a damn on whatever shame this will cause, and also how embarrassing this can be. I just want it deleted, and after that, nobody is to upload it again, even if you make whatever minor tweaks with Photoshop or whatever, as nobody is given permission by me to upload the copyrighted work. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

make me question his competence. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support a block on all minors, who cannot sign contracts and who should not be exploited by Wikipedia. Also, Arbcom has complained about its inability to enforce even its toothless WP:Child Protection and its 20 yearly cases of apparent child-predators, so it's not a safe environment for kids. The US's COPPA and COPA laws prohibit participation by minors under 12 and require parental consent for those 13-17 years old. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• How, in your view, are minors being exploited by Wikipedia? Also, COPA hasn't been in effect since 2009 never went into effect. CtP (t • c) 23:48, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

• @KW: I don't agree with you, but your position is at least consistent. I'm curious if you have put any thought into how editors would prove to WMF that they aren't minors? By clicking a button that says they're over 12? If your concern is protecting children -- and that is my conclusion after seeing many similar comments from you over the years -- how, exactly would that protect anyone? Except, of course, the WMF, which can fall back on the statement to show that it is not responsibe? And if minors can't enter into a contract, or authorize a license, how do they have the ability to make statements about their age which are legally binding? The questions are not entirely rhetorical, the problem of proving one's identity online is a thorny one, and the issue of age is only one aspect of it, so I do wonder if you've put any thought into it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Section 1302(2)(B) of the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA) exempts non-profit organizations, such as the Wikimedia Foundation and its projects. And as Chris the Paleontologist pints out, COPA never went into effect. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• A block on all minors? Are you joking? Insulam Simia (talk) 06:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, so what hes a kid. Anyone has the potential to behave in such a manner, its bad I know but his maturity shouldn't lead to a ban or a block, I sosupport a topic ban. Prabash.Akmeemana 23:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, what topic are you proposing we ban AK from? The CC license applies everywhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm admittedly not familiar with User:Arctic Kangaroo's history on ANI. But it seems odd to impose an indefinite block/ban on a person who hasn't even commented here to clarify what their position is. I think folks should hear from AK first before such a drastic action is taken. Perhaps he/she has come to understand the position of CC and retracts their earlier remarks. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Just went to see his/her user stats and found User:Arctic Kangaroo has been active since Aug. 2012 and done 21K+ edits in the past year. Newjerseyliz (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef block if the user has no intention of following arguably the most important rule on the site. TCN7JM 00:41, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support site ban, because as WP:5P says, one of our fundamental principles is that "Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute" and also that "all editors freely license their work to the public". Anyone of whatever age who refuses free licensing of their work simply cannot be a part of this project. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• (Thanks Kim Dent-Brown, for asking me to clarify my point.) It is not AK contacted the legal team. From Jimmy’s comment, it can be assumed that it is he who forwarded it to The Legal. I too discussed this matter with one in The Office earlier, when the COM:DR was closed as kept and AK claimed there that he is an youngster. The reply was that they usually process such a request only if the request is from the Author. I didn’t see anywhere AK said that he made such a request. Now the Legal has responded on Jimmy’s talk page; and advice us to forgive the matters happened so far. I’ve no problem for whatever action this community taken against him if he will not say he understands the licensing terms now and willing to obey it. But I agree with Geoff (The Legal) that we can forgive the earlier things and leave the decision to Commons whether or not to delete his earlier media contributions, there. JKadavoor Jee 03:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with any decision to delete files from Commons. And neither is it a matter of AK agreeing to 'obey' the CC license - it isn't something that can be 'disobeyed', and it would be grossly misleading to suggest that this was ever a possibility. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support site ban until editor can document being the age of legal majority (18) and thus able complete a binding legal contract in the United States. Carrite (talk) 04:33, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• For those who are late to the party and who are not familiar with the current ban: The community has banned AK for three months from the limited field of making decisions (accept/reject) at AfC.

AK is not, and has not been blocked for anything on en.Wiki.

Commons matters are for Commons to decide.

Oppose the nominator's request for a block.

Support a ban for six months for uploading, commenting on, or templating of any images on en.Wikipedia.

Strongly Recommend mentoring of en.Wiki Image Policy while the restriction is in force.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:00, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse my ignorance, but how does a ban from AfC deal with AK's issues with CC-licences, which I thought was why this topic came up? -mattbuck (Talk) 06:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose for now. I think this proposal may be based on Andy reading too much into what Arctic Kangaroo said, namely "On a side note, all my works are always All rights reserved." They have elsewhere said that they don't see any problem with their text contributions, just with the images. So I wonder if AK realises that (in copyright lingo) the term "works" includes any copyrightable creation, including relatively short texts. I suspect he may have only been meaning his photos. Ideally I'd like some clarification of this from AK. In the meantime, I think an immediate project-wide block or ban would be overly hasty. I'm not aware of AK causing any real disruption here on Wikipedia relating to licensing, beyond some intemperate discussion. The licensing problem flared up at Commons, where AK is currently indefinitely blocked. I think that's sufficient admin action at present. Mentoring here could be useful, though. --Avenue (talk) 05:14, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose now per Kudpung and Avenue (an Admin in Commons). JKadavoor Jee 05:47, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. He's said he won't be uploading any more images. He's under a restriction in the other problem area, WP:AFC. That's enough. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:30, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support indef - I was the Commons admin who closed the AK deletion request as "keep". AK, on Commons, threatened and then followed through with vandalising the project. Here he shows he does not respect the idea behind CC licences, which every contribution to Wikimedia is licensed under. There is no difference between the licensing of an image and of text, and if he is incapable of abiding by the licence then he should not be allowed to make any more contributions under such a licence, which means he must not be allowed to contribute at all. -mattbuck (Talk) 06:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hope people here will not treat you in the same way you treat people when someone from here visits Commons and make a comment. JKadavoor Jee 07:25, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I fail to see the issue, that comment appears to be fair, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Kudpung. Insulam Simia (talk) 07:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose any block, in favour of Kudpung's suggestions . 188.222.98.201 (talk) 09:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support I'd just thought I'd say a license is not a contract [106]. The legal status of the contributions this editor has made are solid, despite their claims. Rather my support is on the grounds of lack of competence since they do not understand the license they are giving for content. If they want all rights reserved, they should edit elsewhere, IRWolfie- (talk) 09:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Requesting rangeblock of 217.76.68.0/24

217.76.68.3 (talk) was just blocked for their edits to Dughlats. Now 217.76.68.158 (talk) has appeared and made the exact same edits. I checked the WHOIS, and the /24 is "Almaty mobile LTE subscribers dynamic pool #1". Can it be rangeblocked for a few days? Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

After looking at the rangecontribs from the /24 I'd be inclined to block the range for one month. Mostly, the editor has removed sourced content with no understandable edit summary. He has never posted on a talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 17:52, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Now 2.133.53.46 (talk) has done it too. I don't see a technical connection. I'm going to leave this here for the block but also request semi at WP:RFPP. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I've semi'd it. Mark Arsten (talk) 20:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Checking the page history, these IPs have also done the same thing in the past month: 217.76.68.4 (talk) 217.76.68.22 (talk) 2.135.62.50 (talk). Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Other possibly related IPs: 2.133.45.214 (talk) 217.76.68.14 (talk) 217.76.79.74 (talk) 217.76.79.39 (talk) 37.150.80.159 (talk). Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Message forgery

Who is forging messages spamming the "Wikipedia Adventure". I certainly didn't write this, and I gather from Floquenbeam's reaction that he didn't write this.

As for "what's the admin action", whoever has figured out how to forge a contribution under the name of admin accounts needs to be dealt with. The integrity of an account's contribution list is critical.—Kww(talk) 17:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi folks, that was me. Those message were sent using the API as part of The Wikipedia Adventure. I created and signed the original message. Part of the game simulates interactions with other editors by sending messages to yourself. This all happens in userspace. I'd be happy to add a note about that early on in the game. Please remember that TWA is designed for extremely novice users. They will benefit from having easy links on their talk page, and the 'forged' messages all link back to declared legitimate alternate accounts that are clearly part of TWA. I'm happy to answer questions and try to clear up any confusion. Keep in mind that the onboarding game is not even ready for alpha-testing yet, so a lot is in flux. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:38, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This looks like a really interesting training tool you're developing for new editors, can't wait to see the finished product. To allay concerns can you confirm that no account has been compromised? Also, is it possible to put some sort of check in your code to make sure that no account other than your own runs the product while you're developing it? Thanks... Zad68 17:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Zad. No account is compromised, promise! If you check the page history you can see the exact mechanics. I'm going to write some very clear up front opt-in language about how in the onboarding game editors send messages to themself using the API. Anyone can 'test the game' even now, but the messages that it sends are all locked in the mediawiki namespace. So, this cannot be and is not used to just secretly send any messages to anyone at any time. It's only specifically for the game. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not signed as coming from a "declared legitimate account", it's signed as coming from me. That's forgery. Stop whatever software you are running immediately. As in now. You cannot run anything through the API signing messages as if they come from other people. How on earth did any part of the API even allow you to sign a contribution as coming from me or from Floquenbeam? How many other forged messages have you sent?—Kww(talk) 17:45, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Checking the diff now Kww. That message was sent by you because you were participating in The Wikipedia Adventure. I will make it abundantly clear that doing so means you will send messages to yourself using the API. It's my name on the message, but I'm happy to remove that and just use a datestamp instead. I'm working on clearing this up now. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 17:50, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the fault of Ocaasi but, if I'm understanding it right, it does seems to be a pretty awful security hole in the API that it's possible to construct a page that will send a message from the account of an editor without their knowledge or specific permission. Zad68 17:57, 1 August 2013 (UTC) I see from the other responses here that code that accesses the API can only be developed by trusted users and there's plenty of precedent for it, so this isn't a problem. Zad68 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No one ever can or does send a message from someone else's account. An editor sends a message to themself, that's it. Anyone can 'fake a signature', that has nothing to do with the API. In the game the 'faked' signatures are from legitimate alternate accounts that are clearly marked as part of TWA. Does that clear up your concern? Or is there a component I'm not getting? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:18, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes I understand. Once it was pointed out that Twinkle makes edits for you using your credentials, and this uses the same mechanism, I understood this isn't anything different. Zad68 18:27, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 This shows usages of one of the templates, and shows most examples. Chris857 (talk) 17:51, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Possibly not the best idea. If this were used to post messages on another user's talk page, it might not be noticed by the person "sending" it. I can only imagine how vandals might make use of such a mechanism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

This 'mechanism' is locked away in the mediawiki namespace where only admins can edit it. It's not for outside use outside of the guided tour. And clearly, from the feedback here, only with a clear disclaimer. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:02, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Precisely. If you are going to send messages as a part of that page, you have to clearly identify that hitting the button (or whatever) is going to cause a message to be generated. Making contributions by running Javascript under a logged-in account is permitted, but it can't be happening unexpectedly. Users are responsible for everything that goes into their contribution log, and javascript should not be used to send out messages without a user's knowledge.—Kww(talk) 17:58, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Kww, thank you for raising this concern. I've just added the following text to the very beginning of the tour: As part of the adventure, you will send some messages to your own Wikipedia pages automatically, just by advancing through the tour. How do you feel about that language? Clear enough? Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:00, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

What is an API and why is whatever that is allowed to make edits in the name of other editors? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:01, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Application programming interface (API). Chris857 (talk) 18:03, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I am afraid that article is gibberish to me, but I was also only mostly concerned about why it is allowed to make edits in the name of others. Even if it is admin-controlled only, I don't see the reason for such an allowance. We don't have any policies about such things? --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

No one is making edits in the name of other editors. By advancing through the tour, editors send messages to themselves', and only in their own userspace'. The messages are 'ghost-signed' by characters in the game. If you click through to their 'fake' userpages it's very clearly just legitimate alternate account that's part of TWA and nothing else. To be sure, I have just added a bolded opt-in disclaimer to the first steps of the tour and am happy to place the same elsewhere around the game. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 18:10, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Precedent allows that (see my comment right under this one) Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

It's certainly allowable, it's just that there was no warning. I didn't even remember that I had gone to look at the page, which is why I freaked out so badly when I saw the contribution in my history. It didn't trigger a message bar, so I found it an hour later. Any particular action that is going to cause an edit needs to be accompanied by a warning.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

We have so much JavaScript that API edits on behalf of the user (TW, CSDH, AFCH, etc.) that I don't think one more will suddenly show all of the vandals how to do it. And non-admins can't even add JavaScript that anyone else will run, right? Jackmcbarn (talk) 18:04, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Correct. Adding JavaScript that runs directly on other people's accounts (without them copying anything) requires admin rights. Superm401 - Talk 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why do admins have this right? IRWolfie- (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have a clear answer, but technically it's only because the tour lives in the mediawiki namespace. It might partly be a legacy issue: The first Guided Tour was Special:GettingStarted. If you're curious i'd ask Steven Walling or Matthew Flaschen, on the Editor Engagement Experiments team. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

So they can publish tools for the community, such as gadgets, changes to files like MediaWiki:Common.js, and in this case tours. It's similar to why admins have access to make other MediaWiki namespace changes when appropriate. Superm401 - Talk 03:02, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, what happened here at User talk:Null? Chris857 (talk) 18:12, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

That's a bug if someone advances to step 9 of mission 1 but isn't logged in (step 7 is registration). I will look into fixing it. Thanks for pointing it out. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 22:19, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Probably something like this. Sorry, I'll let myself out. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 18:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the API (And FFS don't bother making accusations about the security or abilities of the API if you don't even know what it is or how it works!!!). A wiki administrator has set up code that is run when you start a GuidedTour. It is run in your (the user's) browser, and therefore is authenticated as you. The code is at MediaWiki:Guidedtour-tour-twa1.js, and Ocaasi has added a notice about the edits it makes. --Krenair ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:29, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'm a developer on the overall GuidedTour extension, and I've talked with Ocaasi some about this tour. However, he is the main developer of the particular tour, which implements the message-sending functionality. First, as people said above, there is no compromise of admin accounts. It is only making an edit to the tour-taker's user talk page than simulating a signature by Ocaasi. Although Ocaasi (and the tour-taker in some cases) is admin, the tour is not taking any admin actions. The API is also not compromised, as it is intended to let users edit under their own account through the API. I would also note that the link points to the Wikipedia Adventure, so it is clear the message is connected. I would suggest a few things to make things clearer:

1. Consider using the /TWA subpages, as it used to do.
2. Make a more prominent notice of what's going on (as Ocaasi already said he would) before the message is left. Ideally, this would be on the step where the button click causes the message to be left.
3. In the message itself, explain that it is a simulated message left by The Wikipedia Adventure's tour. Add something like "Although this edit is made by {{PAGENAME}} it is made automatically by The Wikipedia Adventure as part of an introduction to tour editing" Either don't faux-sign it, or faux-sign by a different account, with a link to a user page explaining things further (User:The Wikipedia Adventure Message Demo?).
4. In the message summary, also note that it's an automatic message sent as as part of the tour (it mentions TWA, but not that it's an automatic message).

-- I hope this helps. Superm401 - Talk 18:56, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Yes, this is useful feedback. All of the talk messages besides the first one and last one indeed go to a /TWA subpage of the talk space. There are also some userpage edits for completion of certain steps in the game and skill acquisition. I am updating the edit summary now to say that it's a simulated, automatic message that's part of WP:TWA. I will also make sure there are clear notes on the userpages of all message signatures that this this is part of WP:TWA. I'm also going to add an icon on any tour step that sends an automatic message so users are informed before that happens. I'll introduce the icon on the first step of the game. Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:17, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's a mockup of the disclosure in game: mission 1

And the disclaimer before the game: WP:TWA

The new edit summary is: New Message (simulated automatically as part of The Wikipedia Adventure)

Message signature userpage disclosure example: User:WillKomen

I hope this is addressing the issue clearly. -- Ocaasi ^{t | c} 19:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

When I was experimenting with this I also was surprised that the message on my talk page failed to clearly identify the source of the message. The message is signed WillKomen, but the user:WillKomen's contrib history doesn't show that it's the source of the message. I hope attribution can be made clearer so it's easy to follow what the source is of the TWA messages, since like other users I was trying to find the source and found it more difficult than necessary. I also think that the disclaimer and the note that VE is required should be in the black box at the start of the game rather than above it, preferably placed directly above or below the "start the adventure" button. --Pine^✉ 05:43, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, it wouldn't be called an adventure if you didn't get pwnd a little... Someone not using his real name (talk) 08:21, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Help about images

User:Werieth removed all of the pictures I uploaded to the articles of the singles I contributed to. Including the single cover for the cover versions. What I don't get is why he had to delete the single covers too.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 00:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Hotwiki. Extraneous images are against the Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria (an official Wikipedia policy with legal implications) that calls for minimal use of images. Specifically, including a second non-free album cover violates MFCC Policy #3a - Minimal usage: multiple images are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information. In order for a second non-free image to be included in the article, the image itself would have to be discussed in the article. And the image would have to convey information that it's not possible to provide using words alone (NFCC Policy #1). -- Diannaa (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This is just a repeat of #Keeping the pictures in Desire's article User does not understand WP:NFC Werieth (talk) 01:28, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hotwiki, I am going to give you a more detailed explanation of why this is not allowed, because yeah, I think you do not understand this policy. Normally our articles about songs and albums have one non-free image only, and it's the cover, and it's in the info box. Extra images, sound clips, or stills from the video are only permitted when these additional non-free files are extensively discussed in the article. A good example of acceptable use of multiple non-free files can be found at our Featured Article, "Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It)", which contains three non free files. In addition to the cover in the info box, there's a snippet from the song; the musical techniques illustrated in the sample are the subject of sourced commentary in the article. And there's a still shot from the video (the best video of all time! Of all time!!), the styling of which is extensively discussed in the article. To sum up, adding a second image or other non-free file without it being the subject of sourced discussion in the article violates our non-free content policy. -- Diannaa (talk) 01:58, 2 August 2013 (UTC) So that's why he removed the extra images from your articles. Sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

So a single cover for a cover version can't be uploaded like for these articles anymore:

• I Want Candy
• I Think We're Alone Now
• Word Up! (song)
• Downtown (Petula Clark song)
• It's Raining Men
• What I Am
• I Know Him So Well

SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:12, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

And by the way, the cover versions of those articles are discussed in the article and has its own sub-sections. So its necessary to include a single cover.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:26, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing discussed about the images themselves. WP:NFCC#8 requires sourced discussion of the image. Take a look at Virgin Killer for a good example of where the different covers are discussed. Werieth (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Werieth is right; the packaging itself has to be the subject of discussion, not the cover version. It is not necessary to include an image for each cover version. In fact it is against our policy to include the additional images. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:39, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, as there's a requirement to discuss the "single cover" for a cover version just so it won't be deleted. Let me just say this that I always contributed those articles to make them better, not just by uploading pictures and for you to just remove them all in one-day is quite frustrating. And cover versions can have a single cover, those files have a license tag. If you think your contributions are helping those articles, then you're wrong.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:40, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

My actions are supporting the m:Mission of wikipedia to create a free content project and minimize non-free usage. Werieth (talk) 02:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the only thing you are doing in this website. Most of those files have been around for a while, and even though they aren't described that perfectly, nobody tried to remove them all except for you.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:46, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because something has slipped through the cracks for a long period of time doesn't mean that there are not issues. One example of a hoax that lasted 7 years before some noticed it. Werieth (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Right, I'm not gonna continue this argument anymore. It seems like no one is going to stop you from removing music video still/single cover for cover versions/audio samples.--SuperHotWiki (talk) 02:53, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course we will not stop him, because he is right and you are wrong, so sorry. -- Diannaa (talk) 03:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Hotwiki, please indent your comments when you reply here. Thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:AfricaTanz refusing to engage in talk page discussions while engaging in edit warring

User:AfricaTanz is refusing to engage in any talk page discussions at LGBT rights in Jamaica while engaging in systematic edit warring including reverting of edits. When I talk to him on his user page I get abuse. This is not the first time he has been reported for this behaviour. Can an admin please take a look. Thanks, ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 00:51, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IPs making strange, disruptive edits to Alodia Gosiengfiao, et al.

Hello! For the past week, I (and a few other editors) have been constantly reverting edits made on Alodia Gosiengfiao, Jinri Park, Daiana Menezes and Sam Pinto by IPs who have removed chunks of info, edited the PERSONDATA template, and adding information that is downright strange.

For example, this revision shows one change, which added two unrelated personalities to the page as "controlled female's (sic)", and this one shows where this IP thinks Gosengfiao and Park are the same person (which is patently untrue) this one where the IP inexplicably vandalizes the PERSONDATA template, and this one where the IP adds marginally related people to the See Only page. I'm not sure if these are connected, but the editing patterns are really strange considering it's all happened within the past week.

The following IPs are involved:

• 180.191.62.212 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.28.125.13 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.28.127.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 120.28.122.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.191.165.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 180.191.103.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I'm not exactly sure what action should be taken, but considering all the pages these IPs have vandalized are covered under WP:BIO, something definitely has to be done? In any case, it's getting exasperating coming back to a new inexplicable bit of vandalism each day. Mr. Gerbear|Talk 04:42, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

IP user forging the signature of another editor

• 221.244.40.2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above IP editor was warned repeatedly and ultimately blocked for one year back in April 2012 for repeatedly including the signature of another editor in comments added to the talk pages of various articles over a period of months. The user is now back and has promptly started doing exactly the same here and here. For the record, I contacted the user (User:Circeus) whose name keeps getting used when this first started back in September 2011, and he confirmed (here) that he has no relation to the IP editor and has no idea why his user name keeps getting copy-pasted like this. As the IP editor simply blanked his talk page in the past when I asked him to stop, and subsequently received two blocks for continuing, I haven't bothered to warn him again, and am bringing it straight here. While it may not be malicious vandalism, the user does seem to have serious language-related WP:Competence problems. --DAJF (talk) 11:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Bagworm engaging in grave-dancing/harassment

Hey, Hijiri88/Konjakupoet here. As some of you may know, I was run off Wikipedia by a disruptive user who contacted my office and started incessantly hounding me on- and off-wiki between January and April. (If you want details please e-mail my original account.) I came back under a different name in April but when another user (now also blocked) reported on me the off-wiki harassment continued.

I have since been editing intermittently on various short-term accounts and IPs, not so much to "get revenge" or right old wrongs, but just when I was reading Wikipedia and noticed a mistake somewhere. I have no interest in returning to actively editing Wikipedia under a stable account at least as long as that user is (probably) still watching.

However, I have noticed something disturbing since leaving. User:Bagworm has been "grave-dancing", apparently having found that I had retired and would be unable to defend my old edits. He had been disputing content and/or edit-warring with me a few times between September and December of last year. It got to the point where he attempted to unilaterally ban me from editing poetry articles,[107][108] probably so he could undo all my previous edits to these articles. (No specific evidence that this was his intention, but when I posted this on my user page, it took him only seven hours to remove a "citation needed" tag I had added to one such article, based on the flimsy excuse that his other primary sources were adequate.)

After Bagworm realized he wouldn't be able to get rid of me (in all of our disputes I was the one with the better sources, and I was always ready to patiently discuss on the talk page, even if he wasn't), he apparently retired from Wikipedia, not making a single edit for almost four months.[109][110] About 30 minutes after coming back, Bagworm undid an edit I had made under my second acocunt.[111][112] I had removed a questionable citation of an online poetry mag (when he retired, we still had not reached any kind of consensus as to whether these were acceptable citations). I had not added any citation needed tag, since the statement is one of the most easily verifiable in all of Japanese literary scholarship, and could be checked in any good book on the subject. It therefore seemed inappropriate to include a link to an online American poetry magazine with little general relation to the topic of the article (waka and haiku are different genres).

NOTE: The following is a LONG explanation of Bagworm's grave-dancing. I hope not to be ignored based on TLDR, so I'm separating the specific details (with all the diffs) by asterisks for those interested.

• * *

He also undid several edits I had made months earlier to the article Haiga, which is about a Japanese style of painting ("hai-ga" means "haiku picture" or "picture in a haiku style", or some such[113]), but Bagworm and one other user (who has since been indefinitely TBANned from Japanese literature) were insisting that haiga is any picture that is combined with a haiku. [114][115] [116][117][118] [119][120] Ironically this edit summary seems to imply that English-language refs are inherently superior to non-English refs, even Japanese refs when writing about a Japanese topic, which is a gross misunderstanding of WP:NONENG. But this edit added a German-language ref to an article on Japanese painting. And given that this was added directly in response to my asking for a reference, it would have been nice if he stuck with ones in languages I can understand.

At the article Haikai, I had removed a number of other not-necessarily-reliable online poetry mags. Meaning no insult to Associate Professor Crowley, who seems like she knows what she's talking about, it just seemed very odd to me to be quoting an website that mainly deals in modern American poetry for the dictionary definitions of Classical Japanese words, especially when we already cited a reference to a book by the exact same author, through a reputable academic publisher. This is why I stated in my edit summary "unnecessary [...] used when other, valid sources were already in use". In my opinion if we are going to add a second reference, it should be to one that is better than Crowley's book (a Japanese dictionary used by native scholars, and probably also by Crowley herself, for instance), not an online English-language poetry magazine. This did not stop Bagworm from undoing me, though. [121][122]

The redirecting of tinywords was a potentially controversial issue, and one that if I were still active on Wikipedia I probably would have been ready to compromise on if challenged and if presented with reliable secondary and/or tertiary sources. But in this case the redirect was not challenged for almost three months, and when it was it was done by an obvious COI user whose username indicates that he is the owner of the website in question.[123] The only other users who opposed the redirect were Bagworm, in yet more gravedancing and with an ad hominem remark about how I am "sarcastic" (given how much bull I had to put up with from Bagworm and other users like him, can you blame me for being suspicious of articles like that?). [124][125] When I reverted this gravedancing under my cellphone's IP, as no reasonable evidence had been advanced to justify the reversion of a redirect that had been stable for three months, he reverted again.[126] I was reverted again by the COI user.[127] I'm not interested in getting into a discussion about "edit-warring" or "sockpuppetry": BRD obviously applies, and the three-month old redirect, when BOLDly removed and then REVERTed, should have been DISCUSSed on the talk page before being reverted back. Further, Bagworm knew perfectly well why I was using a shifting IP, as when he first attempted to OUT me under one of my temporary accounts I had e-mailed him explaining the circumstances and the danger of his trying to connect my new account with my old one. Further, more than one admin had told me by e-mail or by reverting outing attempts on this and other forums that it was okay under my circumstances to keep maximum anonymity. Anyway, regardless of which side was "right" in the ensuing edit-war (I'll apply that terminology if no one tries to shift the blame inappropriately onto me -- the incident took place because Bagworm was engaged in a grave-dancing campaign to begin with). Also, obvious meat-puppetry was taking place, as before long a third user showed up completely out of the blue to revert me again, this time a Romania-based IP (who I can't contact off-wiki to give the complete explanation of why I was editing under IPs) and as their first edit decided to revert me with the aggressive edit summary "Revert repeated article deletion despite objection of others conducted by IP hopping and edit warring IP from "retired" editor". It seems obvious that either the COI user or Bagworm contacted a friend of theirs off-wiki in order to help in the reversion campaign. And this Romanian IP has in fact continued to seize as many opportunities as possible to harass me and attempt to out me, even going so far as to hijack an ANI thread in an apparent attempt to use a clear-cut POV/source-abusing/edit-warring issue as an excuse to out the good guy who reported it.[128][129][130][131][132] The Romanian IP has since registered as User:Someone not using his real name.

My edit to the Senryū article was another in the series of removals of questionable online poetry mags, and Bagworm's reversion was another in his series of grave-dancing personal attacks. [133][134] Other users can disagree with me on the substance (the issue was, as noted above, never resolved), but no one can argue that reverting a bunch of my edits after I was hounded off Wikipedia isn't slimy at best.

The Renku reversion is another.[135][136] Again, saying absolutely nothing about Professor Horton's credentials or reliability, I just don't think that we should include information that has only ever appeared in an online poetry mag published by an accountant and someone whose professional bio doesn't mention any qualifications in Japanese language, literature or history, and if it has appeared in more trustworthy sources, then we should be citing those instead.

He has become more aggressive recently, constantly reverting my IP on the article Waka (poetry) and insisting (bizarrely) that there was "consensus" at Talk:Haiku#Simply Haiku and Frogpond as sources? that the defunct online poetry mag Simply Haiku is a reliable source, completely ignoring my argument that a modern American haiku magazine is not an appropriate reference for an article on classical Japanese waka. In fact, the only user other than me who posted on the talk page section in question was Icuc2, who agreed that online poetry mags were inferior to books and academic journals, and only need be used when better sources are not available. In this case, another, better source was already in use, a fact which I pointed out several times.[137][138][139] Bagworm, however, has reverted my removal of the inappropriate link some four times.[140][141][142][143] He also keeps trying to change the subject, by insisting that the author of the piece is a renowned Japanologist, even though my problem is that the we shouldn't be including links to haiku magazines in articles on waka unless there is some necessity to do so.

• * *

I have mentioned a few times in this post that I have been engaging in "sock-puppetry". It needs to be noted that I have never cast more than one !vote or anything of that ilk, and have only been doing this to protect myself from the off-wiki harassment of a certain user. I know, given the circumstances, that this may be a little difficult to accept, so I'm taking the liberty of contacting a few users (Lukeno94, Cuchullain, Yunshui, In ictu oculi and Drmies) who are more familiar with the background of why I retired initially than most Wikipedians, and can verify my claims regarding "sockpuppetry". I am also, of course, contacting Bagworm, Dtweney and Someone not using his real name to allow them to explain themselves if they so choose.

What I request from the Wikipedia community is a TBAN on Bagworm from "Japanese literature", broadly construed, similar to the one that was placed on his co-edit-warrior Tristan noir for similarly slimy actions.[144] This may seem somewhat extreme, but the user has done little for JLit articles, as far as I can see, other than remove verifiable information under the flimsy excuse that a "citation needed" tag had been on it for a certain length of time, add questionable sources to statements that either don't need them or need good sources, and edit-war with me/dance on my grave. The one or two semi-decent articles he started in this area don't stack up against the contributions I made and he is preventing me from continuing to make. (I already provided evidence of Bagworm's practice of removing information under flimsy excuses here.)

Coldman the Barbarian (talk) 11:59, 2 August 2013 (UTC)