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

Herbxue

User: Herbxue (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Page: Acupuncture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The user Herbxue has been engaged in an edit war on the Acupuncture article. The user was warned previously about 3rr here. A few months ago, violated 3rr warned here. Most recently, violated 3rr ([1], [2], [3]) and warned again here. He continued the edit war ([4] [5] [6]), engaged in personal attacks on the talk page, and showed no remorse/understanding of the edit warring. He gives personal attacks in edit summaries and edit wars asking for an admin to take action.

In summery, the user is an WP:SPA with a history of bias/disruptive editing in acupuncture-related articles. Recently, he's escalated to personal attacks and edit warring, including 3RR violations. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:17, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, Im glad you posted this because its time for an admin to look into this issue. This mostly has to do with the questionable scientific basis of acupuncture, which is obviously a very controversial issue. But to be fair, I dont think Herbxue has any intent to engage in edit wars and I do feel that he is putting in a lot of effort to engage in discussions on the talk page and, until recently, was not that active in editing at all. At least not before I made that controversial edit regarding the effects of acupuncture. In any case, I hope any admin looking into this matter would be neutral and impartial, without any prejudices against this topic and its editors, or else the dispute won't end. -A1candidate (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for referring to the talk page discussions, A1Candidate. On all the recent controversial issues, I have either defended existing text, suggested compromises in wording on Mallexikon's edits to satisfy Dominus, suggested compromised wording on the issue of "theory" to satisfy Dominus, and more recently suggested mutually agreeable wording on the placebo issue. All this was met with immediate unexplained reverts by Dominus, who clearly has a strong POV, stating that acupuncture is practiced by "quacks". Dominus and Tippy have repeatedly restored wording that is controversial and not supported by the sources. When repeatedly asked to justify their edit using the source, Tippy responds by accusing ME of edit-warring. It is amazing that Tippy has the nerve to accuse me of edit warring when I have been the one trying to engage in the actual content issue while Tippy lectures me with WP policy that he himself is violating.

Please see my talk page and the acupuncture talk page under the subjects "medical procedure?", "theories?" and especially "its effects are due to placebo" to get a feel for how things have progressed the way they did. You will see a clear pattern of me trying to reach consensus and being reasonable, while Dominus and Tippy show a pattern of disruptive and disrespectful editing.Herbxue (talk) 14:30, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

I would agree with the sentiments of both A1candidate and Herbexue. There has been a habit of drive-by editing/reverting by Tippy and Dominus at the acupuncture article, with no apparent effort shown to AGF or to even read the sources or verify the text that they are editing. Herbexue has made repeated requests at their talk pages and at the acupuncture talk page to address the article content, but the focus has been left on Herbexue himself rather than on the content or edits.Puhlaa (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: this page is covered by standard discretionary sanctions under WP:ARB/PS. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Taking a quick glance at this since no one else is commenting: while I am skeptical of acupuncture and am inclined to think the page needs to be edited to be less promotional, it looks there's a good chance of a boomerang here. I have to get on my high horse a little bit. You can't just write something on Wikipedia and cite as a source something that directly contradicts it. My view is that ranks among the highest crimes one can commit on Wikipedia, especially if it is deliberate (but even if it is just negligent, as in the case of the Jagged affair). To bring this to ANI at this point seems remarkably brazen, as if there's an assumption that neutral parties can't read or comprehend sources. The article lead says right now: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore solely dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes". Three scientific reviews are cited. As pointed out calmly on the talkpage, none of the sources support this statement. The only one that comes close is the Ernst paper, which only says: "In conclusion, acupuncture remains steeped in controversy. Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response". The others two say (2) "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias" or (3 - Cochrane review) "For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only". Note that edit-warring goes both ways, but if someone is deliberately misrepresenting academic sources in Wikipedia, that seems much more problematic, and the party which should be looked at closely is the one working to include misrepresentation. Now, maybe one of these reviews, particularly the last one, really needs to be dropped. The argument can be made and hashed out, perhaps with the help of people at RS/N or something. It looks like Dominus is at least making an attempt to explain why some high-quality sources should be discounted (altho concluding consensus, when every source talks rather about controversy and uncertainty, seems untenable at this point), but I don't see the same at all from Tippy, whose comment when accused of lying was simply "no, u". I can't promise to be engaged in this conversation as I'll be traveling most of tomorrow. My hope is that future participants here resist the urge to slip into an alternate reality where the brazen source misrepresentation is not happening, simply because of the subject at hand and many people's preconceived opinions. Sometimes problems are just so obvious and incontrovertible that they have to be acknowledged. II | (t - c) 04:42, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I would be pleased address the content and sourcing issues you've raised. If you are able to spare the time, please bring them to the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:19, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The above is possibly the most breath-taking missing-the-point comment I have seen at Wikipedia. TippyGoomba raised a report at ANI only to receive a detailed statement explaining that using a source to assert a fact when the source does not assert that fact is one of the highest crimes that can be committed at Wikipedia, and that Tippy is apparently supporting the statement of a fact when the three sources do not verify the statement. I saw the Jagged affair mentioned above, and agree that misuse of sources is far worse than vandalism and personal attacks and hoax articles. Tippy needs to assess the position and respond at ANI: Is it the case that some attempts to oppose fringe views have been excessive? Is Tippy going to remove the unverified assertion? Is Tippy denying what ImperfectlyInformed wrote above? The community must reject misuse of sources even when the misuse is "in a good cause". Johnuniq (talk) 00:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the sources do verify the assertion. I don't think that has any relation to the user conduct issue I've raised above. Even if Herbxue were correct on this issue, that doesn't change the fact he's a disruptive WP:SPA, with a history of edit-warring. I don't think there should be two parallel content conversations taking place here and on the talk page. TippyGoomba (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The argument at Talk:Acupuncture#"Its effects are due to placebo" seems to be that a medical trial looks for evidence that a proposed treatment is more effective than a placebo, and therefore pretty well any source can be used to verify "the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo" because that default position applies until evidence to the contrary is available. The fact that the three sources do not support that statement is (apparently) not relevant because the reader should understand the default position of medical science. While there is a lot of merit in those statements, the article simply must be reworded (for example, to assert that the only known benefit is from placebo) as it is not satisfactory for a source to be used where verification relies on the editor "believing" the source verifies a statement which does not appear in the source. The question of whether there is a problem with another editor's behavior is very much secondary to whether Wikipedia's voice should be used to assert something that is not in the any of the three sources. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Were the reverse true, we would not discuss user conduct on the talk page of the Acupuncture article. Similarly, I don't think this is the appropriate venue to discuss changes to the article. If an admin wants me to rehash the argument here, I'd be happy to do so. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:43, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Bumping this. I hope an admin has some time to take a look. TippyGoomba (talk) 03:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC) Still looking for someone to take a look. TippyGoomba (talk) 04:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I had to re-read the links I provided above as I'm still basically shocked at the situation. I'm considering the best approach to handling the lying about sources. My priority right now is straightening out the outright misconduct and lying, which is as much a disservice to the authors of the scientific papers as it is to the readers. I'm also a little concerned about what other articles may have been affected, although it is nice that the edits are anti-promotional. I have no interest in engaging in a discussion on an article talkpage with someone who cannot even agree to basic factual statements. This is basically is the most flagrant and deliberate misrepresentation I've seen in around six years of floating around Wikipedia in numerous different topic areas, particularly in that the statement in the article directly contradicts the sources. After doing some research just now, I've discovered that the edit originated with User:A1candidate (3 August diff) but User:Dominus Vobisdu and User:TippyGoomba have edit-warred over the past couple weeks in numerous instances to keep it; all three defended it on the talkpage after its dishonesty was pointed out (their ally Alexbrn showed some honesty and pushed back a little). My initial reaction is to propose full-on bans from the encyclopedia for all three, as it appears all three have a severe honesty problem. I've never done that before and it's not something I take lightly. However, I doubt it would happen and remediation and social pressure should probably be tried first. I know Johnuniq tried (generously) to convey where exactly this is coming from, but I don't think even the argument which he noticed being proffered is valid, since none of the reviews say that in their top-level (abstract) conclusions, and the Cochrane source (#3 above) actually appears to affirmatively say that the effect is not due to placebo (to be clear, I'm not saying that this source should trump other sources or even be included in the article, just pointing it out to emphasize the extent of the misconduct). To give this more exposure and hopefully bring some sanity to the situation I'm going to ping some of the more active medical people I've encountered who seem to have integrity and competence in using references, including Jmh649, MastCell, Yobol, Zad68, WhatamIdoing, Colin, and SandyGeorgia. These editors are likely skeptical of acupuncture but I hope have enough integrity to recognize when something is wrong. I'm also opening a topic about this at WT:MED. II | (t - c) 09:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to mention I saw this ping and wanted to thank ImperfectlyInformed for the vote of confidence. I haven't had time this week to really dig into the sources but on first look agree with the others discussing here that generally the flat statement "no better than placebo" isn't representing the sources as faithfully as would be necessary, and some qualification/nuance needs to be added. Would also like to mention/remind everyone that ANI isn't for deciding content issues, they need to be discussed at the article Talk page. ANI discussions like this are supposed to be about problematic editor behavior and this discussion has taken a pretty sharp turn away from that, if there are no pressing disruptive editor behavior issues to discuss at this point, this ANI discussion should be closed. Zad68 01:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Can you clarify the issue you see II?

This ref [7] more or less says that acupuncture had a small effort in the literature that was not of real importance and could be do to psychological reasons. It is a systematic review and meta analysis published in the BMJ. One could interpret it to support that acupuncture may have no greater benefit than that of a placebo.

The 2006 Ernst study more clearly states that the majority of the evidence found no greater effect than placebo [8]

So yes I disagree with the wording changes proposed by A1c [9] Yet this user added the other wording here [10] Anyway will need to look at things more when I have greater time. I guess the key is "may" was left out. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:54, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

One of my points is that if you're going to cite 3 different sources, all 3 better be represented by the statement you're attributing to them. So if only that particular source had been cited, and particularly if the word 'may' was used, the misconduct would not have been nearly as egregious and I wouldn't be having a fit. The 'scientific consensus' is being written in which I believe would be original research, but there's room to debate around there. However, citing 3 sources, one of which is a bit more contradictory, and then edit-warring over a period of 2 weeks to include that misrepresentation when someone points out to you on the talkpage that it is not precisely correct, and then further digging your heels in and refusing to explain (as if everything is up for debate and content is not relevant when dealing with content disputes) just crosses the line into craziness. It seems like the lead could fairly say that the effect is "probably" due to a placebo effect, but there's actually a huge world of difference between "probably" and "conclusively, we know, let's close the book and go home". II | (t - c) 14:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The edit referred to here: "General scientific consensus maintains that the effects of acupuncture are due to placebo, and is therefore dependent on a patient's expectation of treatment outcomes" cites two sources, and II mentions a third source:

1. Ernst 2006 whose abstract says, "Some findings are encouraging but others suggest that its clinical effects mainly depend on a placebo response."
2. Madsen et al. 2009 which says, "A small analgesic effect of acupuncture was found, which seems to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias. Whether needling at acupuncture points, or at any site, reduces pain independently of the psychological impact of the treatment ritual is unclear."
3. Furlan et al. 2008 which says, "There is evidence that acupuncture, added to other conventional therapies, relieves pain and improves function better than the conventional therapies alone. However, effects are only small. Dry-needling appears to be a useful adjunct to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. No clear recommendations could be made about the most effective acupuncture technique. ... The data do not allow firm conclusions about the effectiveness of acupuncture for acute low-back pain. For chronic low-back pain, acupuncture is more effective for pain relief and functional improvement than no treatment or sham treatment immediately after treatment and in the short-term only. Acupuncture is not more effective than other conventional and “alternative” treatments. The data suggest that acupuncture and dry-needling may be useful adjuncts to other therapies for chronic low-back pain. Because most of the studies were of lower methodological quality, there certainly is a further need for higher quality trials in this area."

That is, the cited sources stress the uncertainty around the the question of whether there is more than a placebo effect. The edit does misrepresent those sources, none of which says anything about the general scientific consensus. I haven't looked at the talk page or the article's recent history: If editors are continuing to argue for or edit war over this assertion, on the basis of those three sources, an admin may need to consider counseling those editors, and topic-banning if the counseling doesn't work. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 12:06, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It is more than just misrepresenting the 3 sources provided; newer secondary sources are also being ignored in favour of older sources that are more critical of the therapy! Vickers et al 2012 source was in the lead a month ago, it concludes that acupuncture is more than placebo when it comes to treating chronic pain, but it was removed during one of the rounds of edit-warring taking place at Acupuncture article. Puhlaa (talk) 15:11, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Whether that meta-analysis should be cited in the article will depend on a lot of things. How it, published in Complimentary and Alternative Medicine, compares with recent reviews in higher impact journals specialising in pain treatment and assessment, such as Pain or Journal of Pain, will be a factor. Whether the authors have recognised expertise in pain science and meta-analysis will be a factor. Whether the meta-analysis has been criticised, on what grounds and by whom will be a factor.

If you think there is habitual misuse of sources or unconscionable bias occurring, you'll need to make a clear and concise but thorough case to that effect, probably in an RFC. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I am not sure why the 'Vickers' source that I linked to was in Complimentary and Alternative Medicine,, it must be a re-publication? The original source is actually published in Archives of Internal Medicine - see this source.Puhlaa (talk) 18:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

My point is that your complaint that the meta-analysis is being ignored is meaningless without context. There may be many good reasons for not mentioning a recent meta-analysis. If you want to bring that forward somewhere as proof of biased editing (an RFC is probably the only valid venue, if your intention is to prove habitual biased editing), you'll first need to make the case that the meta-analysis is worth mentioning in the article. (I see, for instance, there has been some to-and-fro correspondence in Internal Medicine.) This is not the place to discuss any of that, though. If the same editors are still pushing that misrepresentation about "general consensus", come back here and, in a just world, that will be addressed by an unbiased admin. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 19:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So we need to change the wording to "may be due to placebo". Agree that the current wording is overreaching and there is a great deal of uncertainty. We should be using newer refs as mentioned as some of the ones currently being used are a little old. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Have altered the text in question in this edit here [11] to more accurately reflect the literature referenced. I do not see any nefarious intent in the users here. Just a bit of over stating the conclusions of the sources in question that can be easily dealt with hopefully with a few more eyes. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WRT Herbexu I do not see a fourth revert within 24hours and thus they have come close but not broken the bright line. At this point I would recommend a RfC rather than further reverting. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Why can't we just be honest and admit that Researchers don't fully understand how acupuncture works? Because not doing so allows us to completely ignore a plethora of reliable sources and disregard numerous peer reviewed studies showing that acupuncture is more than placebo. -A1candidate (talk) 08:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What are you saying? It's not uncommon for therapies to have unclear mechanisms, even among some prescription drugs. That source (NIH Medline) says: "Research has shown that acupuncture reduces nausea and vomiting after surgery and chemotherapy. It can also relieve pain. Researchers don't fully understand how acupuncture works" and goes on to mention some theories. It's not a high-quality source but it's not saying that acupuncture is placebo. II | (t - c) 15:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The point I want to make is that if we want to include placebo as a possible mechanism then its only fair to include other proven mechanisms too. MEDLINE is a high quality source. -A1candidate (talk) 08:23, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

MEDLINE is not a source; it's a database. (And there is no "proven mechanism"!) This thread needs to be closed, imo. 86.130.63.47 (talk) 19:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How is a database not a source? The placebo effect is not a proven mechanism either -A1candidate (talk) 20:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Re MEDLINE, please see Wikipedia's guidelines on reliable medical sourcing (MEDRS). 86.130.63.47 (talk) 08:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

MEDLINE is a secondary source published by a reliable medical organization (NLB) and its guidelines are based on systematic reviews -A1candidate (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Replied at User_talk:A1candidate#MEDLINE_etc.
86.130.63.47 (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I just want to say that I find the mix of genuine content dispute with insinuation of crime in this quasi-judicial forum a concern. Speaking just for myself (and I can't recall editing the page in question), I have done my best in general to contribute to medical content in keeping with WP policies and guidelines, including MEDRS. This ANI thread reinforces my aversion to contribute as a registered user rather than an IP. 86.130.63.47 (talk) 06:24, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC

TJRC block needed.♠

Barrage of blatantly false accusations; Comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article).

(revived discussion)

Please see this DRN, which received no input, even after a relisting : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=567171893#Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government

Re. links and diffs to involved pages, editors, proposed solutions : see the DRN, please… --Elvey (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, TJRC deleted your Talk page comments exactly once, apparently because he believed that you were editing his comments. I can see why: the formatting, quite frankly, is a mess. Indented quotations may be standard in scholarly works, but indenting on Talk pages means another editor is writing, so when you mix and match indented sections and single sentences per line you become impossible to follow. In addition to that, half of your discussion is on the Talk page and half is in edit summaries. Use the Talk page to discuss. Also, there's no need for edit summaries like this, accusations and demands, or "bumping" comments. You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. I feel that he's probably been overzealous in tag removal, too, but he's trying to get a clear justification for the tag but not getting one from you. Please just AGF and answer his question without unnecessary indenting and copying attacks from further up the page. Woodroar (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for (if I'm reading you correctly) confirming that TJRC did delete my talk page comments, shouldn't have, and explaining that his accusation that he was reverting a violation of WP:TPO by me was mistaken. I hope TJRC will recognize/acknowledge it too. TJRC?♥ I couldn't make sense of the false accusation at the time, but see HOW he went wrong now. If you can suggest a better way to include those quotations in the talk page, I'm all ears; if it's a mess, then perhaps we can agree on something better. It seems pretty readable to me; I certainly wouldn't call it a mess; what minimal markup will improve it? IIRC, the quote template makes a worse mess.

I'm not sure if you managed to miss the content of the mainspace edit of the diff I provided, but in addition to the deletion you linked to - of THREE questions of mine, I wrote that TJRC " DELETED THE ANSWER " - and in fact he deleted my answer over and over and over and over and over - the answer he deleted 5+ times is: "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government; they are subnational entities." Because I had answered the question 5+ times, it sure felt like gross violations of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, and had me wondering about WP:CIR. What makes me certain that TJRC DID in fact SEE and READ the answer is TJRC's later edit summary, ""Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government" == "does not apply to .. District of Columbia or Puerto Rico" which proves he read it because it quotes from it. I do strive to always AGF, however AGF doesn't mean one must put up with WP:IDHT over and over and over and over and over.

That's why I suggest pointing out to TJRC that it's not constructive to demand an answer to a question when the question has been answered and TJRC has himself DELETED THE ANSWER.

I'll try to find wisdom in your criticism, and try to fathom why you assert I haven't answered his question as to you why I placed the tags when I have, "Multiple times. Multiple ways."! I'll even answer it again, for a 6th? 10th? time! --Elvey (talk) 05:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

First, I have to say, it would have been nice to have been notified of this discussion.♣ I know Elvey had a complaint at the end of July (notified by a bot here, but I was pretty much off-Wikipedia for about a week, and when I went to AN/I, it was already gone).

Woodroar is correct; I had reverted Elvey's edits of my comments only once, and I had intended by my edit summary to make it clear why. I do disagree though, that I shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page. WP:TPO says it pretty clearly: "If an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." I object to the interruptions, and, exactly as WP:TPO says, the interruptions should be reverted; and I reverted them.

As a matter of disclosure, after Elvey deleted my non-interruption comments yesterday ([12]) and re-instated his interruptions, I did undo that edit, as well, also based on TPO.

Elvey's links to what he thinks are deletions of talk page comments are actually removals of the tags; they're not even edits to the talk page all.

I believe now that Elvey believes that his comment in the tag is self-evident and not in need of further explanation. So when I've asked him what he thinks is confusing, he thinks he's already answered. However, I don't see why he thinks the statement is wrong or unclear, so I'd like to find that out and address it. I think it's clear, but if Elvey doesn't, at least one person finds it confusing and it's worth fixing.

I would also like to distinguish between the two templates Elvey applied here. His first (and second) claimed that the section was inaccurate, because "Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government"; but that's pretty much a paraphrase of what the section actually says: the prohibition against copyright of works of the U.S. government does not apply to District of Columbia or Puerto Rico -- because Puerto Rico and DC are not part of the U.S. Government. So the claims of inaccuracy were just plain wrong. After a couple taggings of that, he's now revised that to "confusing" (with the edit summary "Same difference"; however, I see a big difference between a claim that a passage is inaccurate and a claim that a passage is confusing).

I do think though, that Elvey has some fundamental misunderstandings of US copyright law, and the very different roles that the United States government and the individual state governments play in it. Those misunderstandings, coupled with his confidence, makes this a pretty challenging issue to resolve. Add in his general incivility, and tendency to throw accusations, and this is a pretty frustrating experience for all involved. TJRC (talk) 22:40, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, I think you need take on some simple tasks, or a break if you're getting frustrated! Your multiple false allegations that I violated WP:TPO with edits that you reverted are addressed by Woodroar, but seem to have gone over your head. They're upsetting and disruptive. Admin., please FACT CHECK his claim that he "reverted Elvey's edits of my comments" and you'll see that the diffs show no such thing.♠

I'm sick and tired of TJRC's false allegations. Some people aren't able to grasp the subtleties of how Wikipedia works or lack the maturity required to edit effectively. They may still be able to do some easy jobs, but they'll probably run into trouble if they try biting off too much. TJRC fits this category.

Finally, TJRC's accusation that he wasn't of notified of this discussion is demonstrably false! I most certainly DID NOTIFY HIM! And since I've revivied this discussion, I'll notify him again.

TJRC needs to be blocked.♠ He has a very very poor grip on reality. A user who deletes another's comments 5+ times and denies it when diffs are provided, who makes so many blatantly false accusations has got to go! I've told him over half a dozen times that subnational entities are to be discussed in the article with subnational entities in the title, but he doesn't hear that… We have a history; he throws around false accusations like they're going out of style. --Elvey (talk) 22:27, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full disclosure: Elvey has been following me around lately because he's angry with me for disagreeing with him on a legal article. It's kinda creepy, but I'll put that aside. At the outset, I see hardly any diffs in support of what appears to be a claim of refactoring. Elvey mentions a revived discussion, but I'm sure what he's referring to. After that, he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report. I could also do without the exclamation points, the inflammatory rhetoric, the shouting (caps), and all the rest of the drama. I deeply sympathize with TJRC. My limited interaction with Elvey indicates that (1) he has no grasp of legal principles and (2) he has great trouble connecting sources with article assertions. As a consequence, he makes rather bizarre claims about content, as well as outlandish claims about others' conduct.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:57, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

BBB mentions anger and following in a completely one-sided review. Perhaps it's him who is angry and following, because our most recent interaction was that I chastised him on his talk page for inexplicably biting a helpful newbie. (See how much better the article is now, perhaps thanks to the 'unbiting' of the newbie!) IIRC, encouraging new contributors has been determined to be top priority 'round here.

I don't recall referring to or using the word refactoring. I have provided many diffs showing my comments being deleted (from Copyright status of work by the U.S. government talk page and from within tags in the article). Hardly any? Hardly.

I would urge TJRC and others to reread what's been said to understand why Woodroar said, "You're absolutely right that TJRC shouldn't have made the revert on the Talk page."--Elvey (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by TJRC

I will admit that I am now running out of patience with Elvey.

First, on the comment editing. I don't have a lot more to add beyond what I wrote above. WP:TPO says that when an editor objects to someone putting interruptions in his comments, he can revert them. I did. Elvey refuses to abide by that and continues to reinsert them. I want that stopped. It is important to me that Elvey's misunderstandings of the subject matter, and his hostile tone, not be attributed to me, which is the primary reason why I wish to rely on WP:TPO.

I will also note that I did not manage to get all of his interruptions out, and have held back on removing them further because he's already pissed off enough, and I have no desire to exacerbate the situation.

I rather politely explained the basis for this on his talk page:

Editing inside another editor's comments

Hi, Elvey. I suspect what might be getting you upset in Talk:Copyright status of work by the U.S. government is less the actual content than my objection to you inserting your comments ("interruptions" in Wikiparlance) in the middle of mine.

I don't like that practice, because it very quickly makes it hard to track who said what, particularly as the conversation gets longer and more iterative (and this is certainly one of those cases).

WP:TPO discusses this. Although that type of editing is not prohibited, "if an editor objects to such interruptions, interruptions should be reverted and another way to deal with the issue found." Since I do object to that, I reverted your interruptions. I'm happy to continue to engage, but please continue to make your replies independently rather than inserting your text amid my existing comments. Thank [sic]!

Elvey deleted this comment, with the edit summary "False allegations from TJRC - AGAIN - this time of editing inside his comments".

Furthermore, Elvey's reinstatement of his interruptions was not only contrary to TPO, but in the process he is removing the little actual progress made to addressing the underlying issue. Take a look at the talk page in this state. There is a section '"Innaccurate"/"confusing" tags' that is trying to address his issue in good faith. Despite the incivility of his response there, at least some headway is being made. Elvey's next edit was to delete that section, for the sake of reinstating his interruptions.

Elevey continues to be wrong in claiming that his diffs show me editing his comments, except for the three I now document; the two discussed above, and again today, all pursuant to WP:TPO. His diffs are edits of the article, not the talk page.

The notification issue is a sideshow, but just to be clear, Elvey did not notify me of this AN/I, or his reinstatement of it today. As I said I got a notification by a bot (not by Elvey) of a different AN/I in mid/late July, but that occurred during a rare period where I actually had a life and it was archived before I could respond. Elvey then added a comment to that notification, but it did not not mention any new AN/I or include any link, or anything else to suggest that it was in reference to anything other than the AN/I archived a couple weeks earlier.♣

To the extent that Elvey has any valid issue about the potentially confusing passage, I also would like to address any valid issue he has, but I'm now frankly reaching the end of my patience. TJRC (talk) 01:07, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, can you provide diffs where Elvey is editing inside or moving your comments? It seems like this claim is a source of much of the reverts—not the only reason, of course—but I just can't see it, even after spending far too much time a few days back and again today. In the first diff where you bring up WP:TPO, Elvey strikes out and amends his own comment (nothing unusual there), moves his reply from 2 to 3 indents so that appears as it should (a good thing), and expands some of his comments (again, nothing unusual). In short: he's editing his own comments, not yours, and in ways that general improve discussion. I think it would help everyone involved to move forward if this could be cleared up. Woodroar (talk) 01:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The original inline reply appears to be here. --Carnildo (talk) 02:03, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, I see it now. TJRC added a block of text which Elvey later edited inside. Woodroar (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Forgive me, I haven't read the entire thread but just bits and pieces. I have a simple question though. Is this an ongoing problem? I keep checking out the diffs and keep ending up with stuff from early June. I don't understand why we are discussing stuff from earlier June unless it's an ongoing problem. Whatever mistakes may or may not have been made, it seems clear there's no reason to block someone for something from June which isn't ongoing. If the dispute itself remains unresolved, then it will need to be resolved somehow and it's unfortunate if the DRN discussion didn't achieve a resolution but there are other steps which can be tried (none of which are ANI) and more importantly, any attempt at resolution should concentrate on the locus of the dispute, not whatever mistakes may or may not have been made in deleting comments over 2 months ago. If you feel you already gave an answer and it was deleted, rather then spending all your time arguing over whether or not the deletion was appropriate and the answer was already given, either rephrase the answer and give it again or show the diff to the person who you feel didn't read it so they can read your earlier answer. In other words, concentrate on resolving the dispute rather then assigning blame. Nil Einne (talk) 12:36, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Are the two recent false accusations of not notifying of ANIs (diffs above) an ongoing problem? Is the recent false accusation that I "re-instated [my] interruptions, [in violation of] TPO." not indication of an ongoing problem? Does a slew of recent false accusations, recent evidence of IDHT warrant admin action? You seem to have glossed over those issues.

TJRC has repeatedly deleted my comments from the page. I've restored them, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. LOOK AT THAT DIFF. IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION! TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have now done so, by diff restoring the comments he and I and others have made since then, without deleting my comments. --Elvey (talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

The unfortunate confusion about a lack of notification is not something that requires administrative intervention and is fairly unrelated to the comment deletion issue, nor is it a reason for this thread since it wouldn't have happened without this thread. You say he repeatedly removed stuff but then keeping showing stuff from June which reenforces whatever happened in the past, it's not ongoing so you harping on it is not productive. As I already said, I only had a brief look at the discussion, given your response to me here to harp on something from early June and then make a big deal over nothing about the notification kerfuffle, I'm not going to waste my time looking in to the other alleged problems which were without diffs or clarity over what you are referring to anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 22:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It's still a live controversy. As Elvey notes, albeit in his wikidramatic and divorced-from-reality way, he continues to insert his comments into mine, and will not respect my wishers per TPO.

I would like to point out that I am not, at this time, requesting that Elvey be blocked. That's his request with respect to me. Elvey has had gaps in editing before, and I have no reason to believe that a block-enforced time away from Wikipedia would improve his behavior any more than his other absences have. Such a block would be punitive, and being human, I can't say I wouldn't relish that, but my objective side has to admit that that wouldn't really serve the purpose that blocking is intended to serve, to prevent the disruption of Wikipedia. I have no reason to believe that Elvey would not continue his disruptive behavior upon lifting of the block.

What I would like out of this discussion is two things: First, I do not want Elvey's comments appearing in mine and over my signature. I do not want his misunderstandings about copyright law to be attributed to me by a reader who is not careful to notice the interruptions. I do not want his invective and incivility attributed to me. I do not seek to delete his comments. I just want them out of mine. I would welcome an edit by an admin or other uninvolved editor to do that (for example, move them out of my comment and position them indented after it, with appropriate signatures), and then to close out that section in the talk page to prevent further edits to it by either Elvey or myself (and for both Elvey and me to respect that closure).

Second, I would like Elvey to be counseled on how to behave as an editor. The comment issue aside, the underlying issue giving rise to it is that he has tagged the article as confusing, but will not enter into a civil discussion of why he believes it is confusing, and will not work in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issue he believes he has identified. I would like to see a commitment from Elvey that he will behave according to that counsel.

I'm not sure that last bit is going to work, but I am still willing to give it one more try. My sense, though, is that Elvey's comprehension abilities are low. He does not appear to understand TPO. His tagging in the article shows he does not know the difference between a claim that something is inaccurate and a claim that it is confusing. His comments above show that he does not know the difference between removing a tag in an article and editing a comment on a talk page. His claim to have notified me about this AN/I shows that he does not know the difference between adding a comment to a bot's discussion of a different AN/I, with no indication of any kind that he has opened (and then re-opened) a different AN/I notifies a reader of those new AN/Is. In the discussion above, it ended with him being counseled to knock it off and to engage in good-faith discussion, and his take-away was, not to knock it off an engage in good-faith discussions, but, as Bbr23 points out "he took Woodroar's criticism and transformed it into a confirmation of this report." That's five different instances of his miscomprehensions, and that's just in this discussion alone; let's not even go into his substantive edits in articles.

Furthermore, if Elvey is unable to civilly and reasonably discuss the tag he has placed on the article, I want to be able to remove the tag. There is no reason that the article should be held hostage to someone unable to engage in reasonable discourse. I should not have to choose between engaging in an invective-laden bunch of rants to try to ferret out what confuses him, and cleaning up the article.

I said above that I'm not at this time seeking a block on Elvey. I do reserve the right to change my mind on that; if Elvey dos not agree to straighten up his act and behave, and then follow through on that agreement, I probably will be requesting either a block or a topic ban on legal-related articles. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Certainly we both have made significant contributions to the project. Certainly, both of us have made mistakes. I fixed the huge mess on the talk page caused by his attempt to address the TPO issue, early yesterday, August 16th but he seems to have ignored this. Why, TJRC? It feels like IDHT, as usual - it's as if he sees wikipedia is a game he's trying to 'win'. TJRC, please engage. Please, take a look at the page now, and the recent edits that got it there. Please consider taking back the false accusations you've made, and/or at least taking a serious look to see whether the diffs and explications of what I assert are your false accusations are valid and responding. To some extent you've done that - e.g. regarding the two notifications of the AN/I discussions, though with poor results. With respect to your accusation of TPO, it seems you still failed to review the diffs, like the initial accusation. Yes, I did use ALL CAPS, in particular because it was so overdue that TJRC really "LOOK AT THAT DIFF. IT'S NOT REMOVING ANY SORT OF INTERRUPTION!"♥ It is more overdue than ever. Please let us know if/when you've taken another look at that diff, TJRC, and what Woodroar said about it, OK?♥ Then I'll apologize for using CAPS in a last-ditch effort to get you to do so.

I'd really like to see some admin action taken here:

I request admin input - as to who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to TJRC's claims of missing AN/I notifications, in particular! (For convenience, here again are the diffs from above: diff w/edit summary "Hello! There is a AN/I notice you may have interest in." and diff of 2nd notification.)♠

I request admin input - as to who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to TPO - looking closely in particular at the initial accusation EDIT in its entirety, which he still vociferously defends, and my edits to Talk:Copyright_status_of_work_by_the_U.S._government yesterday, August 16th ! (Which took a lot of work - 7 edits - don't miss the edit summaries, but here's the overall diff. Given diff, his calls for an admin to prevent further edits to that section demonstrate an amazing unwillingness or inability to cooperate, as that is a pretty foolproof two-click solution to his (rather paranoid) "I do not want" concerns. I think my comments make it clear that I understand the issue of interspersing responses into another's posts. And that TJRC kept editing my comments (in particular reverting my edits, over and over) in a way that bore no relation to that issue, like a bull in a china shop -- he did NOT remove interspersed responses, though clearly he still thinks that's what he was doing with that edit, which he redid over and over and over.

Note: My above request regarding TPO was largely answered by Woodroar when he wrote, "…It seems like this claim is a source of much of the reverts—not the only reason, of course—but I just can't see it, even after spending far too much time a few days back and again today. In the first diff where you bring up WP:TPO, Elvey strikes out and amends his own comment (nothing unusual there), moves his reply from 2 to 3 indents so that appears as it should (a good thing), and expands some of his comments (again, nothing unusual). In short: he's editing his own comments, not yours, and in ways that general improve discussion…" combined with my question below at 23:42 to TJRC, so I strike it.--Elvey (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if a solution is for TJRC to be counseled on how to behave as an editor; I think an editing restriction, such as WP:0RR holds more promise.♠ I would like to see a commitment from him that he will behave according such a restriction, if imposed.♥ He seems to be blind when it comes to applying "[[WP:" shorthand to his own edits, but on acid (seeing violations that are not there) when it comes to applying policy to others' edits, but I'm at a loss as to what restriction short of a block can address that. Personally, I'd be happy to accept any mentoring - I'd be happy to have someone to bounce edits or comments off before I hit 'Save page'. The false accusations aside, the underlying issue giving rise to the conflict it is quite simple- it's about what goes in the article with respect to CA, FL, DC, and PR, and why. I feel that he is avoiding a civil discussion, and not working in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issues.♠

TJRC has repeatedly deleted my answer to his question from the article page over and over and over and over and over. I would like him to acknowledge that he has done so. I would like him to acknowledge that that there was nothing at TPO to justify this deletion of my comments, which he repeated several times. I've restored, as he's not undoing a TPO violation by deleting my comments. If you look at that diff, you'll see - It's not removing any sort of interruption! Again, TJRC refused to fix the mess he created, so I have now done so, by diff restoring the comments he and I and others have made since then, without deleting my comments. --Elvey (talk) 04:00, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got nothing to add based on Elvey's latest comment. It would be repetitive.

With respect to the TPO issue, Elvey has made a few edits that may be helpful. First, a series of edits to remove his comments from the middle of mine, consistent with TPO. That version can be seen here, He then follows up reinserting his interruptions here, but with the edit summary "TJRC - if you must insist on this no- interruption business, this is the edit to undo". Based on that edit summary, I am construing this as an invitation to undo to put it in the no-interruptions state, and am doing so now. I reserve the right to confirm that the text of my comment remains what I entered and to tweak my comment to ensure that it is. Elvey, please either indicate either that this is acceptable, or if it is not, undo my edit. In either case, please do it without additional drama.

With respect to the continued editing problem, that still needs to be resolved. I need for Elvey to commit to civil discussion on the talk page. His recent edit to the article itself does not bode well. He simply struck all the well-cited accurate information that confuses him, going back to his preferred text. His similar edit back in June has been reverted by another attorney-editor, Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) (who, if I recall correctly, is also an IP attorney), here. TJRC (talk) 09:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC, you assert, "He simply struck all the well-cited accurate information that confuses him, going back to his preferred text." but this assertion is egregiously factually-challenged:

1. I left an informative edit summary.
2. explained my edits on the talk page.
3. I didn't simply go back to my preferred text.
4. The information doesn't confuse me and anyone who's the least bit perceptive should understand by now that I've tagged the information because having the information, which is indeed well-cited and accurate on this page but not having state information is confusing to our readers.
5. The assertion may or may not meet the technical definition of uncivil, but it sure feels inflammatory. TJRC, if you're not going to respond to my concerns, stop posting to this thread in an effort to derail it.

Your stubborn behavior, acceptable? As I noted 3 days ago I gave up on getting you to revert your unacceptable behavior, TJRC. --Elvey (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I "request admin input" above. Hello? Anyone?

Can I get that input, Pretty Please?

TJRC, you wrote, "...when I've asked him what he thinks is confusing, he thinks he's already answered." Indeed, correct! Will you admit that this was a reasonable way of seeing things - that perhaps when you read and then deleted that answer and then asked me to describe what it is I find confusing as if I hadn't done so at all, over and over, that a reasonable person would be a bit upset?♥ --Elvey (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, your frustration is obvious, but the lack of attention may be because you and TJRC have been talking to one another here, rather than talking to us (the regular admins and other experienced editors who frequent this board.) Could I ask both of you to state in one simple post what, if any, admin action you are asking for here? Eg is it page protection, a block, a ban, a warning, or what? Please don't tell us why this might be justified for a moment - could we just start by asking you what it is you each want us to do? Please reply to me in this thread, and not to each other - we have already had plenty of that. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 16:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim: TJRC needs to be blocked. (As at "♠" above.) (Reasons to unblock could be (commented out, as this could be seen as a 'why', though it's not intended as such…)

I request an admin answer: Who is "divorced-from-reality" with respect to TJRC's claims of missing AN/I notifications, in particular: Are they required? For convenience, here again are the (small!) diffs from above. Do they show I provided what's required? : diff w/edit summary "Hello! There is a AN/I notice you may have interest in." and diff of 2nd notification.♠

Finally, I would ask that any admin action be grounded in policy applied specific factual findings. And as I've already said I'd be happy to accept any mentoring…♠ I RETRACTED the edit warring accusation, but Prosfilaes acts as if still unaware that his edit restored the wrong version during an edit war. --Elvey (talk) 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim, I would characterize what I'm asking for as a warning: "I would like Elvey to be counseled on how to behave as an editor. The comment issue aside, the underlying issue giving rise to it is that he has tagged the article as confusing, but will not enter into a civil discussion of why he believes it is confusing, and will not work in a good-faith and civil manner to resolve the issue he believes he has identified. I would like to see a commitment from Elvey that he will behave according to that counsel." Please see below. TJRC (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm with TJRC here, but on a slightly different angle. On June 26th, he accuses me of edit warring based on one edit. On August 19th, he comes back to demand a justification for that same edit. Really? He can't let it drop?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As TJRC has denied the existence of the discussion post I made to the article talk page yesterday, I have pinged him and reverted in two steps as he only provided a minimal and inaccurate edit summary and not only didn't respond, but insists there is no discussion going on. --Elvey (talk) 01:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am striking my prior request that Elvey be merely warned. Based on his continued disruptive incivil behavior and repeated reinsertion of his preferred text without consensus (the straws breaking this camel's back are today, here, here and here), I am requesting that Elvey be blocked. These aren't the worst of it, but it's what's finally making me give up on him. TJRC (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• So, on the point about AN/I notification my view is that Elvey notified TJRC of both AN/I discussions. It would however have been preferable and avoided any confusion if each notification had its own heading, rather than being appended to an existing heading. TJRC's unwillingness to accept the notifications as such, and Elvey's intemperate language ("out of touch with reality"...) indicate to me that each has completely run out of patience with the other and is willing to grasp at any straw to paint the other in a bad light.
  

To the substance of the requests. I read that TJRC and Elvey each want the other person to be blocked. I know you have both made many arguments above but as you see, the way you have couched them so far has not attracted any admin attention or action. Please now each of you say (a) what policy or guideline has been broken by the other person, eg that on civility, disruption, edit warring etc and (b) give some diffs to evidence this. Restrict yourselves to these two topics please and resist the temptation to argue with the other. A small clue: the way you are handling this dispute so far gives me very little confidence in either of you. Please consider ignoring one another right now on this page and replying to me and the other uninvolved editors reading this. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 08:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Elvey certainly could stand to work on civility, for example, not making uncivil remarks about me in a DRV or nominating the userpage of one of my bots for deletion (speaking of which, could someone uninvolved close the MFD? It's a clear "speedy keep"). --Carnildo (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's now been more than 24 hours since I asked Elvey and TJRC for a concise, diff-supported statement of evidence. I'll ping both their talk pages now and say that unless e get something here within the next 24 hours I'll close this thread. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 12:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

TJRC's examples of Elvey misbehavior

Here are some. There are probably more, but I don't have a lot of time today to address this, work's been very busy for me the past couple days, leaving me very little family time, which has taken priority. This is a mixture of general hostility (WP:CIVIL) and a refusal to take part in good-faith discussions (WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL).

• "Wild accusations"; "straw men": [13].
• Again with the "accusations": [14].
• "General hostility and refusal to discuss his tagging: [15].
• Abusive edit summary: [16].
• Here's one I pointed out above: I very politely explained TPO to Elvey (reproduced in the text in this discussion, above): [17] ; Elvey deletes with edit summary "False allegations from TJRC - AGAIN" (because everything is apparently more believable with capital letters): [18], [19].
• Calling my edit (reverting his error!) "obnoxious" on another user's talk page: [20].
• general hostility: [21].

While looking for one of the instances above (the comment on Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) talk page), I can see that I'm not the only one who's been the target of his misbehavior.

• Abuses of Twinkle to improperly flag edits as vandalism, against January (talk · contribs); this actually stems from Elvey's misunderstanding that copyright law and public records law are not the same thing: [22] and January's correction of it.
• Another spurious Twinkle vandalism warning, this time against MrX (talk · contribs) [23].
• Another general rant against Guy Macon (talk · contribs) [24].

I'm betting there are more, but these are just what I happened across while looking for the one I remembered.

I would also like you to consider the general tone of Elvey's text above. That's what I and other editors are constantly having to deal with. Also, please consider the comments of editors Prosfilaes (talk · contribs) and Carnildo (talk · contribs) and of editor/admin Bbb23 (talk · contribs).

Kim, the notification issue is a sideshow, and I don't want to spend too much time on that, but let me clarify what I'm trying to say on that point. I have no "unwillingness to accept the notifications". I am saying I simply did not perceive Elvey's comment as a notification, in that, as a response to a comment about a different discussion, with no link or any other indication that this was about a new discussion, it was not at all apparent to me that this new discussion was the subject of his message. We can differ as to whether I should have understood his comment as a notification, of course. But the fact is that I did not.

One final comment: one thing I regret having said in the discussion above is the use of "in his ... divorced-from-reality way" on August 16th. That's not the level of communication I generally use, and is indicative of the amount of frustration I am feeling here. I don't think it is nearly as poor form as the behavior being shown by Elvey, but I should not be adopting that as my own standard.

Thanks. TJRC (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment by Guy Macon: I am commenting solely because my name was mentioned above. Elvey and I had a rather mundane content dispute at Secure Digital,[25] and he made some rather rash accusations,[26][27] but he later expressed a desire to end the conflict,[28] (very bottom comment) we both deleted/struck various comments.[29] and agreed to get back to building an encyclopedia. We have had no interaction since. Because Elvey did the right thing and disengaged rather that escalating further, in my opinion it would be highly inappropriate to use any of our interactions as evidence in an ANI case. I have no opinion about any interactions Elvey might have had with any other editors. Please leave me out of this. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe1967 - GMO

Canoe1967 and a number of other editors have consistently accused or insinuated that wikipedia editors who disagree with them are shills for Monsanto (e.g [[30]], more recent efforts are more subtle). "This seems further evidence that the editors who, for whatever reason, seem to want to make sure large companies look as good as possible, vastly outnumber the indies left on wiki", by Petrarchan47 (talk · contribs). emphasis mine. [31]. "Note that I didn't enter this realm of articles because of a pre-existing concern about GMOs. I was drawn to them pretty much only because (about this time a year ago) I was disturbed by what seemed like a pattern of corporate manipulation at the Monsanto page.", by Groupuscule (talk · contribs). [32]. See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Thanks_for_your_comments_at_Wikimania for more context.

Here are two previous related ANI threads: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive807#Request_to_enforce_NOR

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive806#Accusations_at_Talk:March_Against_Monsanto_that_need_to_be_resolved. IRWolfie- (talk) 01:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Following on this campaign of harassment, in an article about a march, March against Monsanto, Canoe1967 is continuing to use the talk page as a place to dump unreliable links, despite being asked not to, about Monsanto hiring PR accounts on the internet etc [33]. The obvious insinuation is that those who disagree with his edits are Monsanto employees or whatever. The section he has created to make claims about PR agents has no obvious connection to the article or its content. IRWolfie- (talk) 00:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you missed the point of my OP in that thread. Mainstream media did not cover the event well. Smaller, as you claim, 'less reliable sources' reported this. The removal of these smaller reports is the same as the main reports did. How can we expect mainstream media to report that they censored themselves? They probably didn't do it at Monsanto's request but the other sources claim it is rather odd not to cover a 2 million person march as much a 300 person march. If it is sourced then there is no harm in inclusion. Protests are designed to get media attention. If that media attention is reported as odd then those reports warrant inclusion with credit to who is making the claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 01:14, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This "campaign of harassment"? Dramatic. Even outsiders are noting obvious pro-GM activity at Wikipedia. But to IRWolfie, this recognition is just crazy. petrarchan47tc 05:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It should be noted that if you expect to find something, odds are, you will. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Those "outsiders" are an Anti-GMO group and are also involved in genetics bashing more generally [34]. I'd like to draw the admins attention to a comment posted at that link where someone mentions a private anti-GMO emailing list: I’m on an email list where I’ve heard several people complain about the extreme bias of the Wikipedia page, “The Seralini affair”. They have been trying to edit it to add balance and accuracy but their edits are reverted soon after. Editors like Petrar are using commentary from these Anti-GMO websites to continue their conspiratorial campaigns (as Petrar's talk page says: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia."). IRWolfie- (talk) 10:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I'm interacting with this user on Talk:Colony_collapse_disorder#Update. I didn't realise there was WP:COATRACK going on. The user has a huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by coatrack. Which article is the coatrack? I also wonder why Time Magazine was removed from the article. If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it? I think the editor that removed it has a "huge misunderstanding about what constitutes a reliable source." You asked me on the talk page as to which source I was going to use and what edit I was going to make. I have never edited that article but that question seems like I need your permission first. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Can I assume that if I do add a sourced edit to the article then it will just be reverted regardless? I have mentioned the Professor and a doctor with over 100 peer reviewed papers being added to the article. I should let you choose which source and what edit to make to make sure we get it right. I promise I would remove it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 07:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This group of editors also deliberately misunderstand basic reliable sourcing. It has been explained to them that newspapers aren't generally reliable for cutting edge or controversial science, but they continue to propose newspapers as sources for everything, and make statements like the above "If we can assume this isn't an RS then should we just blacklist it". They refuse to get that reliability is context dependent. @TippyGoomba Not for lack of trying, see [35] for example, which was two days ago. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

LOL, refusing most sources as being unreliable is also a form of POV-pushing, IRWolfie. And I have seen you do just that on many, many articles relating to food safety and organic food. The Banner talk 10:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

The Banner added claims, several months ago, into an article claiming regular food causes cancer and contains poison, here is the diff[36], and discussion Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3#We_are_going_nowhere_now... as well as cherry picking papers which the papers that cited it lambasted Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3#WP:MEDRS. That's the context, but it has no relevance to what is being discussed here, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

It will be clear for all the people who follow your link that you are talking clear nonsense and a personal attack to discredit me. Why should we use medical sources for issues that are not medical? Why are you so afraid of agricultural sources? The Banner talk 18:21, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Since Monsanto has this legal control over all its GMO studies then any peer reviewed study should be brought into question. This my RS is better than your RS isn't the way to go about it. Should we include a line as a qualifier after every GMO peer reviewed study? 'Other studies need to be legally approved by Monsanto.' 'Studies to counter these claims are illegal without Monsanto approval.' I should email a local supply company and see if I can get a copy of the contract just to verify to myself that Scientific American isn't using fringe sources for false claims.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If you search for the word "contract" in the GM Food Controversies article, you will find that there is a link to the Monsanto contract already in the article and a discussion of it. It is in the intellectual property section. (Note - the link to the actual contract in the article was broken - found another one after a few minutes of searching and replaced it) And there is already a section about scientific publishing and the difficulties that indpendent scientists have had getting access to the GM seed. Please, please do your homework before making these great statements. Other, good faith editors have been working on this for a long time! This is a repeat of the Starlink thing, where you didn't read the article before adding repetitive content about the Taco Bell Recall and you haven't responded to a single thing we have said about it and where it is currently located. But you are quick to denounce and ignore the working editors as bad faith POV pushers and you keep doing that, even here. Jytdog (talk) 02:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientific American claims "...difficulties that independant scientists have had getting access..." means "...it is impossible to verify that genetically modified crops perform as advertised." We should try to go with sources not 'advertising studies' by Monsanto. The Starlink material is not in the health recall section but still in two sections it wasn't recalled or controversial for. Again we should try to go with what the sources say.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:03, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• When Canoe made a post at Talk:March Against Monsanto that seemed to me to imply that some editors were "shills", I left a message that you can see on their user talk page, and they came to the article talk page and clarified that they had not intended it to cast aspersions on editors, but rather, they were trying to express concern that readers might think that our content was being manipulated. That's probably not the best explanation, but I was willing to let it go at that. Canoe then posted, in talk, a series of suggested sources that other editors considered to be low-quality; that is what IRWolfie is referring to here. I don't think that posting possible sources on a talk page is something that requires an ANI complaint, and I think that this complaint probably does not require administrator action, in itself. That said, it's painfully clear that this drama over whether or not editors are working on behalf of business interests, or whether other editors are using aspersions to that effect, without real evidence, in order to try to gain advantage in POV disputes, is just going on and on and on. I've said it before, and it hasn't sunk in yet: if you have a valid concern, please take it to WP:COIN, and if you don't, then don't say it. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Just to indicate that the discussion Canoe started was really about purported shills/COI, Here is what he dropped in the middle of it: [37]. "Monsanto COI edit 1. I will keep looking. --Canoe1967" He dropped a link to a Monsanto IP that edited the Roundup article 8 years ago in the middle of his thread, IRWolfie- (talk) 14:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not start the discussion for that purpose nor use those terms. Putting thoughts to my posts and words in my mouth is very bad faith bordering on lies and attacks. If you can't provide decent input then either don't bother or expect to have it ignored. I posted the COI edit to counter claims that Monsanto never edits GMO articles. There are probably more but I think I have made my point.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:05, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My own issues

I don't participate in these boards much, and have not brought an action here before. I don't much like drama. I don't like to fight with anybody nor do I like getting people in trouble - I like to work things out.

However, two editors in particular, User:Canoe1967 and User:Petrarchan47, have been engaging in a campaign of personally attacking me and a group of other editors, both directly and in a canvassing manner, on the Talk pages of other editors, accusing me and others of bad faith, shill, COI, POV-pushing editing (which I will refer to from now on as "paid editing" for lack of a better term). I have asked each of them to stop, nicely, several times, and finally warned them that I would start an ANI if they continued. Neither has stopped. As User:IRWolfie- has already opened a discussion, I am joining his/her thread. I have not done this before, but the behavior of these editors is making Wikipedia an inhospitable place for me and in an ugly weed is growing that I think should be pulled up.

I request that an administrator at least sternly warn each of them, and maximally block each of them for some amount of time.

I recognize that declared and undeclared paid editing is something that Wikipedia should be concerned with, for sure, but I also very strongly believe that the behavior of these two editors, who have turned simple differences in perspective into a witch hunt, where they continually make accusations in inappropriate places with no evidence, is a kind of McCarthyism (where "paid editor" replaces "communist") that thwarts Wikipedia's goal of having a vibrant community of editors who work together with civility to create a great encyclopedia. I believe they are acting in good faith -- I believe each of them honestly believes that I and others are acting in bad faith, and I believe that each of them honestly wants to make Wikipedia better, but their methods and behaviors are destructive and this behavior needs to stop. As they will not stop themselves, I am asking that they be stopped.

The other editors editors being attacked are individuals who have each found him- or herself interested in the suite of genetic engineering articles for a long time, and include me, User:IRWolfie-, User:Arc de Ciel, User:Aircorn and to a lesser extent User:Bobrayner A few months ago User:BlackHades became more active on those pages, and much more recently, mostly via the March Against Monsanto article, User:Tryptofish, User:SpectraValor, and User:Thargor Orlando have gotten involved. The older group of editors I have come to be very familiar with -- all are science-oriented or scientists, as far as I can tell, and all seek to follow all the pillars in editing especially with regard to NPOV and reliable sourcing. We do not coordinate in any way, that I am aware of.

User:Canoe1967 Canoe first showed up in the GMO suite in an ANI about March Against Monsanto. Canoe's first edit there is here - in that edit he/she wrote: "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.". Canoe's next edit on Wikipedia, a few minutes later, was in the MaM article, where he/she deleted content with the pejorative and attacking edit note "Monsanto may control the media but not Wikipedia. This section is due without the tag in that case." And his/her edit notes and comments continued in that spirit. Another comment Canoe made in the MaM ANI was "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." - here. His/her last, and telling comment in the ANI about MaM is here. THe last comment made by Canoe in the MaM ANI is Copy/pasted for your convenience, because this one is key: ""Addendum. It was more than just that. I have been banned from editing March Against Monsanto for a week. I had never heard of the GMO controversy until the phone call I received. Since then I created Taco Bell GMO recall which I tried to include in Genetically modified food controversies at first. My addition was notable and sourced but one reason for the reversion was 'article too big already'. I then created it as a stand alone. Since then it was re-directed to yet a fourth article, Taco Bell, which I reverted. I expect the next step will be an Afd attempt. I still don't care about the GMO POVs that some editors claim exist but I do care about how it effects Wikipedia. Put these articles on your watchlists to see if any further antics arise.--Canoe1967 (talk) 10:11, 5 August 2013 (UTC)"

Three key things: 1) Canoe notes that he/she was canvassed external to Wikipedia, and 2) Canoe notes that he/she was blocked for edit warring; 3) Canoe makes it clear here that he/she knows little about the issues involved but is determined to fight perceived COI editing. And this is pretty much what has unfolded on the two GM-related articles where I have encountered this editor - very uncivil conversations where it is hard to arrive at consensus on content because Canoe won't deal with facts about the content, but instead personally attacks and keeps shifting ground to get the article to be just as he/she wants it to be.

I asked Canoe about the phone call on his/her Talk page - the query and its response are here. Seems like the initial phone call was not canvassing, but it certainly seemed to set Canoe off on a conspiracy theory that Monsanto is controlling GM-related content and everybody working them, or opposing his/her changes, has COI or POV-pushing issues. The discussion I linked to at the start of this paragraph was very, very difficult for me, as Canoe would not stay on topic, respond to what I actually wrote, and continually threatened to "contact the media about" the putative COI editing, go to Arbcom,telling me "I have told you more than once that you should take a break from editing GMO articles but you seem to just continue with BS which will probably lead to drama boards if you don't clue in." and on and on. I made a minor change on his/her Taco Bell Recall article and Canoe went off on me, wildly - please see the topmost discussion on Talk, here. Simultaneously Canoe, myself, and others were having a dispute in the Talk pages of the GM controversies article about where content about the Starlink/Taco Bell content should go - again Canoe's behavior there was oriented toward personal attacks about COI and POV-pushing, and Canoe had no interest in dialog, establishing the facts, or compromising, but has continually insisted that the content go where he/she wanted it to go. That discussion is here. If it is more helpful to Administrators I will go back through those discussions and pull out more specific things that Canoe wrote, but you don't have to look far.

Here is the 3RR ANI resulting in a warning for March against Monsanto editing - Aug 3. (note - he/she was previously 48 hour blocked for edit warring on another article, here)

Here is another attack on me, not mentioning me by name or notifying me: this dif.

There are more, but this is too long already.

With respect to User:Petrarchan47, this goes back to editing I did on the BP article and his/her frustration in general with the terrible situation that developed in that article. If editors are not familiar with this article, some brief background. There is an employee of BP named Arturo who works on that article, in excellent compliance with Wikipedia's policies - posts suggestions on Talk, never edits, discusses politely. Two camps of editors arose on that page - one that wanted the article to remain tightly focused on BP and its business; another that wanted to include expanded content on environmental, legal and political issues (oil spills including Deep Water Horizon and all the issues around that; safety violations, trading scandals, greenwashing, etc). Things got very ugly there and for a long time a group of corporate-oriented editors had the article in a fairly ugly stranglehold leading to a lot of anger and frustration. This really broke out when an article was published claiming (wrongly) that BP was re-writing its wikipedia article. In any case, I helped break that open (see here and a group of editors, including User: Gandydancer who had been working virtually alone for a long time, User:Petrarchan47 who had been involved in the past and came back after the article published, and others, started adding lots of content. When I felt they went too far and resisted, I became an enemy to them and User:Petrarchan47 became so negative toward me, personally, that I just left the page. Ever since, User:Petrarchan47 has been accusing me of being a shill.

I'm sorry that I have to reply to this, but it is going too far. Many were upset when the news broke about BP's level of involvement in their Wiki page. Slim Virgin asked me to come back from Wiki-retirement and help out at the BP page during this intense time, as I had the longest history there as one who pointed out (accurately) certain POV on the page. Along with Slim, there were two new editors to the page (Buster7 and Coretheapple) who were attracted by the news and the idea of finding a solution to the POv problem presented by PR departments having a large role on Wiki. Along with Gandydancer and Slim Virgin, we had very (purposefully) public discussions about how to keep pages NPOV.

Jytdog entered the BP page quite out of the blue, during our deepest discussions, and by his own admission "took control" of the BP talk page. (An example is here). On Slim's page, Jytdog writes: "I grant that some of my being hounded off the page is my fault, in that when I tried to moderate the conflict on that page, I named "sides" and this was offensive to pretty much everyone. Not sure how you talk about a conflict if you cannot name "sides" but I did it too clumsily. Which I very much regret ". The story is now being spun to look as if I had no reason to be unhappy with his presence. My "becoming so negative" towards Jytdog refers to the time I confronted him about labeling me an environmentalist, among other things, and that is when he sulked off. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The BP article was very hard, very charged, and I think is the root of a lot of this McCarthyism that User:Petrarchan47 is engaging in.

Absolutely manic, this presentation against me. Baseless at its core - but McCarthyism describes the diatribe you left about me at Gandydancer's talk page yesterday. I don't believe even you believe that what you have written is true. You have obviously perused my entire edit history and talk page, so you have apparently chosen to ignore the numerous times I am asked to help with content creation (that would be damning to big corporations), and I say no every time - because I am too busy IRL. Any facts that don't uphold this weird narrative were excluded from the above assessment. If I were part of, or trying to start a cabal, you wouldn't see evidence of it on talk pages. I use talk pages because they are public, because I want to do everything in the open, because I feel I have nothing to hide - not what I am saying nor how I say it. Jytdog, IRWolfie and Tryptofish all raked me over the coals for simply asking Canoe1967 their opinion on an idea for an RfC, this is what they consider canvassing and going behind backs: nefarious activity. This kind of thing makes it hard to take comments by these editors seriously enough to respond, to be honest. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

In a discussion on the BP Talk page, Petrarchan actually proposed that forming "an organized team somewhat like CREWE, even if more loosely organized and with few members, is actually a good idea. If Wiki editors are now seriously being asked to do what we are doing at this page, we need to take a moment and reflect on what that really means. We are up against a PR department of one of the most powerful, wealthy companies in the world. And they are not about to stop caring A LOT about what this page says. They have loyal editors here who seem much more organized and less emotional than those of us interesting in removing spin. If that doesn't change, nothing will change with regard to the POV in the article" - which comment you can see here.

Any responsible editor on Wiki should be concerned with PR promoters and their admitted activity here. Anyone trying to intimidate folks attempting to have this open discussion should be shamed off the Wiki for doing so, imo. This place is about NPOV and truth. Shaming, fear-mongering and constant threats of noticeboards are, in this case, about the suppression of both. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this is what Petrachan has been doing recently -- namely, convinced that a cabal is controlling the GM articles, he/she has been canvassing to try to "loosely organize" a group to "fight back", as Petrarchan, User:Gandydancer, User:Coretheapple, and User:Binksternet, and User talk:Buster7 did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages. User:Binksternet was peripherally involved in that. And in the battleground that the BP article had become, and how hard it was, I understood that. I also found it disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page, but I was already walking away from the BP article so I said and did nothing. I am, however, deeply engaged in the GM suite of articles and committed to their excellence, and I am calling Petrarchan out for canvassing and personal attacks for this behavior now. I don't even know if it is intentional (as in conscious) as much as we are all creatures of habit. But the behavior is no good. (note - edited to respond to Binksternet's objection below. Deleted Binkster from the list and noted peripheral involvement in italics. My apologies. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC))

I don't agree that I have either canvassed or handed out personal attacks. However the above is an example of a personal attack; this is an attack on my very character and my entire 'life' as a Wiki editor. It is not based in reality and evidence for these claims about me (and the conclusions drawn) will not be found in the records or anywhere else. They are simply not true. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I note that his/her userpage now has a label stating: "This user disapproves of mindless PR firm sockpuppets spreading paid POV around Wikipedia." and a quote, "The question is whether privileged élites should dominate mass-communication, and should use this power as they tell us they must, namely, to impose necessary illusions, manipulate and deceive the stupid majority, and remove them from the public arena. - Noam Chomsky". These are clearly important issues for Petrarchan. However as I mentioned, this user is convinced I am a COI editor and that I am a POV-pusher, and while we avoid working on articles where the other is working, he/she continues to write negative things about me in Talk pages, and canvasses other users to get them to join his/her anti-paid editing campaign. We unfortunately encountered one another again on the March Against Monsanto article.

I don't know where I said you are a COI editor, or that I even suspected you were. I actually don't care one way or the other WHY you are spinning GMO-related articles, simply that it is happening. You can attack me all you want, and try to build a hefty case here, but it doesn't change the fact that others are seeing the obvious bias in this suite of articles as well. And I will note that there has been very recent talk about sending this whole issue to ArbCom, making the timing for your distraction attempt here very interesting. I must say also that I have never had complaints against me for my behavior or editing until I came across GMO-related articles. I very innocently tried to build the March Against Monsanto page when it was being discussed for deletion (the first time). It was then that I became the greatest menace Wiki has ever known, and have twice been taken to 3RR court (for bogus reasons) during my editing there. My activity across articles does not change, yet the reaction when I encounter the group that is dedicated to these GMO articles diverges wildly from anywhere else on Wiki. It makes no sense that it is my behaviour causing this divergence. It does make sense that I may end up looking like the bad guy since the ones complaining about me are energetic, devoted, and here around the clock with their list of wrongdoings and support for each other in these attacks. I am sick of being attacked, but this complete disinformation created by Jytdog takes it to a level I cannot ignore. It is not OK to make stuff up about someone just to get the spotlight off of yourself, Jytdog. And: it is not OK to spin Wikipedia articles, no matter how civil you are whilst doing so. petrarchan47tc 00:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This comment by Petrarchan here really makes clear where Petrarchan has ended up, really convinced that I and others are paid editors and that Wikipedia is completely in our corrupt grasp. Simple differences in perspective have become blown up into a battle between good and evil.

Anyway to the point.

There as an ugly discussion of edits I made in the BP article on the Talk page of an administrator, User:SlimVirgin, made without notifying me, which you can see in the deleted entry here - SlimVirgin deleted it after I called it to her attention here.

It continued anyway, here (I am the "a certain editor who materialized recently and held himself out as a 'mediator'", who is negatively characterized) and here (where Petrarchan says I "deserved the 'shill' remark") - again without notifying me.

Also this groundless complaint against me by Petrarchan to Slimvirgin, which was replied to by SV here.

And again Petrarchan brought a conflict with me to SlimVirgin without notifying me - this one about GMOs here - in that instance Petrarchan wanted to introduce health-related content based on a flimsy article, which I had reverted, and when Petrarchan brought that to MEDRS as per SlimVirgin's advice, the source was dismissed as failing MEDRS here which Petrarchan has brought up bitterly several times as another example of me being a shill - see here for one.

Petrarchan probably included me here.

That is all the past stuff. The more recent stuff is more disturbing to me, as I mentioned above, because now Petrarchan appears to be trying to round up another coalition to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS again, now on pages I am committed to.

Canvassing behavior against me and the rest of the "evil GMO cabal" is here and here (that one with Canoe) and with User:Viriditas here and many other places on V's Talk page, with User:Groupuscule here, more of it going on here with user:Groupuscule joining in the canvassing/attacking and conspiracy theorizing, and with User:Jusdafax, here and here.

Anyway, I freaking hated doing this. Horrible, unproductive waste of my time. But again, this McCarthyism - this constant making of accusations and personal attacks on Talk pages has got to stop. Thanks for your patience. I know I am out of patience. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to see an end to this McCarthyism as well. It seems that what started out as a charge against Canoe has spread into accusations directed against Petrarchan and, using Jtydog's words, a group of editors making "dark complaints about "paid editors" or POV-pushers or what ever you want to call them coordinating with one another to influence articles". I can't speak to Petrarchan's current editing because I haven't followed it, but if it is similar to what s/he was doing regarding the BP article, as Jtydog asserts, there is nothing what so ever to it. Anyone not aware of the so-called cabel-like discussions and activities to bias the BP article that Jytdog states were going on can read his accusations for themselves (on my talk page), and make up their own minds. Regarding Jytdog's above post, I hope that editors do take the time to read the discussion on SlimVirgin's talk page. There is no discussion there on how to bias the BP article. There is a discussion about paid editing, something we all should be concerned about. Incidentally, I believe that it was Delicious Carbuncle that called Jtydog a shill, not Petrarchan, and the "Arturo team" reference is not directed towards Jtydog and other editors--Arturo stated that he is part of a team of employees that work on the BP article. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry Gandy - several people have pointed out that I should not have brought up the BP background and they were absolutely right. Because I did that, you and others have been distracted and upset. Bad for me, bad for you. I apologize. I am not going to deal with your misunderstandings stated above (e.g. I did not say you were trying to bias the BP article, and I know that it was DC - and I wrote that it was DC - who called the people he was talking to (me and you) shills (plural) - P just made it clear after talking to DC offline that the comment was directed only at me and not at you.) The point of this ANI is that Petrarchan has been canvassing other editors whom he/she views as anti-GMO via their Talk pages, and in the course of that, and in article Talk pages, she has been been making personal attacks of COI, etc etc. Again I am sorry for bringing up the background of the BP stuff - it was a hard and messy time. I would be very happy to continue discussing the background elsewhere if you like. Please let me know. But I will not discuss this further here as it is off topic. Again I apologize for my poor judgement in bringing up the BP stuff. And let me also say that paid editing is something we should indeed be concerned with and actively manage, but that concern cannot turn into McCarthyism as Petrarchan and Canoe have started to do with it. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, I am not and have never been canvassing - my work on GMO related articles is seen on MAM alone. I have also in the past attempted to add a Reuters article suggesting damage from Roundup to human health, but didn't push the matter when it was inevitably shot down as not meeting MEDRS. That you can claim in a public forum that I am somehow attacking your suite of articles makes me question your ability to be rational, logical and honest. You also have much activity on your talk page showing that people come to to you specifically for help with GMO articles. Is this canvassing? You were called to help the Seralini article, and you've been called out by independent scientists off-wiki for clearly spinning the page and controlling its content. You also seem to take control of every talk page you're involved with. You've been asked before to stop with the possessive attitude which is demonstrated by your welcoming and thanking each commenter. We are all here as equals, and this attitude of superiority and ownership is disturbing to group dynamics, and sets you up as the boss. I have to ask that you stop this campaign against me that is made up from thin air, and please consider that you are obviously and heavily involved in the same activities you accuse others of participating in. We all discuss content and other issues on various talk pages - that's what they're designed for - it is healthy. Again I plead: do not try to suppress my free speech here on Wikipedia whether by intimidation, bullying or otherwise. petrarchan47tc 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel I have adequately responded to these claims before but since you request responses again then I will do so. We go with what sources say on Wikipedia and not edits by those 'already familiar with the subject'. You edited the recall article with copyvio material from the source, falsely stated that Kraft did the recall, and then claimed that your minor typo fixes didn't require you to read the source, which you hadn't. I had read COI differently than others and accepted that is does need to be re-worded to avoid its vagueness. One does not need to be a paid editor to be a COI editor. Too much POV for one side of an article related to ideals or field of work is enough to be POV and COI, IMHO. You keep mentioning that I am not discussing in good faith and I keep asking you the same questions. If the sources say it is X then we go with X. The recall was a health issue as reported by the sources. None of the sources claim it was an environmental issue yet it remains in the environmental section. It was recently added to the allergen section as well, even though the sources didn't mention that it was controversial because of the rare possibility of reaction. It was controversial the way it was handled before, after, and during the recall. Seemingly ignored reports before it happened, misleading statements made after it happened, as well as other concerns mentioned in the sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:38, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a very good summary of the issues. although I wouldn't say I've been interested in the GM articles for a long time, I doubt I edited them before 4 months ago IRWolfie- (talk) 19:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• The post here is probably TL;DR for ANI (maybe even for RfArb), but let me try to boil it down to what my own take is on it. Jytdog names a lot of editors, but some of them seem to me to be innocent bystanders, so let's please focus on Petrarchan and Canoe. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I keep seeing TL;DR mentioned everywhere and have yet to find a page on it. I still haven't got a clue what it means but since it is directed at me it is time to ask. Please explain RfArb as well to save me time searching for it.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

See WP:TLDR and WP:ARBCOM. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 13:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I think that Petrarchan's conduct centers on WP:RGW, while Canoe's is a mixture of WP:RGW and (sorry) WP:COMPETENCE.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Both essays an not policy nor guideline but worthy of response anyway. One does not need competence nor an ideal to RGW to simply paraphrase articles with material from sources.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:15, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• And as I said above the section break, editors who, like Petrarchan and Canoe, are worried about paid editing (something I regard as a potentially legitimate concern, although I'm just not seeing evidence of it at March Against Monsanto) should either bring their evidence to WP:COIN, or stop casting aspersions on other editors. Continuing down the WP:RGW road leads to disruptive behavior.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I have ever accused an editor for editing at the request of an employer. I have stated above that the COI policy is worded vaguely and I had interpreted it as any editor that uses a POV from their ideals or field to edited articles. A discussion at COIN may help clarify this but until the guideline is clarified then others may believe as I did.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:22, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• And it has mostly been asymmetrical: a lot of aspersion-casting against editors like Jytdog, but little or no reciprocation, beyond simply angry replies.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel I have replied in anger. It may be simple frustration that I don't get response. Such as why when the sources say it is a health issue then it keeps getting relegated to the environmental section when none of the sources claim it was environmental.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:51, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've pointed this out to Petrarchan: [38], to no effect.
• I've pointed this out to Canoe: [39], [40], to mixed effect: [41]. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel this is a difference of opinion on the vague COI policy. If our articles seem like they are POV to the reader then they may see it as COI editors.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog asks for something between warnings and blocks. At this time, blocks would be over-the-top. And ultimately, everyone is going to have to come under scrutiny.
• But it would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages.--Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

If someone wishes to discuss it at COIN then I would as well. We may be able to clarify the wording of the COI policy at least.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This is now being discussed at COIN. As I stated below, admin may wish to table this thread until there is an outcome at COIN. This thread may be the cart before the horse until we have clarification on the wording of the COI policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• For now, an "official" warning is plenty, but escalating blocks may become necessary if the warnings are ignored. Let's hope a warning is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I suggest that all editors involved be limited to the talk pages of the articles. Once consensus is reached on edits then we can put in an edit request for changes. This has been at ANI and other boards with little solution in sight that I can see. It may yet end up at ArbCom. Other fresh and neutral editors should be allowed to edit the articles though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:12, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:TPO, I've moved Canoe's comments to here reverted by Canoe. TL;DR means "too long, didn't read", see: Wikipedia:Too long; didn't read; it was directed at Jytdog. WP:RfArb is where one can ask the Arbitration Committee to accept a case. Jytdog believes that, even if you did not explicitly say something like I think Jytdog is a paid shill, your comments often come across as implying that editors who disagree with you are doing something like that. The issue here is the "casting of aspersions", not, for example, paraphrasing. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that you replied in anger. I said that other editors replied to you in anger. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:COIN is the wrong place to discuss changes to the WP:COI behavioral guideline. WP:COIN is the place to discuss situations where you believe that editors acting with a conflict of interest might be negatively affecting page content. The place to discuss changes to the guideline is at WT:COI. But the talk pages of articles are the wrong place to discuss any of that. And that's really the whole point here. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

About WP:COMPETENCE, Canoe seems determined to insert comments within my bullet point comments above, and I'm not going to keep edit warring over it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:44, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel they warrant a response from me in the order you wrote them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright then, here are my original comments, un-refactored:

• The post here is probably TL;DR for ANI (maybe even for RfArb), but let me try to boil it down to what my own take is on it. Jytdog names a lot of editors, but some of them seem to me to be innocent bystanders, so let's please focus on Petrarchan and Canoe.
• I think that Petrarchan's conduct centers on WP:RGW, while Canoe's is a mixture of WP:RGW and (sorry) WP:COMPETENCE.
• And as I said above the section break, editors who, like Petrarchan and Canoe, are worried about paid editing (something I regard as a potentially legitimate concern, although I'm just not seeing evidence of it at March Against Monsanto) should either bring their evidence to WP:COIN, or stop casting aspersions on other editors. Continuing down the WP:RGW road leads to disruptive behavior.
• And it has mostly been asymmetrical: a lot of aspersion-casting against editors like Jytdog, but little or no reciprocation, beyond simply angry replies.
• I've pointed this out to Petrarchan: [42], to no effect.
• I've pointed this out to Canoe: [43], [44], to mixed effect: [45].
• Jytdog asks for something between warnings and blocks. At this time, blocks would be over-the-top. And ultimately, everyone is going to have to come under scrutiny.
• But it would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages.
• For now, an "official" warning is plenty, but escalating blocks may become necessary if the warnings are ignored. Let's hope a warning is enough. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:02, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

In re my assessment just above, I find it relevant that Canoe has flooded this discussion at ANI with TL;DR, much of which is off-topic, although he is obviously far from alone in that, whereas Petrarchan has not made any response as of my timestamp, despite other edits in the interim. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Petrarchan has now posted some responses, albeit blaming everyone except themself. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The flood is caused by many. Claims made and then me responding to them. Could you please point out my off topic remarks and I will strike them. As I suggested below it is now being discussed at COIN so admin may wish to table this thread and wait for and outcome there for clarification on the COI policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for boiling this down, Tryptofish. Your summary reflects my intentions, sort of. The main policies I am concerned with are WP:No_Personal_Attacks and Wikipedia:Civility and with respect to User:Petrarchan47, the guideline against canvassing. Petrarchan and Canoe justify their behavior with concerns about paid editing but fail to take any official action about that, and instead just attack and attack on Talk pages. If these editors "focused on content and not contributors" while working on these articles there would be no problem. Also. sorry to all about the length. I have not done this before and wanted to present as much content and detail as seemed reasonable. I guess it was too much. Jytdog (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I will respond to this again. I have never accused anyone of paid editing so please don't put words in my mouth. I don't consider questioning edits or an editor as attacks. You may feel my questions are uncivil but I don't believe they are. I am sorry if they seem to come across that way. I am not sure what you mean by canvassing.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome, of course, but I think that the case for violation of WP:CANVASS is marginal, and it only distracts from what I believe to be the central issue here. Please keep in mind that administrators at this noticeboard are not going to parse every possible nuance. They are basically asking themselves: should someone here be blocked, or is this just a content dispute that would be a waste of time to get involved in? --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As I noted below. This is now being discussed at COIN so admin may wish to table this thread until there is a clarification of the COI policy. Horse before cart.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

There does appear to be rampant paranoia in the GMO related articles by some editors that believe there is some sort of conspiracy that the articles are being controlled by paid shills for Monsanto. Absolutely no evidence for such a thing but they seem to have firmly convinced themselves that this must be the reason why the positions that they constantly push for, are continuously getting rejected by the overwhelming majority of other editors. Rather than accept the extremely rational explanations of wikipedia policies regarding WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, WP:NOR, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV, given countless times by other editors, they refuse to accept these are the actual reasons, and believe there is a massive conspiracy that all the other editors are in on and are controlled by Monsanto and constantly accuse the other editors as such. This conduct is problematic and a warning here toward these editors would be helpful. BlackHades (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I haven't read all the comments by other editors. I have never used the term 'shill' directed to another editor nor accused them of working for Monsanto. I think I did mention that if that is there field of interest then that may cause an inherent POV to articles. If our readers detect this as biased edits then it reflects badly on all of us for not maintaining NPOV. As to sources I already mentioned on the talk page that some sources are years old and about 30% of the March article sources don't even mention the march. They seem to be added to coatrack the article from both sides. It may end up being NPOV but full of fluff that has nothing to do with the subject. The subject is the march not the GMO controversy. There is a background section but last I looked that had its own GMO controversy sub-section. Not needed IMHO because it is just dragging the same material from the other article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and to be as clear as I can be: there will be multiple conduct and content issues as this goes along, but for now, there is a single conduct issue: the repeated casting of aspersions that editors are editing on behalf of Monsanto, without evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I think you keep missing my point. Inherent POV edits will cause a biased article if not kept neutral. If our readers detect this then it will reflect badly on all of us. I tell everyone I meet to never trust our articles. I tell them how to find the sources that back up the material, read those, see who wrote them, and then make their own judgment on how the articles portray facts, truths, weight, and POV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:20, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

• Jytdog is off the rails here. There's no way that I am part of a "cabal" working on the BP article. Rather, I am a veteran Wikipedia editor with many and varied interests. Whatever kernel of truth might be extracted from Jytdog's concerns must be separated from the preposterous and unsupportable "cabal" accusation. What a load of malarkey. Binksternet (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that this was ill-phrased and dumb to name editors who played some roll in an old content dispute in an ANI thread about a different topic. However, let's not lose sight of the real issues raised here. a13ean (talk) 23:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

A13ean I am sorry that I neglected to mention you as one of the consistent editors. My apologies - I knew I was forgetting somebody. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Binksternet, sorry to drag you into this. A13ean and Binkster - The BP stuff was not the focus of my remarks - I was trying to provide context as to where I think Petrarchan might be coming from. I concur that Binkster was not in the center of the group working on BP .... but what I wrote is based on stuff like this and this and this. Again, I apologize and I agree that you were not hot and heavy in the BP article nor in the loosely organized support group that worked to change the BP article. Jytdog (talk) 23:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I corrected the text above. My apologies for being inaccurate. Jytdog (talk) 00:03, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I like Petrarchan47's spirited participation on Wikipedia, and I agree with him that it is difficult to try and identify who might be paid by a corporation and who is simply volunteering. Perhaps indeffed User:Rangoon11 was a paid editor who was disruptive at the BP article; I guessed as much but the truth will likely never be known. I also agree with Petrarchan47 that a corporation paying editors creates an uneven playing field for NPOV representation of the subject. However, the bigger picture is that NPOV can be addressed without slinging around accusations of paid editing, but only if there are enough neutral editors to counteract the paid editors, whoever they may be. Petrarchan47's wish to have more neutral editors for such work should be seen in that light—the defense of NPOV. People discussing the issues here should not lose track of the ultimate goal of having an encyclopedia which hosts neutral information. Binksternet (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I regret that Jytdog brought you and some other bystanders into this, in part because it becomes a distraction. I agree with your analysis in terms of the importance of protecting NPOV against paid editing, while also not slinging accusations without evidence. The problem is that "spirited participation" is not what has been happening here. What I have seen has been spirited slinging of accusations without a shred of evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for reaching for some middle ground, Binskster. But Petrarchan's and Canoe's methods are not appropriate and the good intentions do not excuse the behaviors. That is the point of this ANI. Good intentions run amok. Jytdog (talk) 01:29, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't see how adding sourced material relevant to the articles to keep them neutral can be 'Good intentions run amok.' These articles have been claimed to be POV as well as coatracks of other articles. I have edited them very little as my edits are reverted within minutes. The endless talk page discussions seem to go no where as did the one I tried at DRN. The volunteer closed it as stalled. The article content is still stalled but at least it is closer to NPOV.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The point of this ANI is the personal attacks you keep making, and will not stop making. Jytdog (talk) 02:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel I have made any personal attacks. I just question the edits and editors in regards of how our articles are neutral in the eyes of our readers. Unbalanced articles stick out like a sore thumb to many of them. These ones question our integrity. To those that can't detect a bias in articles, they will probably carry on thinking our articles are accurate and neutral.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:34, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, this is the heart of the issue. So in your mind, consistently accusing me and other editors of having a COI on Talk pages of articles and editors - including tagging two articles with the COI tag with regard to me - does not constitute making personal attacks? Again, this is the heart of the issue in this ANI - thank you for acknowledging it and I look forward to your response. Jytdog (talk) 13:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I have answered this numerous times but I will again since asked again. I tagged pages with COI because of my interpretation, your edits and comments, as well as the admission on your user page: " I work at a university. I'm interested in biotechnology, intellectual property, and the public perception of both. My bold. 'Public perception of both' seems like you want your perception reflected though Wikipedia to our readers. We go with sources and not the perception of editors. I have never claimed you were paid to edit articles by your employer. I have said that working in the field would give you an inherent POV. Your editing is also focused on a small field of articles which would also fit my interpretation of SPA. I have also said that if our articles are out of balance it isn't fair to the readers that can't tell and looks like outside influences, such as Monsanto, are involved to the ones that can spot a biased article. I have also recommended that you take a break from editing GMO articles. I do when I am not responding to the same questions with the same answers.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You understand that having an interest in something is different from being interested in it I take it? What you are describing is not COI. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 14:36, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The COI policy has been explained to you previously; continually arguing that someone has a COI solely on the basis of their professed interest in a subject is nothing but another personal attack. a13ean (talk) 17:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

+1. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel the COI policy is worded vaguely. This is now being discussed at COIN for clarification. Questioning an editor about his edits I do not consider a personal attack.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• WP:RGW: [46]: "This is one of those rare cases where mainstream science is POV though." by Canoe. These editors keep making statements like this. Binksternet, do you agree that statements like this are ridiculous to be making assuming one has read WP:FRINGE (Canoe has been linked enough to the guidelines, so I can only assume they have read it)? IRWolfie- (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You forgot to include the sources. Scientific American: "... their user agreements have explicitly forbidden the use of the seeds for any independent research." Contract. I don't know if the contract has been doctored or how RS the site is.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

This is exactly what RGW is, you think the most reliable sources should be ignored because scientists have been duped into agreeing that GMO is safe or some such, and that it is up to wikipedia to correct this. We report what the most reliable sources say, we give most weight to mainstream science that that is what we do on wikipedia, that is policy, that is in the guidelines. Whether or not contract X exists, and its implications are besides the point. If you think that the majority of scientists are wrong, go submit your original research to a journal or something, but it's not relevant here. You aren't qualified and I'm not qualified to assess safety, that is why we defer to the scientific consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

How is it OR when Scientific American claims the 'broad scientific consensus' may have flaws. I only provided the contract as a source to SA's claims since they didn't provide a link in their study. Now we have reliable sources clashing over consensus. We may need to see how many exist on each side.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, so the conspiracy theorizing and personal attacking is now spreading to off-Wiki sites. Here is an article, Wikipedia as a political battleground: after a GMO/Monsanto content dispute, longtime Wikipedia contributor Viriditas is blocked, written by User:Wer900. I learned about this from this dif by User:El duderino on User:Petrarchan47's Talk page. Jytdog (talk) 13:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

We can't do much about off-wiki posts. If editors here declare that they made the posts there then they have outed themselves and we may be able to question them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

User:El duderino also notified User:Tryptofish in this dif (congrats to Tryptofish for being considered an honest broker! (not sarcastic, I mean it!). El duderino also posted it on User:Groupuscule's talk page in this dif and on User:Canoe1967's talk page in this dif. Jytdog (talk) 14:09, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This the second time that my Wikipedia reputation has been called into question, and I don't like it. A few days ago in a section on BP discussion on Jimbo's page, an editor made several accusations and when I asked for evidence, none was brought forward. Now again I'm asking for evidence that I am part of "a group to fight back [as I] did in working on the BP article (which you can see if you review their user Talk pages - they constantly encouraged one another and discussed what was going on in the BP article in their Talk pages)" which you found to be "disturbing with regard to canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page". Please show evidence of this from my talk page. Thanks Gandydancer (talk) 14:39, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi Gandydancer. Your question deserves a response, and I will do so on your Talk page and after I do, I will provide a link to that here. As I wrote above, I only wrote about the BP stuff as context for Petrarchan's current behavior with regard to GM articles - as Tryptofish notes below, BP is not the focus of this ANI.Jytdog (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As you will, however I find it ironic that Petrarchan is being discussed here because you and some other editors believe that s/he is guilty of accusing some editors of misconduct, and yet you have accused me of being part of a group that has been "canvassing and organizing out of sight of the article's Talk page" to bias the BP article to our POV, and yet you refuse to publicly provide information to back your accusations on the grounds that it is not the focus of this ANI. I only wish you would have thought of that before you brought my name here, because if it is not retracted it will undoubtedly leave doubt in the minds of many as whether or not I am a trustworthy editor. Gandydancer (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

FWIW I have interacted with Gandy a few times before this fuss kicked off and although our POVs may differ regarding some issues I have no doubt that they are trustworthy and have Wikipedias best interest in mind. AIRcorn (talk) 08:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Look, we can spin this dispute out to include all kinds of things, but the administrators watching here will just blow it off. I'll repeat what I said earlier: for now, there is a single conduct issue: the repetitive casting of aspersions that editors are working on behalf of Monsanto, without any real evidence, in order to gain the upper hand in content disputes. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to commend any admin that has read down this far. We just keep repeating the same responses to the same accusations. If they read further the cycle will seem to just repeat again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I will provide support for what I wrote and I will provide difs. It will take me some time to gather it. And as I said I will post the link here. I did note that it was hellaciously trying times on the BP article and I understood where you all were coming from.... Jytdog (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think I have responded a few times above. I seem to keep responding to the same accusations with the same answers. I have never accused an editor of being paid by any employer to edit an article. I did say that their inherent POV can affect their edits because of their job, field of study, and other causes. When this happens then the articles become out of balance and that is what some readers will believe as truth. Other readers will see the bias in articles and lose faith in our integrity. Although I read the COI policy differently than others I feel that COIN will come to the same conclusion that the policy is vague and can be interpreted in different ways. We could go over there and discuss it if you wish.--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I still cannot believe the extent to which you have consistently dismissed me and the work i have done over the last year and a half, which took a ton of time and I did with great care, and in close discussion with many other editors on all sides of the issues in involved. And all this in a subject that you have shown yourself over and over to understand very little about and worse, you have not even carefully read what the articles actually say. I have had enough of your accusations! And I cannot believe that you refuse to acknowledge that you have been doing this since our first interaction. Examples, and there are so many more than this! Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

'Consistently dismissed you and the work you have done'. Could you please explain what you mean by that? These articles are refined by many. Every time I tried to expand an article with RS material you just revert it to your version without discussing it first. I think the first time you reverted me you claimed the article was too large already. I created a split article and I think your first edit to it was a copyvio and false information. You then stated that you hadn't even read the source and already were familiar with the material. Since then we have discussed adding it to the correct section of your work according to sources. You keep maintaining it was an environmental recall. All of the sources say health and you have yet to find a source that says environmental.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

here - "I think others are trying to shove too much of the Monsanto POV into it."Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You selected one part of that diff to quote. When read in context it makes sense. Too much POV material for one side creates an unbalanced coatrack article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

when i reverted your addition of duplicative material to the GM Food Controversies article (which you didn't know was already in the article, even though I told you it was) you wrote an accusing note: "It was a big issue and to stuff it way down in the article seems like it is being swept under the rug.... Reverting my edit of well sourced material that our readers should see about the subject seems very bad faith. I may tack this and other issues that I consider as 'censorship' onto the Arbcom discussion on it."hereJytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

As I have responded before. I didn't see a health recall in the health section so I added it. This is also where sources have it and where our readers should expect to find it. When looking for TV shows done by an actor we shouldn't be looking in the movie section. If an editor thinks the actor made a bad movie then they would tend to 'bury it' further down in the article 'under the rug' in a section that others wouldn't look for it in. If another editor adds a copy to the movie section then the material in the wrong section should be removed.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:16, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

in this dif you made it clear that " I did create Taco Bell GMO recall as an acid test to see if that article is treated the same way in its inevitable AfD."Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I still expect either an Afd or a merge and re-direct discussion. Since the controversy article is large already then one argument would be to downsize both before merging. Many would disagree because our aim should be to expand and split not shrink and remove.--Canoe1967 (talk) 14:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

and indeed when i made a minor change, correcting the word "unfit" to "not approved" about the Starlink corn, you reverted me based on a putative "copyvio" and then wrote, completely over the top "*I feel your interaction with me by reverting the other article and statements on my talk page show you are COI with this article. I have added the appropriate tag to it. I may bring this up at the COI drama board to see if any other articles warrant it as well" in this dif - in that same dif you added a COI tag. This is what I mean - you came loaded for bear, already assuming I was a POV-pushing COI editor.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't consider it a minor change. I saw copyvio and false information which I fixed. Then you 'came over the top loaded bear'. You pointedly asked twice because I didn't respond within ~1.5 hours. I then explained how it was copyvio and how I wide paraphrased it. "Not approved" for human consumption means the same as "unfit". If I had asked the FDA if it was fit for human consumption I doubt they would say yes.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

and when i explained that anybody familiar with this stuff would find "unfit" odd and expect to find "not approved" and that the change was just "high level" you replied with more over the top stuff: "Please explain what 'high level' means. Again, may I assume that "I am already familiar with the incident" shows that you are using your COI POV and not using sources. Wikipedia reflects what sources say, not those "familiar with the incident" in this difJytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

High level. I am still confused as to what you meant. Approved food is fit for consumption, unapproved food is deemed unfit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This expression of confusion makes me wonder if we have a WP:CIR issue here. (To state the obvious: "unapproved" means not known to be fit or not; "unfit" means it has has found to be bad.) Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Drinking Water Inspectorate: "England and Wales, taking enforcement action if standards are not being met, and appropriate action when water is unfit for human consumption ..." This producer friendly RS uses the same term for healthy food. They wrote it into their headline and the source doesn't use the term in the article.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

when i showed you the language the FDA uses, you responded with "Is this the same FDA that failed to do their job according to this article's sources? If so, then Wikipedia doesn't allow it because it is a self published source. You should now read RS as well as OR, COI, POV, etc, etc, etc." in this difJytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your FDA document did not mention the subject, therefore not RS. OR is your alt definition, "adulterated", that isn't mentioned in sources. COI/POV I have detailed before. The present COIN discussion will clarify whether I was in the wrong with my interpretation of the policies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This one is the one that really got to me: " I don't feel your work on any of these GMO articles is an improvement but just you pushing your COI POV and owning the articles. I have told you more than once that you should take a break from editing GMO articles but you seem to just continue with BS which will probably lead to drama boards if you don't clue in. .... The GMO controversy page is a huge mess that I feel you are trying to control the content and format with. Anything I have said on its talk page was not treated in good faith and is a waste of time as long as you are allowed to own the article. " dif is here.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sick of your inappropriate attacks! And I do not understand how you cannot see that you have done this over and over and over.Jytdog (talk) 18:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Personally, I'll be satisfied for now if you completely refrain from casting aspersions on article talk pages going forward. All that I have asked for here is that an administrator tell you (and another editor) just that. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:30, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I would have liked to been able to clear my name of any wrongdoing. I certainly did no "canvassing and organizing" to slant the BP article. If Jytdog felt that my behavior was going against Wikipedia principles he should have said so at the time, rather than bring it up all these months later when I am not able to answer to his accusations. Gandydancer (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I responded to your request, probably too quickly. Link is here. Again my intention was not to say you did anything wrong and I sorry for upsetting you. Jytdog (talk) 05:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Jytdog, you cannot accuse me of wrongdoing (canvassing and organizing to slant the BP article) and then turn around and say that it was not your intention to say I did anything wrong. I have reviewed your list of instances in which you claim that I was part of a group involved in attempts to slant the BP article, and I find no substance what-so-ever to your assertions. Gandydancer (talk) 15:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

A new accusation

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

---

I hate to create another episode of drama, but in collaboration with Viriditas (talk · contribs) I have been able to trace the identity of jytdog. I won't post it over here because I'm not interested in "outing" him, but suffice it to say that he has a COI one thousand miles wide. No doxing or hacking was used in order to find the identity, only logic and Google searches. Only Viriditas and I know the identity, and we will not reveal it publicly. Wer900 • talk 18:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I do not agree that I have COI. My work has nothing to do with agricultural biotechnology.Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Again, I'm not going to post identifying information, but stop being disingenuous. You have a tremendous COI. I don't mean to be derogatory to other pro-GMO editors, but you, Ttguy, and Runjonrun (self-identified as Jon Entine) are the unholy trinity of pro-GMO editing. Other pro-GMO editors merely follow you as insects are attracted to light. No aspersions are being cast here, I have solid evidence of your identity. I will, again, not reveal it publicly, but may send it to ArbCom should you continue denying a COI. Wer900 • talk 18:31, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I understand that different people interpret COI differently and we clearly see this differently. I am happy to take this to arbcom, or as a first step, if you wish to disclose my identity to an administrator whom you trust off line, and let me know who that is, I would be happy to discuss my real identity and professional work with that administrator. I would suggest User:SlimVirgin whom I have seen as very reasonable and whom I know is very concerned with paid editing. I have never dealt with a dox on Wikipedia so I don't know these things are handled, but I will cooperate fully. I am very curious as to who you think I am and why you think your ID is true ( I have googled my true name and my username and they appear no where together, so you must be making an inference at best). I am nothing like Jon Entine, for sure. I do not wish to reveal my identity in public but I am happy to cooperate with the appropriate mechanisms - I really mean that. I assume that you will notify me of the start of any proceedings. btw, I am not aware of any editor who "follows me" - the other editors that have worked on GM articles generally have strong and clear views of their own and it is not infrequent that we differ. Jytdog (talk) 18:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

In fact, an even quicker immediate step - if you want to email me at jytdog@gmail.com I will be happy to discuss with you directly, Wer, over the phone. Then you can at least check to be sure who I am. I will trust that you would not disclose that publicly, but if you have the wrong person it will save a lot of hassle, ditto if you have the right person but misconstrue what I do. Jytdog (talk) 19:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I have replied to you. Please check your inbox. Wer900 • talk 20:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Viriditas is blocked and should not be using Wer900 as a proxy. This kind of we know the facts, but of course we will not publish it on-Wiki, but maybe we will forward it to ArbCom in the future if we don't like what happens next is completely unacceptable conduct. Forget what I said elsewhere. This rises to where Wer900 should be blocked. If there really is a COI, then either discuss it openly at WP:COIN or forward it privately to ArbCom, now. Don't toss around threats based on "secret" information. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

There is no "threat". I am talking with Jytdog to resolve the dispute. Let's keep Viriditas out of this dispute, at least give a blocked user some peace. I am not proxying for anyone—this is work that I have decided to conduct of my own accord, and because Viriditas is blocked right now I ask that full responsibility is placed upon me. Wer900 • talk 19:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you talking with me? You have not responded to my email nor to anything above...Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, Wer emailed me with his ID and the "evidence" therefor. I am not who he and V think I am, and their "solid evidence" was 1 fact, 2 semi-accurate summaries of my work at wikipedia and offline, and something they say I wrote but I never did, because it is not and never has been true. Between that thin foundation and their ID, a lot of guesswork. "solid evidence" phooey. I opened that email assuming good faith and left full of distrust. I have withdrawn my offer to personally reveal myself to Wer. I remain open to revealing myself to an Admin or going to COIN.Jytdog (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

When you call an editor one of the "unholy trinity of pro-GMO editing", I think it's safe to say that you are not being friendly with them, and "but may send it to ArbCom should you continue denying a COI" sure sounds like something you are threatening to do, depending on whether or not you like what happens. You were the one who brought Viriditas into this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Wow yes that is pretty nasty language, isn't it? Wer's note above is indeed of blackmail-y and worse, is a clear effort to derail this ANI. Wer's post has nothing to do with what Petrarchan and Canoe have done, which is personal attack and canvassing. In fact, even if COIN finds that I have a conflict based on Wer's work, what Petrarchan and Canoe have done to date is still inappropriate and they should be warned or blocked for their harassing, personal-attacking behavior. The witch hunt mentality must be shut down - relentless accusations on Talk is an absolutely inappropriate way to deal with concerns about possible paid editing or COI - it is destructive to Wikipedia's goals of creating great NPOV, well-sourced, encylopedic content via a civil, vibrant community of volunteers. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Nonetheless, my offers above still stand. I will assume good faith in Wer and if he/she promises to keep my info private I will reveal offline to him/her. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Tryptofish, you are going in circles. I decided, specifically, NOT to forward the evidence to ArbCom because I didn't want to come down too hard on Jytdog—I have no wish of getting him banned from the encyclopedia. You are thinking in the wrong terms, as if I were a common process-abusing admin or AN/I dweller; I am not. For the record, it was me who initiated the correspondence with Viriditas; if you are Strongly Opposed™ to any correspondence with him, you should discuss it with me rather than with Viriditas. Wer900 • talk 20:32, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No, I am going in a straight line, and you are not going to get me onto a detour. You said above that you might forward the information to ArbCom. I couldn't care less whether you or Viriditas started your mutual correspondence, and you two are free to communicate off-Wiki just as much as you wish. You've said that you accept full responsibility, and I'm all in favor of holding you to it. But there is a single overwhelming fact here: you posted a claim here, that Jytdog has now refuted, that you had identified who he was, and that his identity made him a disruptive editor. It already appears that you did not, in fact, identify him correctly. What you have done is incredibly disruptive, and you do not seem to understand how disruptive it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I just started a COIN on myself Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Genetically_Modified_Food_Controversies. Can we please discuss Petrarchan and Canoes' disruptive behavior here again? Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 21:02, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Per wp:coi the definition of a coi is "When advancing outside interests is more important to an editor than advancing the aims of Wikipedia, that editor stands in a conflict of interest." so unless We900 has accessed Jytdog's brain, they have not determined a coi. Even if there were, there is no prohibition against COI editing. There IS a prohibition against outing, partial outing, and related interrogation. IMHO We900 has crossed that line in this thread. Either way, We900, it's time to 100% stop that. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Maybe we can wrap this up?

Before this discussion sinks under the weight of TL;DR while administrators hope it will just go away, please let me try once more to boil it down to something manageable: It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages. That's it. Do it, and we are done here. You won't be taking a side in a content dispute, and a fuller resolution of all this stuff will come later. Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree. North8000 (talk)

Except for the new accusations by Wer900, just above. That's something entirely different. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think that is a sign of the rampant conspiracist ideation going on. What is interesting is the level of private communication going on amongst the Anti-GMO advocates. IRWolfie- (talk) 23:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we should 'incubate' it until COIN has decided on the status of both the editor and the wording of COI. That board should have been the horse before this cart. The editor has posted there requesting a judgment on himself.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree. The point of this ANI is your behavior, and Petrarchan. regardless of whether I am found to have a COI, your behavior, Canoe, is and has been beyond the pale. I know you cannot see it but you were told a bazillion times to stop the personal attacks and take it to COIN, which you never did. Jytdog (talk) 05:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I still consider it as questioning edits and the editors that make them. Others may construe that as personal attacks. All I wish is neutral articles for our readers without having most of my edits reverted. I consider those as an attack on neutral material without discussion. I think you also considered my rare revert of your copyvio edit as a personal attack on your edit.--Canoe1967 (talk) 06:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Now you come out and say it. "Questioning editors" relentlessly on Talk pages is "discussing contributors, not content" and is what the policy against personal attacks is all about. There are appropriate boards to raise those concerns - Talk pages are not appropriate vehicles for that - especially when you do it over and over. And I am not responding to your article-specific comments here, which are off-target. Jytdog (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Let's remember that nobody owns any articles, or any content, or any edits, and all content can be edited and changed by anybody. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that WP:OWN has ever been the real issue here. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved issues

1. I am very concerned that Wer900 took it upon himself to close the section above, since, just before he closed it, the primary question there was whether he should be blocked. I've looked at Jytdog's user talk, and I don't really see any evidence on-Wiki that Jytdog agrees with the assessment that Wer900 and Jytdog have come to an agreement that satisfies Jytdog. I request that Jytdog clarify that point here. If Jytdog is now satisfied, then fine. If not, then Wer900's closure is further disruptive conduct, and it needs to be dealt with.  Done.
2. Everything else, despite all the TL;DR and drama, really boils down to something very simple, and I'll just say it again: It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages. That's it. Do it, and we are done here. You won't be taking a side in a content dispute, and a fuller resolution of all this stuff will come later. Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, I've warned Canoe in the past that he needs to work on assuming good faith on talk pages, as in the past he has been far too quick to jump to conclusions/conspiracy theories of "You want to delete X article, so you must be out to get a wider subset of articles that X falls into". (If that's what you're referring to as "casting aspersions on talk page articles". If not, then ignore.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your input and reading any of this Sergecross. I feel I have been very cautious and still not come to any conclusions about other editors. I also feel I am AGF. I have asked politely many times why a health recall is in an environmental section when none of the sources claim it was so. I have pointed out that we should go with what the sources say. I have also pointed out that our readers should have balanced articles without being POV coatracks. When my edits are reverted I have the patience to discuss it with questions on the talk pages. I repeat questions when the answers don't comply with the sources. Most of the discussions just stall out without edits changing the articles. I did edit war once when a wrong tag kept getting placed in the MAM article. Since then the tag was removed as improper. There were 3-4 similar 'tags of shame' that have been removed since as well. I think we are all AGF on but the repeated questions with the same repeated responses tends to frustrate all sides. This may be construed as AGF breakdown. I hope this makes a little sense.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not necessarily accusing you or anything, I haven't dug into this whole lengthy situation, I just wanted to point out that you should be aware of AGF. Sergecross73 msg me 17:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. In this case, it's implying without evidence that editors who disagree with him might be working as paid editors for companies (that's what all the TL;DR was about). It's very recent, so it must be after the warning you gave him. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have never claimed that editors in this matter are paid to edit Wikipedia. I don't know which wording you may be referring but it may be 'the impression we have on readers if they see a biased article.' Is that wording you are wondering about?--Canoe1967 (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, my warning was about a month ago. Sounds pretty similar as far as following AGF and jumping to conclusions... Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Above, Jytdog provided a ton of evidence concerning Canoe's AGF or lack thereof in the time following Serge's message to Canoe. Do we really need to start it all over again? I've said earlier in these ANI discussions that some of this has to do with WP:COMPETENCE in Canoe's case. I don't know: perhaps Serge's earlier notice constitutes the warning that I've asked for here, and we are now beyond that point. Administrators can assess for themselves whether or not Canoe "gets it", just by reading what Canoe says above and below. The question to me about which wording I was referring to is a case in point, as is the long post about Canoe's autobiography indicating that Canoe does not have a COI (or doesn't think outing matters?), when this complaint was never about Canoe having a COI. It was about Canoe asserting without evidence that Jytdog and others have COIs, or "appear to our readers" to have COIs. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Please stop creating drama, Tryptofish. Jytdog told me in an email that the issue has been "laid to rest" as of now. That's all you need to know. Wer900 • talk 16:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps Jytdog has agreed to leave this issue, but I find your conduct entirely unacceptable. You claimed to have discovered the identity of a user and declared that they had a COI based on off-wiki evidence. You now admit that your solid evidence was nothing but conjecture, but you nearly coerced the user into revealing their actual identity to you first. This is just as disruptive as actually outing someone on-wiki, and perhaps even more so. a13ean (talk) 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

What a ridiculous assertion! Though given your vehemently pro-GMO stance apparent from article edits, reverts and discussion on the article talkpages, it is not surprising you would misrepresent this conflict, too. El duderino ^(abides) 22:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A13ean is correct: even if Jytdog decides to let bygones be bygones, that doesn't change what Wer900 has done, although an assessment of Wer900's apology may help determine whether or not any further disruption needs to be prevented. And I don't know whether or not Jytdog has agreed to leave this issue. I've left a message on his talk, asking him to respond about that here. At the time of my message, Jytdog's most recent talk page comment was one of expressing strong distrust of Wer900. Therefore, I do not take Wer900's assurance, and closing of the discussion thread, on face value. Let's find out what Jytdog really thinks, from him. I'm definitely not creating drama. I'm trying to get it resolved, convincingly. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I graduated high school with full academics. I worked packing groceries until I joined the infantry. I left the army because the pay sucked. I worked as a pig farmer until I capped out the salary level. I still hold the world Cargill record of 95-97% conception rate in sows without AI. I then became a journeyman electrician in industrial maintenance. In that field I have worked in everything from a beef slaughter house to a ski resort. I have edited very few of these articles but assist with discussions on them. I recently declared my COI in a new article here. I don't see a big issue with outing oneself. My main hobby is photography where I do get very COI when it comes to images in articles and at commons. I think that can be expected from photographers when there are image discussions.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody thinks you have a COI Canoe. The problem is your accusations of "paid editing" (as broadly defined above) against others, including me. Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I still think you are missing my point. I have never accused an editor of paid editing. 'Broadly defined' above is not a policy and I also feel the COI policy needs clarification. If our readers see a biased article then we lose integrity. They should be balanced and not coatracks. Material from other articles should be hat-noted to the other articles without repeating rafts of the same material. One editor wanted the media section removed altogether. This would look like we were censored just as sources 'broadly hinted' of a possible censorship. The Monsanto and industry response section should be re-named Monsanto response because the march was directed at them. If it intends to have responses from those that aren't Monsanto then that is coatracking to get other industry POVs in. The media coverage section should go ahead of the Monsanto section because it happened in that order. I don't think Monsanto reacted before the media coverage.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Thanks for asking where I stand. I'm satisfied; Wer's apology at the end of the private exchange was very strong and heartfelt, I thought. And I thought the public statement Wer made closing the section was a complete-enough retraction. I did not write in private, but I will say here, that my hope is that Wer and Viriditas never engage in this sort of ugly behavior again. Sorry to come to this so late, was in a meeting all day.Jytdog (talk) 19:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Based on what you said, I consider #1 to be  Done for the time being. Please let me be very clear about something: This does not mean that what Wer900 did was OK. And it must not happen again. It only means that there is no immediate concern about needing to prevent anything (via a block or whatever), and therefore, for the purposes of what ANI can accomplish, it is time to move on. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved issues 2

Update:

• Everything here, despite all the TL;DR and drama, really boils down to something very simple, and I'll just say it again: It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions about editors with whom they disagree being paid editors working for companies, on article talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It has been taken to COIN and admin may wish to table this thread until any clarification of COI policy wording, or possible declaration of COI.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Per the section just above, it turns out that Canoe received a similar warning about a month ago. Personally, I don't think that justifies a block right now, but a follow-up warning would be enough. Petrarchan has never responded to this ANI discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I received a warning for contentious material on my user page. It had nothing to do with this issue.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:45, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think he's talking about how I've warned you about assuming good faith, when you were being a little too quick to jump to conclusions on that groundless "anti-Canadian art deletion campaign" conspiracy theory of yours because someone nominated a Canadian art article for deletion, but not a conceptually similar American one that was a featured article... Sergecross73 msg me 14:58, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• That's it. Do it, and we are done here. You won't be taking a side in a content dispute, and a fuller resolution of all this stuff will come later. Done. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I think admin may wish consider waiting for the COI outcome. Then all that would be in order would be apologies and warnings to all.--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

As should have been self-evident, Someguy confirmed there is no COI: [47]. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I will await the detailed report.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You will not be getting "a detailed report." That would be considered outing. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As I wrote above, whether I have a COI or not, has nothing to do with your behavior or Petrarchan's. There is no need to wait.Jytdog (talk) 21:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The oversighter has not completed his investigation.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, but I'm not sure what about that dif would inspire any sort of confidence for your stance though. He sounds pretty confident that there's no COI... Sergecross73 msg me 20:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree Sergecross, it does look favorable to not being COI. Once we have closure with the final statement then we can probably resolve this as me being wrong about the interpretation of the COI policy as well as me using better phrasing in my edits. It seems they did get read as me accusing editors of being paid which I did not intend.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Not following this very closely at the moment, but I really agree with Tryptofish that the conflict of interest accusations on article talkpages needs to stop and some discipline needs to be imposed. Stick to the sources. II | (t - c) 21:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Those should stop once we have an outcome from COIN. Even if there is no outcome there then I think they did stop a whole ago, at least from me, because I am waiting for clarification of the COI policy.--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

It is still happening - see this dif from just a few minutes ago.Jytdog (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Are you sure you have the correct diff? That one is just my response to an editor that wanted to add non-controversial material from one side to an article about controversies.--Canoe1967 (talk) 11:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, I see no AGF/accusation issues in that dif... Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

First of all, it's very important to note the finding by an oversighter at WP:COIN that the accusations of Jytdog having a COI were entirely groundless, and have been finally put to rest. End of story. Canoe seems to believe that the discussion at WP:COIN is, instead, somehow going to result in some kind of determination that WP:COI is unclear or something, despite being told numerous times that this isn't the role of WP:COIN (as opposed to WT:COI). Canoe also says above that the previous warning does not, in Canoe's reading, relate to the present issues. So, once again, it's really very simple: It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns about editors with whom they disagree being paid editors working for companies to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages. Do that, and we are done here. It's really not that difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Could you provide a diff to the "entirely groundless" phrase? I am still waiting for the report.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

They were always groundless based on publicly available information and the way you have handled your accusations has been inappropriate. Your harassing behavior cannot be justified after the fact, by anything I have disclosed privately now. You just don't get it, Canoe. Will an admin please, please get this guy and Petrarchan off my back already and prevent them from doing this to others going forward. Please. I am SO out of patience with this. Jytdog (talk) 18:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't feel asking an editor questions is harassment. I am still waiting for a response from you about Taco Bell GMO recall. You insist on having it in Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Environment when all the sources suggest it should be in Genetically_modified_food_controversies#Health. I am 'out of patience' as well. You revert my edits when I try to add it and have not responded to my requests on the talk page. All of the sources state health and none claim it was an environmental recall. You have said that you will not discuss article content here but you are not discussing your reverts there either. I consider this very uncivil behavior. I have never claimed you are paid to edit Wikipedia. I have stated that your edits seem very POV and SPA.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

quote "I have stated that your edits seem very POV and SPA." Yes you have, over and over and over, in Talk pages. Not appropriate behavior. If you read way way above you will see that I used the "paid editing" term to cover the whole sloppy mess of accusations that you and others have made. Please already Canoe JUST STOP. Please. With respect to me, and everybody else. Jytdog (talk) 19:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why do you keep accusing me of claiming you are a paid editor when I never have? I find that bordering on lying and could also consider it as a personal attack. I still find you very uncivil by not responding to my questions about justifying your reverts to my edits. Are you ever going to respond or just keep making clams that you are being attacked?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You have repeatedly implied that users disagreeing with you are "controlled by Monsanto". The fact that you haven't named all of us individually is immaterial, although you have harassed Jytdog in particular. Adding a COI tag with a nonsensical basis Claiming that others are controlled by Monsanto Claiming that others are whitewashing and censoring and so on a13ean (talk) 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I think it's quite clear that Jytdog has no COI (arguments about the right diff notwithstanding), and that Canoe insists that he believes he has done nothing wrong. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• A little more detail, for those who have lost patience with reading all of the above (and you have my sympathy, for sure). Those links by A13ean are representative samples, but there is more context. For example, the first diff refers to where Canoe put a template at the top of two article talk pages, identifying (by name) Jytdog as an editor with a COI. I reverted one of those as a clear violation of WP:NPA and warned Canoe on his talk page; Canoe then self-reverted the other one (on a page I didn't know of at the time), and posted the comment in the diff above. But the comment, and the subsequent comments here, make clear that Canoe doesn't really get it, responding to my warning but not really acknowledging anything other than that Canoe has trouble understanding WP:COI in ways that no one else does. As for Petrarchan, they have made some replies higher up in this discussion, but those replies seem to me to assume bad faith about everyone with whom they disagree, and to place the blame everywhere but themselves. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And, from the department of my-jaw-is-dropping, just from today: [48], [49]. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We keep repeating ourselves again. I have corrected my view of the COI policy pending clarification. I see nothing wrong with removing unsourced BLP statements from a talk page as I did in the above links. --Canoe1967 (talk) 00:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unresolved issues 3

As we stand now, it's really the same as the sections above: It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User talk:Petrarchan47 and User talk:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns about editors with whom they disagree being paid editors, working for companies, to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages. Do that, and we are done here. It's really not that difficult. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I can believe we keep repeating ourselves. I have never claimed anyone was a paid editor. I have admitted that I read the COI policy differently than others which I have corrected. I have also stated that due to inherent POV in editors we should not allow those POVs to reflect in our articles to readers. This issue is now being dealt with at COIN and is near closure there.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

About can't believe that we are repeating ourselves, right back at you! I just wish a helpful administrator would step up and put this whole thread out of its misery. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We still don't have closure at COIN so admin may be waiting for that.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Both of you should simmer down. Its likely that no Admin have intervened because no one's been able to catch up with all of your bickering. (And I've been WP:INVOLVED in the past, so I can't really do anything here as an Admin, which is why I keep on chiming in here and there.) Cool it and let someone catch up on all of this... Sergecross73 msg me 01:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Although you have been involved with me on my talk page in the past, I have no problem with you making a decision here. I don't know if your involvement extends to others on this issue though.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would like to apologize for my additions to this huge thread. COIN has now closed with no COI on jytdog's part. I will refrain from directing the term toward other editors. I would also like to apologize for using it with my interpretation in the first place.--Canoe1967 (talk) 02:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for apologizing for your additions to this thread. However what I am looking for is an acknowledgement that your behavior of repeatedly attacking me and others on the basis of COI, being an SPA, and the other assumptions of bad faith, on article Talk pages and user Talk pages has been inappropriate and that you will stop doing it and instead will focus on content, not contributors, and will assume good faith. Your behavior is completely separate from the question of whether I have a COI or not. Jytdog (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I do now acknowledge that many of my edits have been considered as attacks. I will refrain from that in the future.--Canoe1967 (talk) 18:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe, thank you very much for what you just said here! I really mean that! What you just said is exactly what I have been hoping for. I wish you all the best going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Serge, as I've been following this thread. Why so much repeated? It seems highly unusual for Tryptofish to be moderating/directing this discussion, perhaps even inappropriate, and certainly so with the repetitive sections. If an admin wants to wade through the mess, i'm sure they will not appreciate that. I know from my own attempts at talkpage discussion that Jytdog and others like IRWolfie cry "personal attack" when their pro-GMO arguments don't hold up otherwise. I would remind them and others of an important caveat in WP:NPA: "Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor at their talk page about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic." El duderino ^(abides) 06:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

One of the things that go wrong in dispute resolution at Wikipedia is that editors on the wrong side of an issue try to point to editors with whom they disagree and say "look over there", as a distraction. There is a very simple reason for my re-posting what I have said: this is an administrators' noticeboard, and administrators, collectively, have failed shamefully to help with this problem. TL;DR, too bad. I'm not moderating. I'm not directing. I'm just stepping up and trying to help, in ways that I, as a non-admin, should never have had to do, but there was a vacuum that has been left unfilled. And by the way, the issue here has never been about questioning editors about COI at their talk pages. It was announcing, without evidence, that editors had COIs on article talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:08, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:El_duderino you are another editor who has inappropriately made COI-related personal attacks on Talk pages of GM-related articles, repeatedly, accusing me and others of having an agenda during discussions. As per the quote above, if you have concerns about COI, you bring it up on the editor's Talk page. The next step after than is this board. Just a few examples: here you wrote " And afaict User:Arc de Ciel is not objective enough to write any FAQ inna neutral way."; which you actually defended here with this " discussion of intent is not necessarily an attack, and the guideline of AGF does not require continued assumption in face of evidence to the contrary. '; here you wrote: "You are sounding more and more like other bio-tech industry flacks touting GMO safety."... and there are many more examples on article Talk pages. Jytdog (talk) 12:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

You calling them personal attacks doesn't make them so. The NPA wording "at their talk page" has been added sometime relatively recently. Your quotes of my comments are taken out of context as they came after several attempts to discuss content issues with you and others. There are not "many more examples" because I gave up trying to compromise and work collaboratively to build neutral articles. Your defense of Monsanto and their GMO products at wikipedia articles is in conflict with NPOV and it does in fact appear to be "COI editing .... in order to promote your own interests." El duderino ^(abides) 17:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone disagrees with you in a content dispute. You are clearly both interested in the subject, to have followed the article for so long. You continue to accuse them of COI editing, after they took the extraordinary step of revealing their identity to an oversighter who confirmed that they don't have a COI. It's not a personal attack to ask someone if they have a COI. It is a personal attack to continually badger them about a fictitious conflict of interest, using a definition so broad it would also apply to yourself. If you have, as you said, given up "trying to compromise and work collaboratively to build neutral articles" then please leave those of us alone on both sides of the issue who are still trying to do so. a13ean (talk) 19:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've seen no effort on your part to work toward NPOV. On the contrary you willfully misrepresent sources, for example, on the safety of GMO food. And an editor's POV-pushing can be quite separate from aspects of their identity. El duderino ^(abides) 22:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)So User:El_duderino... you just made another random personal attack. This ANI has a focus, and just as Wer did above, you are trying to turn it on me, inappropriately. You say there are not many more like this? Not true. I have read a bunch of your edits and while you are generally quite reasonable, and started that way in the GM articles, you lost it. As near as I can tell you (as others did) started editing GM-related articles via March against Monsanto - your first dif is here. By your third edit (this one in the Monsanto article), you were already discussing contributors, not content here: "Also, IRWolfie perhaps you can forgive others for assuming you have an editorial bias when your reference to the event in this discussion thread as "some march" seems dismissive". Later this: "I may have to post this on all relevant article talkpages too, seems like it's time to shift the debate away from those who wish to control it." Later, this: "I'm beginning to see why others accuse you of ownership issues and pro-GMO editorial bias". Later this: "I'm challenging the assertions of editors here who seem to be pro-GMO, claiming that any and all anti-GMO protest is based on fringe science and thus easily dismissable." (which no one ever said -- this was part of a really frustrating exchange (I am sure for you duderino too) where you were insisting on several pages that other editors were saying that all GMO protest is fringe and that all GMO food is safe, and nobody was saying that, and although I asked you several times to focus and have one conversation, you just kept on, scattered and misrepresenting what others were saying. We never got anywhere. I think it was around this time that you decided the other editors and me were just shills and were already walking away. Anyway..) Yet more here: "Apparently nuance only matters to some here when it serves the POV of pro-GMO." and here: "Among those touting the industry line about GMO safety...". And this was just lovely: " By the way, have you noticed how jytdog and irwolfie seem to be running a wiki-variation on the old good cop/bad cop routine? I think jytdog is trying extra hard to appear neutral, but it's wearing thin". And here - part of the same discussion referenced above, where you kept misrepresenting what others were saying and were frustrated (as was I) that the conversation couldn't get past step 1: "Yes there is a lack of progress because you and the,other pro-GMO editors are stonewalling rather than collaborating." So there you go, plenty more. There are a few more, but pretty soon after that you were indeed gone. This assuming bad faith on your part, prevented us from getting anywhere and made it miserable all around. Recently you made a canvassing sweep, posting the wikidemocracy article by Wer on selected editors' pages. And you are here today too. Still frustrated and still saying nasty things. Please let the conspiracy theory and assumptions of bad faith go. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

.

• I returned from a brief hiatus to find an ANI notice on my talk page from this user, to find that I am mentioned in passing as one of the editors who has displeased him at BP, as I have never said anything about whether or not he has a COI and have no opinion on that. I post this with trepidation as I know that I am going to just fuel the drama that he has created here. Suffice to say that I have no opinion as to the merits of his complaint because I simply do not have the time to comb out from these thousands of words exactly what "attacks" are troubling him. What I can do is to share my most recent experience with this editor, which indicates that he has a very expansive view of the word "attack," such as to make it almost meaningless when utilized by him.

At Talk:BP some months ago, Jytdog collapsed some comments I made concerning Department of Justice action re BP, on the grounds that they were a "tangent" and that the "section is not about what DOJ says."[50]. I didn't think he should collapse the comment of an editor with whom he disagreed. So I went to his talk page and asked him to desist.[51]. He deleted my post and zoomed over to my talk page with a post titled "you are all over me," saying "all you do is attack me."[52] He was completely oblivious to what he had done, and responded by saying that he was quitting the BP article. The full text of the bizarre exchange on my talk page can be found here. [53] That was my last contact with this editor, April 2013, until he summoned me to this ANI.

This is a hypersensitive editor who yells "attack" about things that aren't attacks. He has no credibility on that score and should stop the nonsense, stop wasting people's time, and stop stirring up drama over nothing. Coretheapple (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in Core. I have been chastised several times for having brought up the difficulties at BP to provide background as to where I think Petrarchan is coming from. And I now apologize to you too for bringing it up - you are not the subject of this ANI. This is my first time on the drama boards; I disagree that I cry wolf and I think you were indeed all over me on the BP page when I wrote that. I am not going to rehearse all that here but would be happy to discuss on your Talk page or mine -- I will repost this on your Talk page so you don't have to wade through all this.Jytdog (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

No. Stay off my talk page. Thank you. Goodbye. Coretheapple (talk) 20:26, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Lets wrap this up

So to confirm:

• There's no COI.
• At least Canoe has apologized and dropped everything.
• Everyone seems to be well aware that everyone should follow WP:AGF, not throw around empty accusations, etc.
• There's still plenty of arguing going on, but

1. Its just talking circles.
2. Nothings actionable. Should some people calm down a bit, not jump to conclusions, etc? Yes. But Is anyone being so bad that it warrants a block or anything? No.

Therefore, I feel we should just about be wrapping this up. Lets move on. Sergecross73 msg me 20:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Canoe has apologized for his behavior and has agreed to not make accusations of this type in the future. I remain unconvinced that other users are willing to follow his good example. It would be nice if an uninvolved admin could close this with a firm reminder to AGF and focus on the content. a13ean (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

With all the back and forth, if they don't get it by now, they never will. I'm afraid at this rate, with almost no one willing to stop arguing, no admin is ever going to bother reading through all of this bickering to be able to make a call on this. If they fail to follow AGF in the future, I'm sure they'll be brought back to ANI, and people can link to this conversation to see that just about anyone involved should be well aware of the concept. I think that's about as good as its realistically going to get at this point... Sergecross73 msg me 20:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think Core was the last editor I mentioned who had not written anything. But I will stop responding to anybody here so this can be closed. Jytdog (talk) 21:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My final take on closing, however.

• This ANI was not about whether I have a COI or not.
• It was about User:Canoe1967's and User:Petrarchan47's behavior in repeatedly claiming COI, POV-pushing, shill-ness etc in Talk pages. Boils down to violations of WP:AGF, WP:No_Personal_Attacks and for P., Wikipedia:Canvassing.
• As summarized well by User:Tryptofish, It would be very helpful if an uninvolved administrator would go to User:Petrarchan47 and User:Canoe1967, and warn each of them to take any concerns about editors with whom they disagree being paid editors working for companies to WP:COIN, but not to cast aspersions on article talk pages. (edit note, struck Canoe due to his apology Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC))
• added note - I just saw Canoe's last edit and he did purely apologize. No warning needed, I think. Jytdog (talk) 23:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Based on User:El_duderino's and User:Wer900's appearances here with more of the same kind of accusations, the same warning for them.
• With respect to User:Petrarchan47, I would also like an additional warning against Wikipedia:Canvassing (to pull the examples out of the morass above: here and here (that one with Canoe) and with User:Viriditas here and many other places on V's Talk page, with User:Groupuscule here, more of it going on here with user:Groupuscule joining in the canvassing/attacking and conspiracy theorizing, and with User:Jusdafax, here and here. )

Thanks to everybody who participated,especially User:Tryptofish, and again sorry for making a hash of this (too wordy, and bringing up useless old stuff that was unhelpful). I am done for real. Jytdog (talk) 21:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's remarkable how little you seem to acknowledge your own part in the conflict's escalation. Your propensity to see disagreement as attack is particularly disruptive. El duderino ^(abides) 22:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict), and it makes for an interesting contrast. Hey, you are very welcome. It's a pity that you had to go through this, and that it ended up dying in TL;DR. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I went to one of the links above, and found this:[54] cited therein, an attempt to interest Jytdog in a GMO-related article, to which he responded in the affirmative. The person who engaged in that effort has not been dragged into this drama. This appears to be an effort by one side in a content dispute to get the other side in trouble, in a situation in which the activities of everyone does not always meet hindsight scrutiny. We can leave this without a pound of flesh being extracted from anybody. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I hope that anyone who cares at this point will read what Someguy1221 has said at WP:COIN#Genetically Modified Food Controversies – in part, because it really is the final word on the COI accusations that got us here in the first place, and in part, because Someguy1221 is to be congratulated as being the only administrator who really stepped up in any way throughout this entire sad discussion. As Coretheapple's comment immediately above my own demonstrates, any wish that everything is all blown over, and everyone understands AGF, is merely wishful thinking. I'm very happy at what Canoe has said here, and that's a great step forward. There are other editors who acted badly but who have not shown any similar understanding, and it is now clear that administrators, collectively, are simply too put off by the TL;DR to do anything to prevent the problems from continuing. Well, we are all volunteers, and that's the way it is. In all likelihood, this will prove to be a problem that the community will be unable to resolve, and that's what ArbCom is for. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Meh, that wasn't exactly my point. What I was suggesting is that this is a hotly debated subject, and that what I've seen of it (I've weighed in on March Against Monsanto) what we have here is a content dispute and not a group of horrible editors attacking other editors, who need to be sternly warned to desist. The italicized comments at the very very top, under "Canoe1967 - GMO" don't stand out as atrocities requiring punishment. Or that one group of editors is deeply, deeply wrong, the other side is blameless, requiring suitable apologies. Coretheapple (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Damn it I cannot respond on your userpage so I have to break my word and do it here. User:Coretheapple - This is not about content. Disagreements about content are common and resolving them is what makes Wikipedia awesome. Assuming bad faith makes that impossible. Viriditas was the most virulent assumer of bad faith and got banned for it. Canoe was heading there, Petrarchan is still there fullbore, and is canvassing others to join the ABF bandwagon. It is not about content - it is about not losing good faith, and if you do, dealing with that appropriately. Jytdog (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I actually became aware of the disputes only recently, but, having followed the edits very closely after becoming aware of it, this very much stood out to me as not being something where moral equivalence should apply. It has been very asymmetrical, with editors on one side disproportionately attributing bad faith to editors on the other. Both sides have been stubborn, both have been overly wordy, and both have done at least a little ABF, but the relative proportion of AGF to ABF has been very asymmetrical. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Can we all just Drop the Stick? The debate died a natural death – let it remain dead. It is over, let it go. Nobody cares anymore. Hard to stomach, but we are all going to have to live with it. Thank you, VViking_TalkEdits 23:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. This is all just ego and proving points now. Which was why this section was titled in regards to "wrapping this up" and not "Lets begin round 4!". Looks like its been largely misread though. Sergecross73 msg me 00:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

See also: #Maybe we can wrap this up? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry it is coming across as all ego now. I have been really bothered by the ABF thing, and what I saw as its spread, and put a lot of time into preparing this. Overdid it, to the end. Done though. thanks again.Jytdog (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Redhanker and political agenda

Many of Redhanker's edits appear to be pushing a specific agenda and not adhering to NPOV. For example:

Zanzibar acid attack -

• "Police found no direct evidence of involvement of Uamsho, a militant Islamist group which some have speculated could have ties to Al Qaeda." This is a speculative and uncited claim.
• "Nevertheless, a warrant was issued for the arrest of Islamist preacher Sheikh Issa Ponda Issa who is a supporter of the radical group." Uncited
• "Two Catholic priests had been shot and killed there in previous months." Uncited and unrelated to the article. I surmise this inclusion violates NPOV.
• "Friends of the girls speculated that they were targeted because they are Jewish." I'm not sure about this but I suspect this violates NPOV.
• "Many press reports omitted any reference to the religion of the victims, or likely religion of the attackers in a city that is largely Muslim." Uncited and grossly irrelevant to the main article. This is definitely pushing a certain point of view.

Paul Sheldon Foote

• This entire article seems to just be on how the person is anti-Israel and pro-Iran.
• All the citations are from unreliable blog sources.
• This article grossly violates NPOV by placing all the weight of the article on his political position and absolutely nothing on anything else.

Mashregh News

• This is a relatively unnotable organization. I cannot find any significant coverage of this company in reliable sources. Yet, this company has an article for the line "The ADL criticized the site for spreading disinformation such as the false Holo­caust claim that Nazis "man­u­fac­tured soap from their Jew­ish vic­tims" to prove that Holo­caust is a his­tor­i­cal falsity."

Category:Pro-Iranism

• This is a category created by Redhanker. It was deleted per this discussion [[55]]

Pro-Iranian sentiments

• This was an article created by Redhanker. It was deleted under CSD:A3.

All in all, what I've listed and far more that can be found in his edit history points to a pattern of pushing a certain political position on Wikipedia and not adhering to NPOV. Transcendence (talk) 02:38, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

This hostile ANI appears to be a response to my observation that Transscendence appears to engaging in a pattern of deleting articles about notably violent attacks with wide national and international media coverage, most of which end up being kept because of extensive media coverage and notablity. The edits above are nearlyh all based on content in the mainstream press or official government sponsored news sources.

One particular editor User:Transcendence has been very deleting articles which have no apparent connection other than most are of very violent mass attacks which have not been connected to terrorist motives

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Timothy Brenton
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Jennifer Daugherty
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Andre Marshall
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murders of Byrd and Melanie Billings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2010 Las Vegas courthouse shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cupertino quarry shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frankstown Township shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2012 Azana Spa shootings
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tacoma Mall shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Heritage High School shooting
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping of Hannah Anderson
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disappearance of Sunil Tripathi‎

Removed

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Portland nightclub shooting

Redhanker (talk) 05:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

POV-pushing does seem to be a problem. For instance, Redhanker using List of Iranian news agencies to list lots of links which weren't Iranian, or which weren't news agencies, but mostly "sourced" by citing a news article on some rather controversial topic around Iran... [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] bobrayner (talk) 13:22, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Restored from archives. Ansh666 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not just POV pushing that's an issue here, but User:Redhanker has been accusing User:Transcendence of stalking and hounding, and other editors who nominate and !vote delete on some current events-type articles (those listed above) of being part of a site-wide conspiracy to hide terrorism (like User:The Bushranger here). I can't comment definitively on the matter, but I think there's no merit whatsoever in these personal accusations about Transcendence and literally no chance of there being a conspiracy to hide the truth. Ansh666 16:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Another similar posting by Redhanker at Talk:Death of Christopher Lane. [62] I have to suggest that WP:NOTHERE applies, and that Redhanker needs to take his tinfoil hat elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Obstructive behavior by another user

I got problems editing articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, because of a user, Jeffro77 (talk · contribs). I am sorry it have gone so far as this, as, despite some disagreements, we used to have an okey communication, but I've noticed a negative pattern of obstructive bahaviour, including refusing to comply to a noticeboard decision, and lack of cooperation to get controversial topics balanced. Jeffro77 claims bona fide and good faith, but his high level of knowledge to both wikipedia policies and some of the topics discussed, makes it very hard to defend his obstructive behavior.

Jeffro77's refusal to comply to the noticeboard decision, is well described at Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses'_handling_of_child_sex_abuse#Sources. The noticeboard discussion, where Jeffro77 was participating, is Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 119#"Pay Attention to Yourselves and to All the Flock".

Here Jeffro77 replaces an unreferenced claim I just removed (the claim is not found in the linked source, and Jeffro77 have proven other places he got the ability to read that pretty easily). When I have to feed him with a teaspoon and ask for a thrid persons opinion for every single small detail, it makes it harder to clean up a biased and highly controversial article.

In this edit Jeffro77 request information regarding who the second out of two other editors discussing at IRC was. What was all that about? In a public offwiki forum, where editing Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse (the Wikipedia article) is discussed, another editor of this article is admitting to have recieved a private message from Jeffro77 regarding some specific edits the other editor had made to this specific article. I don't know if Jeffro77's purpose was to attack me (if I had answeared positive), or to induce a violation of the harassment-policy (if I had given up a link to the off-wiki discussion, as he pretty much invited to).

In my opinion some of the JW-related article, Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse no expeption, are biased, an in a high degree making use of OR, as proven at the article's talk page. Use of "elders letters" and "according to faxes here and there without a link" are supplied with selective quoting from primary sources. So, what to do? Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:53, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

(Refactored discussion of separate issues below)--Jeffro77 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I already told you[63] to go ahead and make the changes you want to make. So your claim that I'm obstructing you is exactly the opposite of the facts. You are clearly trying to rely on the recent momentum of Maxximiliann's frivolous accusations.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, Grrahnbahr has made conclusions about a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard that were not as absolutely stated as he claims. And despite that, I've already told him that he's welcome to make the changes he wants anyway, and then we can consider if the article maintains an appropriate standard of neutrality.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

He also claims that "another editor of this article is admitting to have recieved a private message from Jeffro77", which is an absolute lie (unless we're calling User Talk pages 'private'??). I've never used any IRC channels related to Wikipedia at all. My query about the IRC related to another editor who said that he read something on the IRC in support of Grrahnbahr's position.[64] Specifically, Matty.007 (talk · contribs) added a tag to the article about unreliable sources.[65] I asked him about the tag,[66] and he said that he added it as a result of something he saw on the IRC.[67] (However, after Matty.007 considered the sources in question, he removed the tag[68] and stated that the sources seem fine to him.[69]) Clearly there was no 'private message from me' on the IRC in order to have a tag added that I didn't think was needed. It remains to be seen who the other party/parties were who were privately discussing the matter on the IRC. I also note that Grrahnbahr doesn't deny that he was the other person involved on the IRC, but instead made defensive remarks about what it might hypothetically mean if it were him. (That is, it may be the case that Grrahnbahr was canvassing for support via IRC.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

And what's the "recent momentum of Maxximiliann's frivolous accusations" about? Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Jeffro77 was participating in the noticeboard discussion. I asked furter questions during the discussion, to avoid misunderstandings. Jeffro77 have several times announced he has no intentions to comply to the RS noticeboard regarding the mentioned sources from the discussion.Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

No. What I said is that the other editors at the noticeboard did not say what you say they did. Specifically, you are referring to JW publications that are generally given to JW elders, but have been (unofficially) made available online. The editors at the RS noticeboard indicated that sources that have been made available to a broader audience, even unofficially, are verifiable and therefore can be used (though I've also repeatedly stated that secondary sources would be preferred). And despite that, I told you to go ahead with your changes anyway.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:15, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I've tagged the references to the book at at least one more article. As long as you reject to comply to the RS noticeboard, it doesn't help me much to go on here. I won't be reverted just because you don't recognizes the RS noticeboard. Regardning "Maxximiliann's frivolous accusations", I found out, so never mind. I would have attached this discussion to the other one, if I was aware about it. This is about your behaviour when it comes to JW-related articles, not about ancient kings and chronology. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:14, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Your claim that I am 'not recognising the RS noticeboard' is a 'bait and switch'. The other editors at the RS noticeboard did not provide the absolute conclusion that you say they do. What you are calling the 'decision at the RS noticeboard' is your own conclusion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, 'clearly' my suggestion that you make your desired changes warrants you raising an ANI over an hour later.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:24, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The different users opinions are clearly quoted in the articles talk page. It is obvious you don't like the conclusions from the RS noticeboard. It's the peaceful solutionmaker when disagreeing about a source. This is the last thing I would like to do, but it have to be done, and is the right thing to do as long as you don't fully comply to the RS noticeboard. Several users, you included, was participating in the discussion, so I can't see why it's so hard to comply. Grrahnbahr (talk) 13:49, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

You continue to supply your interpretation of statements made at the RS noticeboard, but the other editors did not make the absolute conclusions that you imply. I have already indicated this at the article's Talk page. And when I tell you to go ahead and change the article anyway, you raise a frivolous ANI.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't keep editing, just to get reverted without a good reason. It have been building up over time, and you do still not recognizes the RS noticeboard. You do also keep misusing primary sources, obstruct clean-up of biased and controversial articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses, and doesn't apply to guidelines and policies, like wp:published or wp:primary. It hard to reach consensus when you don't recognizes the policies or the noticeboard for reliable sources. The heading of the RS noticeboard discussion are pretty clear what source it was about, though the discussion also included "letters" used for similar purpose. This is pretty exhaustive explained at the [talk page], if other are interested in looking into the case. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:19, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You keep claiming that 'I don't recognise the RS noticeboard', and I keep telling you that the editors there didn't say what you say they said. Matty.007 read the same page at the RS noticeboard that you're talking about, then looked at the same article you're talking about, and he arrived at the same conclusion as me.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Specifically, these are the editors involved at the RS noticeboard discussion in question:

• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) said the sources can be used.
• Cusop Dingle (talk · contribs) indicated that a 'leaked' copy might be challenged as unauthentic, however no challenge has been made to the authenticity of the quoted/cited sources. You have specifically indicated that you do not believe the sources to be unauthentic, but instead you've claimed that the "authenticity doesn't matter".
• John Carter (talk · contribs) said the sources can be used.
• Andrew Dalby (talk · contribs) indicated that there might be issues if online copies of the source become unavailable at some point, but that has not occurred, and it is not difficult to find the sources online.
• Adjwilley (talk · contribs) said that it would be preferable to use secondary sources.

No one has disputed that it would be preferable to use secondary sources for the article in question. However, the editors at the RS noticeboard did not say the leaked JW publications cannot be used. As I have previously indicated at the article's Talk page, the books in particular are usable, though the letters are probably harder to confirm.

The fact remains that I told you—before you raised this frivolous ANI—to go ahead with removing the sources you believe are not usable, and then we could consider if your edits are detrimental to the neutrality of the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(Response to your claim that Matt007 have changed his mind): I can't find it, so I can't comment or reject it. A link for him getting to the same conclusion as you, would be helpful. Just removing the tag doesn't prove he've changed his mind. It could also be that, as he's a new user, may not will be too involved in a disute, as a result of an IRC request. Anyway, I haven't seen him as an arbitrator, so I can't say his opinion only would cancel any conclusions from the RS noticeboard. I don't know what your point is anyway, as he's not using he's opinion of the RS noticeboard discussion as an excuse for obstuctive behaviour. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Seriously?! I already provided the diff for Matty007's comment (and here it is again[70]). And it's the very first comment in the article Talk section (Talk:Jehovah's_Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse#Sources) that you posted in your initial complaint.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:08, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(Response to the rest):

• WhatamIdoing (talk · contribs) did provide one short comment, where he pointed out that borrowing counts. The book is not listed in any public libraries as far as I know, and I haven't seen the oposite to be proven, so fail.
• Cusop Dingle (talk · contribs) Last comment of this user in this discussion was "[y]es, I realise that. By 'publication' I meant 'the act of publishing it unofficially', not 'the thing published'. The point is that if someone publishes unofficially what they claim to be a private document then we need to have a reputation for reliability on the part of the person publishing to allow us to use the thing published as an authentic copy of the private ducument. After all, anyone can put anything on a website and claim that it is some super-secret doument. In the absence of some reason to believe in the authenticity we simply cannot use it." The mentioned book is not "published", as of WP:Published. He's last two sentences makes it very clear. You have not provided any reliable websites where the book, or the letters (except for one) is published. So fail.
• John Carter (talk · contribs) writes about self-published sources in general. Andrew Dalby replied to John Carters edit, as the book isn't "published". John Carter did never reply to Andrew Dalby reply, so you can't make it a final conclusion what his opinion was.
• Andrew Dalby (talk · contribs) "For these reasons, I'd say, we should avoid relying directly on the citation of an unpublished text such as this. But if any source we consider reliable has already cited it (e.g. an academic or journalistic source) we have no reason not to use that as our source. That's like citing a published edition of a manuscript: it's exactly what we do." I asked a following up question, if not the reliable source should be listed, rather than the book (claiming it for being from the book)?. He answeared positive. I've requested reliable websites/sources republishing the book, and non of those are give. So fail.
• Adjwilley (talk · contribs) "Depending on what you're trying to support with this source, I think it would be much safer if you could find an outside secondary source that cites this source. In other words, instead of citing the internally published book to say that it says such and such, find a scholarly article or book that says that the internally published book says such and such." Jeffro77 haven't provided RS reusing the selected quotes from the book, so fail.

I don't care weather a source is supporting one or the other side in an article, as long as it is not regarded as reliable. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't agree with your conclusions that the sources can't be used, and neither did Matty.007. You yourself have indicated that you do not doubt the authenticity of the cited materials. (In fact, you don't even know that the editor(s) who originally added the citations weren't quoting from a physical copy of the book.) Additionally, I already told you repeatedly and before you raised this ANI to go ahead and remove the sources to which you've objected anyway. So your complaint is clearly frivolous and hostile.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - I offered Grrahnbahr a significant compromise at article Talk about this issue before he even raised this complaint at ANI. It's unclear what he actually wants. Apparently, it's not enough that I actually suggested that he remove the sources to which he's objected. It seems he also requires that I unconditionally agree with everything he says. Well, I don't.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced claim

He also claims I restored an 'unsourced claim', but the statement (a statement that already existed in the article that I actually just moved to a different section in the article) is sourced, with not only a citation, but also a quote that immediately follows the statement. The actual statement that I moved (not added) is, "Cases of alleged abuse are only reported to secular authorities if required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office." It is supported by the quote in the next sentence from the cited source: "The elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, we expect the elders to comply." (I've just noticed that the source article has been modified slightly and I will update that wording in the article.) The newer wording quoted from the cited source is: "In addition to making a report to the branch office, the elders may be required by law to report even uncorroborated or unsubstantiated allegations to the authorities. If so, the elders receive proper legal direction to ensure that they comply with the law."[71]--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The mentioned site used for the reverted source, haven't changed significantly for several years. And you accused me for being a lier? Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't supply the original quote in the article. When I noticed (tonight) the quote in the article did not exactly match, I fixed it. Regardless of when or why the quoted statement in the article did not exactly match the source, the old and new quoted statements both support the statement I moved from elsewhere in the article, which you falsely claimed was unsourced.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

It wasn't the quote, but the statement before the quote, whitch still is wrong, and as I removed: "Cases of alleged abuse are only reported to secular authorities if required by local laws or as instructed by the local branch office". The source states that "...victim or anyone else who has knowledge of the allegation may wish to report the matter to the authorities, and it is his or her absolute right to do so." Further, the quoted statement doesn't exclude elders from reporting it, even though reporting isn't required by law (unlike the impression given by the wikipedia-article: "Cases of alleged abuse are only reported to secular authorities...", which is not according to the source, violation of WP:SYNTH, and most likely not true). Grrahnbahr (talk) 14:46, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

The statement is supported by the quote. The statement and the quote relate to the policy. The policy only indicates reporting to secular authorites when required by law or as instructed by the branch office. Whether a JW elder might otherwise choose to report in other circumstances is not indicated in the policy (though an elder who reports to authorities against the direction of the 'branch office' would be in breach of the JW policy). The statement is about official JW reporting by elders of abuse; obviously their policy cannot control the 'absolute right' of any other person who might unofficially (that is, not reported by JW 'elders') report abuse to secular authorities. The statement that elders "only" report relates to the two conditions of "when required by law" OR "as instructed by the branch office". Additionally, as already stated, I didn't add the 'claim', but merely moved the existing statement from another paragraph,[72] where it also cited same source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You did add the claim to the article, after I had removed it. The claim doesn't open up for elders (actually the claim doesn't specify it to be about elders at all; concidering the articles heading, it could be about JW in general) to report sex child abuse, other than when required by law. If a source says USA will respond military to a nuclear attack, and seek support from their allies, it doesn't make sense to state that "USA will respond military only if attacked by nuclear weapons, and if supported by their allies". You are making up stuff, like described in WP:SYNTH. The source is may considered a primary source, or a SPS. Though primary sources are allowed, it is not unconditional. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course I restored the sourced statement after you removed it and falsely claimed it wasn't sourced. (However, you did claim that I "added"[73] the 'claim' immediately after I initially moved it,[74] before your subsequent attempts to delete it and its subsequent restoration.) But I wasn't the person who originally added it. You know very well that the policy is referring to reporting by elders, and that 'regular' JWs don't 'contact the branch office' to ask for advice about reporting cases of child abuse. In fact the sources you want to censor (see section above) are from publications that only 'elders' are 'supposed' to have access to, which contain the instructions about reporting abuse. Your 'example' isn't even semantically analogous.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The 'Two witnesses'-section is describing only for the congregational handling of child sex abuse, and does not apply for JW the religion's handling of sex child abuse for deciding whether a crime is reported to the authorities or not. The claim is still wrong, and is still a misleading interpretation of the source. The fact you pretend you don't see how this is a misleading interpretation, even after a tea-spoon-feeding where it is pointed out that the specific interpretation is not what is said in the source, is quite provocative, as you have proven to select details from a 70 years range of WTC publications to promote your views. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh? The statement you've been complaining about isn't even in the 'Two-witnesses' section. (In fact, in the edit you were originally complaining about, I didn't edit anything at all in that section.) If you're going to start complaining about an entirely different statement, please provide a quote of exactly what you're complaining about, preferably in a new subheading. Regarding the statement quoted from the source (where it is indicated that elders contact the branch office to seek direction about contacting authorities), the paragraph explicitly states that the paragraph is in reference to all cases of alleged abuse "even if the elders cannot take congregational action", so your claim that it's only about 'congregational action' is a direct contradiction of the source.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea which publications from "a 70 years range" you're referring to (I'm not even aware that JWs have had a 'child protection' policy for 70 years), nor is it clear which "views" I'm apparently 'promoting'. I didn't write the article in question, nor was it me who provided its sources. (I have done considerable copyediting on the article over the years, where I removed a considerable amount of material that was biased against JWs, but I'm sure I'll get no thanks for that.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

You was writing about "the section above", as a reply to me pointing out it wasn't even clear it was about elders. The section above the one with the edit, is the 'Two-witnesses' section. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Huh?! No! The section above this one - the one at this ANI about Reliable sources.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Request from previously uninvolved admin

I note that the entire discussion above has been a dialogue (or perhaps more accurately two separate monologues) with no third party involvement. I suspect that if other regulars at AN/I feel the same as I do, the lack of third party input is due to the excessive length and lack of focus in your two contributions thus far. So I'm going to ask you both to do two things. First, will you each please make a single post outlining what, if any, administrator action you are requesting here? This could be a block, a page protection, a topic ban, an outright ban, an interaction ban or perhaps a final warning to someone that one or more of these sanctions might follow. Don't argue for why your request is justified; please just say what you are hoping for here (which may be "no action" if you think none is justified.) Once we have seen what you are asking for I will then ask each of you to present a short case, with diffs, to persuade us that yours is the preferred course of action. You both know by now enough of the other's position to be able to predict and pre-empt anything they might say. But that's for later - for now, what admin action do you want? One post each please, and no responding to one another so get it right first time. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the first point, I already offered a significant compromise before he even raised the ANI. Requested action - Grrahnbahr to get on with actually making the changes he's been whinging about so we can determine if the article still neutrally presents the issue and doesn't become a PR piece. (Admin action - warning.)

Regarding the second point, the accusation is completely false. The statement in question is supported by the cited source. Requested action - Grrahnbahr to stop accusing me of 'adding' a statement that already existed in the article, and to stop claiming that the source doesn't support the statement (this may include him offering alternative wording). (Admin action - warning.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Note - if Grrahnbahr is claiming that a topic ban is warranted on the basis that I don't accept his interpretation of selected comments from the RS noticeboard, I suggest that his retributive frivolous request itself merits a block.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffro, can I ask Grrahnbahr please to say what (if any) admin action you are requesting? Please don't respond to or argue against Jeffro's request just now - simply say what action you would like. If you would like this report dismissed with "no action necessary" please just say so. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Since the case about the source was already discussed at the RS noticeboard, and it was about a users conduct, I couldn't find another suitable place to discuss it. It is also a pattern and a long term thing, so I think a permanent topic ban for Jeffro77 (articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses) would benefit the project. Grrahnbahr (talk) 23:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment: I am not an uninvolved editor. I have made significant contributions to the range of JW articles over several years and have also at times become caught in the inevitable pro/anti JW disputes. Jeffro has worked even longer on those articles and made major contributions, ensuring compliance with Wiki policies. Grrahnbahr is obviously frustrated, but his proposal for a permanent topic ban is extreme and unwarranted. I see the argument from both sides. The issue should go back to an RS noticeboard or dispute resolution forum, or they should seek widespread third party comment and abide by it. BlackCab (talk) 00:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Matty.007 already indicated that the sources seem fine to him (diffs already provided above). I have no problem with broader consideration of the comments at the RS noticeboard. In any case, I already suggested that Grrahnbahr go ahead with his desired changes.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But all Grrahnbahr needs is one editor who agrees with him and we're back at square one. And we're also at stalemate if Grrahnbahr makes an edit that you disagree with. I have my own view, but it needs a broader consensus or this thing will just go on and on. BlackCab (talk) 00:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, yeah. That's why I agreed with your comments and suggested broader consideration of the RS noticeboard discussion.--Jeffro77 (talk) 00:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment I am an uninvolved editor and I concur with BlackCab (FWIW). Without knowing anything about the sources which are under debate, I'll admit my sympathies lie with Jeffro77 who was just involved in another drawn-out JW-related dispute on AN/I that resulted in an indefinite block for User:Maxximiliann. I don't know much about the dynamics of those who edit JW articles but I can't help but wonder if this is payback. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 00:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(The recent ANI mentioned by Liz has since been archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive808#User:Maxximiliann.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 05:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been slightly involved with JW articles and more involved with the Maxximiliann ban, but from what I can see a topic ban of Jeffro77 would definitely not benefit Wikipedia and particularly our JW articles. Dougweller (talk) 09:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I've been maybe a bit more involved than Dougweller with JW content, but maybe not, and I would have to concur with him that a topic ban of Jeffro77 from JW content would not benefit either wikipedia in general or JW content in particular. It would, in at least my opinion, be possibly one of the worst things that could happen to us regarding JW content. . John Carter (talk) 14:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Evidence requested

So, Jeffro would like Grrahnbahr to be warned by an administrator and Grrahnbahr is asking for a topic ban for Jeffro from JW related articles. Can I ask each of you now to post diffs of the kind of behaviour for which you would like the other person sanctioned? Describe the bahviour (eg incivility, edit warring) and give a diff to show that behaviour in action from the other person. Please do not respond to one another; I'm quite sure you can each predict what the other is going to write and you can get your rebuttals in later. For now just tell us in one concise posting each, what has the other done to make the action you are asking for warranted? Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Hatting material unrelated to the request above Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 13:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I will first ask if an admin could evaluate non-wiki content related to the topic and the user, or if it would break one or some policies. I can't provide it here, as it would for sure break another policy, but could be helpful to evaluate this case and also to some extend prove a COI for Jeffro77. Grrahnbahr (talk) 10:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Before Grrahnbahr even raised this ANI, I had already told him to go ahead and remove the sources he was complaining about.[75] Yet despite that, he's continued to complain about my alleged 'failure' to co-operate, and he's since made no attempt to actually work on the article that he claims is so 'biased'. It therefore seems that he is more interested in a personal attack than actually improving articles. He claims that a discussion at the Reliable Sources noticeboard completely rules out the sources he's arguing about, and that I am 'obstructing him' (despite the significant compromise I gave prior to the ANI). Despite his claims, the conclusion about the sources is not merely mine, but also that of Matty.007 (talk · contribs), who also reviewed the discussion at the RS noticeboard; Matty.007 initially added a tag to the article about unreliable sources[76], which he said he added as a result of something he saw on the Wikipedia IRC (chat room);[77] (I left a 'yes or no' question at my User Talk page for Grrahnbahr to indicate whether it was he who sought support for his views on IRC, but he has not responded.) However, after Matty.007 considered the sources in question, he removed the tag[78] and he stated that the sources seem fine to him.[79] I can only guess that Grrahnbahr seeks to have me banned from the topic (a somewhat extreme response to my request that he get on with the changes he wants to make to the article) because he does not like the balance I've sought to bring to articles about JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC) First of all, this is an important discussion, as Jeffro77 have a history of using ANI to get rid of users not sharing his view of Jehovah's Witnesses and similar topics. This is a serious threat to the neutrality for articles related to Jehovah's Witnesses. Jeffro77 do also have a record for disrespective behaviour against other users, including indentifying/"identifying" other users as pro-JW or their believes as JW-teachings. Jeffro77 did also start gathering support before User:Kim Dent-Brown had open up for further comments, by replying to my comment [80] (later removed), and later by involving into "the rest of it". One uninvolved user is speculating about this being a payback. I don't know, "know" or "know" User:Maxximiliann, and I haven't been involved (not as I can remember) in any articles or disputes about 607 or ancient kings of Israel/Judah. I am though briefly familiar with all those topics, especially those related to JW doctrines, but mainly not through wikipedia. Liz' sympathies lie with Jeffro77. It is easy to forget it was Jeffro77 who started the ANI, and he got what he wanted. And, I was not involved anytime and anyhow, nor in the talk page discussions or on this page. Concidering Jeffro77's long time history of going after users he conciders as "pro-JW"-users, among them User:FaktneviM [Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Personal Attacks, Harrassing Behaviour, inappropriate warnings and inappropriate use of Twinkle by User:FaktneviM] and User:AuthorityTam,[Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive620#User:AuthorityTam] [81] (This is just a couple of examples), he have to be prepared for questioning of his motivations for contributing to wikipedia. This does also prove a long time tension, where users with clear anti-JW-sympathies have managed to make it extremely difficult for regular user to contribute. Former members of JW are in general very knowledgable about JW and their believings, but many of them use it primarly for POV-pushing. In addition, as current members of the religion in general avoids places where discussion with ex-members could occour, it is very rear to get quality contributers for JW-related articles, that are JWs themself. This makes JW-related articles extremely vulnerable to POV-attacks con JW, including misleading use of primary sources, collaboration at anti-JW-websites and introducing of OR. Jeffro77 is most commonly accompanied by BlackCab, but regarding Jeffro77's behaviour recently have appearently not been supported by BlackCab. When BlackCab said he wasn't an uninvolved user, it is very true. BlackCab suggested that this "issue should go back to an RS noticeboard or dispute resolution forum". I don't agree. I've already sent it to the RS noticeboard, and I am content with the outcome. Why should I do it again? When Jeffro77 then doesn't accept the noticeboard decision, it is not about content anymore, but about user conduct. Jeffro77 does still not recognize the noticeboard outcome, and have not made any efforts to get the outcome changed. Jeffro77 have done a pretty good job into turning this case from related to user conduct into a case about content and RS. This case is not at all about content. Jeffro77 is very sophisticated when it comes to content and arguments he can use in favour of pushing his POV, and is using both when he feels for it, so that Jeffro77 suddently doesn't see the RS noticeboard decision, and also that he doesn't see how badly the removed/readded content is misusing the source, is very conveniently when his obstructive bahavior is discussed. The issue was handled by the RS noticeboard [Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_119#.22Pay_Attention_to_Yourselves_and_to_All_the_Flock.22 here]. It have been hard to make edits and getting progress at some of the mentioned articles for years. For me Jeffro77 did cross the line when he refused to apply to a RS noticeboard decision. He did at least three times remove the tag added.[82] [83] [84] Jeffro77 have later readded controversial content that I removed, despite the removed content was not supported by the given source. Given the clear message on the articles talkpage of this being a controversial article with a lot of claims based on OR, I would expect Jeffro77 to at least check the sources before reverting. I will await Jeffro77's comment, and a reply for wheather non-wiki content could be introduced for the admin(s) before adding more here. Grrahnbahr (talk) 12:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC) Comment - Grrahnbahr has lied about me several times in his response. I won't respond directly to him, however I will note a few things: I have not "using ANI to get rid of users not sharing his view of Jehovah's Witnesses and similar topics". That is a lie. I have on a few occasions raised ANIs about disruptive editors, and these have been both for or against JWs. This includes an ArbCom against Alastair Haines, who showed anti-JW bias. I didn't even raise the ANI about FaktNeviM, and the ANI about AuthorityTam was about a significant breach of policy by that user (which was as a result of AuthorityTam attempting to label my religious affiliation). I am not 'accompanied' by BlackCab, and I've been a Wikipedia editor for several years longer than that editor. We sometimes agree, and sometimes do not. I have already responded to Grrahnbahr's other false claims about the RS in the subsections above.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I have hatted the material above as it does not answer the request I made just above the collapsed section. To repeat myself: Can I ask each of you now to post diffs of the kind of behaviour for which you would like the other person sanctioned? Describe the behaviour (eg incivility, edit warring) and give a diff to show that behaviour in action from the other person. Please do not respond to one another; I'm quite sure you can each predict what the other is going to write and you can get your rebuttals in later. For now just tell us in one concise posting each, what has the other done to make the action you are asking for warranted? I will collapse any posts in this section which do not answer my request directly. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I already provided a description of Grrahnbahr's behaviour, and I supplied diffs about the actual order of events, but you 'hatted' it. His raising of this ANI is the primary behaviour that is objectionable. I didn't supply diffs to this discussion because it seems self-evident.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Jeffro. I don't think that raising a matter at AN/I is, on its own, sufficient reason to warn any editor about anything. I do think that Grrahnbahr's dispute resolution style (as well as your own) is sub-optimal and this may justify a warning - or at least some strong advice which I will be happy to provide. The reason I asked you for some diffs to illustrate incivility, edit warring, disruptived editing etc is because I haven't seen from either of you a concise statement about what you think the other is doing wrong, backed up by evidence. None of the diffs you posted seemed to me to be sufficient to merit a warning. Grrahnbahr has not yet posted any diffs which would merit you being topic banned. So at present there is a risk that you will each be sent away with a troutslap and a plea to edit more collegially in future. If either of you has anything firmer as evidence against the other, I'd be pleased to see it. And yes, if you have posted this before I apologise but you have hidden the diffs away in diatribes and lengthy tl:dr screeds such that the evidence has been hard to see. So I am not shy about asking you both to be clearer and mor concise if you want any action taking here. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 13:45, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't really care if he gets a 'formal' warning, or simply gets told that his ANI has no basis. He raised this ANI claiming I was 'obstructing' him an hour after I told him to go ahead with his edits (i.e. removing the statements that are based on the citations to which he's objected). I can't simplify it any more than that.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, that's clear. I'd now like to hear from Grrahnbahr about why s/he feels a topic ban is merited. As a lone admin, I can't impose a topic ban myself so there would have to be a consensus here for such a course. I suggest we wait to hear from Grrahnbahr and then let the consensus discussion run. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 14:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm a he. You asked simple questions, and requested simple replies. This case is somewhat complex. Isolated I don't regard Jeffro's conduct in this isolated case a reason for topic ban, but I couldn't answear "warning", because Jeffro77 have already for several occations been warned. My complain about Jeffro77's conduct is found described under Wikipedia:Harassment: "Harassment, threats, intimidation, repeated annoying and unwanted contact or attention, and repeated personal attacks may reduce an editor's enjoyment of Wikipedia and thus cause disruption to the project."

According to Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, section "Signs of disruptive editing" states: "A disruptive editor is an editor who: *Cannot satisfy Wikipedia:Verifiability; fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research," and "Rejects or ignores community input: resists moderation and/or requests for comment, continuing to edit in pursuit of a certain point despite an opposing consensus from impartial editors." The dispute resolution tried is the mentioned RS noticeboard discussion (the concensus for use of those sources are also verified here, was done after a similar discussion last year. Several editors participated, and while Jeffro did object during the discussion, he didn't object to the final edits of the discussion, and thus have been accepted the conclusions, at least for then. The following reverts provides evidence for a lack of will to accept the RS noticeboards conclusions:

• [85] Jeffro reverted my edit, despite the concensus from the RS noticeboard is not changed.
• [86] Jeffro reverted the edits, and added a comment: "verified that PDF scan of publication shows no evidence of being digitally altered", witch makes no sence.
• [87] Jeffro reverted again, and added the comment: "Verified. Why would you dispute that the publication says JWs should 'do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse'". The concensus from the RS noticeboard is not changed, and another disruptive revert.
• [88] Jeffro claims the source is available online, while the source is still not available through any RS.

Wikipedia:Ownership of articles#Single-editor ownership states: "If you find that the editor continues to be hostile, makes personal attacks, or wages edit wars, try to ignore disruptive editing by discussing the topic on the talk page. You may need to ignore attacks made in response to a query. If ownership persists after a discussion, dispute resolution may be necessary, but at least one will be on record as having attempted to solve the problem directly with the editor." The attempts tried here [89], was responded by a rejection and a lack of will to comply with the RS noticeboards, and thus the editors concensus concludings.

• [90] As I kept on the work of editing the article, Jeffro77 kept on by reinsert a highly controversial and not sourced statement.

Why this is brought here: As recommanded at Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors: "If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information: Revert, and request an administrator via Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (ANI). Provide diffs of the multiple reverts by the tendentious editor." Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Blocking_and_sanctions states: "If a pattern of disruption is subtle or long-term, and informal discussions are ineffective, a user conduct request for comments may be used to document the problem and establish a consensus for an editing restriction or community ban." Jeffro77 have been involved in several ANI discussions, and it have earlier been proposed sanctions like topic ban for Jeffro77, as he have proved to be more interested in keeping JW-related articles biased. Grrahnbahr (talk) 01:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(In each instance where editors have sought to bring such action against me, the editors have themselves been shown to demonstrate considerable bias. Further, Grrahnbahr is clearly referring to the recent ANI about Maxximiliann where various editors noted that the accusation against me was unfounded. In regard to Grrahnbahr's specific accusation here, there was no RS noticeboard decision about the sources in question, only general advice - see also [91] Grrahnbahr should also provide evidence of the alleged "bias" he says I'm trying to 'keep in JW-related articles'.)--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Draft decision

It's a bit unusual to have a section with this title, but I'm going with it. I am the only external editor who has recently paid attention to this (at least as far as making contributions to the thread) but I have done so as an uninvolved eye and might have closed this here and now with my decision. However I'd prefer to present my thinking here so other uninvolved editors can give their opinions. If Jeffro and Grrahnbahr are happy to accept this (or if everyone else is happy, even if they are not) then I'll close this in 24 hours time. If other editors think my decision is unreasonable then we can discuss.

Jeffro asked that Grrahnbahr be warned for raising this AN/I, or at least that the AN/I be dismissed as having no merit. Grrahnbahr asked that Jeffro be topic banned from JW related articles. I don't think a warning for Grrahnbahr is necessary but I do think the request for a topic ban is unsustainable, on the evidence given.

Both editors have referred to this RS noticeboard discussion and each has a stronger view of the consensus there than I do. It seems to me that the discussion failed to reach a strong decision, although I think the words of one editor were particularly wise: "Depending on what you're trying to support with this source, I think it would be much safer if you could find an outside secondary source that cites this source. In other words, instead of citing the internally published book to say that it says such and such, find a scholarly article or book that says that the internally published book says such and such."

The actual edit warring complained of largely consists of adding and removing a citation needed tag. Each of the two editors thinks that the RSN discussion reached a different conclusion; one that the JW document on its own is NOT a RS (hence the need for a tag) and one who thinks the consensus is that IS a RS (in which case the tag is not needed). Actually I think the conclusion was much hazier than that and hence the edit war is lame and what should have happened is that a viable secondary source should have been found.

Finally, both of these editors have engaged in battlefield behaviour and neither has ended up appearing collegial and collaborative. Whether one or the other is right is neither here nor there; your dispute has cost you and others much time and has caused many electrons and photons to be needlessly sacrificed. The esteemed Bishonen has fortunately provided a remedy which I now propose to apply. Please find ways in future of engaging more collaboratively and yes, I'm talking to YOU and not the other guy! Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 15:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Might be a little stronger than I would myself think, but that's not exactly unusual around here. I would think maybe filing an RfC might produce more definite results than the RSN discussion did. John Carter (talk) 15:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

My long term intention is removing content based on "internal"/wikileaks-sources, unless content could be defended by other and more reliable sources. I do have the fully understanding of User:Kim Dent-Brown's decisions and viewpoints, and I am absolutely agreeing this is time consuming (all editing for the Norwegian wiki have been at hold for days). Despite how the outcome of the AN/I looks, I found User:Kim Dent-Brown's viewpoints regarding sources supportive, but I guess Jeffro77 reads it otherways. I don't know if it is proving some lack of sorry, but I do still want a definite result regarding the sources. By the way, the stockfish needs to be beaten to be consumable. Grrahnbahr (talk) 16:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you're not going to get any sort of definite result regarding the sources here. Like I said above, the best way to resolve that issue would probably be through filing an RfC on the topic and posting notices to it on the talk pages of relevant WikiProjects, and/or maybe at the most appropriate noticeboards. John Carter (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In regard to Kim's thoughts offered above, I agree that the RS noticeboard discussion did not reach any specific decision about the sources, and I've stated that several times throughout this discussion. (Kim's conclusion that I seem to believe the RS noticeboard determined that the sources definitely are suitable is mistaken.) In my view, the discussion seemed to be heading towards rejecting the letters but accepting the books. However no actual conclusion was reached, and it did not seem that any of the editors at the RS noticeboard considered the actual sources in question, but instead only offered general suggestions.

I've stated all along that it would be preferable to have secondary sources on the topic. The problem is there seems to be a paucity of suitable secondary sources for much of the content. This is why I ended up suggesting to Grrahnbahr—before he raised this frivolous and wasteful ANI—that he simply go ahead and delete the content based on the sources to which he objected.

Grrahnbahr also made further accusations that I am 'trying to keep JW articles biased', and he has not substantiated that accusation at all. As one 'example', he objected to my edit, where I confirmed that a JW publication says that JWs should "do what they reasonably can to protect children from further abuse". It's unclear to me how that asserts some sort of bias against JWs.--Jeffro77 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, we're talking about the presence or absence of a Citation needed tag and the lack of a secondary source? All of this about a dispute about one RS dispute that was already discussed on the RSN? That's every day life on Wikipedia. I thought the default remedy in these cases is when one editor thinks a particular source is insufficient in itself, either he/she or another editor finds an additional source to back it up or the statement is removed. This is Wikipedia, disagreement is the norm. I don't see any harassment, just standard WP content conflict. No bans, both warned: "Learn to work together." Thanks to Kim for actually looking into all of those diffs. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 23:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And since I had already told Grrahnbahr to go ahead and remove the other material before he even raised the ANI, his accusation was especially wasteful. Kim has confirmed what I've been trying to say all along: the RS noticeboard did not reach the conclusion claimed by Grrahnbahr (or indeed any specific conclusion) and we prefer secondary sources. It seems obvious to me that Grrahnbahr actually raised his ANI in the hope that it would follow on from the recent attack by In ictu oculi in the 'Maxximiliann' ANI, using the actually non-existent RS noticeboard 'decision' as a coatrack for false claims about 'biased editing'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AFT vandal

A bunch of AFT bogus moderation is the only activity of this user so far apart from self-onanismwikilove. [92] Please block. You may also want to protect those pages from further enabling of AFT (note that there is currently no way to know when AFT is enabled or disabled and where so nobody can monitor it [93]). --Nemo 16:21, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

While on that subject, is there any way of hunting down and indeffing the users who have abused the fact that there are no public logs to systemically remove AFT from all articles with the "disable feedback" button? Regardless of your view on AFT's current status, to abuse a loophole like that without any sort of communication is an irreconcilable abuse of the community's trust. —WFC— _{FL wishlist} 16:43, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we've learned all we can from the article feedback experiment. Turning it off would solve this and any future issues with this kind of vandalism. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

• I thought the community overwhelmingly agreed to shut off AFT by a landslide during the RFC. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:38, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

They did - some bright, good-looking, intelligent editor suggested trashing it, and the community overwhelmingly agreed with him... Now if I could just get that to work on other disagreements... GregJackP Boomer! 19:56, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

So how did it come back exactly? I remember the WMF promising to abide by the community's decision (or something to that effect) and yet here we are and feedback is still causing problems. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The WMF promising to abide by community consensus? Which parallel universe have I slipped into? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bushranger, FWIW, what's being remembered is this: «As my WMF colleagues Eloquence and Okeyes have pointed out, the foundation will respect the community's decision regarding a full deployment of this tool on the English Wikipedia».[94] --Nemo 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, can we get a block please? Or at least a warning by an admin to the vandal? --Nemo 16:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Continuing WP:OWN issues from User:TonyTheTiger

• Despite having been blocked for edit warring during his last visit here less than a month ago, TonyTheTiger has continued to display a propensity for ownership at WP:FOUR and related areas which boggles the mind. During an ongoing RFC to determine the future of the "award", Tony has posted such wonderfully enlightening (yet factually inaccurate) comments as "... will you keep the WP:FOUR name I originated (in fond memory of me)?", "I came up with WP:FOUR and popularized it in a sense", and ""I was really wondering if you are going to keep my memory alive with the project by retaining the FOUR, if and when you change the criteria".

Furthermore, despite an ongoing and fairly stable RFC, he has posted a deliciously anti-WP:RFC pseudo-RFC with (in the version that went live) such choice phrases as "Some have raised the issue of removing South Side, Chicago from the list for reasons that may be for no other reason than to contest any authority I claim over the project. No arguments were presented," "in hopes of maintaining the historical integrity of the project. His attempts to revert these three editors led to him being blocked from WP for 48 hours by Bwilkins (talk · contribs)" (note how he doesn't seem to see how he could have been wrong for that block), and "TTT has done the vast majority of the work to keep the project running over the last 4 years. And even the majority of this RFC, setting up possible changes, was prepared by TTT. He has reviewed the vast majority of candidates and made the vast majority of promotions. He has established most of the policies by which the project is run."

In promoting this pseudo-RFC, he's canvassed at the very least twenty editors and Wikipedia talk pages with the decidedly non-neutral wording ""The first (RFC) is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.". Any attempt to make him see sense and recognise his shortcomings has been met with reverts, claims about a crew or Milhist drinking buddies ganging up on him.

I freely admit that I have not been on my best behaviour, and that in the past month TonyTheTiger has really started to get my goat and affect my impartiality. However, considering he seems to consider himself a "lone Brave standing against a cavalry stampede demanding a change in the FOUR award", suggesting a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, I think it's high time something is done about Tony. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:21, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Further reading:

WT:FOUR

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award

Addendum: Wikipedia_talk:Four Award#RfC:_Eligibility_and_opting_out

I don't know the background issues here, I was just a recipient of one of the messages and was pretty startled by the egregiousness of the canvassing. (I "reported" it at WT:FOUR without realizing Crisco had brought it up here.) (For what it's worth, the number of editors canvassed was over 100.) I don't really understand what's going on (for example, Tony mentions two RfCs, but I only see one), but if this is really an attempt to get editors not to participate in a deletion discussion or other discussion, then I think a block for the duration of the discussion might be appropriate, to prevent him from disrupting the discussion. rʨanaɢ (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question: How can Tony the Tiger claim to have "come up" with the Four Award when the first edit to the project page is by User:TomasBat? That was in February 2009, and TTT's first edit to the project page was in April of that year, two months later. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

He was apparently taking credit for creating WP:FOUR, the shortcut. I was flabbergasted as well. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The logic escapes me as well. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The issue started here, 1 month ago (almost the whole thing can be found in WT:FOUR). Ed also pointed out in the discussion that the issue that started all this conflict came up three years earlier. Mohamed CJ (talk) 07:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Reading the entire litany makes me believe that Tony is right, MilHist is ganging up on him. This started because an article that met the established criteria was awarded the Four award. The editor who had created the article felt that another editor should also get credit, but that's not what the criteria had been, so he basically said if you don't do it my way, I'll take my ball and go home, and take all of "my" articles with me. If he doesn't want his name associated with the award, he doesn't have to display his name, but why should he be able to remove the articles listed as receiving the award? The next thing that happens is a bunch of the MilHist guys show up, Tony gets agitated and gets blocked.

MilHist has done a lot of good, but a number of editors don't like the way the project is run. I don't, which is why I don't do much over there anymore, and when I do, it is way off to the side. I don't think that they should come in and change an established award because it's not the way they do it.

Finally, Tony and maybe one or two others have been the only ones keeping up with the Four Award - so I can understand how he feels - and he is trying to compromise while maintaining the integrity of the award. GregJackP Boomer! 07:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• First of all: so you're saying Tony is justified in contacting 100 people about his pseudo-RFC? Second, so you're saying that anyone who posts on WT:FOUR or here is MilHist? Heck, Tony's been more active at MilHist over the past year than I have. Third, "he is trying to compromise while maintaining the integrity of the award" - Diff please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  I'm certainly not MILHIST, and I have yet to see Tony compromise on...well, anything.Ironholds (talk) 08:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  TTT and I disagreed a couple of years ago about when a citation was referring to in the career of Héctor López. Namely whether Lopez was a bad fielder always or just later in his career. I won out but TTT placed the citations lower down in the article. Which was fine with me....William 13:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  Can I note that there's no Milhist conspiracy going on here? Let's stop climbing the Reichstag of ridiculousness, please. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 08:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • ^Wow Ed you're still saying the exact same thing from 3 years ago. Didnt the RFC from 3 years ago prove that there were some serious problems with MILHIST? Caden ^cool 00:08, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • What RfC? If you're referring to the FOUR discussion I started three years ago, did you read the page? It wasn't an RfC, and the Milhist project wasn't mentioned. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• We tried to remind everyone, remember? Hasn't worked yet. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Spoken like a MILHIST guy ed. I was not canvassing. FOUR does not have a membership, per se. So as I stated on the RFC that has been in draft mode for three weeks, I contacted everyone who has won a FOUR to solicit opinions. CRISCO is just desparate to find solid ground to fight on. Both of his MFD are pathetic and so he is grasping at straws here.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

    • "I contacted everyone who has won a FOUR to solicit opinions." - My talk page is quite naked, actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I can understand how Tony feels. I've been there before. Believe me I know how the MilHist boys work and that's why I no longer work on ww2 related articles. Caden ^cool 08:25, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • • Same here. My first article was on a WW2 double-ace (which is a GA). After dealing with the MilHist types, I decided that my efforts would be better spent elsewhere on WP. GregJackP Boomer! 14:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I find your lack of good faith disturbing... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• And I find that you havent changed a bit in the past 3 years very disturbing. Caden ^cool 09:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• ...but not as much as I find Tony's blatant canvassing disturbing. This has been plastered over a whole passel of editors' talk pages. If that's a neutral notification of a disucssion, I've just fell off of the intergalactic turnip truck without my towel. Tony's "my way or the highway" approach to WP:FOUR is disturbing as well - it's obvious that he believe he's the possessor, defender, and sole arbitrator of the award; the fact that he's insisting on awarding awards to people who not only don't want the award, but who have never heard of WP:FOUR [95] is just one thing that makes it clear the award is badly broken - but have fun fixing it as long as it has its tiger in shining armor sticking a pike in anyone who dares disagree with his direction for it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The core issue is the same one as it has always been; Tony does good work but has a massive ego and believes himself to be extremely special etc. I don't often say harsh words about him but his entire attitude every time I come across him just puts me off. I do think he needs to get a grip on himself and attain some perspective - he is not a crucial cog in the machine. Once he grasps that he will be a much more collegiate editor. Sorry to be harsh, I find egotism really pathetic. --Errant ^(chat!) 10:07, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a result of the widespread canvassing, it is clear that no valid consensus can be reached on TTT's RFC. It was transcluded from his userspace onto WT:FOUR. So I have (1) archived and collapsed it; (2) changed the transclusion to a link and left a note at WT:FOUR; (3) closed the MFD on the RFC as moot; (4) removed the RFC tag. I am not making any comment at the moment on any issues of user behaviour here. Bencherlite^Talk 10:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wasn't thrilled to wake up today and see that Tony posted more than hundred messages all over Wikipedia implying wrongdoing on my part. FWIW, I asked Tony for several days to simply post something brief and neutral of his own, or ask an editor of his choice to do so. ([96], [97]) When he refused, I cut to the chase myself. The intention was not "to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions", and I'm not a part of any MILHIST cabal. -- Khazar2 (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, apparently, does not see what was wrong with the 150 notifications he put out: "This was not WP:CANVASSing My statement was neutral saying there are two sides to the issue.". Can we please stop him from embarrassing himself further? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Question - why is considered "acceptable" for someone who doesn't agree with the concept of the award to remove the articles that have met the criteria from the list? I'm not talking about removing their username, but the actual article name from the list. If someone removed an FA or GA from their respective lists, everyone would be screaming about it.

The criteria has be clear. Who created the article? X!'s Tools can show that. DYK/GA/FA can all have multiple contributors, but only one person actually creates the article.

I haven't been involved in the FourAward (other than to receive one), but this really strikes me as a number of editors who didn't get their way, so they wanted to take "their" ball and go home. Except the article isn't his ball. They don't own it, and they certainly don't get to control what lists it can or cannot be on. Why wasn't that an issue? That smacks more of WP:OWNERSHIP than what Tony has done. GregJackP Boomer! 14:39, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Re: GA and FA. That's essentially opt-in (people nominate, usually self noms, and at FAC at least primary contributors opinions are considered).. There is essentially no opt-in process here, not anymore since Tony's been running the ship, and if there's no opt-out process, then it means forcing all users to go through this. Re: "ball" metaphor. Where at WP:FOUR does it say this is a "list of all articles which meet these criteria", and not "an award given to writers who write articles that meet the criteria"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have a Four award and I didn't nominate myself for it - it showed up one day, in the same manner as a barnstar or other awards do. The article met the criteria, and the individual that has been tracking those posted the award. While I certainly don't have to display it if I disagree with it, I also realize that I don't have the right to go and demand the removal of "my" article from the list of articles that have been so recognized. To do so would be to say that I "owned" the article and would be clearly inappropriate. Here, the issue started when an editor wanted to remove "his" article from the list, and then others from a project that he was on showed up and wanted to remove "their" articles too. I have a problem with WP:OWNERSHIP here, but it is not from Tony. And as yet, no one has even tried to explain why those editors have a right to demand that the articles be removed from the list. GregJackP Boomer! 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• They probably haven't tried to explain because it's WP:COMMONSENSE to the point it's hard to understand why it has to be explained. The very meaning of WP:FOUR is that "user X took article Y through creation to DYK to GA to FA". Note the requirement: "User X". This is a recognition of User X for their article - if User X doesn't want to be recognised, why is it right for Tony, or anyone else, to be forcing them to be recognised for the article? Given the very nature of WP:FOUR, in order for an editor to decline it, they have to remove the article from the list. Saying otherwise is the equivilant of saying they're not allowed to remove a vandal barnstar from their page "because they met the criteria". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:13, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yet if someone doesn't want to be associated with an article that has attained FA, we don't allow them to remove it from the FA listing. It's the same principle. They don't have to display the award, and it is disingenuous to compare it to a vandal's barnstar. GregJackP Boomer! 23:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• See WP:FA. Notice something lacking there that is not lacking at WP:FOUR? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:32, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Agree with GregJackP. I think it's kind of silly that someone wants their "award" taken away. They don't have to display it. Fine. OK. So someone else might be equally deserving, so then straighten that out. The thing of sandboxing an article before going to main page does confuse the creation issue somewhat, probably need to look at that, but for pete's sake, this is a pretty lame debate. I really wish it wasn't Tony and Crisco at odds because I think both are solid contributors to Wp and both have been helpful to me at various times. (And yes, I too have gotten a four award, though I think I did ask for one when a qualifying article made the cut...) And frankly, I don't see a problem that Tony alerted recipients of the award. Technically it would have been nice had he linked directly here or to whichever page the main drama is playing out, and technically he should not of hinted that he has a position on the issue (which is a dumb rule, WP:CANVASS itself is problematic... it's only canvassing if the other side does it, as far as I can tell...) Anyway, I'm just here to say that stewardship is not ownership, people getting a little possessive is only human, and can't we work this out with a carrot instead of a stick? Montanabw^(talk) 18:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Montana, you're an awesome editor, but I think you can compare this (note that these notices were only sent to people who had commented at WT:FOUR, i.e. those who had actually shown an interest in how the project was run) and Tony's. That Tony shouldn't have hinted (or, rather, outright stated) his position is a given: it predisposes people to agreeing with him, which is why such a notice would never fly in the meatverse. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Relevant thread on AN. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Proposed WP:FOUR topic ban for User:TonyTheTiger

TonyTheTiger is topic-banned from WP:FOUR for a period of one month. This topic ban covers all pages related to the award however does NOT cover any articles that have received or are being considered to receive the award.

The intention of this is to get Tony to move away from WP:FOUR and to edit elsewhere to prevent further disruption to discussion occurring about changes to the award. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 12:46, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support iff Tony does not show any ability to actually move on and drop the stick. If he actually can work collaboratively... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Full fledged support now. Statements like this bring his understanding of "neutral" into question. I don't think we want an editor so active on the project, with such a poor understanding of WP:CANVASS, WP:RFC, and WP:NPOV to continue to run their private fiefdom. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I don't think banning Tony from FOUR solves the underlying issues of ownership that have cropped up at WP:FAC and elsewhere. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 12:51, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think anyone here is talking about ownership at WP:FAC. As a rule I don't revert indiscriminately on articles I've written, and my objection to being listed at WP:FOUR (despite having something like 13 FOUR-eligible articles) was primarily because of Tony's refusal to listen to consensus which was built up at WT:FOUR. I refuse to be associated in any which way with such a broken process. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. I'm not happy about Tony's accusations against me there and on 150(!) other pages, but hopefully this'll be his last attempt at disruption. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Contrary to Crisco's comment above, Tony isn't the one that needs to drop the stick. GregJackP Boomer! 14:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Funny. I don't see you addressing any of the issues I brought up above or trying to justify it, just being generally contrarian. Would you like to show us why Tony has no issues at all? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would rather discuss why it is appropriate to remove articles from the list. The articles don't belong to the editor that created it. To say that the article can't be listed shows WP:OWNERSHIP far more than defending the criteria for the award does. GregJackP Boomer! 14:42, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. Well, if this were a list of articles that met all the criteria, you'd have a point. However, see the first sentence of WP:FOUR: The Four Award recognizes the persistence of Wikipedia editors who have taken care of an article from its humble beginnings through featured article status (emphasis mine). If the Award recognises editors, then without the editors there should be nothing to list, n'est pas? That is how WP:FOUR defines the award itself. It's an award for editors, not articles, and thus without editors there is no award. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:54, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• And he offered to replace the editor's name with "placeholder" - but how does that give the editor the right to control if the article is listed? The editor does not WP:OWN the article. GregJackP Boomer! 14:58, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The editor does not WP:OWN the article. - Who/what is awarded, the editor or the article? An award given to an individual cannot be awarded if the awardee rejects it. The actions may exist, and may be noted elsewhere, but it's certainly not part of the award, and as such should not be listed as such. The articles are secondary to the editor, as FOUR defines itself. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Then by what right does the editor get to demand that the article not be listed, when all other articles which have met the criteria are listed? GregJackP Boomer! 15:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• The right that this award recognises, by its very nature, editors and not articles? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Quote by Imzadi1979 from WT:FOUR[98]: Our text is not public domain. In fact every submission made to Wikipedia is done under the CC-BY-CA3.0 license and the GFDL. That means each editor still retains his/her copyright over the submission, and the Wikimedia Foundation is granted an irrevocable license to use it. Under the concepts of WP:RTV, every editor in good standing has the right to disassociate him/herself from the prior association with Wikipedia. Other items like the list of WP:Wikipedians by Featured Article Nominations and WP:List of Wikipedians by number of edits allow an opt out, so why can't an award be denied, and why can't the recipient opt out of the award scheme's listing?. Mohamed CJ (talk) 18:28, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose. Tony is overall a very good editor who I know to be capable of extracting himself from disputes like the above without the heavy hand of sanctions being imposed, even if - like all of us - he can get caught up in disputes when being set upon. bd2412 T 14:26, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I am sorry but Tony does a good job at the Four Award and looks like he's the only one taking care of it. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I fail to see how much care the award needs, Harold. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Tony is not the only one looking after it; Little Mountain 5 is also very active. Mohamed CJ (talk) 05:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. He's evidently been in Climbing-the-Reichstag mode and his shenanigans are wasting time, not just inside the small circle who are interested in WP:FOUR, but also elsewhere. WP:FOUR as a whole is not important enough to allow it to cause time wasting across so many places, so whatever it takes to shut the noise out should be done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• While I Oppose a direct topic ban for now, I want to strongly urge Tony to stop, listen and think. Tony, when you see nothing wrong with the way you advertised your RfC, we have a problem. And to solve the problem, I think it's by far best to take a big break from the FOUR award, so you can take some distance from it and look at it from the outside. I'd say stay away for at least a month or three. I don't think this will end well otherwise. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony's conduct has been appalling, and the whole canvassing thing is disgraceful. But a topic ban from WP:FOUR is not going to solve anything - because the root cause of the problems there is not Tony. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • What is the root cause then? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • In the context of this discussion.... Not Tony. There are allegations about MILHIST members causing issues, and that may be something to look at - or it might not. But (as is noted further down this thread) it's not relevant to the question of Tony's conduct. And on that point, I don't think a topic ban would be helpful. Put another way, in what way would a topic ban help settle things down that a block for shenanigans on Tony would not? If his conduct is that egregious (and it might be), then we need to point the angry mob at a block discussion rather than a topic ban discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 03:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm still shocked that the Milhist conspiracy theory has gained this much traction. Ian and Nick's article that kindled this was a military history article, so it shouldn't be a surprise that there are a few more milhisters than normal. Even then, I'm only involved because I kicked off this topic three years ago (I happen to be a Milhist coordinator). Crisco basically isn't a Milhister, despite being signed up. There's your Milhist involvement.
      • I tend to prefer topic bans over straight blocks. It allows the contributor in question to keep contributing quality content without the distraction of the problematic topic area. That's just me, though! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support (and would support a longer, possibly indefinite, version as well). Whether or not Milhist has done anything to provoke Tony - and I see no real evidence of that being presented - Tony has very much dug his own bunker as far as insisting to the world that he owns WP:FOUR, that he must be deferred to there, and that consensus has no place in his fiefdom. None of these are acceptable behavior, and while it's understandable to want to have a say in how one's "baby" is run, Tony has continued doubling down on his seriously questionable behavior, even when it's pointed out that his demands/actions are unreasonable, against policy, or otherwise not consistent with either common sense or Wikipedia's normal processes. It's clear to me at this point that the only way to handle this is either to delete the award entirely or to remove Tony from issues related to the award, and I feel that deleting the award is throwing the baby out with the bathwater when we could stop the damage with a topic ban. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:34, 20 August 2013 (UTC) last edited 16:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The infamous talk page message I received wasn't even close to neutral, and I'm fairly shocked to see anyone contend that it was. But a topic ban from FOUR is not the proper remedy for that. I'm not really sure what is, but Tony, please take this appeal from someone who's probably more on your side than against you on this one – own up to that mistake; it was canvassing. That said, a topic ban from FOUR makes this issue so much worse. By not allowing Tony to state his positions – however inelegantly he may do so, at times – you effectively eliminate one side of the debate, allowing the other to go on virtually unchecked. That's just ripe for accusations of stacking the deck, regardless of whether that was the intent or not. Also, it seems to me that WP:OWN is primarily concerned with articles, which seems to argue against Tony's actions being a blockable offense anyway. Let the discussion, however, messy, continue at WT:FOUR. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 16:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I'll not place an explicit vote given Tony and I have clashed numerous times in the past over a multitude of issues. I will say that unless Tony learns to step back, a topic ban is inevitable, and likely with longer term blocks associated. His posting was blatant canvassing. Almost as blatant as can be. And for what? A god-damned barnstar. Really Tony? This is the hill you are prepared to die on? Pick your battles, dude. Resolute 17:00, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Neutral. I believe Tony has to acknowledge his ill-judgement/mistakes so that we all can move on. Insisting that what he's done is not canvassing shows he's still in denial. On the other hand his long-time contributions and dedication to FOUR are hard to ignore. I see my self supporting such a ban if the problematic behavior continues though. Mohamed CJ (talk) 17:05, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Tony's behavior in this issue has gotten steadily worse and worse; the canvassing is just the icing on one of the messiest cakes I've seen in my time on Wikipedia. There is, unfortunatly, no way that this is going to improve unless something drastic is done, and our options are 1. do away with WP:FOUR, 2. remove Tony from WP:FOUR, or 3. do nothing and let WP:FOUR become another one of the festering sores of Wikipedia that winds up doing nothing but feeding the nabobs until something drastic happens and it gets hammered by ArbCom for being an embarassment to the project. Given these options, a topic ban is the lesser of the evils. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - Fluffernutter and The Bushranger have said it well. As far as I can see, Tony is the source and locus of many of the problems at FOUR. Certainly, he has done some good there; however, the issues seem to stem directly from his attitude towards the project and those who disagree with him. The most desirable outcome here would be to resolve the issues and FOUR without completely doing away with it so that it can work for the good of Wikipedia without causing this drama. As far as I can see, topic banning Tony for a while would remove the focus of the dispute and allow the project to continue and develop without this disruption. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose: Once again, someone who is dedicated to a project is at risk of being taken from the very thing he created and maintained - just like The Little Red Hen - does all the work and then everyone else wants the benefits. I don't know Tony real well, but if he's been maintaining this award in quite obscurity for years, it's only natural and human that he cares about it. But I also have had good interactions with Crisco, so nothing personal here, wish you two weren't going at each other. I also agree with a lot of what User:GregJackP said. But bottom line: We are confusing personality disputes with content. If Tony needs to back off, a topic ban is a silly way to do it. Better to just address the behavior with some cooling off time (For example, when the mob with pitchforks gets mad at User Eric Corbett, he periodically endures time-limited blocks, probably because he doesn't specialize in any one topic). I'm also rather tired of the wiki-wide screeching of "WP:OWN" every time there is an editing dispute. Stewardship and quality control concerns are NOT "ownership." Montanabw^(talk) 18:29, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Treating everything about the page as a WP:BATTLEGROUND with an utter refusal to consider any viewpoints other than his own is, however. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:27, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support TTT's history of sociopathic behaviour is legend. lots of his problematic behaviour going on here. His domination of it is one thing if nobody minds, but the canvassing is TOTALLY unacceptable not just in the biased message but the audacious scale of it. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 19:12, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. If it were just for the messages, or even the messages and the edit-warring on the page, then I would oppose. However, Tony frequently has dragged his disputes to ANI, and frequently has made unfounded allegations, violated consensus, and even complained about someone filing a better RfC than him quicker. Tony is either completely incapable of realizing he is causing major problems (so much so that "his" project has had a MfD discussion opened) or he just doesn't care. And he didn't create the project, that's a fib he's trotted out a fair few times. Time for a break, I think. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 21:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Having looked at all that there is no actual evidence those actions are disrupting, except several editors are exasperated with one User because he sees things differently. I'm sorry, but all of you, wake up to what you are talking about (some award - not even content). So, just manage to treat the defeated and outnumbered User gracefully. Ignore it for now. The overwhelming majority will get their way, there is no reason yet to run this User out on a rail, just because he heavily invested himself in something. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support the canvassing is disruptive and how anyone can think it isn't is beyond me. considering that tony has started this new thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#I am trying to understand_my_recourse. even while the discussion is ongoing here shows how much TTT doesn't get it. MarnetteD | Talk 21:47, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. I agree with GregJack's "ball" metaphor. Several editors from MILHIST didn't get their way, so they wanted to take "their" articles off from the list. Problem is the articles don't belong to them. They don't own it, and any responsible editor would know this. Caden ^cool 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Again with the articles. Read WP:FOUR. Does it say the award is given to articles, or editors? That "ball" as article metaphor is ridiculous. A proper one would be several people going home after they and their efforts are insulted. Editors have every right the get the F*** out of Dodge when they feel they are unwanted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Crisco you are way too involved in my opinion. Not very good. Caden ^cool 00:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Which doesn't refute the fact that this is an award given to editors, not to articles, and waving the "ownage of articles" strawman around doesn't help resolve the issue at all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Ahh I see that Bushranger hasnt changed a bit. Still saying the same old things 3 years later as he runs to the rescue of his MILHIST buddies. Caden ^cool 00:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Apparently, judging by your comment, I'm so deep in the MILHIST anti-Tony conspiracy that I wasn't even aware I was part of it. More seriously though, the fact that you assume there's no way I'm doing anything but "running to the rescue" (instead of, say, voting based on my understanding of policies and guidelies) is dissapointing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Caden, please explain to me how Crisco is a Milhist regular. Thanks, Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 01:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
          • And how I am also a Milhist regular. PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 02:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Ditto. In fact, my first interaction with Tony, if I remember correctly, was very positive. However, everything I've seen from Tony recently, which is all related to this WP:FOUR (which I'd never heard of previously) has shown that he is a negative in this particular area. Caden, your personal attacks and unfounded accusations destroy your argument's credibility. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: Could participants here please stay on track rather than turning the discussion into a mud-slinging contest between members of different thematic projects? I find some of the comments borderline PA and not helping any consensus to build. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Tony's gone far over the disruptive line here, and either a topic ban or a block could solve the issue. In a choice like that, I'll take a topic ban. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:09, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I believe he doesn't have to, but should I be waiting to hear from this TonyTheTiger fellow before I support this ban? Just wondering. --Malerooster (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Well I just saw his comment above, not to encouraging, but I am stepping out. --Malerooster (talk) 03:27, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose This sudden proposal, an outgrowth of a RfC dispute, comes out of nowhere. It appears that TTT is abrasive and now people who dislike him are taking this opportunity to pile on. I recommend parties head to Dispute Resolution to solve their differences. Implementing blocks should not be a knee-jerk result when someone has made a mistake, they only occur when a user disregards admonishments and continues being disruptive or is guilty of vandalism. There are clearly underlying issues over page ownership that need to be negotiated and imposing blocks and bans isn't a good solution. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 03:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support until Tony somehow expresses that he understands that he was canvassing and that he won't do it again. When that happens, I'll be happy to strike this !vote. rʨanaɢ (talk) 04:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
  • This style of reasoning has become more and more prevalent over the last years, and I don't agree with it. Demanding of Tony he says uncle is demeaning, and I don't think it will help. This discussion should be enough of a wake-up call for Tony to stop doing what he's doing. If his future actions show it's not, we can start looking for drastic measures like topic bans. To make him say I'm sorry under threat of a topic ban, what I believe this comes down to, isn't really useful IMO. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 10:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "This discussion should be enough of a wake-up call for Tony to stop doing what he's doing." - I had hoped the same thing for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award (there's near universal condemnation of his behaviour there, be it from delete or keep !voters), but here we are now. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Martijn Hoekstra, I'm not demanding that Tony say Uncle just for its own sake. When someone shows a pattern of problematic behavior, they need to learn to stop behaving problematically. I cannot be confident that Tony won't repeat these mistakes in the future, unless he shows some indication that he understands why they were wrong, and won't do them again. Assuming that I'm just asking for an apology is silly. No one cares whether Tony is sorry or not; what I care about is that he doesn't keep behaving the way that he has. rʨanaɢ (talk) 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose – I am one of the canvassed editors, I have a FOUR award, and I've been watching the fight for a while now. Tony's notice to me wasn't close to neutral and neither is either RfC. The behaviour from numerous editors at WT:FOUR has been pathetic, I am reminded of children bickering. Taking out Tony so one side can "win" is not a helpful way forward. The disputants need to be trouted and to try for a moment to act like adults. EdChem (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I've spent the past two days reading through what I believe is every nook and cranny of this wicked web. My opinion may not mean much, and I'm sure both side will rebut, but this is what I think needs to happen: 1) Tony needs to understand that while he may be caretaker of this award, that it is not HIS or any editor's to set hard and fast rules. 2) Several of the editors that first came down upon Tony regarding the collaboration issue are leveraging their numbers against a single editor. I can understand why Tony has become what I can only describe as maniacal over the course of this discussion; he's spent years on this award and suddenly a group of editors have taken issue with the way it is run. This is very similar to the TFA RFC several months back. 3) Tony, you're normally a great editor, but at times through this issue, it almost seems as if you've lost your marbles! 4) The canvassing is undeniable. In fact, Tony's post to an editor's talk page on my watchlist is what brought this to my attention. 5) The collaboration issue has become a pissing match long past expiration. The solution is simple: if two editors, one of which made the first mainspace edit, claim they collaborated, and the article history (including sandbox) backs up that claim, then it's a collaboration! Don't get so technical with "This is part of the DYK phase and this is part of the New article phase." Reasoning, deduction, and logic are what make us human and not programmed computers! 6) The award is given to editors but concerns articles. Editors should have the right to request that their usernames be removed from entries; the articles should remain. That said, I can see that in this case it has been done as a way to take a stand against Tony, rather than being an actual issue itself. The argument that has split off regarding this is a red herring, and I hope that it be put to rest if the collaboration issue is addressed satisfactorily.

So, the solution here is to fix the cause, rather than addressing the symptoms. All the editors involved here are well-known and productive, so let's fix the problem instead of using discipline and creating disillusioned editors. I've got a handprint on my face from how many facepalms I've done these two days! - Floydian ^τ _¢ 07:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think there would have been any problems if Tony doesn't treat the discussion about the award as personal, but the undeniable fact is he does, because he now considers it as his fiefdom. But the project doesn't belong to him – it never has and never will, and any discussion to delete the project page can rightly be decided on by the community at any moment. And that doesn't necessarily mean the community will necessarily vote to delete. As to what is the cause or symptom, just look at Tony's recurring guest appearances here at ANI – it's neither normal nor desirable. -- Ohc ^¡digame!_{¿que pasa?} 07:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? Tony certainly needs to snap back to reality and work with others, otherwise the whole thing may as well be in his userspace. On the other side, others need to see that he has put years of work into this and that prying it away would likely result in the award going stagnant and a productive content editor hanging up his hat. In the end, what is the best way forward for the project? - Floydian ^τ _¢ 08:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• "The solution is simple: if two editors, one of which made the first mainspace edit, claim they collaborated, and the article history (including sandbox) backs up that claim, then it's a collaboration!" - I think that you'd find general consensus (I'm all for it) for such a position, but getting Tony to stop edit warring over FOUR needs to be finished first. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yup, that's the solution, water down the criteria for the award. Make it a lot less meaningful so we can hand it out like candy. We could even rename it to the "Three out of Four Award." GregJackP Boomer! 11:33, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support Tony's extreme WP:OWN in regards to this topic has become outright disruptive. Nick-D (talk) 10:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Vehement oppose per Floydian. Step back and think about it from TTT's perspective. TTT has been operating the award for several years, as I understand it. A few editors come in wanting to make sweeping changes. TTT's opinion is swept to the side. It goes downhill from there and we decide the solution is to topic ban him from the award that he spent so much time on? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 16:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly right! Not only do they want to make sweeping changes, they want to water down the criteria for the award, make it easier to get. Only one person can create the article, whether it is done in mainspace or a sandbox, but now we can call it the ThreeOutOfFour award. So TTT gets a little testy in response to what is basically disruptive activities, and now the solution is to topic ban him? GregJackP Boomer! 23:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support – After seeing Tony's inappropriate WP:CANVASS, this only reinforces my belief that none of his WP:OWN issues are going to change. Wikipedia has always been about community consensus. No matter how much time he's spent on the award, that doesn't give him more rights than others associated with FOUR. As I've said previously, enough is enough! —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose' basically per Automatic strikeout. I understand Tony's position somewhat. He has worked hard for a long time now in a particular area and then a group of editors come in and try to make changes. It is no surprise that he got a defensive. Yes he overstepped the mark, particularily with the canvassing, but to ban him from that area is not the right solution. AIRcorn (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Aside from topic ban: Canvassing?

• While the topic ban discussion above is ongoing, and the topic is still fresh enough to need attention, can I please ask a neutral admin to weigh in and see if a) if Tony's posts were neutral, b) if Tony's posts constituted canvassing, and c) if, assuming they were non-neutral and canvassing, anything other than closing the RFC should be done. I note that "This was not WP:CANVASSing. My statement was neutral saying there are two sides to the issue." and this thread suggest that, if Tony had done wrong, he does not seem to understand it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe that this was canvassing - the posts are not neutral, as they state Tony's position on the issue at hand ("My RFC is more neutral, look at that one"). There's also the concern that people who should have gotten the notice ("I contacted everyone who has one a FOUR to solicit opinions...") did not actually get the notice, which means the notice was selective in its audience - a hallmark of canvassing. If we had a textbook about canvassing, this'd go in the examples. Does it rise to the level of Disruptive Editing that would warrant a block? I can see the case for it, certainly, but I don't know what damage such a block would prevent. I am concerned that Tony doesn't seem to understand why the notice was problematic, though. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:00, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• At the moment, fair enough, but how can we make him understand why the notice was problematic? He's yet to listen to anyone, from what I've read. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

What do you need an administrator for? Any editor can tell Tony he was incorrect. And he can argue otherwise, and nothing will come of it. An administrator closed the other RfC, and that has not been undone. Why isn't that enough? You expect administrative tools or administrative authority to convince him, how exactly? Much of that is already being discussed above. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Odd, Ultra got exactly why Admin tools are handy here. I don't expect "administrative tools or administrative authority to convince him", but I do expect a neutral admin to consider the worthiness of blocking in this instance. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you not see: "I don't know what damage such a block would prevent"? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• You asked why I need another admin, I said Ultra got it already (that a block may be needed), then you ask if I read something which is not related to your first question, at all: you asked if I noticed that Ultra doesn't think a block is needed (which I did, to answer your question), which was not relevant to my response to your first question. No wonder ANI gets all the wonderful names like swamp of despair, great wasteland, etc; the communication skills were better in the Bush administration. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

No. The question I asked had to do with what remedy you wanted, which now we know. And the response was, what will be prevented by such a block? Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This. If the tools were needed here to prevent further shenanigans, I already would have blocked. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. Now, since blocks are not punitive, can we perhaps look forward and find a way to have Tony understand how his edits were considered problematic by the community? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Crisco, Let me remind you the chronology.

1. For over 4 years I have run WP:FOUR, I have reviewed about 2000 articles, including the about 700 of the 793 that are currently either officially FOUR or officially rejected using the criteria that included the first stage assessment being a determination of whether the authors were editorially involved in the article before it had its first encyclopedic content (readable prose that defines a notable topic).
2. You the Ed17, Nick-D, and Ian Rose along with a few other declare a majority consensus for a new criteria in which the first stage is determined by when the article first appeared in mainspace with a 24 hour window.
3. I insist that since all of the previous articles I reviewed were reviewed by the original criteria I would not promote an article using the newly declared consensus criteria because no other articles were reviewed by that criteria and I would not use a different criteria on one new article.
4. Fireworks erupted. 3 editors withdrew their articles from FOUR listing.
5. I attempted partial reverts of these withdrawals using [placeholder] in the majority of the reverts to allow opting out by the editors.
6. The three of you kept withdrawing articles and I kept reverting until you blocked me for 48 hours.
7. I came back and took a while to cool off.
8. I agreed to an RFC on the issue and notified all parties of that fact. I was waiting on a full report on the nearly 800 articles at issue, which took nearly 3 weeks for WP:BOTREQ to produce.
9. As I drafted the RFC from August 1 until August 20 the intended list of parties to be notified of the RFC always included the 167 FOUR honorees.
10. Some people did not like my RFC and decided to do their own quick RFC.
11. I have always complained that this quick RFC does not address the items of controversy that we have had.
12. I asked that your RFC be tabled until the BOTREQ information was available.
13. I was told no.
14. After nearly 3 weeks no one has made any complaints about the intended notifications.
15. When BOTREQ finally produced the data, I sent out notifications of both RFCs to the intended parties, including the 167 FOUR honorees.
16. WP:CANVASSing involves telling people which side of the discussion to vote for, not which discussion to participate in.
17. My notification did not tell anyone which side to vote for, but only to look at the issues presented in my RFC rather than the other one.
18. I did not canvass either by contacting an objectionable group of people or by telling those people how to vote.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I think that Tony's above comments are quite worrying regarding his understanding of policy and consensus. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Also, for number 2 (24 hour window?): Diffs please? I sure as heck wouldn't have pushed that forward. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Go to WT:FOUR and search for "hour". Multiple editors were mentioning this part of the proposed new criteria. I don't remember who, because I was trying to deal with so many adversarial opinions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:21, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I did. You and Little Mountain are the ones who use the word "hour". Again, diffs please. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "You (I)" blocked you? Check your block log. The person who blocked was uninvolved. At all. You had gone 5RR. The discussion is linked above. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
    • "Some people did not like my RFC and decided to do their own quick RFC." - Check your RFC's talk page and your own reverts on that page. Multiple editors tried to forewarn you of issues with your RFC, and you reverted or made single-sentence non-commital answers.
    • "After nearly 3 weeks no one has made any complaints about the intended notifications." - Where the h*** were you storing them? You had those travesties pre-scripted? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Crisco, calm down. Did you really reply to Tony's comments by providing a diff to those very same comments? Or did you intend a different link? Either way, your position is clear and you need to back off a bit. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yes, I did, in case he changed his comments afterwards. I recognise that my position is clear. Tony, however, seems to increasingly be making a fool of himself by misrepresenting history and misunderstanding policy. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

True - in this case, I believe Tony's comments say it all, really. So, if consensus is clear that the notices were canvassing, then we give Tony a warning and call it a day. There does not seem to be consensus for a block, nor is there reason for one now that the conduct has stopped. If you want to go further than that, WP:RFC/U is thataway - but I don't know that you'll get much traction there. With 5 different threads on various aspects of this trainwreck, I think we're all discussed out for the moment. Might not be a horrible idea to back off a bit and let things calm down. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, the notice advocated a position - it made affirmative statements about the quality of one RFC over another. By definition, that's canvassing. A properly neutral notice would have been "There is a discussion regarding which of two proposed RFCs is the most appropriate tool for dealing with the recent dispute at WP:FOUR. Your input is welcome at this talk page. You received this notice because you are listed at WP:FOUR as having received one or more FOUR awards as of this date." or some such. You identify the topic, you identify the page where discussion is to take place, and then you're done. That's a neutral notice. I'm sorry to say, but what you sent was canvassing. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Good example. Tony: whatever the justice of it, now you know how others view that message (whatever your intent). Unsolicited advice: use that knowledge constructively going forward. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:13, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Tony, two very simple questions:

1. do you or do you not feel you were in violation of policy when sending those notifications, and

1. As stated above, I did not contact a biased audience (in fact by everyone's silence one might consider the audience pre-approved) and I did not attempt to tell them how to vote on the issues. I believe those are the issues of WP:CANVASS. I did neither of those things.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. do you or do you not feel that those notifications would have been found by an uninvolved individual to be neutral?

1. It was neutral on every topic at issue. I.e., on no topic at issue, did I attempt to influence anyone's decision.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please answer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, if you honestly believe that your notifications were anything remotely approaching neutral, I don't know what to say. [99] "The first [not yours] is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions." - this is not, at all, neutral; a best it's a POV-presenting commentary on it, at worst it's deliberate misrepresentation. "Please look at the second one [yours], which I think is much better." - also not neutral, as you're (a) directing editors which one you want them to examine, and (b) making a statement as to which one you want supported. If you still think that's "neutral", all I can say is that you're obviously either unable or unwilling to comprehend what neutrality is. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Tony, I have to agree. The entire tone of your message was "I'm right, and Khazar2 is wrong, so ignore their RFC and vote in mine". Meanwhile, your RFC spends most of its time trying to justify your positions and actions rather than honestly asking for input. That wasn't just canvassing, that was one of the most egregious cases of canvassing I have seen in eight years here. Resolute 21:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

He's answered. Why don't y'all stop hounding him, especially Crisco. GregJackP Boomer! 11:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Do you get the irony that you posted this nearly 24 hours after my last direct response to Tony? ABF much? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Common user interjection

(comment from non-involved user) this whole conversation has gotten out of hand. Not only is this ANI open, there's a RFC somewhere and also this Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Four Award. Too many discussions and too many opinions. Can I suggest that actions against Tony are temporarily frozen until the ongoing RfC and AfD are closed. Speaking of which, since when is an AfD used to close delete an article/project where there is a disagreement of opinion? Surely that's a misuse of AfD? IMO the following should happen:

1. AfD should close as a snowball keep.
2. Any existing four-award articles should keep their status.
3. New four-award article nominations should be subject to the new criteria IF there was a full consensus to the new criteria.
   1. This to me would be like WP:GA is reviewing articles one way. A bunch of guys come by with a new criteria for WP:FL and declare a majority that the FL criteria are the new GA criteria. All future GAs will be judged by the FL criteria. The FL guys should just go create their own award.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• You do understand that when you post on wikipedia you irrevocably waiver all rights under CC-BY-SA 3.0 License? Thus when you created the four-award, you have no rights to the concept's application on wikipedia and thus you have no grounds to impose ownership. If the community comes to a consensus on change then those changes must be implemented. Just because you created the concept and then dislike the changes, doesn't mean your opinion goes beyond the consensus or is in someway more important. Without the community nominating and achieving the award the award is just a concept. Therefore if the community wants changes and there is a consensus to do so then I am afraid changes should go ahead. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 17:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• He didn't create the Four award. He usurped it, and seems to have considerable difficulty letting go of the fact that he can't simply dictate how it exists. Resolute 21:52, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

1. Four-Award should have a proper project of users like WP:GAN and WP:FL do... it shouldn't boil down to the opinion of just Tony.
2. Tony should be given a 1-revert sanction for several weeks.

→ Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:04, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment (uninvolved). Frankly, I had never heard of the WP:FOUR project until this ANI came up. After spending (too) much time reviewing the whole issue, a) I think Lil-unique1's suggestions above are on the right lines. b) The MfD has been closed in the meantime with a rational I concur with (I didn't vote there). c) There is no doubt in my mind that the 'canvassing' message was biased. d) If the four-award project is to be retained (and that's a separate issue), all changes should be approved by consensus through properly conceived RfC proposals - TonyTheTiger would not be able to argue with that, and should understand project/article ownership principles and that launching counter-RfCs is not conducive to gaining consensus for anything anywhere. However, there is no doubt whatsoever that he has contributed significantly to the project. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I wouldn't object to Tony still being involved in the project but I think now that the MfD has finished, a suitable punishment for Tony should be discussed... he is wrong in the sense that he has assumed ownership over the project and his RfC and subsequent invitations to the discussion were bias. Meanwhile the current RfC should continue and changes should only go ahead with a strong consensus. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 01:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I hasten to point out that no Wikipedia sanctions are applied as a punishment. Prevention and/or time to review and reflect upon policies are the objectives.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apologies, I meant as a means of diffusing the situation and also giving Tony chance to reflect on why his/her actions may have gone against the spirit of wikipedia or violations of our policies. → Lil-℧niquԐ 1 - { Talk } - 16:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

call for closure

This ANI proceeding has run long enough. There is a lot of silliness and spite, and IMHO it is embarassing about Wikipedia to watch this go on. Any serious issues about the Four Award can be addressed at its Talk page, where spiteful remarks continue. The MFD, clearly invalid from the get-go has happily been closed, although not without plenty of vitriol. Here, while some wish to extract a pound of flesh, an option might be to ban those persons from all discussion, but there has not been coherent discussion of the blame to attach to others from their participation here, in the MFD, and the ongoing RFC. I submit there is nothing good for ANI to do here, and this should be closed. --doncram 18:54, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Which is pretty much why I suggested that it be closed, above. On Canvassing, there is consensus that Tony's notice was non-neutral and a violation of policy, and further such notices may result in a block for disruptive editing. As you correctly note, the rest is sideshow. Someone should sort out the topic ban, though, one way or another. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I happen to think the canvassing accusation is overblown. On the 4 criteria at wp:canvass, TTT's note was good on Scale Audience and Transparency, not good on Message (seemed biased). I've seen worse, and the remedy is to call attention to it, which has been done. So what, that is what some want to extract flesh for. Since the appeal for commenters failed to move the RFC, clearly, i don't think there is any likelihood that TTT will use bad-type canvassing again and again to get his way. So, no need to prevent anything on that front.

I think there is not consensus for any topic ban. A "compromise" topic ban would ban TTT and one or more opponents to TTT, but that would mean the opponents win and the main contributor would be banned. There's no fair solution by a ban. So, again, I think this is ready for a close of all parts. That's my view, anyhow. --doncram 20:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I tend to agree, but I commented on the topic ban, and so didn't think I should comment on what consensus may or may not exist. Nor can I close that section, for the same reason. Perhaps someone uninvolved could take a crack at it? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's time to close this and move the discussion either to the Talk Page or Dispute Resolution so the underlying issues about this award's future can be resolved. As for the canvassing, I think that spectacularly backfired and so, if anything, it hurt Tony rather than helped him. Hopefully, he learned his lesson from how badly it was received. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 23:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Enkyo2 needs to start speaking in English

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

---

I don't have much of a problem with the guy's point of view on most articles. I actually agree with him quite a lot of the time. But this edit is problematic on several levels: (1) it undermines the RM I had just posted on the talk page by claiming that my MOS argument is invalid and there is "no consensus"; (2) it mentions Wikipedia in the article space; (3) it expresses Enkyo2's personal opinion on the style guideline in the article space; and (4) Enkyo2 appears not to know what a "homorganic consonant" is (his wording implies it's some kind of set group of consonants). This would not be much of a problem with another editor, but because of Enkyo2's "unique" use of abstract philosophical language and so on it is very difficult to discuss things with him. I'm not the first one to notice this but I think something really needs to be done about it. Can someone tell him to please speak in English? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

That diff is in English - though you are right in saying there are numerous other issues with it. GiantSnowman 14:14, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I know. By "English" I meant "English that normal Wikipedians are likely to be able to understand". I know it's not the best example of abstract philosophical language either, but still. It's also kind of unclear whether he wants this page to be moved or he's trying to establish consensus against moving so he can go back to his versions of the other pages. I'm not assuming bad faith -- I'm trying to assume good faith, but it's always impossible to tell with him. And it's all off-record so I can't prove it, but what happened originally was I sent him a (friendly) e-mail about the moves and got no response, but while logged in to this account to send the email I accidentally edited while I was supposed to be limited to a different account, and wound up getting blocked. When I e-mailed David Fuchs about that, he told me to stop sending e-mails threatening to get other users blocked. I'm really not sure if David Fuchs had a misunderstanding, or Enkyo misrepresented the situation when asked. And it's difficult as hell to discuss stuff like that with Enkyo. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Also this makes me uneasy: "I'm not going to make an argument against the move, but I don't want the page moved, but what I really want is to be on the winning team when the clouds have settled." Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:40, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri88, what admin action are you actually expecting here? It looks to me more like a content dispute - it's not as if Enkyo2 is being totally uncommunicative. Perhaps continue your discussion with him rather than generate heat by making an ANI case out of it, and if that fails, take it to DRN. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Proposing block and/or interaction ban for personal attacks by User:Ubikwit

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

User:Ubikwit has just posted three personal attacks

• here
• here
• and here

Really getting tired of the hounding. Any help would be most appreciated. He's been notified here

Malke 2010 (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Maybe I'm dense, or maybe I'm missing context, but while the tone is not one of particular amicability, I fail to see a personal attack. Disagreeing opinions are not attacks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Here's another, "Are the two words "most edits" unintelligible to you as English?"

I suggest You may be able to fly low enough to evade detection by some radar systems, but those maneuvers do not escape the scope of other systems with enhanced resolution is, on its face, a personal commentary about an editor, and not a comment about the content of any post. And it does not appear to be a "disagreeing opinion" AFAICT. Clearly your mileage varies. Collect (talk) 19:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I find them to be accusatory, sarcastic and insulting, and directed at the individual.North8000 (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ubikwit has a long and recent history of personal attacks against editors. I will bring diffs. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:02, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

In general, Ubikwit has become more and more truculent and aggressive over the past 4-6 months as it became clear that a major content dispute was not going his way. I'll start gathering up diffs of his misconduct immediately, Stephan, but generally speaking, he's been behaving as though he is superior to other editors, he's been editwarring on a below-the-radar level, and he's been trying to get them blocked via Wikilawyering. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:04, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Makes personal attacks : [100].[101].[102].[103].

• Hounding: "What do you mean. . .[104]. "Since Malke has chimed in. . ." [105].[106]. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:06, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Not what this is about

Wikilawyering: Trying to use diffs that were two weeks apart to support a 3RR accusation and obtain an editwarring block against an editor on the other side in a content dispute:[107] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC) More Wikilawyering of a more extensive nature: When ArbCom member SilkTork agreed to serve as moderator, he said any concerns about other editors in the moderated discussion were to be brought to his User Talk page. Ubikwit viewed this as a license to complain to SilkTork about anything that bothered him, and thus SilkTork's User Talk page became his "home away from home." A brief and by no means exhaustive sampling:[108] Being scolded by SilkTork for perhaps running and tattling a little too much:[109] Ubikwit responds:[110] Attempting to explain away his own disruptive behavior on the article Talk page:[111][112][113] A bit of backpedaling:[114] Becoming more and more truculent and combative as things clearly weren't going his way: [115][116][117] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC) Malke has suggested that the community should review Ubikwit's history of personal attacks, and suggests a block for this behavior. I suggest that the community should go much farther, examine Ubikwit's misconduct of various types, and determine whether Ubikwit should be blocked immediately and topic-banned from all articles relating to U.S. politics, as a result of his generally tendentious conduct over the past six months. The Wikipedia project needs to be protected from Ubikwit. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 20:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• Recent history of topic ban and interaction ban which he violated and was blocked Malke 2010 (talk) 20:17, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
• He also takes editors to ANI on a regular basis (I'll get the links) and so far all his ANI complaints have been unfounded. P&W, weren't you recently on the end of one of those? Malke 2010 (talk) 20:18, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, after looking over several of the diffs (edit-conflicting with the latest batch from P&W) you all provide, it looks more like a typical US-political conflict carried onto Wikipedia, with what looks like a self-reinforcing group of similar-minded editors hitting on Ubikwit more-or-less in concert, and without much regard for facts or policy. As an example, the WP:3RR/N has been renamed to WP:AN/EW, making it even clearer that it also deals with longer-term edit warring, not only with strict "more than 3 reverts in 24 hours". So calling the report "wikilawyering" is a stretch. Likewise, I fail to see a personal attack here. This is not even an edit by UbikWit. And so on. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no it's not editors ganging up on Ubikwit. This is editors finally fed up with Ubikwit attacking them. And the diff you reference is an example of continuing hounding. If you knew the full history you'd understand better. But right now he's attacking editors and needs to be blocked. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And This is to show this is his usual behaviour. He's being warned there about continuing personal attacks. Warnings do not help. He just goes right back to doing it. Malke 2010 (talk) 20:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And Phoenix and Winslow should not be expanding this to include any content disputes. This is about continuing personal attacks on editors, me specifically, and I would like him to be blocked or given an interaction ban. If other editors want to propose a site ban, they can open their own thread. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I can't help but notice that – Stephan Schulz aside – all of the comments above are from parties to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea Party movement, which appears to have just moved into voting on its proposed decision. If I am not mistaken, it appears that ArbCom is considering revert restrictions (at a minimum) and/or topic bans (on most) for every one of them. On its surface, this AN/I thread appears to be a simple exporting of interpersonal disputes already before the ArbCom to yet another venue. The recent diffs that start this complaint all appear to be part of discussion on the ArbCom case, and should be handled by the clerks there. (Though like Stephan, I'm disinclined to label them as personal attacks. They're not perfectly civil or constructive and they won't win Ubikwit any friends or arbitrator votes, but they're not beyond the pale, either.) The diffs provided in subsequent comments appear primarily to be hashing up months-old incidents that, presumably, should be part of the ArbCom case and its decision. You guys need all need to find a way to stop poking each other; I suspect that the apparently-forthcoming topic bans will help quite a bit. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, this is about hounding. I can absolutely understand how it might appear and I should give you some more background. I believe Ubikwit is User:Dylan Flaherty who was indef blocked. Dylan hounded me relentlessly back in 2010. The current ArbCom started out as an ANI back in February. You are correct that the Proposed Decision on the Arb case is coming this week. However, today, editors were posting their rebuttals and Ubikwit, as is his custom, began haranguing editors. This is typical. He has zero respect for editors as his extant interaction ban with EvilDoer will bear out. He is routinely incivil. But he has been coming after me since the ANI where, though he claimed never to have edited the article in question, was able to pull out a thread from the archive. That's quite a feat. I recognized his language, his behaviours, etc., and I went to a checkuser who said it was too late check because it was so old. But his IP address is on Wikipedia because he edited as an IP to harass me back then also. Rest assured, nobody is picking on Ubikwit and this is not about the ArbCase. I can show you old diffs of Dylan Flaherty and you'll know exactly what I mean that they do seem one and the same. Right down to the personal attacks and the flamboyant signature style, the same complaints about scholarly sources. It's all there. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, with all due respect to Malke, I think there's a cumulative effect here. Viewed in isolation, a few diffs of personal attacks by Ubikwit may not seem like much to go on from Stephan's point of view. But at least two ArbCom members have found that Ubikwit's overall misconduct "ignored sound arguments about article content, and contributed to hostility at pages relating to the Tea Party movement article by making assumptions of bad faith about and condescending to other disputants." [118] Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

And for the benefit of TenOfAllTrades, at least one ArbCom member (SilkTork) has spoken several times about the "chilling effect" that ArbCom activity has upon activity by administrators regarding the same article, and the same group of editors. SilkTork is the most deeply involved of all ArbCom members in this dispute, so deeply that he's been forced to recuse himself from voting in the proceedings, and it's his position that there should be MORE admin action when ArbCom gets involved, not less. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:38, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

But this is NOT about content. This is about continuing bad behaviours that need to be addressed. The hounding has never been addressed and this time I'm finally going to do something about it. So please, if you have issues, start another thread. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:43, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Phoenix and Winslow is right about the chill effect on admins. Ubikwit brought me to ANI not that long ago and I tried to do something about him then. But the ArbCase put a chill on things and though an admin commented to Ubikwit that he was the one with the problem, nothing got done. No block for his hounding, no interaction ban. I've been putting up with this for 6 bleeding months. And I'd like relief. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 21:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If past behavior is any indication of future performance, ArbCom is going to take weeks to get this sorted. Possibly months. In the meantime, should Ubikwit continue to be allowed to make these personal attacks and exhibit this condescending attitude with complete immunity against Malke, Collect, and anybody else who gets in his way? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Then it would be good to open another thread. With his recent blocks/bans, continuing disruptive behaviours and other issues, you could ask for a site ban. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

• ADMINS: this is the ANI complaint Ubikwit brought against me. It was unfounded and done just to harass. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If I count correctly, there are now 1718 comments by Ubikwit's detractors, with a total of 3 replies (4 counting this). I suggest you (all) take a step back and just wait for a few hours to see how opinion develops. I doubt more text is useful - indeed, I think the current posts are far to long, breathless, and unorganised. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:22, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. Neither Stephan Schulz nor TenOfAllTrades speaks on behalf of the entire community. There's plenty of evidence that's been posted here. Let's allow more members of the community to review the evidence and offer their opinions. regards ... Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks Stephen. I deleted the text from the old ANI. The link is there. And P&W, please stop posting that content bit. Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 22:35, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

If this is related to an open ArbCom case, then why are we even discussing this here? We should wait for their decision. Gamaliel (talk) 22:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

This behaviour is not the subject of the ArbCom case. Malke 2010 (talk) 23:37, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The comments were regarding articles under the purview of an open ArbCom case involving many of the commenters here, including yourself. Instead of starting from scratch, we should wait for the ArbCom ruling and then only act to supplement it. Gamaliel (talk) 23:52, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

See my earlier remarks regarding the "chilling effect" discussed by ArbCom member SilkTork. He wants MORE involvement by admins when ArbCom gets involved, not LESS. And in my estimate it will take weeks, maybe even months, for ArbCom to resolve this. In the meantime, Ubikwit is able to harass people with complete immunity. But that's the way you like it as an admin? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:56, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, you want it, you got it. I've just stuck my toe in, but my initial impression is that the diffs I've read don't appear to me to be particularly outrageous so far. The only one I think deserves a trouting is the "unintelligible" remark. I've seen some of the complainers defend much worse behavior on these boards before, so my initial impression is that this appears to be an extension of the conflict that brought us the ArbCom case, nothing more. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Regardless of the merits of the complaint being discussed, it surely can't be correct that users whose conduct is being considered by arbcom are immune from scrutiny at ANI. That would make no sense at all. Formerip (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying at all. I just don't see the need to duplicate efforts. Gamaliel (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So Ubikwit gets to harass people at will for the next couple of months while ArbCom sifts through a few hundred diffs, right? That isn't a duplicate effort. That's failing to protect the Wikipedia project from a tendentious editor. Does the fact that at least one ArbCom member wants MORE admins getting involved, to keep this mess under control while they deliberate? Does that enter into your decision at all, Gamaliel? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

P&W, you seem a bit harsh on Gamaliel. I think he's just trying to understand things here. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

This is something (in terms of the edits to Arbitration space) which could have been brought to the arbitration clerks to deal with, since it very much is within our remit. I'll note here that I saw one of the linked diffs, removed it and warned Ubikwit before I saw this discussion plus collapsed discussion where another comment in a linked diff was made. If there is more of it in Arbitration space Ubikwit will be banned from editing case pages. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not why this complaint is here. The Arb page hatting doesn't stop the hounding and the constant personal attacks at me. Malke 2010 (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it didn't occur to me that since some of the harassment occurred on ArbCom pages, an ArbCom clerk could have handled it. Malke brought the matter here, I noticed it, and so I followed the matter here rather than notifying the clerk. There's a lot about ArbCom that I still need to learn. But three things I've already learned are that (A) it's very, very slow; (B) the community at large (meaning admins and senior editors) is extremely reluctant to become involved with an article, or a group of editors, once ArbCom becomes involved; and (C) at least one ArbCom member has said that it's got to stop. The fact that Ubikwit happened to harass other parties to the ArbCom proceeding on an ArbCom page, and subsequently attracted the actions of an ArbCom clerk, does not eliminate the possibility that in the future, some troll in an ArbCom proceeding could harass other parties beyond the reach of an ArbCom clerk. On an article Talk page, for example. Or a User Talk page. Admins in the community need to be more willing to step up and prevent an ArbCom proceeding from "overflowing" into the community at large, with warnings and, if necessary, blocks. Think of ArbCom as the Supreme Court, and the admins as cops walking a beat. There are a lot of criminals out there, out on bail while their cases slowly crawl through the Supreme Court. Should the cops ignore them? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 01:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

But if I'm understanding things correctly, the Clerk's function is concerned with the Arb pages only. Behaviours, especially ongoing behaviours, can still be brought to ANI. Malke 2010 (talk) 01:46, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

That's correct. However, my concern (and SilkTork's concern) is that once such concerns are brought here to ANI, once someone announces that the parties are involved in an ArbCom case, admins are reluctant to take any action — as Gamaliel so clearly demonstrated here. That's the "chilling effect" SilkTork talked about. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Honest to God, if I issued a week-long block to every every Tea Party Movement party who has commented in this thread more than thrice, that would help out this encyclopedia project more than anything else...

Administrators, please feel free to issue a block to any party you deem necessary, irrespective of any Arbitration case that may be going on right now. As for myself, as an Arbitrator, I must say that this thread has cast away any doubts I had about voting on several sanctions and has made me start to consider additional ones. NW (Talk) 02:57, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Now that the Clerk and the Arb have effectively shut down this compliant, can an admin close it? Thanks. Malke 2010 (talk) 04:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

...Wow, just wow. N^oformation ^Talk 07:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Primarily for the sake of giving a little context to the "unintelligible" remark referred to by Gamaliel (as being troutable...), here are a couple of diffs that go way back to April.
Way back in April (Ubikwit 　連絡 見学/迷惑 12:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC)) on the Workshop page I had referred to a point first articulated by Silk Tork regarding the Moderated discussion in which he made the comment "As Malke is the main contributor to the article...".
More recently, AGK removed his "obiter dictum".
Meanwhile, Malke had posted a verbatim copy of that statement on the Evidence page on July 15. It is not the case that she was unaware of that to which I had been referring.
With regard to the claim of hounding, thank you Stephan Schultz for the the editing stats. Here is an example of a dialog to which I should have posted a diff on the case pages, but haven't even bothered, basically. [119].
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Admins, I have now had the time to read through (some of) the complaints in the walls of text above, and am compelled to suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is applicable here. The rationale for that is that not only are the complaints made against by and large unrelated to the comments on the Arbcom case page, false accusations have again been made that I am a sockpuppet of Dylan Flaherty. Malke has made that accusation repeatedly across various pages (e.g., the Workshop page of the Arbcom case, the above-linked ANI, etc.) and of hounding her ("like Dylan did"), etc. It would seem that such behavior has become egregious and clearly falls under WP:HARASS. Malke could easily have opened an SPI case (long ago) or request a checkuser if there were any actual evidence to support the false accusations.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Vanished user that isn't vanishing

I don't know where to go with this - I was debating between WP:BN and here, but I chose AN/I because of the required notice.

According to Wikipedia:Courtesy vanishing, vanishing is supposed to be permanently leaving the project. Vanished user 987234 (talk · contribs) is continuing to edit (albeit not disruptively, mainly creating redirects and uncontroversial page moves) despite having gone through vanishing - see their contributions. While this editor may not want to be associated with their previous account, shouldn't the vanishing either be reversed if they wish to continue or be enforced if they do not?

I asked the user about this three days ago, and received no response even though they've edited several times since.

Thanks, and sorry if this is in the wrong place. Ansh666 05:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not watching AN/I, ping me if anyone responds please!

Though someone has "vanished" - they don't have to actually vanish. Some users simply won't stay away - so I'd assume this would be treated as a rename in essence. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2) But that's not what the page says - "A courtesy vanishing may be implemented when a user in good standing decides not to return, and for whatever reason wishes to make their contributions harder to find or to remove their association with their edits" and "If the user returns, the 'vanishing' will likely be fully reversed, the old and new accounts will be linked, and any outstanding sanctions or restrictions will be resumed." (emphasis is mine). Ansh666 05:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, wait, was he ever actually vanished? I don't see any logs to suggest he was properly vanished, but rather it looks like he registered that username as is? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I was actually just doing that. I've gone through move logs and rename logs - I can't find anything. I'll keep looking though. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)You may be right...then this would be an issue for WP:RFCN? Ansh666 05:30, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The username isn't an issue - as far as I can see. What, specifically, bothers you about it? It could actually be a clean start account. The fact the username says "Vanished User" doesn't violate a policy. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: I've gone through the rename logs - this account wasn't renamed - therefore, it's not an account of someone that has vanished. FWIW. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 05:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)It may be confusing, just like naming an account "banned editor 2435423". Ansh666 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree. If it isn't prohibited, it should be.--SPhilbrick(Talk) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)I don't think the logs show anything (see this one, for example - side note, that user was also blocked because they came back from being vanished). From contributions, though, unless the bureaucrats have gotten better at hiding contribs, it looks to be a new user. Maybe I should post on WP:BN asking a bureaucrat to comment here? Ansh666 05:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Might be because 'crats use a different method than normal renaming. Anyhow, I'm going to sleep now...if someone wants to ping a 'crat or something, go ahead. Ansh666 05:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Rename logs are listed under "User:[old username]", but are occasionally hidden from the public log; Vanished user 987234 is probably not a rename as the local and global accounts were created at the same time. Peter James (talk) 15:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the user wasn't a rename and since their arrival on Wikipedia, they have never interacted with any editor (no talk, user talk, etc. discussion) and they have been here since January. IMHO, this should fall under a username violation as confusing/misleading, get soft blocked and let them choose a new name. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 00:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Due to he fact that it has precipitated this discussion I concur that the user name is confusing and should be changed. That said, the type of edits would seem to indicate some significant past experience.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've filed it at WP:UAA. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
• I have filed in RFCN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ip user 129.27.202.101 blitzing wiki with duplicated text

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

---

ip user 129.27.202.101 is currently blitzing wiki with duplicated text. Looking at his history http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/129.27.202.101 it isnt the 1st time. In fact his entire editing history looks dubious as none have editing comments of any kind. Can someone look into this.--Penbat (talk) 16:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment: I noted similar behaviour a while ago. While not strictly vandalism in most cases, they seem to repeatedly overwrite citations with ones linked to the academic institution from which the IP originates. I have been unable to check in each case whether their sources provide the content required for the citation but in all cases, citations existed that were notable and sufficient.  drewmunn  talk  16:40, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The linked article is bollocks. I suggest that blacklisting the journal in question would probably be the best option. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

It isnt the first time. All edits done by this IP user during 2013 look screwy.--Penbat (talk) 16:47, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Virtually all the edits going back to the beginning of the year seem to be to papers by someone named Sahito, including add one as a reference that wasn't cited.[120]. I'd go for a block and revert. Dougweller (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Google Search - reverted twice, once with edit summary "18:06, 4 March 2013‎ Sonicdrewdriver (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (50,705 bytes) (-2,601)‎ . . (Undid revision 542076430 by 129.27.202.101 (talk) Reverting vandalism. 'STOP. You are incorrectly citing, and citing off topic bias.) (undo | thank)" Dougweller (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The content they were linking to at that time was useless, and I had warned them previously to not use that reference.  drewmunn  talk  17:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for 72 hours. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Original Research on 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season

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

---

On 2013–14 Arsenal F.C. season:. IP 2.221.89.155 does not respect the WP:RS in Results by Round section and is using WP:OR rather than the information in the Statto.com source provided. Also has ownership issues with any changes made that (s)he doesn't agree with. Lastly, also going against a previous discussion on WT:FOOTY - here, where it was agreed that the Premier League does not have "Rounds", so I renamed the section from Results by Round to League Performance, which IP did not like and reverted.

IP also added Starting 11, which on WT:FOOTY it was agreed by consensus that it's also WP:OR and should not be included, but if I remove, I am sure it will trigger another edit war. The IP does not respect WP:CON. I have tried to discuss but ignored. Thank you, JMHamo (talk) 18:41, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Both users blocked for 24 hours for violation of 3rr - the last reverts occurring after this had been brought here. Dpmuk (talk) 19:01, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I feel like I have to add to the discussion, since I had the same discussion with User:JMHamo before he started edit warring with the IP-user. Our discussions can be followed on my talk page and User talk:JMHamo. I tried to discuss with him that he was reverting 6 different users and that there has been an ongoing discussion about the "round" but he was very certain he was the one who was correct and even issued a warning as I interpreted was an effort to scare me off. This is not only on the Arsenal page but on almost every other page of brittish premier league (not only with User:JMHamo but mostly), seen for instance here,here or here or any of the edits here. It has also been discussion here without User:JMHamo. A debate that has been on a lot of places, I am sure i can find more. QED237 (talk) 19:29, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

And it just got edited here. I am affraid there will be a lot of edit warring between User:JMHamo and others when the block is over. Myself I have almost given up, but i feel the need to write in discussions. QED237 (talk) 19:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am not justifying the edit warring, but for what it's worth JMHamo's edit to remove the 'Startng XI' table is supported by consensus from the relevant WikiProject. GiantSnowman 19:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I can understand that even if I like the starting XI. But his changes in the round by round table is making people frustrated, and the thing is he dont make the same changes everywhere but on some pages, without good explanation (it has become better). I got the feeling he wanted to own the page for a while. Now editors are asking "why not here when it exists there". QED237 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

You are missing the point completely Qed. When there is a source given - Statto.com then you should respect it. Without a source it's WP:OR and can be challenged. The reason, I have not made the change on every Season article page is simply that I have not got around to doing it yet. JMHamo (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• And their EPL standing gives a different positioning than, say, the team results. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:32, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read WT:FOOTY discussion for some background. The English Premier League does not use a "Round" system due to clubs having domestic cup and European games. JMHamo (talk) 20:39, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• The Statto link you just provided above directly contradicts THEIR current EPL standings table. The Arsenal Results and Fixture page shows 18th place while the official EPL standing on EPL site shows them sitting in 16th place. Doesn't this make Statto stats not valid? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 20:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

How do you show progress over the course of a season that's not WP:OR? The Premier League table is always going to change as games are played, so how do you show historical league performance for all 20 clubs? I am not aware of any other source other than Statto.com that documents this. JMHamo (talk) 21:02, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• There are options on the EPL listing to list results at the end of a match day. For example, compare current standing at end of August 21 and at end of August 19. Also, EPL has their own standing viewable with regards to where each teams are after X matches played. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:11, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• You are always going to have this problem unless every team plays on the same date (or weekend) in each round. For example, Chelsea played Aston Villa tonight - which was actually a Week 3 match moved backwards - which means that all the Premiership teams won't have played the same number of games again until September 1st. And of course, this gets worse later in the season as matches are postponed due to the weather, domestic cups, etc. Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Exactly... which is why the Statto.com site is an excellent source for league position per match. The problem here is the definition of a "Round".. they don't really work in the English Premier League. JMHamo (talk) 21:28, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• We can say "at the end of play on the day in which this match was played", which would be unambiguous. This way you don't have to deal with teams not playing on the same day - for example, we can write in Chelsea's page that after their match against Aston Villa, they were sitting at 1st place (and Aston Villa in 5th). You also wouldn't have to go back and correct each of the pages when matches later in the week changes the positioning. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
• Also, because Statto.com has conflicting information between the standings and what they listed at Arsenal FC, I consider it unreliable and the Arsenal page info not valid. (And I gave the two links above, in case you were wandering.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 21:44, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I like your suggestion Penwhale but you have confused me. We can say at the end of play on the day in which this match was played at the bottom of the template but I would recommend using the Statto.com site, because it shows this exactly (no confusion) and backs up the unambiguous statement. JMHamo (talk) 21:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I must also say that I like the suggestion from Penwhale and i think that the absolute best to do is to use the leagues own source. I am all for that (and with a clarification at the bottom). The thing i dont know if it is best to use "matches played" or "matchday". QED237 (talk) 22:06, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Is this something to discuss at WT:FOOTY instead? QED237 (talk) 22:07, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am being thick.. could you show me where on the Premier League site they have the standings per game for each club? (not just Arsenal) JMHamo (talk) 22:12, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

We could either base the table on this which is table after all matches completed a certain day or this which is when all matches for every "round" is played. QED237 (talk) 22:20, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think the Premier League site is as User friendly or as accurate as Statto.com if you want to use the "at the end of play on the day in which this match was played" statement. For example, Fulham were 4th after all games finished on Saturday, 17th - as shown on Statto - Fulham Statto.com I can't see this on the Premier League site? JMHamo (talk) 22:50, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

• JMHamo: Did you even read why I did not want to use Statto.com? Their EPL standings has Arsenal at 16, which is different from their own team results page showing Arsenal at 18 (and note that the Chelsea - Aston Villa game doesn't affect the bottom of the standing). I consider Statto.com unreliable for this reason and would recommend either not using the Result by (date/match/whatever) or use the EPL's own standing. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 00:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder whether some of you are misinterpreting the Statto pages:

• their Arsenal results page shows them 18th after their first match, not 18th now. Their first match was played on 17 August, and the results page shows their position at the end of that day;
• their PL table as of now with Arsenal highlighted shows them, correctly, 16th now. Other matches were played on 18 and 19 August that affected the bottom end of the table;
• their PL table as of the end of 17 August when Arsenal played their first match (select date via dropdown menu) shows Arsenal 18th, consistent with the results page. Hope this helps, cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you Struway2 for your excellent summary of Statto - my thoughts exactly. Referring back to my earlier comment about Fulham and Struway2's comments, is why I feel strongly that we should make Statto.com the source for ALL English league clubs that use this template. There are clubs outside the Premier League, in lower leagues like Championship, League One and League Two that need a consistent Source too. For example, York City in League Two has listed Statto.com as the source in the Match Details - which I feel all season articles should use. I don't see a reason not to use Statto.com for all 92 clubs. JMHamo (talk) 08:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• And here's the EPL equivalency to the Statto page that you linked, Struway2. (I had not realized that the Statto page did exactly what I said.) However, as now there's a way to get the information straight from EPL site, wouldn't you say it's better to use that? - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 08:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

North Korean denier and BLP

Shin Dong-hyuk is a North Korean prison camp escapee who is famous as a representative of the human rights abuses in North Korea. He spoke at the UN yesterday (NYT), movies, TV, best selling book Escape from Camp 14, his wikipedia article gets 100s to 1000s of hits a day.

Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk#Corroboration has seen a long-term personal attack by User:Jack Upland against the subject of the article, Shin Dong-hyuk. Upland started the thread innocently asking for corroboration of Shin Dong-hyuk's story, which was provided, but he has refused to accept the conclusions of every single reliable source on this topic (South Korean Government, award winning journalists etc), and over the course of months revisits the page each time increasing his personal attacks on Shin Dong-hyuk, saying that Shin Dong-hyuk is a fraud who has never been to North Korea. Sources have been requested to support this crazy conspiracy theory, but Upland has provided only his own original research and crank theories that are frankly full of logic errors and massive leaps of conclusion. Basically he is engaging in negationism, most famously used by Holocaust deniers. Shin Dong-hyuk is like a Elie Wiesel of the Korean "Gulag" prison system, and like Wiesel and the Holocaust, Shin has attracted deniers and conspiracy theorists. If someone was calling Elie Wiesel a liar and fraud, that he never was in the holocaust, that person would be in a lot of trouble in Europe where such things are illegal. I also believe there may be socks involved should anyone want to investigate but it's not important. My main concern is the thread Talk:Shin Dong-hyuk#Corroboration be deleted from the permanent record so it doesn't continue to provide a forum for Upland's unsourced conspiracy theory and unsourced personal attacks on Shin Dong-hyuk. He gives the appearance of seeking the truth but in fact is just ignoring sources and repeating his personal belief that Shin Dong-hyuk is a liar. The thread is a violation of WP:BLP. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

So is your post. You're effectively Godwinizing a fellow editor. Voicing suspicion that someone is an impostor is not tantamount to holocaust denial. If you think he's a kooky conspiracy theorist, then why not just stop participating in the discussion? —Psychonaut (talk) 22:05, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page (e.g., Talk:Shin_Dong-hyuk#Corroboration)? User:Jack Upland appears to be violating WP:DE and WP:BLP. The problem of User:Jack Upland disruptively posting to the talk page of the BLP by repeatedly (WP:IDHT) alleging that the subject of the BLP is a fraud won't be rectified by the Green Cardamom "not ... participating in the discussion". JoeSperrazza (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I have read that thread, and no, I don't see any WP:DE or WP:BLP violations. He's expressing doubts and asking for further sources. He's entitled to do that. The only major problem I see is that the thread starts off with the aim of challenging or improving the sources in the article, and then drifts off into matters not obviously connected to writing an encyclopedia. That's the fault of everyone participating, not just Jack Upland. I suggest this matter can be dealt with simply by having someone close the thread. If he really thinks he's found the next Binjamin Wilkomirski or Laurel Rose Willson, then Wikipedia isn't the place to expose him. —Psychonaut (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Upland does more than voice suspicion, he calls Shin a liar, and denies that Shin was ever in North Korea. It is a systematic violation of WP:BLP over months-long period. If Upland had a source to support his position it would be different. There are no sources that say Shin is a liar. Every single source on this topic supports Shin's story as being accurate. Wikipedia is not the place to put forward and advance personal theories, in particular ones that are libelous and personal attacks on a living person. -- Green Cardamom (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

I am quite genuinely interested in the truth, and I began that post simply wanting corroboration. It rapidly became clear there wasn't any, and that many well-meaning advocates of Shin's story didn't even understand the concept. The more I read their posts, and read the book, the more I became convinced that Shin is an impostor, and that Harden is a sloppy, sensationalist journalist. I agree that Wikipedia is not a forum for such discussions, and I've tried not to argue for the sake of arguing my point of view. However, other users have continued to raise points which make false accusations against me, or (more importantly) underline the lack of corroboration, or (more importantly still) raise other points which should be addressed in the article. In fact, if other users had said, "Fair point. We need independent sources.", I would not have continued the discussion and would probably never have concluded Shin was fake. I think I have made my point, and agree to rest my case. However, I think deleting my posts is monstrously unfair. They will be archived soon in any case.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:17, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Even archived, they're WP:BLP violations, and BLP violations must be removed. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Death threats by SPA

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

---

Not too long ago, this kind gentleman has left this message on my talk page. This comment is this user's only edit, and is written entirely in Chinese. I don't have plenty of free time at the moment to translate this word by word myself, but here is a quick, rough machine translation to get the general idea.

Original

你死定了! 你他媽的幹拎娘機掰咧! 你以為你是誰啊? 你是老大嗎? 海外華人了不起啊? 海外華人就可以濫用權利欺負新手是不是? 你好大的膽子，我看你是不想活了。我警告你，你下次敢再來找我麻煩試試看，信不信我100%絕對會殺了你，別以為我在跟你開玩笑。

Google Translate

You're dead! You carry your mother fucking machine breaking dry blanket! You think you are? You are the boss do? Overseas Chinese terrific ah? Abuses overseas Chinese can not cast aside novice? Hello great courage, I see you do not want to live. I warn you, the next time you dare to come to me trouble try, believe it or not I am 100% definitely will kill you, do not think I'm joking with you.

Now, whilst I am relatively certain that this is most likely a harmless angry rant by an edgy teenager, who is probably upset because I might have reverted his nationalistic POV edits to some kind of controversial regional Asian dispute article within the past year or something along those lines, I would just like to double-check to be certain, as to whether or not I should just ignore this rant and stay at ease, or if this person's comments can be potentially serious. Would it be too unreasonable for me to request a checkuser to confirm whether the user's IP address is from my country or not? I'm not asking for information that is too specific, I'd just like to know whether or not this person is from a different country to me, a simple "yes" or "no" answer, so I can decide between getting over this silly comment and relaxing per usual, or whether I should be more worried than I currently am. Thanks. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 00:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have indef blocked that Youpho account but it is an obvious SPA and most probably a sock. If a checkuser could help to find the sockpuppet master it would help. Whether you want or not to involve police in this matter it is up to you (I personally would not), but I think Wikipedia checkusers would cooperate with investigation if require. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to bother reporting anything, it's not worth my time if it's just a simple prank. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• He is about as far away from you as he can get. I am going to let the WMF know anyway, not sure if they would like to report this. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I guess I can sleep comfortably tonight then. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 01:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's a bit of colloquial chinese involved, most likely Taiwanese, but effectively translates to

You're dead! You mother fucker! Who do you think you are? The boss? Are expat Chinese that great? So expat chinese can abuse their privileges to bully newbies (or bite the newbies as it were)? How dare you, you must not want to live. Let me warn you, the next time you dare to trouble me, believe it or not I am 100% definitely going to kill you, do not think I'm joking with you.

which google translate largely got correct. Just thought I'd tidy up the grammar a bit. However, I also feel that there is something else behind it. Some of the phrasing is awfully clunkky. Blackmane (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How did it get "You carry your mother fucking machine breaking dry blanket!" from "You mother fucker"? Are there some ambiguous characters? Nyttend (talk) 23:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:Mamadoudiabate

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

---

Mamadoudiabate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Has extensibly edited what I assume is his autobiography, insisting on terms like "world greatest kora player" (diff) without attribution. I attempted to explain why he can't do that, and it looks bad when people are puffing up articles about them. Not to mention the broken English and formatting errors. The user has already been blocked for disruptive editing before, but I can't characterize this as vandalism so perhaps another preventive block would encourage him to engage in some discussion. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:05, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what brought this edit on but calling other people "racist cold hard devils" is certainly disruption. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unsourced BLP (not originally created by, but significantly edited by User:Mamadoudiabate). User warned again, also about autobios. Unsourced since 2008. I'm looking for sources and if I can't find any I'll PROD it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User's talk page needs archiving

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

---

I see that the talk page for User:Doncram has reached a length of almost 700K and that several other users have removed content (possibly by accident, and likely due at least in part to the huge size of the page) when posting there. Doncram has reverted those deletions and has not added to his talk page archives in the last several months. I have no idea why he quit archiving, and no one can force him to archive his page, but it appears from the page history that the situation is becoming a problem for other people who want to communicate with him. I imagine that the length of the page is a source of aggravation for the WP:AFC volunteers who post there. It would be nice if someone could politely suggest to Doncram that he should resume archiving. --Orlady (talk) 01:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As you say, nobody can make him archive, but we do have {{utverylong}} for suggesting that he do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Apply social pressure - don't process his AFC requests until his talk page is "more reasonable". Ravensfire (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Just a reminder that Doncram is under indefinite general editor probation. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

How about you just leave him alone and wait for someone else, preferably someone without a personal vendetta against him, to raise these concerns?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• It might help to inform (required) Doncram of this ANI report. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• What would help is for an admin to simply close this frivolous report. I do not see evidence that anyone has so much as discussed the issue with him, especially not Orlady. No policy forces archiving of user talk pages so it isn't an issue for administrators to address in the first place.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, when an editor is under general probation, every aspect of their behavior can be subject to examination. I do agree, however, that considering the relationship between them, Orlady really ought not to be reporting Doncram at AN/I for what is, at the very worst, an extremely minor problem. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me Kudpung and thank you TDA and BYK and others for your considerate remarks. I appreciate that ANI participants have to sort out complicated situations, and your receiving an ANI report from an administrator long-involved in conflict with the targeted editor calls for some discussion, even when the report seems to be frivolous. It is disturbing/depressing to see support/calls for punishment against me for doing nothing wrong, but I appreciate you all have to try to sort it out.

If there is a problem with the AFC tools that break on a long Talk page (I am not aware that there is, but perhaps there could be a pagesize limit that should be identified as causing problems), then that is a technical issue that should be brought up somewhere far from ANI. If there is an actual technical report made about that in some appropriate forum, please someone inform me.

This seems to be an unpleasant stunt by Orlady, a small but real violation of wp:harassment policy: "Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, repeated annoying and unwanted contacts, repeated personal attacks, intimidation, or posting personal information." / "Harassment can also include actions calculated to be noticed by the target and clearly suggestive of targeting them, where no direct communication takes place."

The above-linked arbitration includes cautions/suggestions to Orlady not to pursue harassment against me, which were expressed in workpages by several parties, if I recall correctly. The final report included, about Editor interactions: "5) ... Unseemly conduct, such as personal attacks, incivility, assumptions of bad faith, harassment, disruptive point-making, and gaming the system, is prohibited."

I imagine that Orlady might wish to provoke me to say something that ANI participants can use further against me. There is danger that whatever I say will be used against me. I will say, nonetheless, that Orlady is acting out, in this and other small incidents that I have not responded to, what I personally do experience as harassment. Which are harassment. ANI telling Orlady clearly to stop with petty harassment, would be appreciated by me. Otherwise I see no issue worthy of ANI here, and likely will not respond further. --doncram 13:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

My apologies for not pointing out that Doncram does not allow me to communicate with him. That's why I didn't notify him on his talk page. However, my linking his userid here should have alerted him to the discussion. --Orlady (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [This posting encountered an edit conflict with the closure of this discussion Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)]

@Orlady: - that is no excuse. It says quite clearly that you must notify them, regardless of any 'ban' a user has placed on you posting on their talk page. GiantSnowman 14:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, the last time I notified him of an AN discussion, the AN discussion was temporarily derailed into a discussion of his objections to my having posted the notice on his talk page. My sole objective here was to find someone who does not have a history with Doncram and whose opinions he would respect to talk to him about that page. I don't believe that anyone I might have contacted individually would have fit that description. I am pleased to see that he archived his talk page. I was hoping that this could happen with a minimum of aggravation and confrontation. --Orlady (talk) 14:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I can understand how you were 'once bitten, twice shy' by the reaction at the last AN..."derailment" as you put it. It should not have put you off, and so a serious trouting to anyone who was critical of you for simply following explicit instructions and notifying the editor in question. GiantSnowman 16:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Possible rangeblock in Kolkata area?

• Special:Contributions/117.194.226.87
• Special:Contributions/117.194.254.159
• Special:Contributions/117.194.227.188
• Special:Contributions/117.194.252.255
• Special:Contributions/117.194.225.25
• Special:Contributions/117.194.244.48
• Special:Contributions/117.194.253.9
• Special:Contributions/117.194.235.115
• Special:Contributions/117.194.225.22
• Special:Contributions/117.194.239.179
• Special:Contributions/117.194.238.227

The above and many more more are all the same person, based in Kolkata and using the BSNL ISP. They have admitted to being B de2002 (talk · contribs) and were initially contributing to family articles such as Basanta Kumar De, Barun De and Jyotish Chandra De. They've since moved on to articles such as Kumar Suresh Singh and Obaid Siddiqi, changing dates, adding unsourced material, writing hagiography etc. While some articles have been semi-protected, we could go on for ever here. Since they have admitted who they are - eg: here - they are not sockpuppeting.

I don't understand why they are not logging in and I don't understand why all of these are static IPs yet they are changing almost by the hour. Qwyrxian did ask about the logging-in issue but I'm afraid that I cannot find it among the huge number of IP addresses that they have been using. Is there scope for some sort of range block here? My suspicion is that the range will be too big and this report is too vague but I'm getting a bit fed up of it. - Sitush (talk) 06:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Another option might be semi-protecting those three articles, if not done already. --Tito☸Dutta 06:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC) Semi is a nice idea. --Tito☸Dutta 06:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Some have been - Kumar Suresh Singh, for example - but this has the potential to run and run. - Sitush (talk) 06:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) (off) You can send those guys who are eager to talk to me, De family is a notable Bengali family. --Tito☸Dutta 06:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• In India, one way to explain the IP hopping would be an ISP's use of carrier-grade NAT, where these are the outgoing public IPs.--Jasper Deng (talk) 06:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Centre for Studies in Social Sciences seems like another of theirs. I can't help but think this person has some connection with academic life. - Sitush (talk) 06:30, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• A range block of BSNL in Kolkata isn't the best option, many many institutes, colleges, and universities use BSNL and the collateral damage is likely worse than playing whack-a-mole. Just ping me on my TP with individual pages and I'll sprotect them based on the need. —SpacemanSpiff 06:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks SpacemanSpiff; I've already probably crossed over to "involved", although on some of the articles its still questionable. But having someone else to do the protecting makes it safe on all sides. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Taeyebaar switching back and forth between accounts

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

This user continually switched back and forth between being signed in as Taeyebaar and using the IP 192.0.173.58. Best evidence is this edit by the IP here followed by the fact it was then signed less than a minute later by Taeyebaar as seen here. As the IP he has put Taeyebaar-type info into Speculative fiction‎, Space opera, Science fiction, Space Western, Space Cowboys and others. After being reverted, he came back later on the first two to reinsert his edits as Taeyebaar.

This user is building a history of putting non-sourced or poorly sourced info into articles. One of his dubious sources for Lord of the Flies was turned down at WP:RSN as can be seen here, but he continued edit warring at Speculative fiction, Space opera and others. - Gothicfilm (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

These allegations are baseless and in response to my complaints against him for wp:stalk[121]. The IP address is indeed mine, there is nothing to hide and there are no edit wars. The complaint on my edits to space opera was my choice of words, not because I had "edit warred."

The edit I had made was re-worded multiple times, but not removed, until orangegmike deleted them all together, which I was gonna delete anyways since I was not satisfied with it being re-worded. This user tries to twist around other peoples disputes to serve his purpose. Gothicfilm has been stalking me since July on baseless grounds that I "changed genres" when i only added adjectives to them- even if with reference. He looks through my contributions and edit wars with me on topics he has never himself worked on before. I advise admins to contact user:Alex Bakharev for more details regarding this issue.-Taeyebaar (talk) 06:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

What's baseless is the sock puppet investigation you tried to instigate against two long standing editors who both reverted your edits. Just because we both agreed about the merits of what you're doing you want to charge User:TheOldJacobite with being or creating a sock puppet, as can be seen ongoing with your latest edit there. Since User:Orangemike and User:Staszek Lem both reverted you at Space opera, are you going to charge them with being sock puppets as well? - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:13, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Last comment I am not the only one this individual has edit warred against.[122]. He's edit warred before and used attack language at other editors. (see my previous complaints against him). Taeyebaar (talk) 07:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

45 minutes ago Taeyebaar continued to edit war again at Space Cowboys, reinserting another unsourced genre change (over two edits) he had earlier put in as the IP. I have given him WP:3RR warnings for both that page and Lord of the Flies. Then, as the IP he said I'll keep doing the IP editing, unless I am in violation of policy as seen here, which he then did at Science fantasy as seen here. So whether it was deliberate before or not, he is now deliberately switching back and forth between accounts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Using both an IP and a named account to edit the same articles, especially to edit war, is basically sockpuppetry even if it is known who the master account is. Taeyebaar should be blocked until they understand that the use of both their account and IP is not acceptable. Blackmane (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Without saying what is happening here is ok or not ok I don't think the problem is editing with both an IP and username, as long as it's widely known that they're both the same person. Many people edit from work from time to time on an IP without logging on (I do at least) and sometimes the same articles they've edited before. I agree it's a bad idea if you're editing something potentially controversial but I just wanted to make sure I wasn't doing something I'm not supposed to based on my understanding of the rules. 207.164.152.162 (talk) 17:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

When I look at the edit history of a WP page, I want to know if the same person did more than one edit there. If you're switching back and forth between accounts, then that is obscured, even hidden, unless I do some digging. Your own judgment of whether something is potentially controversial might be disputed. Your own Talk page shows someone disputed one of your IP edits and reverted it. It is possible to sign in at work. You're aware we can't tell who you are/what your WP account is even on your posting here, right? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It was my understanding that it was possible to have alternative accounts as long as they are acknowledged on your User Page and you do not use the alternative account to disrupt, vote twice or otherwise misbehave. There is even a category designation Category:Wikipedians with alternative accounts that you can add to your Userpage. I know I have a standard IP account which my contributions default to if I have forgotten to log in. It's listed on my User Page. Here's a list of legitimate uses for a second account: Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses. Liz ^{Let's Talk} 23:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

That's another subject. Taeyebaar did not reveal that he was using two accounts until I posted the notice here. He put the same disputed info more than once into at least three articles from two different accounts. - Gothicfilm (talk) 02:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Alright, I'll confess one more thing, I partially did it to avoid this "gothicfilm" and his possible sock accounts since he (or she) searches through my contributions and reverts me on every second article I edit (this has been going on since July) However, I never revert warred on IP accounts, nor did I pretend to be "somebody" else, so I don't see sockpuppetry charge, unless this is a "payback" for my suspicions on gothicfilm being a sockpuppet. Taeyebaar (talk) 06:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Is it possible for an admin to see both our contributions to confirm/deny that user:goticfilm follows me around wikipedia just to revert me? Maybe an admin can add our contributions to their watchlist. Taeyebaar (talk) 06:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bingo1on1

User made personal attack. Please block. Also please block Sampanchaa (talk · contribs), who is a sockpuppet. Insulam Simia (talk) 09:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked both accounts and deleted one of the articles she/he was trying to "save" from speedy deletion by removing the CSD tags in concert. I think the other article you rescued from CSD (Savio D'Sa) should also be deleted under WP:CSD#A7, but I'll leave that one at AfD since it was an uninvolved user who declined the CSD. Qwyrxian (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Vandal on the loose

Could somebody please investigate User talk:Amanbir Singh Grewal, (sorry just a talk page) for multiple vandalism. Think a blockage may be in order, but not within my remit. Thanks Brendandh (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

People. I need a hand here? Brendandh (talk) 13:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days for blatant edit-warring. I have unclosed this thread because I wouldn't mind a second opinion on whether this should be an indef per WP:NOTHERE or whether this very new editor deserves a second chance. JohnCD (talk) 15:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I looked through the edit history and I can see very little sign that this individual has a clue about, or much interest in, building an encyclopedia. I'd support an indef. Ben MacDui 18:00, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

it is a vandalism only account, block indef. before he made a user the guy was vandalizing for days with various IPs: [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], and also he threatens and insults the editors cleaning up after him: "i asked not to come here but it seems you only understand things when you lose blood. you are like a donkey - i have to kill to get stuff into that smart mind of yours.". As this has been going on for days now and he has gone over all kinds of pages I suggest to revert/block on sight. noclador (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

It's probably a sockpuppet of blocked accounts User:Amanbir Singh and User:Corsika. Peter James (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Block-evading sockpuppet

My laptop's in bad shape, so I can't open an SPI, but this user is a block-evading sock of a couple of other accounts that appear to be posing as IPs (325.7I52.884.921). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

For the record, although this is as yet an unsolved mystery, my theory is that this person, whoever he is, is an anti-Shinto POV-pusher, and is trying to associate this religion with unpopular politicians and military men, and hiding behind multiple accounts made to deceptively look like IPs in order to accomplish this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Colton Cosmic

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

---

• 174.226.64.130 (talk)
• Self-admitted; here

Block and begone, IMO. Tarc (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Canvassing email accidentally pasted into an AFD

Yuvalg9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Over at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rashumon, Yuvalg9 has pasted in a canvassing notice that looks like it was meant for some off Wikipedia forum or email list. This article has a history of sock and meat puppting you can read about at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Photopinka/Archive. I'm not sure what to do in this kind of circumstance. Would it be appropriate for me to request semiprotection of the AFD? - MrOllie (talk) 13:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have seen what Yuvalg9 has published and reverted it. I am aware that he was not supposed to do so. Michael.haephrati (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I wonder who could have posted the original message... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yea, that's pretty cut n dried block-worthy right there. Tarc (talk) 15:01, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm tempted to send this back over to SPI, given the history of sockpuppetry (and the fact that one of the previously identified socks has a name that matches User:Michael.haephrati.) This nails it, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Aha, nevermind, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Photopinka. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. The AFD is now semi protected. Good find with the Amiga forum post. - MrOllie (talk) 16:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning

Can some uninvolved admins please keep and eye on Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning and the talkpage. We have a high profile BLP whose subject has today announced a change of gender and what name the article should be at, what pronouns should be used in the article and which policies apply are generating tension; the article has already had five moves today and some of the comment on the talkpage is getting heated. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that there are no legal papers or documentation affirming an actual change of gender, and that the subject has not used the name in any known legal capacity as far as I can determine. Collect (talk) 15:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the move was premature at best, but I'm more worried about the behavior of some editors in BLP/N and the article's talk page who seem to think that anyone who objects to it is a "transphobe". Definite dearth of AGF there. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 15:36, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And editors opposed to the new name are also being called ignorant.--v/r - TP 15:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Collect, please don't bring the argument about the name here. The issue (including the points you've raised) is being actively discussed on the article's talk page, and that's where it should stay. This thread here on WP:ANI is just a request for more administrator eyes on the discussion to handle any necessary policy enforcement (WP:NPA and the like, I suppose). —Psychonaut (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

We also need people to keep an eye on the article feedback, where some inappropriate comments have been popping up. — Scott • talk 21:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A mega RM debate is already underway. The article has also had two attempted copy & paste moves. As Bradley Manning is currently edit protected this just resulted in a redirect loop; however the other c&p move went for Bradley manning. We're probably going to need more protections all over the place whilst this one rages. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Plus Edit warring and the first block I can spot on this. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I would strongly advise all admins to cease fire and allow time for consensus to develop. Technically WP:WHEEL has already been violated at least once here, and even a single instance can lead to being desysopped by ArbCom. nobody wins when admins wheel war, so please just don't do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

  Actually, it hasn't necessarily been violated at least once. David Gerard (talk · contribs) believed he was reverting a move based on BLP, which is a valid exception to wheel-warring. That is, unless, of course, you're arguing that I was the "at least once", which seems like a hard case to make, given WP:RMT explicitly allowing requests reversing undiscussed moves (and, by definition, admins to act in accordance with them). -- tariqabjotu 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• This is going to be a contentious close, because the closing admin will have to weigh up both consensus and policy/best practice. I'd therefore like to preempt any dispute about an involved closure to ask that none of the admins who took admin action on the article today (or, obviously, who edited it or expressed a view anywhere) be involved in closing the move request. The best thing would be to post a request on WP:AN/RFC for someone entirely uninvolved to make the close. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:20, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I've asked on WP:AN/RFC for an admin with no involvement in this article to oversee and close the RM. That will hopefully head off any problems in a week's time. If someone here or there would be willing to volunteer, that would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:45, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• BD2412 has agreed to close it; see his comment below. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I gather you haven't seen Slate? Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations, Perfectly Reflects Chelsea Manning’s New Gender Liz ^{Let's Talk} 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The UK news sites appear to be considerably more on-the-ball than their US brethren, who are presumably the whole world to Slate bloggers. In the UK, even the Daily Mail article is consistently "Chelsea", "her", "she" - David Gerard (talk) 20:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• On a related tip, my attempt to move Gender identity disorder to Gender dysphoria to be in compliance with WP:MEDMOS and the DSM-V has been reverted. Could I get an expedited move back, or does everybody have to suffer through a seven day WP:RM process with the same results? Abductive (reasoning) 20:42, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Note: there were discussions in July at the medicine project on this issue, and a decision was made to keep it at GID. I'd suggest opening up an RM. DSM-V is an American framework for example, so I think we need discussion and arguments from all sides on that one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• The move by Abductive was made without consensus; a requested move (not page move warring) is the appropriate way to handle this discussion. CaseyPenk (talk) 20:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

In the context of the discussion there someone uploaded the file File:Bradleywomanning.jpg. Besides having uncertain copyright status, the filename appears to be a jab at the subject of the photo. If the file is to be kept, could I ask an administrator to rename it to something more neutral? —Psychonaut (talk) 20:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• LFaraone moved it to File:Chelsea Manning with wig.jpg. I've deleted the old name as G10. — Scott • talk 21:17, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Page title war

Ok so this has something to do with the previous discussion of Chelsea Manning/Bradley Manning but not the same points. There were several over redirects on the article and the ongoing dispute upon the page [130][131][132][133]. Now I understand that the original move was bold but the first revert should have started a discussion should it have not? All individuals involved will be notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

All individuals for this posting have been notified. Tivanir2 (talk) 16:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So, I've been accused on the talk page of abusing my admin bit, which is puzzling, since I wasn't aware that moves over redirects with no history needed it. Someone is demanding I apologise to Wikipedia for it, even! I got an apology from the person who did that first revert - they'd assumed it was vandalism. Since then there has been a quite active WP:RM discussion. I'm not sure what admin action is required - despite all the repetitive tendentious policy-ignoring arguments it's not got to the stage of banhammering people yet, surely? Morwen (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(EC) What administrator action is necessary here? The back-and-forth moving has stopped and the matter is being discussed on the article's talk page. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:03, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Funny I am not involved anywhere and don't really care about the current dispute. I noticed something that was on going after the talk page made a point of saying that it would need to be brought to the attention of ANI since these were administrator actions. Further I am not requesting admin action of this but instead admins to actually watch what is currently going on since the last time it changed over was a mere 4 hours ago. While this may have stopped permanently (one could only hope) if it should flare up again or someone decide to do something unilateral then it can be addressed with previous behavior identified. Tivanir2 (talk) 17:10, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The only issue I see here is with David's last revert. Standard operating procedure, as suggested by WP:RMT, is to revert undiscussed page moves that are likely to be controversial, upon request. David invoked BLP in reversing that technical move [which I performed], so his action does not meet the mens rea element of being wrong, but I am struggling to understand how WP:BLP applies in this instance at all. In the ongoing move request, most of the supporters of the Chelsea Manning title cite MOS:IDENTITY instead (no comment on the applicability of that to the article title), and those who invoke WP:BLP, including David, have failed to elaborate upon what part of that policy the Bradley Manning title violates. -- tariqabjotu 17:15, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Administrative note: Since I have no interest in the outcome of the RM discussion, I have volunteered to shepherd it for the duration, and close it in ~ seven days. In the long run of decades and centuries, it really doesn't matter where this article sits for the length of an RM discussion, so long as the title is not libelous or nonsensical. bd2412 T 21:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

The title is nonsensical. It's a violation of wikipedia sourcing rules. And the admins who continue to abuse wikipedia by reverting and reshaping the article according to their personal opinion, should have their admin privileges revoked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

As the above is utterly characteristic of Bugs' lack of AGF on this issue - essentially arguing that anyone disgreeing with them should be severely punished - I propose Bugs be topic banned for the duration. It's a contentious debate already, and Bugs' contributions (off-colour jokes, attacks on the integrity of Manning's lawyer) are adding vastly more heat than light. AlexTiefling (talk) 23:28, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And Bugs has also demanded my apology for supposedly abusing my admin powers, when I've not even used my admin bit in the entire thing. Anyone could have done what I did. Morwen (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't have any dog in this fight, but I just find it interesting that this was changed instantly, whereas the RM on A. J. Allmendinger failed despite their being plenty of evidence his preferred styling is 'AJ' because "the majority of sources" (before he changed how he styles it) use punctuation. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban for Baseball Bugs?

The longer I work on the talk page of Chelsea Manning the more egregious comments I see from Baseball Bugs (talk · contribs) including: [134] [135] [136] [137] [138]. The BLP violations, Tenacious Editing, Personal Attacks against the article's subject and Wikilawyering are not hard to see. Would it be possible to topic ban Bugs from this BLP per this Arbitration remedy? --Guerillero | My Talk 04:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking at those links in isolation, which admittedly has the potential of stripping context, I would say that he is making an ass out of himself but might not be crossing the line such that that remedy comes into play. In my humble opinion, of course. But his evident zealotry is concerning and if I was a betting man, I'd predict a community invoked topic ban is inevitable at some point if he doesn't tone it down. Resolute 04:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd thank God if I were you that gambling only comes to those who wish to profit. I believe Bugs attempted to speak truth to advocate. A hard task indeed. †TE†Talk 04:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Resolute. Some of what he's posted in those diffs is just strongly-worded argument, and some of it is rather snarky, tasteless, and dirsepectful, but none of it alone rises to the level of banworthiness. But if you look way up and squint your eyes right, you can see a tiny speck which must be a big banhammer falling from the sky. I sure hope he steps out of the way before it makes impact. —Psychonaut (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the more egregious things he has said have been missed: [139], [140], [141] and [142]. Frankly, personal attacks like these warrant a block, not just a topic ban, as it can spill over into other parts of the site very easily. There is also a good deal of political bias laden in his comments, from what I have seen, such as his "The Guardian hates the US" comment, which also makes this a conflict of interest issue. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm also going to call out User:Tarc for a couple of rather vulgar comments on the same page: [143] and [144]. I know it's not quite relevant, but I'd rather this be nipped in the bud with what are serious personal attack and COI issues. Haipa Doragon (talk) 07:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The advocate-admins have already hijacked the page, and now they want to lock it down from any challenges to their own biased viewpoints, despite their blatant violations of the rules about sourcing and their twisting of facts to make a bogus "manual of style" argument. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Close the RM discussion early (IAR)?

(@BD2412:) Given that that:

1. the Manning page is currently very highly trafficked;
2. this move is causing controversy in a number of areas across the 'pedia and is very visible (linked from Main page);
3. the move discussion is very highly contributed to; and
4. there is a high degree of homogeneity in !votes on both sides

... can the RM at the Manning page be wrapped up early per WP:IAR? I don't foresee any new insights arriving and it would be better to decide the matter than to let it go on for a week IMO. I'd suggest closing it 24hrs from the when it was posted (as opposed to 7 days as per a regular RM). --RA (✍) 01:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There's a search on for multiple admins to eventually close it so this would be premature. And I suspect some people are holding back on commenting a few days to see what the actual trend in the sources is. An early close would just be one extra controversy that isn't needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"...to see what the actual trend in the sources is..." Which itself indicates the move was premature.

We can always return to question of moving it to Chelsea Manning (if the result of this RM is to restore the original title) but it doesn't serve the project to have a mess like this on a highly visible article. Mop it up quickly for now and get it right next time. --RA (✍) 01:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An early close will be just as problematic; it will create the appearance of wanting to cement an existing voting trend before other editors have a full and fair opportunity to discover the discussion, weigh in, and set forth all arguments to be considered. This is not a WP:SNOW situation, where one outcome is inevitable. bd2412 T 01:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think an early close would be the right thing to do, do you really want this mess to drag out for the next 7 days? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal. The current title of the article is, in my opinion, inappropriate, but it's not a crime or a BLP violation or a whatever other extravagant catastrophe people are claiming. With redirects, no one will have trouble finding the article anyway. The overly motivated editors are going to rage without respect to whether the formal argument is closed or not. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note however (just to get it out there in advance) that I will not be opposed to closing the argument early if discussion has clearly petered out, or if it clearly becomes a WP:SNOW situation, or if it becomes so ugly and uncivil that blocks are being handed out left and right. This is not, by the way, a call to make it ugly and uncivil, as that will end up being all the worse for those who engage in bad behavior. bd2412 T 02:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit strange that this article was controversialy moved and then frozen by a byrocratic procedure for seven days while at the same time being featured on the main page... Normal procedure would be to revert and the discuss the new name. Space simian (talk) 02:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That is true, there was no consensus to move the page to Chelsea in the first place, some editor just did it and the wars started with the page frozen in it's place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Seashell Bay: personal attack and signature forgery

Seashell Bay (talk · contribs). Seashell Bay is a new user account that has been given templated general notice, caution and warning (by another user and me) for making repeated unsourced edits. Warnings that the user responded to by making a personal attack [145] and forging my signature on a fake block notice [146]. Which, in my book at least, is not acceptable behaviour, so maybe an admin could take a look at it. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 16:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I have indeffed the account, they do not appear here to build an encyclopedia and the use of the block template for a 'new' user was also very suspicious. GiantSnowman 16:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Hoax Debanjan Deb

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

---

Someone created Debanjan Deb, which is a deliberate hoax and is being discussed at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Debanjan_Deb. The editor is continuously making non-contructive edits. Has been given a bunch of warnings including last warnings. Tito☸Dutta 17:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• I went ahead and blocked. The account's entire contribution has been creating the hoax and then trying to disrupt the deletion process. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. --Tito☸Dutta 18:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And I deleted the article as a hoax. Please feel free to close the AfD. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Closed. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:23, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

False accusations of 'edit warring' from User:Me_and

Whether through malice, or sheer incompetence, I don't know, but User:Me_and recently reported me for alleged 'edit warring' in the contentious Chelsea/Bradley Manning article at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:AndyTheGrump reported by User:Me and (Result: ) The diffs were as follows:

17:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [147] Where I reverted (once) an edit which changed (amongst other things) the name in the infobox from that in the title - I wasn't the first to revert this change, nor the last, and it was clearly inappropriate for the article to be inconsistent, regardless of the eventual decision as to the way we name Manning.

15:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [148], 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [149] - Reverts of two malformed edits by the same person. One misspelled a person's name, and the other attempted to insert a redirect into the body of the article text.

21:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [150] A revert (from almost a day ago) where I removed unsourced POV text added to the lede without discussion.

20:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [151] A revert of a poorly-worded 'proofreading' that contained multiple grammatical and stylistic errors.

15:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [152] Removal of text which duplicated material already added earlier.

As can be seen, the edits in question spanned a period of well over 24 hours, and were by no stretch of the imagination intended to enforce a particular point of view, or even confined to the same section of the article. Several merely corrected mistakes. Others were simple edits made in the normal course of editing. I have asked User:Me_and to apologise for accusing me of edit warring, but although the user has half-heartedly 'withdrawn' the complaint, this has been done so in a manner that implies that he/she still thinks that I was edit warring. Which I self-evidently wasn't. I ask that at minimum User:Me_and be admonished for posting this malicious and ill-founded complaint, and be formally warned that any future such behaviour is liable to result in sanctions. I can see no legitimate reason why such behaviour should be tolerated - it amounts to little more than harrasment. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I reported AndyTheGrump for a 3RR breach after reporting IFreedom1212 for the same. Although I think AndyTheGrump's edits were far more reasonable, 3RR is a clear line, and it seemed to me that he breached it.

I'd spotted he'd made a number of reverts, and used Twinkle to check if he had crossed the line. Admittedly I didn't properly check the edits Twinkle listed, else I'd have skipped one for being obviously non-contentious (which I've already noted at WP:AN3), and the 15:25 edit for being clearly outside the 24h limit (although I didn't spot that until seeing AndyTheGrump's report at ANI pointing out the timespan). That's my fault for not checking what the tool told me properly (and I'll be sure to be more paranoid about using it in future), but that still leaves four reverts within a 24 hour period.

I've explained this to AndyTheGrump on my talk page, and I've pointed out on WP:AN3 that the block is no longer useful since the page in question has been fully protected.

Had I checked the logs from Twinkle properly, I probably wouldn't have made the 3RR report. However I stand by it – while it's now considerably more borderline, I think it's still over the border.

—me_and 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder whether we have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here... AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Meant to say that part of my reason for checking for other editors breaching WP:3RR was my fear of my report of IFreedom1212 being seen as malicious, since their edits were largely reverts of changes I'd made. —me_and 19:35, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, where does WP:3RR say that the reverts must be in furtherance of a particular point of view, or confined to a single section of the article? From what I can tell the rule prohibits any four or more reverts on a single page, whether or not each revert changes the same material, and whether or not it's to the same section of the page. I don't see anything about pushing a point of view. It seems that you've technically violated the policy, and me_and was within his or her rights to report you for it. I don't think you made these reverts with the intention of edit warring, and I don't think you should be blocked for them; however, I do think you're wrong that me_and's report was baseless. Why don't you just withdraw this report, the same way that me_and withdrew theirs, and then we can all just get back to editing? —Psychonaut (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry? You are suggesting that removing a spelling mistake is a 'revert'? Removing an attempt to insert a redirect into the middle of an article is a 'revert? That is ridiculous. And if that is the policy, Wikipedia can stick it where the sun don't shine - I edited in the best interests of the encyclopaedia and its readers, and if Wikilayering shits don't like it, they can do without me. I'm not interested in playing games with arseholes who are more concerned with bureaucratic bullshit than with producing an online encyclopaedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A revert is a revert, whether it's removing (or restoring) an entire section or just a tiny typographical error:

A 'revert' means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.

But WP:3RR doesn't say that more than three reverts automatically leads to a block. What you were doing didn't seem disruptive, and I doubt any administrator would have blocked or even warned you for it. Especially since it was withdrawn, you could have simply ignored the report. Surely that would have been a better way of avoiding "bureaucratic bullshit" than stirring up more of it on WP:ANI. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I've got a better idea - I should probably ignore Wikipedia altogether, and leave it to the amateur-bureaucratic trolls that run the place. Only a complete imbecile would think that revering spelling errors constitutes edit-warring. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:19, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Having had a mug of tea and a sit down: AndyTheGrump, I'm sorry for putting in that report. While I maintain you were in breach of the policy, the breach was a technicality and I've never thought your behaviour was war-like. My motivation for the report was partly covering myself against being seen as biased in my report of IFreedom1212, but that should have been for me to deal with and shouldn't have impacted on you.

I object to being accused of being malicious, and as Psychonaut noted, I don't believe my report was ill-founded. Incompetence I'll agree with, though, and have already admitted to; I'll make sure not to blindly trust Twinkle in that way again.

In the interest of getting back to editing, I'd like to draw a line under this now, although I understand that's no longer a decision solely for me to make.

—me_and 20:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd stop digging, your behaviour, whilst only mildly upsetting to a user like Andy, could be seriously off putting and upsetting to a new, inexperienced user. If you're unable to properly interpret data from TWINKLE, please stop using it rather than running around apologising, by which point the damage could be done. Nick (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Meanwhile, something for the rule-mongers to contemplate. One of the exceptions to WP:3RR is as follows: "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material that violates the policy on biographies of living persons..." One of my edits [153] removed an unsourced assertion (in Wikipedia's voice) that Manning is a "human rights activist and political prisoner". Would anyone like to Wikilawyer an argument to the effect that the statement isn't 'contentious'? No, I don't think so.... That leaves, five 'reverts' - more than 24 hours apart. So even by the deranged Wikilayers rules that are being argued for, I've not broken WP:3RR here, unless one counts reverting a spelling mistake and/or an attempt to insert a redirect slap bang in the middle of the article... Of course, if anyone wishes to look through my edit history, I'm sure they will find WP:3RR 'violations', since, as I've pointed out several times on this noticeboard (amongst other places), with big 'breaking news' stories, WP:3RR often has to be ignored, to avoid articles being swamped by misinformation, vandalism, and just plain incompetence. In such circumstances, what actually matters is maintaining standards, not maintaining rules - and anyone unwilling to accept that WP:IAR trumps WP:3RR when for instance making this sort of edit [154] should seriously think whether they should be editing Wikipedia at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless the 3RR complainant has additional diffs to cite, I don't see any 3RR violation here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:46, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with AndyTheGrump that an overly strict interpretation of what a revert is is not helpful to the project, and that the correction of simple errors such as misspellings and formatting mistakes should not count as a revert for the purposes of determining edit-warring. Editors should, however, make those kinds of changes separate from content-dispute reverts, so that it's clear that they are not part of the dispute. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Banned User Repeatedly Returns

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

---

An editor, banned for various things (including threatening an Admin who intervened) has returned as a new sockpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Patriots49ers

He deleted my ANI notice, and a warning from another editor, from his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Patriots49ers&action=history

That he's a sockpuppet is clear from: 1) the timing of the creation of the account with a previous ban; 2) his editing subject matter pattern (specific rock bans and PA governor Tom Corbett); and 3) his abusive editing on the Tom Corbett page, for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tom_Corbett&diff=prev&oldid=569743571

This is the last ANI thread about his then most-recent sockpuppet: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=422341559#Banned_User_Returned

Another ban seems appropriate.

Thanks.

John2510 (talk) 19:06, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked. --Laser brain (talk) 19:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Obvious sock trolling Eric Corbett

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

---

Please nip it in the bud, thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User FS making legal threats

This looks like a legal threat to me [155] CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it meets the criteria for a legal threat, and there are several users throwing that term "libel" around, all of whom need to either retract it or be put on ice if they refuse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing RfC on Tammy Duckworth

Hello. Could I please have an admin or other experienced user review the RfC on Talk:Tammy Duckworth? The RfC bot has removed the RfC notice, indicating that the recommended time limit has passed. Edge3 (talk) 03:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Enkyo2 continuously violating WP:SELFREF

My last ANI on this was poorly put together, so I might as well just start anew. I have drawn Enkyo2's attention to the relevant policy several times,[156][157][158][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[159] I think he doesn't understand why this is problematic. Could someone help me explain it? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)