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

TJRC

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

---

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 : [1]

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 ([2]) 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": [3].
• Again with the "accusations": [4].
• "General hostility and refusal to discuss his tagging: [5].
• Abusive edit summary: [6].
• Here's one I pointed out above: I very politely explained TPO to Elvey (reproduced in the text in this discussion, above): [7] ; Elvey deletes with edit summary "False allegations from TJRC - AGAIN" (because everything is apparently more believable with capital letters): [8], [9].
• Calling my edit (reverting his error!) "obnoxious" on another user's talk page: [10].
• general hostility: [11].

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: [12] and January's correction of it.
• Another spurious Twinkle vandalism warning, this time against MrX (talk · contribs) [13].
• Another general rant against Guy Macon (talk · contribs) [14].

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,[15] and he made some rather rash accusations,[16][17] but he later expressed a desire to end the conflict,[18] (very bottom comment) we both deleted/struck various comments.[19] 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)

Thanks. I won't comment further. Still, any interaction with Guy, Carnildo or anyone else that TJRC canvassed mustn't serve as evidence either way: TJRC's use of the user template in his last AN/I posts to contact the 7 users he says I acted improperly toward is a clear violation of the canvassing prohibition and I hope someone addresses it; it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, which makes it disruptive behavior. The templates should be removed immediately, along with the apparently resultant posts, as fruits of a poisoned tree. (to be continued…)--Elvey (talk) 09:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I wasn't canvassed. I posted because I've been watching AN/I since early 2005, and I wasn't exactly happy with yet another attack on one of my bots. --Carnildo (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Semantics, Carnildo. You were canvassed by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=569798894 this edit (diff) ] which added " [[Template:user|{{user|Prosfilaes}}]] and [[Template:user|{{user|Carnildo}}]] and of editor/admin [[Template:user|{{user|Bbb23}}]]." to this page, generating a special notification. Whether you responded as a result doesn't change whether you were canvassed or not. The policy is WP:CAN. It says nothing about the response(s) or lack there of in defining it. It does have a handy chart that I feel is relevant - the message is Biased, the audience is Partisan. --Elvey (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Kim_Dent-Brown (talk · contribs) You're not going to respond regarding the canvassing accusation, or let me finish providing the response I told you I was working on and have even posted a draft of here? That doesn't make you seem unbiased, IMO, which defeats much of the purpose of your involvement.--Elvey (talk) 17:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

On TJRC. - Elvey

To find a way forward, it's useful to answer: Who's perpetuating this? The last edit to the talk page was me, ~4 days ago (diff) asking him a short, simple question. Has he answered? No, but he had time to generate the far-reaching write-up, above. He acted worse in response to the nearly-as-short-and-simple question I asked previously: I dared to point out that he ignored me there but had time to fight here and he goes ballistic and reverts. Admin: Editors are not supposed to hold off when its clear that the other user has chosen to respond to other discussions and ignore/abandon the one we're having, based on my reading of policy. Please either show me if I'm misreading policy on that or let me know if I'm not. Please help him see that CIVIL says, "Editors are expected to be reasonably cooperative… …and to be responsive to good-faith questions."

Acknowledgement that I did notify him of the AN/Is, answering the questions I've marked with a '♥' , retraction of unfounded accusations♣, retraction of false statements, such as "I reverted them" and "[Elvey] re-instated his interruptions"? None of these things, which I would see as positive signs - have happened.

The instructions on this (edit) page read, "You must notify any user who is the subject of a discussion." (I did that) and "You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}}to do so."" I could have. Given the three (!) notifications he did get, I think these excerpts of the policy WP:CIVIL are most relevant in showing why these edits require admin action:

• (c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety
• (a) taunting or baiting: deliberately pushing others to the point of breaching civility even if not seeming to commit such a breach themselves. All editors are responsible for their own actions in cases of baiting; a user who is baited is not excused by that if they attack in response, and a user who baits is not excused from their actions by the fact that the bait may be taken.
• (b) harassment, including Wikihounding, bullying, personal or legal threats, posting of personal information, repeated email or user space postings
• (d) lying

I think that making so many false accusations, if intentional, constitute 'offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to intentionally target a specific person', which violates the WP:HARASS policy. I don't see how they can be seen as anything but intentional, and designed to give offense. I ask that the closing admin itemize the substantiated vs unsubstantiated accusations and claims thereof by TJRC and I, rather than choose to respond to some, but not others.

I believe I've shown his misbehavior was intense, occurred many times, that I identified the misbehavior and asked that it cease, and that it has continued into this hearing. I will admit to using, under strong provocation, some regrettable language. I admit that the comments of mine he kept deleting weren't only where I said they were initially; there were 3 in the article talk space and 5 in article space. I didn't quickly realize it when editors showed they didn't understandReply level indication, but in my defense, his false accusations of TPO violations confused me.

I'm finding that rereading CIVIL in its entirety is a good exercise. (I see there isn't an audio version of CIVIL. An opportunity…) Refusing to actually participate in discussion efforts, and continuing to edit to push 'the right version' - that's the core issue.

Now for the 3 edits central this dispute: I thought TJRC was finally willing to face the reality re. TPO after Woodroar wrote in detail why he saw nothing wrong any of the components of my edit that TJRC reverted 3 times (diffs: "diff and diff and diff", below - I FINALLY NOW POST THE SECOND AND THIRD - lost among all the rest of TJRC misdeeds!). As he still hasn't accepted this, I have to point out that this was edit warring and highly disruptive. This edit warring was a violation of a host of policies. CIVIL says:

He wasn't respectful of my own words; Woodroar noted that there was nothing at WP:TPO to justify TJRC's editing of MY talk page comments **diff anddiff and diff** - THAT is 3 edits to MY comments that DELETE MY QUESTIONS from the article talk page — justified only by the UNTRUE claim that the edits were removing interruptions from his comments. They violated WP:TPO, ironically! Because I made it abundantly clear why his edits were improper, the latter two constitute WP:Disruptive_editing. All my efforts to help him to [see this have been for naught. (example) The three questions he deleted three times from the talk page? They're there, still unanswered, over a week later, in violation of WP:COM and WP:CIVIL.

I characterize his many accusations that I've been unwilling to enter into a civil discussion (e.g., of why x is confusing) to be utterly false and unfounded, as those diffs and many comments above prove. Eventually, Carnildo did identify some in-line comments; I converted the Posting Style.--Elvey (talk) 21:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Elvey, your inability to drop the issue and heed Kim's well-meant advice in their close is becoming highly disruptive and is now firmly in WP:BATTLE territory. You are hereby advised and warned to drop the sticks, all of them, immediately, and find something else to do. MLauba ^(Talk) 22:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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 [[20]], 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. [21]. "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). [22]. 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 [23]. 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 [24]. 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 [25] 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[26], 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: [27]. "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: [28], to no effect.
• I've pointed this out to Canoe: [29], [30], to mixed effect: [31]. --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: [32], to no effect.
• I've pointed this out to Canoe: [33], [34], to mixed effect: [35].
• 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: [36]: "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: [37]. 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: [38], [39]. --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."[40]. 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.[41]. 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."[42] 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. [43] 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:[44] 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)

I don't agree. I was just accused of following an editor last night based on this dispute with no supporting evidence. It does not appear that many editors are getting it. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:26, 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 [[45]]

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... [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] 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. [52] 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

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

---

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[53] 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.[54] Specifically, Matty.007 (talk · contribs) added a tag to the article about unreliable sources.[55] I asked him about the tag,[56] and he said that he added it as a result of something he saw on the IRC.[57] (However, after Matty.007 considered the sources in question, he removed the tag[58] and stated that the sources seem fine to him.[59]) 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[60]). 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."[61]--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,[62] 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"[63] the 'claim' immediately after I initially moved it,[64] 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.[65] 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[66], which he said he added as a result of something he saw on the Wikipedia IRC (chat room);[67] (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[68] and he stated that the sources seem fine to him.[69] 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 [70] (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] [71] (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.[72] [73] [74] 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:

• [75] Jeffro reverted my edit, despite the concensus from the RS noticeboard is not changed.
• [76] 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.
• [77] 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.
• [78] 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 [79], was responded by a rejection and a lack of will to comply with the RS noticeboards, and thus the editors concensus concludings.

• [80] 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 [81] 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)

"...and what should have happened is that a viable secondary source should have been found." You can still add viable secondary sources for the content. Grrahnbahr (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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 [82] 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. ([83], [84]) 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[85]: 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. [86] "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)

Vanished user that isn't vanishing

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus formed, user blocked, not much else to do. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

---

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)

• The consensus there is clearly to disallow such (new) user names. Can some admin close the discussion per WP:SNOW and implement the soft username block with an invitation to either rename his account or create a new one? Someone not using his real name (talk) 16:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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.[87]. 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.

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.

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[88]. 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.[89]. 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)

For the record, the sock puppet investigation Taeyebaar is promoting against two long standing editors, TheOldJacobite and myself, has gotten comment from only one uninvolved editor in five days. As seen here, responding to the diffs provided by Taeyebaar, Ishdarian wrote:

• Observation: I decided to take a look at this request, and I'd like to give the opinion that it is totally frivolous. Both Gothic and TOJ are film buffs. The diffs provided for ET show TOJ removing a rambling post from the ET talk page and Gothic removing vandalism from the ET template. In addition, the X-Files diffs show TOJ reverting unsourced changes to the article and Gothic is discussing something on the talk page. That's hardly solid proof.
• Behaviorally, the two editors don't even click. Simply looking at the edit summaries of the two users shows that they have different operating methods.
• This SPI seems to be retaliation against two editors whom Taeyebaar disagrees with. Would a clerk be kind enough to close this request? Ishdarian 11:24, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of seeing the light, Taeyebaar responded with there's no "retaliation" except that when 2 editors edit war on multiple pages that have not been edited in ages, it's likely they are connected, as seen here. I thought perhaps he had no idea how a Watchlist works, but he just mentioned it above. I find it incredible that this editor who is continuing to press for a sock puppet investigation has now admitted to editing from two accounts himself. Perhaps someone can respond to Blackmane's recommendation above? - Gothicfilm (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Note that Taeyebaar just put in his disputed unsourced genre change yet again at Space Cowboys despite the WP:3RR warning he got for that page, then two minutes later he switched to his IP account and hit the Science fantasy article again, as seen here. - Gothicfilm (talk) 23:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

His constant tab on my edits shows he is stalking me as he/she has been since July. Can an admin look into this please? Put both contributions on your watch list. Also the SP case was endorsed by administrator Alex Bakharev Taeyebaar (talk) 23:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really. He just passed on info Taeyebaar posted on his Talk page. He has not commented on its merits. I have no reason to believe he ever looked into the case at all. I suspect if he had he would have rejected it, like Ishdarian. A half dozen editors have disputed Taeyebaar's edits. None have supported them. - Gothicfilm (talk) 00:14, 24 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: [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], 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)

And User talk:Mokshanine, and from this IP 117.236.116.179. It is getting boring now! Brendandh (talk) 12:16, 23 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 [97][98][99][100]. 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)

For what it's worth, I have neither reverted nor reshaped anything, and I have no personal opinion about what this title should be. I have merely volunteered to close this discussion once the appropriate time has passed. bd2412 T 14:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

True. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 23 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)

I have made no "off-colour" jokes. An "off-color" joke would be one you can't say on regular TV. I don't do that sort of thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 23 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 didn't demand an "apology" from you - I recommended that you do the right thing and revert your abusive, non-consensus moves back to "Bradley" until or if the valid news sources generally start saying "Chelsea" instead of "Bradley". Speaking of "lack of AGF", aren't you the one that called anyone opposing your page moves "transphobic"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

a) you said 'The move to "Chelsea" was wrong, every time. Move it back to "Bradley", and then you can apologize to the rest of us, for abusing Wikipedia and for abusing your admin privileges'. I have not used my admin privileges this entire time! Strike out that lie and you'll go some way to making peace. b) I have done no such thing. I said that there are a distressing number of people making transphobic arguments. There were and there still were Look at the number of people saying the trans people don't really exist and shouldn't be acknowledge at all. I at no point said that *all* the arguments were transphobic. Morwen (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

You "can" apologize is not a demand, just a recommendation. And you don't need to apologize to me at all, just to Wikipedia in general, for allowing your advocacy to override Wikipedia rules. Move the page back to "Bradley Manning", and things will be fine. If the name ever legally becomes "Chelsea" and/or is recognized as such in the media broadly, then you'd be justified in moving it to "Chelsea". But not until then. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:45, 23 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: [101] [102] [103] [104] [105]. 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) Withdrawn; please see my new comment below. –Psychonaut (talk) 16:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Some of the more egregious things he has said have been missed: [106], [107], [108] and [109]. 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: [110] and [111]. 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)

None of that, true or false, justifies your personal attacks. Your actions are as accountable as anyone else's, and you have repeatedly attacked other editors, as I have demonstrated. If you want to continue editing, you should be apologizing for that and demonstrating that it will not happen again, not weaseling out of the issue with distractions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Distractions" like their hijacking of the page and violating Wikipedia rules... and threatening blocks for pointing that out, which would be a further abuse of their admin privileges. They own the page, and dat's dat. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Using the invented phrase "advocate-admins" over and over again doesn't make it a fair or credible characterisation of anyone's behaviour. It's also abundantly clear who it's intended to refer to, so it's not really any different to a direct personal attack. I still favour a topic ban as a merciful option, though. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - I was going to be neutral but "The advocate-admins have already hijacked the page, and now they want to lock it down from any challenges to their own biased viewpoints" remark above put me over the fence. Bugs needs to step AWAY from the ticking bomb! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 10:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see anything particularly objectionable in any of the diffs provided. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 10:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AQFK. What personal attacks? GregJackP Boomer! 11:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - I'm all for healthy discussion, but Bugs' comments have consistently been beyond the pale - when I attempted to engage with him on his talk page, he instantly removed my remarks. Regardless of the different sides to this discussion (and the idea that this is somehow the result of "biased reporting" falls a bit flat when newspapers as diverse in their views as The Guardian and The Daily Mail are using the female pronoun to refer to Manning), Bugs' remarks are a clear indication of some of the prejudices and opinions that Trans people have to deal with every day. Trans Media Watch offer a coherent guide to journalists and publications writing on Trans issues . Bugs is far from being the only offender, but is clearly the most visible and seems to be leaping upon every single comment in that discussion, essentially claiming that anyone with opposing views is clearly "abusing Wikipedia". Is this really the healthy debate we want to nurture here? Horatio Snickers (talk) 11:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, and a hearty thanks to Haipa Doragon for canvassing at my talk page, as I would not have known of this discussion otherwise. Stating an objection to the automatic "we must call he a she" advocacy of the LGBT advocacy campaigners is not in itself uncivil, a personal attack, or disruptive. These are tactics being used to remove opposing voices from a discussion; critics of Israel are called antisemites, one becomes a homophobe for raising objections to gay innuendo in unrelated articles (e.g. fisting in Crisco), and so on. It's the oldest trick in the Wiki-book. As for Bugs specifically, his presence in ANI's unrelated to himself can be a bit trying on everyone's patience, but when involved in a substantive topic, his candor is sorely needed in the face of politically-correct tinged censorship. It doesn't hurt that the policy on article naming convention overrides any Style Manual on identity, a point which has yet to be adequately rebutted. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose but support a block for disruptive editing if this continues. Baseball bugs has engaged in delioberately inflammatory rhetoric which, if it was not deliberately calculated to offend, certianly has offended in an entirely predictable way. Guy (Help!) 13:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. "I identify as a rabbit" is a personal attack now? And what's wrong with "tenacious" editing? Strong support for the Lapine-American in his tenacious struggle against the forces of Daffiness and Elmerhood! --GRuban (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. If this is what it takes to get a topic ban, then 80% of the people involved in the discussion would be outta here... Deep Purple Dreams (talk) 13:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as per nom. Consistently offensive and unhelpful comments. Samwalton9 (talk) 14:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support per Horatio Snickers and Guerillero.--В и к и T 14:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per Resolute, ThinkEnemies and Psychonaut. Bugs is making an ass out of himself, but time has clearly shown that doesn't bother him, but he doesn't rise to the level of personal attacks or BLP violations. On the subject of disruption, there is plenty of it in that subject area and we need an admin to patrol. I'd suggest both sides police themselves. Those here in the support column should address those calling others transpobes and ignorant.--v/r - TP 14:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Baseball Bugs' comments have created a markedly hostile environment. --April Arcus (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Someone being a jerk or making crass remarks isn't the same as engaging in a BLP violation or personal attacks, these aren't personal attacks on a BLP: [112][113], this is most certainly not [114], this is a BLP violation [115]. From what I can see, there is a lot of rhetoric on both sides. Note that if there are future BLP violations administrator action does not require community discussion. I also don't see why requests for arbitration enforcement aren't done through WP:AE (obviously no need to move at this stage, but for future reference perhaps). IRWolfie- (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Yes, some of the comments are distinctly douchebaggy. And yes, the attempts at enforcing the BB:Valid Sourcing policy against feminine pronouns for male-born transgender individuals who self-identify as female are blatant bugsilawyering, particularly as the policy is changed the moment its demands are met (e.g. first, it makes WP usage contingent on "non-tabloid" reporting practice, then when The Guardian and The Independent are cited BB:VS suddenly requires CNN). I think it was the patron saint of patience Monica of Hippo, or maybe a sysop who's name I've forgotten, who said: "See, it'd be so much simpler if we could block for simple douchebaggery." Writegeist (talk) 16:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I've changed my mind since my last posting upthread. The sheer volume of jerkish, crass, provocative, and disrespectful comments has risen to the level of disruption. Individually, I was willing to rationalize them as merely strongly worded retorts, but taken together they are creating an extremely hostile and even threatening environment. There is no longer any doubt in my mind that his behaviour amounts to Wikipedia:Harassment as defined in the first paragraph of that policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm arguing in favor of Wikipedia's own rules. Sorry if that fact offends you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • It does not offend me that you are arguing in support of Wikipedia's rules. What offends me is the vitriol, calculated insensitivity, and relentlessness with which you are now prosecuting this argument. Turn your flamethrower down, Bugs, before the community steps in and takes it away from you for good. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm very close to kissing wikipedia goodbye as it is. The continued gross violations of the core principles of wikipedia, with advocacy winning out over the way wikipedia is supposed to work, is extremely disheartening. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Please tell me how "Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh?" is even a remotely acceptable comment to direct towards another editor. Note that that editor's actions do not justify such a comment. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • The advocates for this change, in defiance of the rules, are making wikipedia look stupid. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
            • Another attack. It is not helping your case to use further inflammatory rhetoric on a thread concerning your potential sanctions for such actions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
              • If you think it's a good idea to make wikipedia look stupid, I don't know what to tell you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                • I was criticizing your tone and language, not your opinions regarding the topic itself or another editor's actions. It is inexcusable to call someone's actions "stupid" no matter the context. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                  • I agree that Bugs is very much out of line, and, in fact, so much entrenched and without any kind of perspective that I see no chance that he will ever constructively participate on this topic. So I support a topic ban - maybe three months is enough for now. But on general principles, calling someone's actions "stupid" may not always be polite, but, at least for me, is sometimes necessary, and covered per WP:SPADE. I'd rather see honest opinions than sneaky pseudo-civility. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                    • There are many ways of criticizing someone's actions without resorting to such insulting and incendiary language. Bugs crossed that line multiple times and has done so even on this page, and such "honesty" is not a virtue when used to put down and intimidate other editors. This is an editor who has shown blatant disrespect and disregard for other editors, who therefore cannot work with other editors, and that warrants site-wide sanctions. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
                      • The height of arrogance and of making-wikipedia-look-stupid is right smack on website's the front page: "Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning)"??? That wording is an absolute abomination. Yesterday it said "legally Bradley Manning", which is true. This "formerly" bit is living proof that Wikipedia has sold its soul to POV-warriors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support topic ban from anything to do with Manning, for continual assumptions of bad faith. While there may be some ABF going on on the other side of things, Bugs is the only person I see who is completely unwilling to drop the stick. This has reached the point where he's now tacking on his indignation to every single thread relating to Manning—see, for instance, #User FS making legal threats below. Note that while there have been some BLP violations, I don't think they rise to the level of warranting a BLPBAN (and, indeed, if they did, we wouldn't need to discuss it, since an admin could oppose it unilaterally); rather, this !vote is for his behavior toward other contributors. Bugs has made his point on the talk page more than enough times for everyone to hear him, and if he's unable to walk away on his own, it's high time we make him. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm unsure as to how so many people have missed the personal attacks in question, that I quoted, but Bugs has repeatedly referred to editors as "stupid", the most egregious quote being "Try not to make wikipedia look stupid, eh?", as well as unhelpful, sarcastic comments such as comparing someone's comment to a post on the Onion and the analogy comparing trans people to rabbits, and even slander here: [116] regarding Manning's intentions. These are blatant and repeat violations of policy to which the user has not shown any intention of apology or changing his behaviour whatsoever and therefore warrant a complete block from Wikipedia activity. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  Well, mild incivility isn't seen by many editors as being block-worthy these days. This is a deeply contentious ideological and political issue, and Bugs simply happens to be on the opposite side of your own opinion on the matter. While he may be brusque, and the comments rub some PC types the wrong way, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. This comment in particular is one I've seen raised elsewhere in off-wiki boards for example. It is not beyond the pale to suggest the timing of the "call me Chelsea!" announcement is a bit peculiar, coming on the heels of the 35-year prison sentence. Tarc (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  • Repeated comments calling editors or their actions "stupid" or putting down their comments as mere jokes on par with The Onion do not constitute "mild incivility", they constitute intimidation and manipulation, even, dare I say, bullying to get a point across. Political and ideological topics are not even remotely an excuse for these actions and I do not support leniency just because someone couldn't keep their cool. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Your opinion on the matter seems to be in the minority, so maybe it is time to drop the stick, back away, and stop badgering people just because they disagree with you. Tarc (talk) 01:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
      • Given some of your edits, I am surprised you're still even here. You've already gotten away with phrases like "gender-bending" and "bullshit criticisms" on the Manning talk page, but how you haven't been held accountable for some of your past edits is beyond me. To quote just some of your edit summaries: "I will strike this part only, if it is going to make Bob's undies bunch up" [in reference to another editor], "quite Gestapo-like" [again, to another editor], "article is still under that retarded "1RR", regrettably", "If you're offended by THAT, then I'll probably offend you in far, far worse ways if you choose to come to my page complaining about something", "learn to read", "we're not listing every minor rtarded thing done by the media". You have no business in trying to shut me up for calling out other's personal attacks, let alone on this site at all. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
        • I will lecture the likes of you as I see fit, buddy-boy, especially when you fallback on ad hominems and strawmen. This thread isn't about me, but if you feel the need to make one then kindly hit the "new section" link at the top of this page and knock yourself out. We're here discussing a topic ban proposal for Baseball Bugs, a proposal that simply isn't gaining the consensus that you had hoped for. Instead of accepting that sometimes one's opinion simply does not and will not carry the day like an adult, you are resorting to badgering, berating, and belittling those editors with whom you disagree. You keep say things like people "fail to understand", but the thing is, we do understand. These comments made simply do not rise to an actionable level that warrants a topic ban. So take some advice; stop whining, stop attacking other editors, and let this straw poll play out as it will. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
          • I find it funny how you accuse me of ad-hominem in a post that also patronizes me with the phrase "buddy-boy" and compares me to a child. All I have done in this thread is argue for the blocking of an editor I have found extremely disruptive and try to argue against points others have raised. You have no place pointing out so-called personal attacks with such a history of disgusting and degrading slurs, attacks and put-downs. Haipa Doragon (talk) 02:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
            • All you have done in this thread is harass and berate those with whom you disagree, and in a thoroughly Streisand effect-ish kind of way have probably done more to drive more editors to oppose than had any appreciable effect in supporting your cause. My "history" is a strawman argument, deployed to detract from your present examples of slurring other editors in this very thread. How does it feel to have become the thing you profess to hate? Tarc (talk) 03:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
              • Do quote the so-called "slurs" I have used, and we can compare them to "retard" and "gender-bending" and the other vulgar attacks you have used already. Frankly, this thread is as much about you as it is about Bugs because you have acted as badly and, in some areas, worse than him. I really don't care about "what goes where" with regards to opening a new thread. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                • You have repeatedly belittled editors who vote oppose and claim that their oppsition is because the "fail to understand" what a personal attack is. That itself is insulting. Then, the suggestion that this thread is at all about me is quite frankly asinine and shows just how far into the deep end of the pool you have waded. Go start a topic on me,; it'll be closed in 5 mins tops. I think I'm about done being trolled by you, and as this topic ban proposal of yours is a guaranteed fail, you may consider this the proverbial "last word". :) Tarc (talk) 03:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
                  • Fair enough, looking back at that sentence I see it as an unfair assumption about other editors. I apologize for that. I have tried very hard though to raise my objections to what I see as incredibly objectionable editing on both your parts, however, and with that, naturally, comes terse and frank language and tenacious discussion. I do not intend to denigrate or belittle anyone and I certainly believe I haven't compared to the slurs, sarcasm and bad faith that have been going around. Haipa Doragon (talk) 03:59, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose per AQFK. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose The problem is not Baseball Bugs. The problem is that article should not be called "Chelsea Manning." 68.195.91.181 (talk) 19:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It's not what you say, it's how you say it. There is no cause noble enough to warrant disruption of this magnitude. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. This is cited as a reason for the topic ban, but it is preceded by this which I find more toxic. Bus stop (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC).
• Oppose. I'm not a fan of Baseball Bugs in general, but in this case several admins are getting away scot free with far worse policy violations than a little soapboxing on a talk page. Also, another user posting something far more inflammatory on that talk page has been blocked for ... gasp ... one day User talk:LudicrousTripe#Bonus_points. An indef topic ban for BB would clearly be disproportionate. Maybe 12 hours next time he says something naughty. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Neither this nor Bus stop's comments are even remotely pertinent. Just because policy isn't being enforced in one area doesn't mean it shouldn't be in another. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. Topic bans are suppose to be the last resort to long standing disruption. Nothing here fits that definition. JOJ ^Hutton 20:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. His comments are ignorant in the extreme, but it's an argument, so we have to canvass all views - even his delusional views about the transgender issue being a confection to bolster the appeal, and Tarc's cartoonish, 2-dimentional, 19th century "understanding" of gender and sex. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • No, we only need those views pertinent to the article. Insults and political statements do not count towards that, and the former in particular is utterly intolerable. Haipa Doragon (talk) 21:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support Bugs has a history of acting out and not being able to control his behavior at BLPs about whistle-blowers. Last time it was Edward Snowden and now it's Manning. His contribution to these topics is clearly hostile and a net negative. Removing him can only help calm an already inflamed situation. N^oformation ^Talk 21:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a short topic ban. Give Bugs some time to cool down. If the disruptiveness continues after the ban expires, impose a longer ban. His comments are obviously way over the line of our policies governing personal interaction (and his unwillingness to accept reliable sources that contradict his personal views indicates that this isn't just a case of someone soapboxing and making the editing environment unsafe, but rather of something that affects Wikipedia's articles), but I'm willing to allow for the possibility that he's a worked up and will become a productive user if he takes an enforced break from the topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Suppport a topic ban. This is not the first time i have seen such behavior from Basebull bugs. He tries to disrupt the project anytime somebody disagrees with him. Pass a Method talk 22:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose a topic ban. Some comments are a little snarky, but on the whole his points are well thought out and relevant. Talmage (talk) 23:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support a topic ban as a preventive measure to limit further disruption. As the diffs at the start of this thread show, Bugs has been making personal attacks on other editors, personal attacks on the living person who is the article's subject, and soapboxing on his own POV about a range of issues. That conduct has not eased despite requests to back off, and it disrupts the formation of a consenus on the substantive editorial issues here. As suggested by Roscelese, I think it would be best to start with a short topic. Hopefully, that will be enough time to cool down, and if that isn't the case then a longer ban could follow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. A topic ban would be merited, but it's an important principle of Wikipedia that admins with high edit counts are allowed to be as twattish as they like. This is for very good reasons which are unclear. Formerip (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bugs is not an admin. And a high edit count won't keep an admin from being blocked, either - see below. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 00:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected on the first part. On the second, yes it will, so long as the offence is being twattish. Even extremely twattish. Every single time.

Instantly overturned blocks do not make a great counter-example, in any case. Formerip (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

So, essentially what you're saying is, Bugs would merit a ban but shouldn't because some other people get away with things? That's not how it works, as I've said already. Haipa Doragon (talk) 00:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Oppose - and instead suggest one for FormerIP who can't be bothered enough to check on basic facts before making a decision on what should happen. (And in any case, calling them twattish is twattish.) --Onorem (talk) 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. But he/she needs to cool the jets. --RA (✍) 00:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban. Nothing of his jokes is of a bannable grade, although a stern warning might be helpful Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

These are not "jokes", they are personal attacks. There is nothing remotely amusing about repeatedly calling people "stupid", mocking someone's comments as if they were an article on the Onion (a joke site), the nonsense bad-faith accusations he has been making or the allegations and political bias he has introduced. These actions, especially when repeated so many times, disrupt and abuse this site and its editors and warrant severe sanctions against the violator. It is ridiculous how many people fail to understand this. Haipa Doragon (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support per this and WP:OWB#37. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose - nothing Bugs has done is topic ban-worthy. Kelly ^hi! 01:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support - No comment EvergreenFir (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - per Tarc and A Quest for Knowledge above.--William Thweatt ^TalkContribs 02:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

the best answer for bad speech is more speech.
— Mike Godwin

Oppose per Godwin NE Ent 02:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• How does a question asking if a particular Arbcom precedent would encompass circumstances related to Baseball Bugs' current editing endeavor—presumably to establish authority for the sanction and support the request if made become a discussion for imposing the unrequested topic ban? With Guerillero's question now moot; I oppose the egregious notion that Baseball Bugs should be topic banned for his eloquence in advocating one side of a contentious content discussion. I'll venture a guess that mine is the first contextually correct use of egregious although a majority will likely see mine as hyperbole. :) John Cline (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm just an IP and I'm !going to !vote, but I see little benefit in allowing Bugs to continue. Failing to take action on behavior like this, especially with an editor with known discipline issues, just encourages more of the behavior. Given the other problematic users on the page, failure to take action is also saying to them that "this is the accepted and expected behavior of established members of the community." Is Bugs's behavior what Wikipedia wants to see? 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm just going to be frank here. I am close to fucking tears here with all the intimidation and bad faith levelled against me by the two utterly unaccountable editors in question who deride me with their every edit with things like the ideas that I am a "troll" and I belong in the "funny pages". I have tried to get across for some time now the point that personal attacks are intolerable and how badly they disrupt the site, but apparently the swath of Bugs' and Tarc's put-downs and sarcastic responses, and the latter's disgusting slurs, are not enough for any sort of action whatsoever, despite the fact that neither has bothered to apologize for such misconduct. I have both mental health and gender issues, and I know more than most in this thread how the vile "retard" "gender-bender" rhetoric hurts, both psychologically and physically, and the simple and very stark fact that it kills people. The inaction on the part of administrators to enforce rules, and the willingness to let sanctions on bullying, intimidating, bad-faith editors slide via some "straw poll" charade, the last couple of days, is a sodding disgrace to the project and I hope will help tarnish this site's already awful reputation. Haipa Doragon (talk) 05:02, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support topic ban. I'll also be frank, and I'll try to avoid the worst of my usual discursiveness. I like Baseball Bugs. Sometimes I agree with him wholeheartedly and admire his tenacity for upholding policy and principle. Even on the occasions when I vehemently disagree with him or am annoyed by his inserting fatuous humor in wildly inappropriate contexts, I still like him. I'm 99.9% sure he means well, and I think he has done more good around here over the years than he's sometimes given credit for. In this instance, his conduct has been absolutely inexcusable. The diffs linked at the top of this thread are deeply troubling for several reasons. For one thing, they indicate an inability on his part to check his personal political opinions at the door, which is something that any Wikipedian should be prepared to do before wading into a contentious discussion about a controversial topic. They also point to a complete disregard both for the the project's responsibility to the subject of the article (a living person) and to the sensibilities of his fellow editors, many of whom share Manning's specific minority status and even more of whom are sufficiently grounded in the 21st century to be offended by callous remarks directed towards any minority.

I don't have a crystal ball, but I suspect that Wikipedians reading this thread not so many years from now will be appalled less by Bugs's behavior than by the amount of support he has received in the wake of his awful behavior. If Bugs had expressed the slightest bit of contrition after being called on what he did, I'd chalk his transgressions up to ignorance and look at the whole thing as a learning opportunity. Instead, he has adopted a classic IDHT posture, and he has been aided and abetted in doing so by multiple editors. Sad indeed. Rivertorch (talk) 06:28, 24 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)

Yes. A technical revert to allow for discussion was reverted citing BLP. There are no BLP issues with having the article title at Bradley Manning. There are however major policy issues when a news site declares that "Wikipedia Beats Major News Organizations" (src) on a biography of a living person. Wikipedia ought to be behind major sources, not ahead of them, on BLPs. --RA (✍) 08:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's not a news site, it's some blogger who happens to be on slate.com - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's how slate.com works. The piece on Wikipedia "beating" news organisations is a front-page headline on the site (link). But in any case: wow, way to miss the point. --RA (✍) 09:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The whole thing is a train wreck. IMHO you've got people who really don't have a neutral point of view pushing for changes, mainly to get it changed to Chelsea. They then insult people who think it shouldn't be. I'm staying well clear of that. One of the main instigators is a supposed respected member of the community! I think I was the editor who initially reverted it back to Bradley after it was changed to Chelsea. Now I don't mind either way but there was NO discussion at all about changing it, protocol was NOT followed and TBH I thought the name change was trolling to begin with as I read about Manning for the first time when he/she appeared on the front page. Cls14 (talk) 09:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I must object to that characterisation of the events The record shows there was a small discussion and consensus in favour of moving it when I did it! Yes, this has somewhat dwarfed by the scale of discussion afterwards, but that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Morwen (talk) 09:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Move request discussions are supposed to remain open for seven days, precisely to avoid that sort of thing. bd2412 T 11:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. And undiscussed (or improperly discussed) moves are reverted to allow discussion. --RA (✍) 11:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So far as I can see, the move was reverted; and the reversion was reverted; and so on. That is not a matter involving me. I have volunteered to close the current discussion once it concludes. That is all. bd2412 T 14:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, another abuse of Wikipedia: Blatantly defying the "bold-revert-discuss" principle. And even worse when done by admins, who should know better. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• We are never supposed to "beat" anyone, because everything must be properly cited and referenced. I support a technical closure (revert to the status quo) and then restart the discussion. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 09:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • There is only one proper source on Chelsea Manning's correct name, and she has been completely clear. If you're more hung up on having secondary sources all in a line than demonstrating basic respect for a person's identity, I assert that you've taken your eye off the ball. --April Arcus (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Manning's alleged "name change" has no legal standing and is not being used that way by sources. It is, at most, a nickname chosen by the subject. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That I'll disagree with strongly. It carries no more legal meaning than a nickname, but for someone transitioning it's a lot more meaningful than that. Hobit (talk) 17:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • That personal issue is beyond wikipedia's purpose. Once broad sourcing starts saying "Chelsea", then you'll be in the right. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • As I pointed out upthread, the "a person is the only proper source for their own name" theory has been directly shot down at previous WP:RMs in favor of the name as reported in third-party sources regardless of the person's own preferred name format. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

As standard operating procedure with any LGBT topic, the activists have come strong with accusations of -phobias for anyone who doesn't support their point of view. I'd like to request an uninvolved administrator with no strong opinion on LGBT topics to patrol the article's talk page and warn/block for personal attacks of this nature unless there are very real -phobias present. Such comments as (paraphrasing) "Anyone supporting is ignorant" or "Only those with transphobia have supported returning this article back" or "It's evident those who still use 'Bradley' have transphobia" are inappropriate, chilling, and discussion-stifling. Diffs on request.--v/r - TP 12:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear. Those making such ridiculous accusations are doing nothing to help the situation, and if anything are making it worse. GiantSnowman 12:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Try to understand their perspective, and counsel them to make their arguments without using inflated rhetoric. Calling Manning "it" is clearly deliberately offensive, and the reaction is predictable. Let's not criticise those who were trolled, where trolling has taken place. The entire debate could do with less indignation on all sides. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Guy is right. Strong action needs to be taken on that page against those making inappropriate and thoughtless comments (as well as addressing hyperbole from the other side). --Errant ^(chat!) 14:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"thoughtless comments" are exactly where strong action need not be taken. We don't execute folks for having a brain fart. Nor do we execute those who disagree. Perhaps some folks intended "it" to be gender neutral. You don't know what's in people's head, that's why we have WP:AGF. Calling each other names is not going to help Wikipedia at all. If you can prove trolling, as I did say "unless there are very real -phobias present," then fine but do not shoot the good faith contributions because they don't share a POV.--v/r - TP 14:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A number of the comments on the page are inappropriate - whether good faith or not. And strong action need not take the form of e.g. blocks, but someone making a strong statement to those individuals about sensitivity to a subject per BLP. Anyone describing Chelsea as "it"... well it's not a defensible thing to say and anyone doing so cannot be doing it for a positive reason. Either they are trolling, being abusive or a complete idiot - whichever one of those they need to be stopped from making matter worse. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I personally find "not defensible" to be a pet-peeve. Of course you find it not defensible, you disagree. I'm not saying this to ABF, but being an idiot is a defense. We need to separate good faith stupidity and bad faith malevolence and treat them appropriately. Calling the good faith folks transphobes is not helpful.--v/r - TP 16:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

What happened to AGF? Why is someone using "it" immediately decreed the Antichrist? It could - just could - simply be an editor, who doesn't know how to deal with trans prononous, trying to be as neutral as possible without realising they may have caused offence. GiantSnowman 16:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Bleh, AGF my ass. What rational person would call an individual, in any context, "it". That is globally a disparagement. As I said - either they are being deliberately negative, or stupid (hence, AGF that in some cases they are simply stupid). In either case they shouldn't be contributing. :) But what we term it is a side issue; the page is stuffed full of personal commentary about Manning and people need to be dissuaded from that in whichever way is most appropriate. --Errant ^(chat!) 16:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is a consequence of an illegitimate action, in this case a controversial page move without consensus or any valid basis. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@User:TParis I agree the rhetoric is inflamed. And a large part of the problem is that we've got some people who have a lot of exposure to trans issues. And we've got people to whom it is a weird/sick/or just unheard of thing. Having had to deal with trans issues for 15 years (my boss at the time went from a male to a female, and let me assure you we all had no idea how to deal with it and originally suspected it was a joke), I'm finding a lot of those comments really offensive. "it" is way, way over the top. But yes, using "it" also might be cluelessness. Trans issues are pretty common in academia (where I live now) and in fact one of the most famous people in my field Lynn Conway transitioned in the 1960s! We know the expected language and understand the issues.

The basic theme is that people (Bugs and others) are being very offensive. Perhaps not on purpose (it's hard to guess motivations in person, on-line it's a crap shoot). To me, it's just as offensive as calling someone a chink or a nigger. It's just not acceptable. Sure, the person speaking may just be clueless, but the offense rises to the level that it needs to be addressed. And of course, we've got people who think everyone is being over sensitive. Again, being an academic, I get that too (political correctness is crazy here). But the line I draw is that hurtful words are rarely needed. Calling someone "it" is hurtful. Calling a trans person by their pre-transition name is also hurtful. I'd never do these things any more than I'd use "gay" as a pejorative or use the word nigger in nearly any context (other than this one in fact). And I'd expect in any kind of reasonable conversation others would do the same. I'm a person who uses swear words in normal conversation (even in front of a class). But those words aren't hurtful (if used correctly). The difference is key. I think it's fair to ask people to accept that they are being hurtful. It's also fair to ask others to try to explain the issue (I needed it explained to me those 15 years ago) rather than just calling them names (trans-phobic or whatever...) Hobit (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Errant, your assuming LGBT issues are global, widespread, and generally undisputed. Outside of liberal dinner tables, I'm not sure that isn't as black and white as you'd like it to be. You've been around long enough, picture this in a different topic area. Global warming, perhaps. Zero tolerance beliefs are harmful. Advocacy is harmful. We cannot allow folks to treat Wikipedia as a battleground. Wikipedia isn't the place for "Strong action" and certainly not name calling. It's the place for good faith. I'm pro-LGBT, I believe people should be able to live openly about their true selves without fear, and you see my take on this whole thing. That's because I see it both ways. But living openly involves opinions as much as it does sexuality. We cannot allow attacks on opinions simply for their mere disagreement with our own. We must seek only to crush those who, in bad faith and full intentions, seek to humiliate, cause fear, and disparage others. (After ec) Hobit, I don't think we disagree.--v/r - TP 16:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Well-stated. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I find myself largely agreeing with TP. As much as I hate to say it, there is a difference between homophobic/biphobic/transphobic comments and, say, racist/sexist/anti-Semitic comments. Namely, that the latter cannot usually be excused as ignorance, while the former (very unfortunately) often can. A lot of people just don't understand transgenderism. That some people don't realize that calling someone "it"—for whatever reason—is offensive saddens me, but that doesn't mean they're bad people. We don't allow the promotion of fringe views here, but (once again, unfortunately) it's not a fringe view to believe that people can't truly change gender, or the like. So while it might be acceptable to go to some people and say "Hey, just so you know, saying 'it' or things like that is often seen as offensive, and we have some users here whose feelings might get hurt by seeing something like that," we don't need to actually punish them for what they said.

That said, any oppose ^support !votes in the RM based purely on the belief that people cannot change genders aren't pertinent, since RMs are about Wikipedia policy, not social issues. My suggestion to the closing admin (whichever poor sap that may be) is that they discount any oppose ^support !votes that just say that "he's still a man", and also any support ^oppose !votes that just say "it's transphobic to not move it" (since that view discounts a perfectly reasonable WP:COMMONNAME argument, even if I personally disagree with said argument). !votes that aren't about Wikipedia policy should not be counted in Wikipedia decisions. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Hey, that's what I tried to say, just written 10x better. :-) Hobit (talk) 17:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Yes. Nicely put. If I'd read that first, I might have been a bit gentler on Bugs and Tarc. ... Nah. (I think you, PinkAmpersand, may need to swap "support" for "oppose" in your second paragraph: "oppose" means "keep Chelsea Manning".) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Gah. Fixed. I should try that "sleep" thing sometime. — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 21:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Coffee superior, sleep inferior - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not saying that everyone making rude comments on that page is a bad person. But regardless of context (e.g. LGBT) referring to a living person as "it" is clearly disparaging - and aside from any transphobic intent it is a stupid, unpleasant thing to say. But we're getting bogged down in a total side issue; whether the comments are in good faith or not and what to call them. The core issue is we have a talk page where a number of editors need reminders to contain their comments to policy issues, and refrain from personal commentary abut the individual in question. Who is going to stop faffing around and step up to do that?? I was previously involved in discussions on that talk page, otherwise it would be me. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:57, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • I'm involved too, can't be me. I feel sorry for whomever volunteers too.--v/r - TP 18:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • I haven't edited at or about the subject, and would like to consider themselves neutral - though I opposed Risker's blocks, below. That said, after all of this drama, I do feel an overwhelming urge to pull an Ed Poor and delete the flipping article outright. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 02:46, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

About the admin actions

Can we get a little bit of discussion about the propriety of the admin actions that surrounded this page? In particular, I'm interested in the following exchange:

• David Gerard (talk · contribs) move-protected the page at 13:31 (UTC)
• I (Tariqabjotu (talk · contribs)) moved the page back toBradley Manning at 14:32 (UTC), in response to a request at WP:RMT
• David Gerard (talk · contribs) moved the page to Chelsea Manning at 14:34 (UTC), citing BLP.

Incidentally, Morwen (talk · contribs) moved the article to Chelsea Manning earlier, but before the move protection (so not an admin action).Mark Arsten (talk · contribs) also fully edit-protected the article at 14:41 (UTC), which was downgraded back to semi- at 14:49 (UTC); I'm not sure either of those actions are particularly controversial though.

I'm not at all suggesting that the article should be moved to Bradley Manning for the duration of the move request; that is obviously a very bad idea. However, these actions were before the move request began. So I'm curious about the permissibility of the move on RMT grounds and the move back on BLP grounds. I feel my RMT reasoning was quite self-explanatory (controversial, undiscussed move). I have tried to query David for an explanation of how the Bradley Manning title constituted a BLP violation, both on his talk page and the article talk page, to no avail. (Well, he would argue that's been explained a number of times, and I'm being dense, but you can be the judge of that.) -- tariqabjotu 14:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I was and still am outraged and disappointed with the actions of David. David performed a move that was hugely controversial, and then proceeded to move protect the page. This served to stifle discussion and lock the page at a title that many found controversial. Page titles are not trivial; they have implications. The media pays attention to such matters. To make a controversial move and then to move lock the page is an astounding abuse of power. It makes me question why I contribute to Wikipedia, when those in power use their privileges with such reckless abandon.

I suggest David be blocked for a period of time, as a reminder of Wikipedia policies.

I also strongly disapprove of Morwen's external postings and communications, which framed the issue in an inaccurate and POV way. Namely, Morwen suggested that policy was clear on this matter when it was very far from clear. Misleading the media about the actions of Wikipedia is not only disappointing, but also damaging to our goals as a neutral encyclopedia. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Well; clearly David's second move was wheel-warring, there's no doubt about that. There is, of course, an exemption in WP:WHEEL for obvious BLP issues, but you only have to read the talkpage to see that there's clearly no agreement that it was an obvious BLP violation - indeed, most of the proponents of the move are citing MOS:IDENTITY rather than BLP. So, yes, David should clearly not have moved the page back. Whether there's any mileage in pursuing that avenue is doubtful though. Black Kite (talk) 14:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • It is understandable how David could think it was obvious, though. I've warned David about taking further admin actions on this page. Other than that, I think we should chop it up to being accidental and move on. David clearly thought his decision would receive overwhelming support and because hindsight is 20/20, we can't blame him if he was wrong in that assumption.--v/r - TP 14:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • But this action plainly does not fall into the BLP-related exemptions to WP:WHEEL or WP:3RR. The WHEEL exemption is limited to "Material deleted because it contravenes BLP. The 3RR exemption similarly is limited to "Removal of libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced contentious material." Changing the title of an article is not deletion of or removal of material. The applicable standard is not "good reasons for taking action based in the admin's/editor's interpretation of BLP policy," even if they believe their conclusion "obvious." Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So, let's go down this rabbit hole a bit further. These are the bits of WP:BLP that I think are active.

Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives: the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment.

BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone,

Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times.

I would claim that misgendering people harms them, is certainly not responsible or cautious, and definitely not fair. Obviously this is a judgement call, but that's what WP:BLP requires us to do: use our judgement responsibly and with appropriate deference to the wishes of the subject. And I think honouring someone's well-stated wishes about a transition is so well within the bounds of appropriate that I can't believe I'm having to argue this still. It's not like we are trying to suppress the old information, or anything! Morwen (talk) 15:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:WHEEL only makes an exception of obvious BLP violations. As the talk page shows, it's not an obvious violation. You can argue the points, but the controversy itself is the defining factor that decides here. There are different interpretations of WP:BLP on this.--v/r - TP 15:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Of course in most cases of obvious WP:BLP violations there are going to be people who disagree that it is an obvious violation, vis. the people who made the bad change in the first place (or are refusing to allow a good change). It is precisely because of people who lack good editorial judgement that we need such a policy. Morwen (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

There in lies the problem. It's not a handful of people who lack "editorial judgement," it's a slight majority. The (slight) majority opinion is that the BLP policy has been taken out of context. That a handful of people who are part of that majority are morally corrupt doesn't change the argument of the whole. But it doesn't even come down to that. The fact that the controversy hasn't leaned one way in particular strongly is the very demonstration that something was not "obvious" and the only reason David shouldn't be judged harshly is because he couldn't have known that beforehand. It's reasonable that he would have anticipated the outcome that he did. But his assumption was wrong, as demonstrated by the mere existence of the controversy itself, and that means that the action was not acceptable. However, I've warned David and that's all that needs to happen here.--v/r - TP 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, that's not all that needs to happen - the page needs to be moved back to its original name until such time (if any) when moving it back to the current name is justified by Wikipedia rules. Which it currently is not. No legal authority and no valid news source is calling Manning "Chelsea". As the Army folks indicated, Manning can go through legal steps to legally change his name. Until any of that happens, "Bradley" is the real name. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me, I was commenting on the previous admin actions that have already taken place. The RFC will determine what else needs to happen.--v/r - TP 15:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Admins have no special authority to defy the "bold-revert-discuss" principle. The only real issue is that the page needs to be reverted to "Bradley" until or if it becomes appropriate to rename it "Chelsea". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That's really not how WP:BLP works. Unless something has changed recently, Wikipedia is not a democracy and we don't take votes to ignore core policies. Morwen (talk) 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm going to break the below thread to address this. You're right, that's not how BLP works. However, Wikipedia works on WP:CONSENSUS. When the consensus determines this is not a BLP issue, then BLP cannot be used by single people saying "is not a democracy and we don't take votes to ignore core policies". Ohh, and by the way, we do take votes on core policies. That's how they were created. We !voted on WP:V recently. The size of the discussion determines whether we can change or suspend policy. A small consensus doesn't override policy, but the size of this discussion means that we can determine how to properly implement policy. That's how Wikipedia works.--v/r - TP 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, what you do instead is unilaterally impose your personal view and violate those core policies. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The thing is, you need to be open to the possibility that your interpretation of "core policies" may be incorrect. Tarc (talk) 15:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That would conflict with his desire to be an advocate for the subject of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It seems clear to me that Morwen is participating in this conversation in good faith. She has explained her rationale and maintained a dispassionate and even-keeled tone. --April Arcus (talk) 15:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And now Bugs has added to their earlier misstatement regarding my supposed use of admin bit (still not yet withdrawn as far as I can see) by misgendering not just Manning, but me personally. This is rapidly becoming a WP:CIVIL issue. Morwen (talk) 15:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The user name "Morwen" has no identifiable gender, so "he" is the standard default in English. If anything, it sounds more male than female, as it kind of sounds like "Morton" or "Marvin" or one of those. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Morwen lists her first name as Abigail, and Morwen clearly identifies her namesake as a female character. It would only have taken a minute to check either. --April Arcus (talk) 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Morwen being female does not excuse abusing Wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

All of which, of course, could have been achieved by noting that the subject self-identifies as Chelsea Manning, and performing a pronoun switch. In general though I agree; whilst David probably shouldn't have moved the page back, I don't think we can castigate him too much for doing so. Black Kite (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A core premise of Wikipedia is that we report news, we don't create news. Reporting what the lawyer said is fine. Renaming the article and changing all the pronouns is a gross violation of the core premise... as noted by at least one reference that said Wikipedia is "ahead of the major news organizations". That, just by itself, demonstrates that Wikipedia has violated its own rules. Wikipedia is already a laughingstock, and this advocacy-driven move only makes that situation worse. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I said earlier in this mega-thread, I don't feel David's actions meet the mens rea element of wheel-warring. However, I do question his unwillingness to explain afterward how he felt BLP applied or admit now that maybe it wasn't as clear-cut as he felt; on the contrary, he has claimed my inquiries were a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. -- tariqabjotu 15:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This claim is incorrect; my reasoning was the immediacy provisions of WP:BLP - we most definitely do not have the luxury of eventualism with BLPs - and MOS:IDENTITY, both in its words and its use in practice. I said this several times on the talk page as well, which is why you're giving the impression of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT - David Gerard (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Your "reasoning" for applying BLP is bogus. That alleged "name change" has no legal standing nor is it supported by broad sources. It is, at most, a nickname until something happens otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please don't derail this into another thread arguing the move. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The illegitimate move is the only real issue at hand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The thread is there for all and sundry to see; people can make their own determination. But, the fact that an article is a biography of a living person doesn't absolve you from explaining why an action you reverse (in this case, my move to Bradley Manning) constitutes a violation of the BLP policy. -- tariqabjotu 15:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• As it appears BLP trumps all other considerations. If subject identifies with a certain name and gender then BLP is clear that is the name under which the article should be titled and the gender should be identified as.--MONGO 16:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • That isn't how it works, no. WP:COMMONNAME is the guiding policy, it does not violate BLP in the slightest to refer to a person by the name and gender that they actually are rather than what they simply declare themselves to be. Tarc (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Precisely. That name "Chelsea" has no legal standing nor is it accepted broadly by sources. Also, some months back it was "Breanna". What will it be next week? Wikipedia is not supposed to become a subject's personal advocacy tool. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • <ec>@User:Tarc Turns out a lot of us would strongly disagree with that including the mainstream literature in the area. It might be helpful to read our article on Gender. The word itself was rarely used outside of grammar terms until the 60s when it was used to distiquish between biological sex and the social construct. Your view of gender is pushing into WP:FRINGE-land. Hobit (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • That's original research that's irrelevant to this particular issue. We go by sourcing and common usage, not by how a subject would wish their article were tailored. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • That use of gender is OR? If so, our article on gender is in really bad shape (and the cites are all wrong). But I think where we disagree is this: calling a trans person by the pre-trans name, is, to a trans person, quite offensive. That makes it, IMO, a WP:BLP issue. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
          • Yes, it's OR. It's trying to apply a general discussion to a specific case. There is no valid source demonstrating that anything has changed legally or otherwise as regards Manning. The name is still legally "Bradley" until or if Manning pursues a legal name change and/or the general media (not just the advocacy sites) start saying "Chelsea". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • Trans people actually are their identified genders, regardless of whether they have filed their name change paperwork or are on hormones or have had surgery. I understand how that could seem weird from your perspective. Feel free to ping me if you want to learn more about it! --April Arcus (talk) 17:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Can you explain then why consensus-building move requests have not resulted in articles like Lily Allen and Cat Stevens (both subjects who have changed their legal and professional names) moved? And why it took consensus-building move requests to get other articles, like Ron Artest, moved? In fact, I'm struggling to think of any other example in which a move to a common name was reverted on BLP grounds. Consensus appears to be against interpreting BLP policy in the manner you have described. (Perhaps we need the policy clarified.) -- tariqabjotu 16:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The difference is that calling a trans-person by their pre-trans name is profoundly insulting and thus runs headlong into WP:BLP policy. I personally think the article should be at Bradley Manning until there is consensus otherwise. But I also think it's hugely insulting to not move it as rapidly as policy allows. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hobit, being free of insult is not a right; a lot of people are insulted or offended or shocked by a lot of things, day in and day out. Those who wish to preserve the status quo and have Bradley Manning's current, ral name and gender preserves in the article are not "fringe" and are not "transphobic", they are simply people with perhaps a more conservative opinion than your own. If we wish to get into the "who is offended" schlock, I'll point you to Stephen Fry, who sums up my point of view perfectly. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My use of fringe was with respect to your use of the word gender, not with respect to you. And I think you'll also note that that above I've urged people to not use words like transphobic. So right off the bat, I really don't feel this is about people and I agree one can in good faith be opposed to this name change. In fact I'd say I know you well enough to be able to say I'm certain you aren't making your argument to to hurtful. That said, I do think that being hurtful to others is something to be avoided and I believe that this is profoundly hurtful. That doesn't mean we shouldn't cover the truth. If someone was arrested and it's relevant to their bio, we cover it. If someone stole from their employer, we cover it. But we don't offend when it's not needed. And in my opinion, referring to someone by their pre-trans name is offensive. That needs to be weighed against the potential of confusing or misleading our reader. That can be dealt with by use of redirects and a clear lede (Chelsea Manning, nee Bradly Manning) and I think that's the right way to deal with it. I suspect most news sources will begin to use Chelsea in just that way before this RM closes ... Hobit (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't buy any of that. This is eerily like the Muhammad pictures all over again, where the intent is not to offend, but to inform. It just so happens that sometimes the act of informing causes some to be offended, but that is the tradeoff that an encyclopedia must make; openness vs censorship. Y'know, it's not like we're walking up to this person and saying "hi Bradley!" or personally badgering/berating him. This is about writing an article about a person who is notable...and keep in mind that Manning isn't notable for this gender stuff, that is at best a sidebar to the notability of being convicted of passing classified intel and sentenced to prison. There was a lot of "fuck the government" going on to begins with here, and now even more bandwagoneering by the LGBT community who didn't give a whit abut Private Manning a few weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oddly, I agree with most of that and was thinking about the Muhammad pictures situation here before you brought it up. Like you said, I don't think it's appropriate to refer to a trans person by their pre-trans name in person. But just as we wouldn't call someone a name behind their back, I don't think it appropriate to call them a name on Wikipedia unless it's necessary to the article. In this case, it is. But that doesn't mean we can't acknowledge the name change, and use the new name as the primary name in the article. I don't see how it hurts the article. Hobit (talk) 17:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not an expert in Wikipedia policy or bureaucracy, but preferring Cat Stevens to Yusuf Islam strikes me as obviously and intuitively wrong. --April Arcus (talk) 17:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• The sad part about all this, to me, is that regardless of which of the six men of Hindustan is correctly describing the elephant in the end here, the only winner will be the nattering nabobs who are getting a full recharge of "hurr hurr Wikipedia" material. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Other than the fact the article should be at BM not CM until consensus dictates otherwise, I think things are actually going pretty well given the nature of Wikipedia and the wide cultural gap this topic covers. Oh, and I use that exact story all the time. Useful elephant. Hobit (talk) 17:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• I agree with Black Kite on this. In no way does BLP justify the move/wheel warring done by David Gerard. Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• @Someone not using his real name - Ditto. Misuse of adminly powers. Protected a clearly controversial change without discussion. NickCT (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• David Gerard showed very poor judgement and a severe lack of understanding of policy in this incident. He did wheel war. That he defended doing on account of BLP policy doesn't explain his actions. It raises further questions because it demonstrates that he doesn't understand BLP policy (and the contexts in which content needs to be removed quickly on biographies of living people).
  We do not play fast a loose with BLPs. In fact, BLP policy is the very opposite:

  "Biographies of living persons ("BLP"s) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives..."

  This is a sensitive matter and was plainly going to be a controversial move. David's poor judgement and lack of policy understanding has resulted in one of the biggest dramas I have seen in years. Worse, the resulting drama on the Manning article is being reported in the mainstream media (with no small help from Morwen, I may mention) which does't serve the project well. --RA (✍) 23:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the media is not reporting the debate but making it sound like Wikipedia has in fact definitively decided to rename the article Chelsea Manning. I see that The News Statesman carries an interview with Morwin] regarding her original blog posting here and Morwen's tweets on the topic are reported at Buzzfeed. I don't know who alerted the media to Morwen's original blog posting here or to her tweets. But this is what her writing off wiki about this has lead to and shows why it's not a good idea. I hope she and others will stop doing it. User:Carolmooredc 04:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Several admins blocked

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

---

• Just noting that Risker (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has now blocked sysops Mark Arsten (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Jimfbleak (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and Zzyzx11 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for editing through protection after warnings. I don't have time to form an opinion on this (especially since I think all four of them are great admins and nice people), but it deserves mention. (This reminding anyone else of Reservoir Dogs?) — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:54, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think the blocks are good. All admins are very good admins and editors, but it is important to show that wikipedia is impartial in its enforcement of the rules. (even if the infractions are relitively minor, this is very high visibility atm) The blocks are not unduly long, and sending the signal to the masses is important imo. (As well as setting a standard as to what construes admins editing through protection) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

However, and I greatly respect Risker, the statement "refrain from editing protected pages in the absence of a clear talk page consensus on the appropriateness of a specific edit request" seems a step too far. We should and so far as I know are normally expected to use our own judgment on edit requests. Obviously there are exceptions and this seems to have been one. Dougweller (talk) 18:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Blocks as a result of admin edits to Chelsea Manning

Today, Risker has decided to block administrators Mark Arsten, Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 for edit warring. She did so after posting a warning on the article's talk page stating that admins were explicitly restricted to edit the page because it was fully-protected. As far as I know: i) there is no edit warring; and ii) these edits were totally uncontroversial and most were done after being requested on the talk page. After being informed of the block, Mark Arsten answered to Risker at his talk page [117], explaining that his edit was made after a clear-cut request. Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 have yet to respond.

Those three sysops were blocked for the duration of the page protection, but as I consider this to be: i) an over-reaction of Risker and ii) an incorrect assessment of what really happened, I have decided to take this matter here and see what the community thinks about this event. For the purposes of clarity, there are the edits that each of the three sysops did, and that were the reason of their block: Mark Arsten [118]; Zzyzx11 [119]; Jimfbleak [120]. Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hidden for readability. All three users have been unblocked. For more details, see the discussion below. AGK [•] 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The point to protecting an article is to protect it. I'm not sure how the edits made by these three admins were detrimental to the article. I saw them, but maybe someone else is seeing something I am not in these edits. Because I don't see anything block worthy in this. Kumioko (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)Although I disagree with Risker on the particular cases, I think the approach is necessary. Strong, concrete and clear lines are needed to stop the editing through protection. Drawing the line so strictly makes it all the more clear. But I wouldn't have taken the same action.--v/r - TP 18:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) On first glances they appear to be poor, poor blocks indeed. Interested to see how Risker justifies them. GiantSnowman 18:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) My biggest question is: what is blocking three admins for making these edits over a protected page supposed to accomplish. I am sure that none of them are dumb enough to do controversial edits since they have been sysops long enough to know that. As I see it, this action accomplishes nothing, and that's the problem. — ΛΧΣ21 18:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Can someone point me to exactly where in the policy it states that NO edits are allowed, even by admins, to fully protected pages unless through an edit request? I think Risker is interpreting policy a bit liberally. Secondly, the block of Arsten was totally unjustified, just because one editor complained about it after the fact does not make this a controversial edit (the addition of a category which clearly applies and which is cited in dozens of news reports). I'm also quite sure if the discussion on talk expands and others join in to support removal of the category, Arsten would follow that consensus but until then, silence = consensus on this and no complaints were made about that category until AFTER the fact.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm not sure if it's block-worthy, but I will absolutely say that barring the removal of egrerious BLP violations or copyvios, admins shouldn't edit a fully-protected page even if it's not in the rules that they can't, because that's a good way of feeding the "admins are more equal than others" arguments that we see so often. - The Bushranger One ping only 18:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Well, the policy that I read is pretty clear - admins can edit fully protected pages. It comes with the mop. The question for me is the content of the edits - obviously if there is edit-warring, tweaking something to conform with your own POV goes too far. But after full page protection, one admin went through and carefully corrected many of the he/she issues - and there may be some lingering - I wouldn't want admins to have to wait for a consensus on the very loud talk page before fixing some of the lingering pronoun issues. If fully protected means no-one should edit the page for any reason, well, thats what the rules should say. Please undo these ridiculous blocks, and ease up - there is a lot of media attention on this page, so I for one am grateful for admins who are still cleaning up bits and pieces, and threats of blocks do nothing to help here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) These are horrible blocks and they ought to be overturned immediately. Nothing in either the protection policy or the admin policy says that admins can't do minor gnomish edits to a protected page that they believe in good faith to be uncontroversial and that are unrelated to the dispute that has caused the protection. The admin policy says you mustn't use admin tools "to gain advantage in a content dispute". Making a gnomish edit like this [121] has nothing whatsoever to do with gaining an unfair advantage in a content dispute. If Risker thinks edits to protected pages can only be done after a formal edit request, she is simply mistaken about the policy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC) That's completely farcical. Zzyzx11 was fixing a date formatting issue, Jimfbleak a MOS issue, and Mark Arsten reinstating a category that had previous been removed by mistake (and had been edit requested). THat's one of the most ridiculous and bone-headed blocking actions I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Black Kite (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC) A date formatting issue that had already been resolved differently a few sections above on the article talk page, BlackKite: and any admin who thinks date formatting changes are uncontroversial needs to rethink, because I have yet to see an article where there isn't at least some steam generated. And why exactly is a MOS change needed in the middle of an article protection? Will the project's reputation fall into disarray if the caption for an image mentions the name of the article subject? Risker (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict × 4) In all honesty, I think these are three horrific blocks. None of the edits, particularly Jimfbleak's, were remotely controversial. Mark's comment on his talk page is correct that people aren't shy about opposing anything on that talk page. I am in favor of accountability for administrators. Administrators should be held to a higher standard. This isn't holding administrators to a higher standard. This is preventing administrators from doing their job, which is to facilitate edits on protected pages. Go Phightins! 18:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC) The criterion isn't degree of controversy, it's whether or not there is clearcut consensus for it. Risker (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I notice that it's mainly admins complaining about admins getting blocked for making "uncontroversial" edits. But Mark Arsten's edit was almost immediately embroiled in controversy after it was done, and Zzyzx11's was being appealed as well. There's no reason to make finicky MOS changes during a limited page protection, either. Administrators editing through a limited page protection should always have a clearcut talk page consensus to do so. As is mentioned elsewhere, the talk page is huge, and proposed changes are often discussed in multiple places. Admins need to not act unless they're reading the whole discussion page to make sure there are no conflicting comments. There is little more infuriating to non-administrators than admins continuing to edit a protected page without regard to its status. "Protected" means protected from casual editing from everyone, and any edits made by administrators must be backed by some actual consensus. Let's be realistic: there's hardly an edit that could be made to this article right now that will be completely uncontroversial, and that goes for categories, markup, MOS fixes and typos. Risker (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Yeah, well if you hadn't noticed, this is the admin noticeboard. Are you going to undo these? They're completely ridiculous and they make you look ridiculous. If they'd actually been major edits I could have (sort of) understood it, but worthy of blocking rather than a serious trout? No, never. Black Kite (talk) 18:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) I am sorry but that's not being realistic. "Protected" means that nobody should be doing content changes to the article, which would mean that they are taking advantage. Doing maintenance edits like correcting typos, fixing categories and such are allowed by policy and any admin can feel free to do them on any protected page. I still don't understand why your vision of this differs from the rest. — ΛΧΣ21 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (ec) As the admin who edit-protected the page, I must say I was disturbed at seeing over 30 edits to that article in the space of a day, since I protected it. It looked as if I hadn't protected it at all, and made me go back and check if I had actually protected it, and check the sysop bit of everyone who simply continued editing after protection. That amount of activity in a protected article boggles my mind. I mean, I could certainly make edits that I could claim as "uncontroversial" too, but I refrained. Some of those edits have generated controversy, such as Zzyzx11's introduction of inconsistent mdy date formats in an article that was already specified as dmy, as appropriate for military-related articles. I see no warring between admins, but I do see reverts of prior edits, basically continuing a war. While I am not convinced that these edits justified blocking, I also I do not believe that the blocks were unambiguously unjustified. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Terrible, terrible blocks. If absolutely zero editing on protected articles were allowed, we wouldn't have an {{editprotected}} template. Those edits were reasonably able to be considered controverisal. Blocking someone for converting a few dates to American style on an American subject, per request on the talk page? Ridiculous. Blocks and preventative, not punitive. If you went to each of those admins and said, hey, [link to discussion], that wasn't as uncontroversial as you thought, I doubt any of them wouldn't have acceded to reverting. -- tariqabjotu 18:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict) WP:GOLDLOCK means almost everything must be discussed at the article's talk page before editing. If "almost" is in doubt, then do not edit the page at all. This is the first time I see an admin blocking another admin, and I find it just fair. Admins are not over the rest of the mortals.--Jetstreamer Talk 18:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC) These specific edits weren't horrific, but I sympathize with desire to block: it's apparently the only thing that will get some admins to respect full-protection. When an article is protected for a few days, there's no reason to go in and tweak it. It may not be an abuse of the letter of our protection policy, but protection isn't supposed to be a method to keep the article out of the hands of typical editors, its a method to prevent the article from being changed until some controversial issue is settled.—Kww(talk) 18:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (Uninvolved, non-admin opinion) Judging by the diffs provided by ΛΧΣ at the top of this section, none of the edits caused any substantive change to the article, nor were they contrary to consensus or controversial in any way whatsoever. As far as I'm aware, the purpose of page protection is to protect and the purpose of a block is to prevent disruption. It would seem that neither of those purposes was served by this block. I have no doubt that Risker's intentions were good, but no admin should be permitted to draw an arbitrary line in the sand and then use her tools to block those whose crossing of that line falls well within policy, but that does appear to be what happened here. Suggestion: unblock, trout, and move on. Rivertorch (talk) 18:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC) By the way User:Amatulic has just fixed a typo in the article through protection. Now there's a decision for you Risker. Black Kite (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC) ...which was properly done in response to an edit request on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I'm calling this a consensus to overturn. Will unblock in about ten minutes unless somebody beats me to it, after finishing a glass of white wine and getting those frozen trouts from my fridge for everybody. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I think two of the three blocks by Risker are clearly justified. The transsexual cat was clearly in dispute on the talk page (Mark Arsten's change; mulitple threads with "gender" or "transsex", none showing much consensus; consensus established in 4 minutes??), as was the date format change by Zzyzx11 (1st, 2nd and now a 3rd thread). It's sad to see here so many admins circling the wagons and denying the obvious... As for the edit by Jimfbleak it appears to have been an undiscussed personal preference. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Unblocked. Ched had already unblocked Mark Arsten, and that was the only contentious one. I have therefore unblocked the other two. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 23 August 2013 (UTC) (edit conflict)I was also alarmed by the number of admins who carried on casually editing the page after amatulic full-protected it. While uncontroversial edits can be made by admins during full protection, I would expect any admin to think long and hard about whether the edit they wish to make is a) truly uncontroversial and b) necessary to make in a period where the article is essentially shut down. Editing through full protection, rather like closing an AFD, should be done in a manner that reflects the consensus of participants on the page, not on the personal preferences of the admin doing it. Those things said, the article and its talk page are both disaster areas and good-faith mistakes appear tohave been the order of the day regarding these edits through protection. I would suggest that the blocks can probably be lifted, with their point made, and we can attempt to move forward with our admin corps now (hopefully?) more aware of their responsibilities regarding protection.A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) I endorse Risker's action. A fair warning was given and so continuing to edit through protection after that was outrageous. Warden (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Actually, it is Morwen and the other one (I forget the name - Gerard, maybe) who should be blocked, for having caused this entire situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Did Risker have the right to post this warning or was she overstepping her authority? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC) WP:PROTECT says that pages that are protected because of content disputes should not be edited except to make changes which are uncontroversial, or absent an edit-request. Two of the edits were the former, and one the latter. So yes, I think you can say Risker should have phrased that better. Black Kite (talk) 18:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Endorse as necessary blocks; admins are not above the rest of the folks, and should not have edited through protection, after warning, in these cases which were controversial as demonstrated by Risker. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Er, Sandy, how is changing a date format from dmy to mdy or changing a caption per MOS controversial? I'll give you the category one, but that? Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2013 (UTC) Please refer to links already posted here 1st, 2nd and now a 3rd thread, Black Kite. Someone not using his real name (talk) 18:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Not collapsing the below, because it relates to the decisions to unblock and not the decisions to block. AGK [•] 19:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• It is a shame that BlackKite, who had already participated vigorously in this discussion before it ran even an hour, has decided to lift the remaining two blocks. He is obviously not well-informed enough to realise that these were not uncontroversial edits being made, particularly the date format one; I'd expect just about every admin to realise that date formatting remains a highly controversial area in just about every article where it is raised. I've suggested to him that he consider reverting himself. After an appropriate level of discussion (i.e., more than an hour), an uninvolved and unconflicted admin or two who have not participated in this discussion or that about Chelsea Manning may well come to the same conclusion. Risker (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Has the world gone mad? I wouldn't touch this article with a bargepole, it's an obvious bearpit. I didn't even read the talk page, and I find that I've been blocked for not doing so! I took one look at the article, thought I'd just mos the image captions and move on, and apparently I've committed a major crime. Why is an mos fix to the captions controversial? Looks likes someone's on a power trip to me. And I see that there are complaints about a (temporary) unblock to defend myself. Do I get blocked for 35 years? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:14, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jim, why did you feel it was necessary to make an edit to a fully protected article? Keep in mind that absent the fact that you have admin tools, you would not have been able to make that edit. How can you be sure that your edit was uncontroversial, if you hadn't read the talk page? More than half of it involves disputes about the interpretation of MOS, so a reasonable person would think that MOS changes may be controversial and would discuss them first. Risker (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Sorry, these were bad blocks, just based on your supposed "warning". It was horrible. You can't put a warning on talk page like that and expect anyone to see it. It's not like it was the top or in an edit notice, it's now mixed up somewhere in the middle of the page like any other thread. So, as an admin looking through "edit requests" I now need to scan the entire talk page for a freaking warning that I shouldn't be editing it for your supposed reasoning? Right. Hell, even after reading this ANI thread, I knew the warning was supposedly on the talk page and it still took me a few minutes to find it. If a user who outright vandalizes an article is "warned" like that and then gets reported to AIV, it would get declined in a heartbeat for insuffcient warnings. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No, not really. It would probably result in a block. Unless, of course, they were an admin. Risker (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

For a vandalism-only account? Sure. For an IP or another editor screwing around? Well, then I hope you don't work AIV much. Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 20:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with Risker, Amatulić and Fluffernutter that it's disappointing to see so many admins believe they can edit through protection. There are three sections on the talk page asking admins not to do this: Editing through protection, Note to admins, and Administrators editing through full page protection.

  When an article is protected, admins are all editors in relation to that page, unless there in a purely administrative capacity. Valid admin actions include fixing serious issues such as BLP violations, and responding to edit requests that have consensus if there is good reason to make them. It doesn't mean that admins can act as super-editors so long as their edits aren't controversial in their view. If the protection policy doesn't make that clear, then I think we should fix it.

  As for the blocks, I wasn't keen on the block of Mark, because he was responding to what he saw as a valid edit request. With Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11, I can understand that they feel the block was a shock, but I also understand Risker's frustration given that she had issued a warning yesterday. Jim, the point is not that your edit was controversial, it was that there was no administrative reason to make it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Endorse, it's incredibly sad that it had to be done but the number of people continuing to edit that page after full protection is an absolute disgrace. Imo more admins needed blocking as reminders that they should just step back and settle down but it is at least reasonable to only count after the warning was given. It is completely reasonable, and in my opinion expected, for people to pause and sit on their hands. No changes should be made without full consensus on the talk page during full protection, unless it's a massive BLP issue and at that point you damn well be ready to defend it as such. MoS changes are NOT sufficient reasons to break protection. I'm sorry, but the blocks were completely reasonable. James of UR (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Restoring the blocks

As Risker objects to Black Kite's unblocking of Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11, and has suggested that Black Kite reverts those unblocks, I think it would be best to try and establish community consensus in order to prevent possible wheel-warring and desysopping. So, should the blocks be restored? AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Keep unblocked - restoring the blocks would be punitive, not preventative. GiantSnowman 19:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked per GiantSnowman. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

  I feel that I must add a clarification here. I did not open this thread as a proposal that the Jimfbleak and Zzyzx11 be reblocked. I was simply trying to measure the consensus. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 20:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, I have suggested to BlackKite that he revert himself because in pretty much any other situation an administrator would be censured for taking admin actions related to a discussion in which he has been an active participant; we'd expect an admin not to make a deletion decision if he took part in the AFD, or a bureaucrat to abstain from closing RFAs where he's voted. That is not quite the same thing as suggesting that these blocks be reinstated by someone else. Risker (talk) 19:21, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• We block people here for doing things they know are wrong. That's why we have the warning system, even for vandals. When that changes, let me know. Black Kite (talk) 19:23, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked and instead Block Morwen and Gerard, who are the direct cause of this entire iasco. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked These blocks had a very flawed reasoning and purpose from the start. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Template:CUE Reblock Full protection notice is visible at the top of any page, so nobody can say the protection was unnoticed. When in doubt, all the changes should go through a discussion at the talk page. As I said above, it's just unfair that admins can perform editing while the rest of the editors can not.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Indeed. I think the blocks have served their purpose though. If these admins continue to edit through protection in the absence of talk page consensus, ArbCom is the next step for abuse of tools. Someone not using his real name (talk) 19:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • (edit conflict) So, what's the point of {{editprotected}} then? Jauersock^dude?/_dude. 19:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm moving to an Unblock, as long as the admins involved commit themselves to stop editing fully-protected pages. We cannot be that severe. As said below, the point has been made.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked until further edits are made. I think the point has been made by the blocks. 30+ edits in one day for a protection that lasts ONLY THREE DAYS is just not warranted, especially when some of those edits were controversial. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment For one unsuspecting edit to a page with a warning hidden on a talk page, you are suggesting that I can't do any vandal bashing, spam deleting etc on any article!!!!!!. Nice job Risker, easier than going after the real bad guys. FWIW, I'll more than happily topic ban myself from the Manning article, which I had no intention of editing again anyway. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Umm, yes, that's pretty much exactly what I'm saying, Jimfbleak. If you can't bother reading the talk page of a protected article and getting stuck in to understand why it's protected and what the issues are, you shouldn't be editing that page at all. Risker (talk) 19:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

To take this forward, perhaps in future it would be better to put your warnings in an editnotice. That way, no-one can say they didn't know it was there. If you'd done that, I certainly wouldn't have been as quick to unblock. Black Kite (talk) 20:13, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

An editnotice is a good suggestion, Black Kite. I'm not very good at creating those sorts of things, and would propose that one be created that is generic and can be applied to ALL fully protected articles. I have made some notes on your talk page, if you are up to working on its development. Risker (talk) 20:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm skeptical. Edit notices cause visual page pollution and information overload. I never read them. Protected pages already have big boxes at the top of them with the automatic protection notices. Whenever I see two or more big colored framed boxes at the top of a page, with five different levels of highlighted fonts in them and screaming colored highlighting and whatnot, I just mentally shut off and read none of it. (Best example is what I'm seeing right now in the edit notice of this page. Three big boxes, and I have no idea what any of them is saying, because I never read any of them). I'm sure I'm not the only one. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:28, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I think we're only talking about a very few contentious articles, here. Try to edit the Manning article now (I've tweaked the editnotice) and see what you think. Black Kite (talk) 20:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I see four notice boxes using three different colours and six different types of highlighted text fonts. (Sorry, this is a bit of a general pet peeve of mine and only tangentially related to this issue, but I really think this kind of warning notice overload is one of the big useability issues that Wikipedia really really needs to fix.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:43, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Apart from the crap formatting, though ... I'm pretty sure that would've prevented the issue here, no? Black Kite (talk) 21:04, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Jimfbleak, you shouldn't have edited the article not because there was a hidden comment from Risker to the rest of the admins at the talk page, but because the article was fully-protected. Isn't the intention of this to discuss the changes and reach consensus? I find strange that admins are trying to justify themselves in this basic point.--Jetstreamer ^Talk 19:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Restore Blocks Admins should know better. It's not up to individual admins to decide what is or is not uncontroversial when it comes to editing fully protected articles, which is always the excuse. Only talk page consensus should decide what edits are made on a fully protected page. JOJ ^Hutton 20:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep Unblocked. I think the timeline is a little screwed up here. I don't think these Admins happened to see the warning that was posted on an overloaded Talk Page. As for Mark, on his Talk Page, an editor came to him asking him to make an edit to the protected page and he became aware of the warning after that edit. I realize this isn't a long block but I think that the Admins were not being defiant and were acting in good faith. With a discussion of this article on a half dozen different Noticeboards and Talk Pages, I can see how they didn't see every message made regarding this article. And if it wasn't such a high profile individual, there'd be no question that it should be edited to adjust to a different gender identity. She's not the first transgender individual on Wikipedia. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:08, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked - This all seriously needs a drama reduction right about now. Blocking other admins over stuff like this is just not the way to go, so let's just all call "no harm no foul" and drop this particular tangent. Tarc (talk) 20:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• I'd personally just say reblock because I think that the unblock was done hastily (considerably more hastily then the block). It seems we have too many admins pissy about their "rights" but not really thinking it through. That said, I'm willing to back off on that and say 'ok', they know they shouldn't edit now and that was the goal'. HOWEVER, if other admins continue to edit through the protection I would fully support any block against them. At this point if you don't know you shouldn't be editing you haven't done the due diligence required to edit through that lock. James of UR (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked, and a trout for Risker. As Mark noted in his unblock request, had Risker gone to the admins and said "What the fuck are you doing, revert your improper edit through full protection", he (at least) would have done so. Or maybe, just maybe, Risker and Mark could have, you know, discussed it. How many times have we answered reports on this very page with "Why didn't you talk to the other editor/admin to see why they did that?" How many times are cases or complaints declined because no one asked the offending party to discuss the matter? How many new editors have been told to go discuss their concerns with the admin in question? Why didn't Risker, here, do that same bloody thing? 5 minutes, two edits, and the problem would have been solved. Instead, Risker blocked. I find that to be an appalling abuse of administrator authority. Risker's been here for a long time, and should know better. Or at least I thought so. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• (in response to worries, that admins might be protecting their own in this discussion): I am not an admin, and I do agree that admins in general get blocked less quickly and unblocked more quickly for identical or similar breaches of rules, and I too find this imbalance to be problematic. Yet, keep unblocked mostly per Tarc. One of Tarc's sentences could be modified to "blocking editors over stuff like this is just not the way to go", and I could have added this to most of the posts I've made in favour of unblocking or not-blocking regular editors. Usually the subjects aren't admins, here they happen to be .., or no, it's not random, they are admins, here, because their actions could only have been made by admins. I still don't think they should be punished, and obviously they won't be editing the protected page unless they have a clear mandate to do so (and at least one of them has already indicated they'd be happy not to edit it at all anymore). I really think blocking regulars should remain a last resort, and I wish content-editors who aren't here to push a certain point of view were blocked far more rarely.---Sluzzelin talk 21:09, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked. - If anybody needs to be blocked for misusing the tools, it is Risker. Carrite (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Don't bother closing the barn door after the horse bolted - which is to say, at this point, there's no point in a reblock. As I said above (in the now-collapsed section), I'm not at all sure this was a block-worthy offence, but it was certainly Something That Should Not Be Done, as with the rest of the editing-through-protection. Even if it's within the letter of the policy, it's way outside the spirit, and very much gives the impression of the article having been protected so that only the few, the proud, the admins could edit it without having to deal with the peons. Full protection means full protection - the encyclopedia won't burn down if some WikiGnoming waits a week. I wouldn't have overturned the block, but given that it has been, it's best to dispense seafood and move on, provided there isn't an encore performance. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked. Good block, good unblock. Blocks are preventative. They served their purposes (that is, get sufficient attention to get the involved editors to stop), and got lifted. That's how blocks work. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Admins should not be editing fully protected pages, except as the result of clear consensus on the talk page. As others have said, full protection is not about preventing non-admins from editing a page; full protection is to stop any edits on a page to allow discussion to happen and prevent disruption. It should not have got to the point when Risker had to threaten blocks. Now that the blocks have been undone, I don't think there is any benefit in reinstating them, though I would support blocking any admins who continue to edit inappropriately through full protection. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 22:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment - I can see this going to ArbCom VERY quickly if punative blocks like the above are handed out like candy! PantherLeapord|My talk page|My CSD log 23:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Risker is a member of ArbCom, at least for the time being. It would create a very ticklish situation if a standing Arb was taken to ArbCom for possible sanctions. AutomaticStrikeout (₵) 02:24, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• I have not looked into the situation enough to have a strong opinion. This point doesn't matter. Their being a standing Arb shouldn't provide any hesitation for the community to ask for an Arbcom decision. --Onorem (talk) 02:35, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Whether I personally would have blocked anyone or not, I can see why Risker did so and I am disappointed that so many of my fellow admins have been editing through the protection and undoing one another's actions. This situation needs cool heads and a willingness to proceed exceedingly carefully, and that is the exact opposite of what we have been seeing the past 48 hours. I have no doubt this will end up in arbitration, probably fairly soon, and discretionary sanctions will be imposed to stop this foolishness. Luckily for Risker she now has a reason to recuse from any such proceeding and can be done with this shameful situation. All that being said I don't see any point to restoring the blocks right now but if anyone else admins make any further such edits through the protection without a very firm consensus on their side they can and should be blocked. Being able to edit through protection doesn't make it automatically ok to do so. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked, more or less word for word per Martijn Hoekstra. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Sorry I was away during this wikidrama, but now I have time to respond: I feel that these blocks were punitive not preventive. I was in good faith responding to a request on the talk page about the date format.[122] As per previous consensus, and as written on {{edit protected}}, an admin is permitted to make edits that are either uncontroversial or unrelated to the content dispute. Because the talk page was long, and the target of rapid recent editing, I was not able to clearly see what the consensus was, and thus thought it was uncontroversial, and boldly made the change. In my edit summary, I stated that I thought it was uncontroversial.[123]. If I actually knew that this was controversial, I would not have made the change. The sensible thing that should have been done was to revert my edit and kindly point to me the discussion where consensus was established that the dmy format should be used on that article. Otherwise, if the community feels like that NO admin should make uncontroversial edits through protection, or that admins should be automatically blocked when they make a simple mistake like I did (instead of doing courtesy revert and discuss), consensus should be made to change WP:PPOL accordingly. -- knowing that admins like me will less likely respond to {{edit protected}} or any other similar admin assistance requests for fear of getting blocked by other admins. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • And my response to anybody who still supports restoring the blocks: I will quote Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Purpose and goals: "A user who agrees to desist and appears to have learned from the matter, or where the situation was temporary and has now ended, may be unblocked early.". I affirm to desist from editing that article any further until the protection expires, and I have learned from the matter. Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • By now, I would have definitely reverted my edits on the page, but because of this incident, it has successfully scared me away until the protection expires. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked, per UltraExactZZ and Carrite. I don't see this as a good block, way to quick on the trigger. GregJackP Boomer! 02:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Block Risker for an hour because justice.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• If someone instantly blocked me because I made a single moot edit to a fully-protected page, I'd find that pointlessly draconian. If this was my first block ever, as it appears to have been the case for Mark Arsten, I would actually find such a block to be an explicitly insensitive act of destroying a previously clean block log. Yes, a topic area can be very sensitive and inflammatory, but if we don't axe single-edit anonymous vandals, we shouldn't do the same to other editors, either. Restraint is a quality both Risker and others should have displayed here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 06:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Keep unblocked. Editing through full protection is an offense which is, in my opinion, just barely not serious enough to warrant blocking without a warning that is guaranteed to be seen. The editnotice should have been utilized much earlier. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• 'Keep unblocked - The blocks were an enormous misjudgement. Blocking someone for correcting a spelling error in the non-controversial surname of a BLP subject is utterly, utterly outrageous. WP:IAR applies, WP:COMMONSENSE applies, and Risker showed an alarming lack of the latter, and a disregard for the former. And Risker has also destroyed a previously clean block log of one admin, which is never good. Wikipedia isn't supposed to be a bureaucracy, so why try and turn it into one? Note that I'm not accusing Risker of acting in bad faith, because I don't believe that they were, but that they need to be more sensible. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Protection policy discussions

A couple of points about protection policy:

• WP:GOLDLOCK is the relevant section of policy.
• This was discussed back in May 2013 at an RfC, see here. What I can't make out is whether that RfC actually came to any conclusions or resulted in any changes (or lack of changes) to the policy.

It looks like a new discussion at WT:PROTECT is needed to sort out some of the issues raised above (with a note left at WT:ADMIN as well). Carcharoth (talk) 11:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, having fallen foul of this new policy, it needs clarification.

• It can't be a blanket ban on editing all protected articles. I've tweaked my own FAs when they are protected as TFA. Obviously innocuous, but as I understand it, the wrath of Risker could have fallen on me
• There needs to be some WP:AGF. If I'd been pointed to the threat on the talk page before being blocked, of course I would have reverted my uncontroversial edit rather than face the unexpected shitstorm that followed.
• Is it suggested that we extend this principle to non-admins, and just block rather than warning?
• On the AGF note, I saw some people objecting to the lifting of the block so that we could defend ourselves at ANI! Did they really think we were about to rush back to the Manning article? In the interests of natural justice, there should be a means to contest a block where the cause is clearly not malicious or deliberate controversial editing

Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Day of personal attacks by Josh Gorand

• Josh Gorand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Chelsea Manning (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Good evening ya'all. During this whole Chelesa Manning article move debacle, supporters of a return to the previous title have suffered a repeated assault by several users. One of the more severe is Josh Gorand whom has accused those supports of transphobia, sexual harassment, and a few other things with little or no evidence or support. Diffs:

• you can insist on childishly calling someone who states her name is Chelsea, "Bradley"
• this is probably the most common form of transphobia
• because of all the transphobic commentary on this talk page
• multiple users have posted comments that constitute harassment
• Calling a transgendered person by their birth name if they no longer identify with it, is more than insensitive, it's pure harassment.
• Especially not a "consensus" of virulently transphobic people who completely ignore Wikipedia policy. We don't move articles because some people hate transgendered people, it's that simple.
• it's hard to see any other explanation for someone insisting on calling an individual who self-identifies as female by using their former name with which they no longer identifies, than virulent hatred of transgendered people. I say we end this discussion now, because we are not moving it anywhere because of some (mostly new?) editors' transphobia
• Yes, it is libel, gross sexual harassment, a BLP violation, a violation of MOS:IDENTITY, a violation of human decency, and obvously motivated by transphobic hate,
• "Support" comments riddled with transphobic commentary (Contains a legitimate example of hateful commentary)
• Any editor moving the article to Bradley Manning should be blocked instantly for BLP violation and sexual harassment of the subject.

Also includes threats of off-wiki humiliation

• anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity

He's also treated the issue like a battleground and has been very hostile to others:

• Nope, that's out of the question. We are not going to move the article back
• There are no compromises made when it comes to factual accuracy
• No, because I said no
• The POV that he is a "convicted felon" is basically a fringe POV

I warned Josh that continuing to behave in this way would lead to a report here, and I was further accused of heckling in an edit summary.

While Josh has been very careful not to name a specific user in their name calling, their conduct has been inflammatory, chilling, and disruptive. The only result of their conduct has been increased tension and emotions. I request a topic ban for the duration of the move request.--v/r - TP 01:48, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - Unless we also topic-ban everyone who has made statements comparing Manning's gender identity to a three-year-old child, a dog or other hopelessly offensive, transphobic nonsense. Pointing out the fact that there is a virulent undercurrent of transphobic ridicule and distaste in not all, but many of the !votes to move the article back to Manning's birth name is neither disruptive nor particularly wrong in any sense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm all for that, list each one here with diffs and let's do it.--v/r - TP 01:54, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
    • Well, if you scroll up, you can see a proposed topic ban of User:Baseball_Bugs currently failing, despite that user's incredibly heated transphobic rhetoric and statements that baselessly and absurdly attack Manning, claiming that gender identity is a question of "political correctness" and asserting without a single shred of evidence that Manning is fabricating her gender identity for political and legal purposes. If Baseball Bugs isn't going to be topic-banned, Josh Gorand certainly shouldn't be. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 02:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. Regardless of the position being argued against and regardless of the motivation behind that position, making comments like this in any Wikipedia discussion is wholly unacceptable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'd back up the Bushranger here - just because there are a lot of kettles doesn't mean all of them aren't black. I'm hardly blameless, I'll report myself for edits like this which are probably not entirely within the lines. I'd welcome being blocked if it means that an aggressive approach is taken to some of the actively detrimental behavior that runs unchecked during disputes like this. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 02:52, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support The bits quoted are clear attacks on lots of other people with hateful language; I'm surprised that he wasn't already blocked for blatant NPA violations. Nyttend (talk) 02:49, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The comments in the diffs are clearly designed to chill the discussion of the matter, violate at a minimum WP:CIVILITY, and in some cases, clearly incorrect (i.e., the "convicted felon" comment, since as a matter of law, Manning is a convicted felon). I also don't have a problem with TP's suggestion - if there are other diffs, list 'em. Bushranger is also dead on with his comments. GregJackP Boomer! 02:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Comment Editors objecting to changing a person's name or gender pronouns are not automatically 'transphobic'. If I wanted to become an American citizen, I could take steps to that effect, but I wouldn't be an American until it was official, regardless of how much I might identify as a US citizen. A person would not be discriminating against me for saying I'm not an American. I'm not saying the situation is as simple. What I am saying is that editors should not be so quickly labelled as 'transphobic' when their objections may be purely semantic.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's hard to tease out the logic without knowing more, but it is apparently quite important to some people and it goes beyond mere "truth" or "fact". A comparison with Muhammad and the images is quite apt - this isn't something you'll understand from your perspective, it's just a question of whether Wikipedia is required to kowtow to unusual perspectives, especially at the expense of utility. Folks like the editor in question are (as far as I can tell) not factually wrong when they identify this as offensive, but the editor in question is being rather intolerant of other viewpoints and being extremely aggressive and belligerent towards anyone that disagrees. The problem with Wikipedia is that this is a winning strategy in most disputes - make the debate toxic enough and people will leave. WP:CIVIL is supposed to prevent the "shouting match victory" debating strategy. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • Comment - And what you are displaying is not transphobia, but trans-ignorance. It is not now and has never been required that a transsexual person undergo sexual reassignment surgery to be considered their preferred gender. In fact, SRS is the very last step in the transition process, and a transgender person wishing to undergo that surgery must first live as their gender for a minimum of one year. Gender identity is self-declared and the mere fact that Manning has declared her gender identity to be female is sufficient to make it so. Her biological sex is irrelevant - you cannot, and no one can, rebut or reject her self-declared identity. There is no way for you to prove that Manning's gender identity is not female. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not 'displaying' trans-anything. I simply pointed out that other editors have other perspectives that do not necessarily make them 'transphobic'. I did not say that those other perspectives are necessarily correct.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:19, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, no, you are. You're asserting that it's OK to deny that a person's self-declared gender identity is sufficient to make them that gender (as opposed to biological sex). Anyone who makes that argument, at best, is trans-ignorant. It's the same as claiming that a man who asserts a gay sexual orientation isn't really gay unless they have sex with men, or that maybe they are just confused. Those positions are today completely morally indefensible. If they continue to adhere to those arguments after they have been educated, it is perfectly fair game to consider them transphobic. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No. I didn't. I didn't actually express my own view at all. I stated that other editors may have different perspectives, and that those perspectives don't automatically make them 'transphobic' (a label you're forcing onto others). And that's all. I didn't say the only alterntative to being 'transphobic' is that the editors are otherwise 'correct'. Please stop your rhetoric.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Just because someone holds a " different perspective" doesn't mean that perspective is entitled to any respect whatsoever. There are a great many people who believe that the World Trade Center was a controlled detonation, or who believe that HIV is a government conspiracy, or who believe that Jews control the world economy. I am not required to give any of those ideas the time of day, nor am I required to refrain from expressing my opinion about those ideas. Those ideas are, respectively: insane, disproven, and anti-Semitic. It is not in any way prohibited for me to describe those ideas as such. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that any particular perspective is correct (or 'entitled to respect'). I said that other perspectives are not automatically 'transphobic' or 'trans-ignorant'.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm hearing this as "WP:CIVIL only applies to people I agree with" which is troubling. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Please direct me to the place where WP:CIVIL has ever been interpreted to prohibit someone from calling an edit "homophobic," "anti-Semitic," "racist," "biased," etc. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

It's easy to point out that those are comments about editors, not comments about edits, and violate the fundamental rule of WP:NPA - Comment on content, not on the contributor. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 04:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(e/c) That argument is irrelevant here anyway. Even if Josh is right, his attitude and behavior are in question, not his facts. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 03:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - Dealing with this joker today has been mot trying on the patience, reminiscent of how Ludwigs2 acted during the Muhammad images debate. Users don't get to belligerently declare that their invokation of WP:BLP is some sort of divine right, nor do they get to slur every editor with whom they disagree as a bigoted phobic. Tarc (talk) 03:25, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support This sort of series of personal attack shouldn't be allowed. Capitalismojo (talk) 03:36, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support And this is the tip of the iceberg. I'd also like to point out that Josh took his attacks to the German Wikipedia, saying there that supporting the name Bradley Manning "is grossly insensitive and sexually degrading, if not bigoted" (in English, not German, rudely enough). Someone even came from the German Wikipedia to complain about English Wikipedians encroaching, likely as a consequence of those remarks and ones like them. -- tariqabjotu 03:53, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I was actually sort of amused at Latin. I wouldn't be surprised if it's been moved in a few of the other less-used Wikipedias as well. Looking around, though, it appears that most of the others are moving it on their own choices. 71.231.186.92 (talk) 05:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support - this person is focusing on editors, not content. Kelly ^hi! 05:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: (Note that I am an involved person) This user has repeatedly thrown names at various editors that do not have the same opinion as him, including myself and others, both unprovoked and unreciprocated. Having a glance throughout the entire discussion, I've yet to see disparaging names being thrown at "pro-she" supporters, however phrases like "transphobic" used to describe certain editors with a certain viewpoint have been thrown around too liberally within this discussion, by this user and others, without any reprimand at all. This user has been warned numerous times that such terms shouldn't be thrown at other editors, good faith or bad, due to the negative connotations associated with said term. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:31, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support: After spending the past few days reading the talk page of the article in question, the only conclusion that I've reached is that Josh Gorand is seeking to chill the discussion by labeling anyone that disagrees with his perception of gender identity as ignorant and hateful. While I'm on the fence about the RM, it's crystal clear that Josh is actively derailing any possibility of consensus (no matter how remote that possibility is) with personal attacks against anyone who dares disagree with him. Chillllls (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose - calling out personal attacks and odious behaviour is not somehow worse than the behaviour itself. Compare the extreme provocation of Baseball Bugs, which is apparently being given a pass by the supporters here - David Gerard (talk) 09:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Josh's fortitude and restraint are to be commended. Paris has misrepresented his evidence. For example, this dif which Paris claims show "threats of off-wiki humiliation" only show Josh restoring another editors comment. It seems to have been the pro Bradley side who first threatened the move would bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The difference is, their repeated threats are blatantly counter factual, as all the flagged media coverage has so far been positive. Right wing advocates really need to take some chill pills, and avoid misrepresenting the facts. FeydHuxtable (talk) 11:03, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support The editor's behaviour is inappropriate irrespective of whether his position accords with Wikipedia policies. There are various possible 'benchmarks' for defining 'gender', from the superficial to the specific: self-identification (with or without behaviour or appearance traditionally ascribed to a particular gender), legal recognition of changed self-identification (with or without a name change), possession (at birth or by surgical re-assignment) of sexual organs for the production of egg or sperm cells (irrespective of functionality), XX or XY chromosomes (or variations). All of those factors can—in isolation or in combinations—be used for determining 'gender' in certain contexts, and none automatically identify a person as 'transphobic', which also depends on the context. As it happens, Wikipedia has very clear policies for biographies about living people, and that policy indicates that a person's self-identification is sufficient for gender identification, but that in no way justifies the editor's comments about other editors.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:15, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• support Inappropriate attacks on other editors and throwing around of the word transphobic with abandon which frankly has done nothing to advance the situation. I do think there is some "transphobia" exhibited on that page, but the way this editor has painted everyone who opposed him with a transphobic brush is not helpful to the discussion. we've heard enough from him, so support topic ban until the move request is finished.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 11:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. The editor in question needs to take a break from the page, and since he won't do so voluntarily, a topic ban is appropriate. StAnselm (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. While some of the comments show indeed varying degrees of bigotry against trans people (perhaps not necessarily a phobia, but whatever), playing the "x-phobic!" card in such a sweeping way is a political personal attack, not very different from calling other editors "fascists!" or "racists!". While the editor is entitled to the opinion that some other editors' statement indicate a transphobia, she would be best avoiding it. --cyclopia^speak! 11:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support. I believe that TParis's proposal leaves a great deal to be desired. The section heading is implies an inability to distinguish between criticism, which is allowed (up to a point), and personal attack, which is not. The accusation of "threats of off-wiki humiliation" is unsupported by the diff provided: for one thing, it is quite possible to use the phrase "minor celebrity" to refer to on-wiki notoriety, and for another, the "threat" can very reasonably be taken to be not a threat at all but a practical warning of inevitable consequences. I also have to say that the proposal seems more than a little strange in the context of the larger controversy, which a little ways up the page found TParis !voting against a separate topic ban on another editor whose conduct was hugely disruptive but who was on the other side of the fence when it came to the content dispute. Nevertheless, I do agree that Josh Gorand has displayed hostile, disruptive battleground behavior, and I imagine that a topic ban for the duration of the move request (i.e., per the proposal) might well help lower the tension and thus be of benefit to the project and the community. Rivertorch (talk) 12:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a relatively mild and restrained response to purposefully inflammatory behavior. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• Support As a person who has lost their temper over perceived or obvious sexism, I have to be a bit tolerant of some of the comments, though they are 10x more than I've ever shared in one discussion. But this threat linked above really is going too far: anybody involved in the decision-making here, particularly anybody who decides to move the article back to Bradley Manning, should be preparing themselves for a few days of being a minor celebrity Especially considering that at least one Wikipedian who supports "Chelsea Manning" name has been talking to the media about this and who knows how many contacted the media to make sure they saw her comments in other media or on her blog. There could be quite an organized campaign going on here. More worrisome, implicit is the threat of outing since making anonymous editors minor celebrities might be laughed off, but having one's real name bandied about could possible be humiliating and even lead to job loss. User:Carolmooredc 12:28, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

General sanction: "transphobia"

Passions are quite high on that article. I don't think Josh's exchanges are very much worse than many other participants. An exchange Josh had with me is cited as being evidence of misbehavior. To be honest, I feel it could have come from anyone on that talk page.

A problem I would identify, however, are the wide accusations of "transphobia" (both on the Manning talk and related discussions elsewhere). These accusations (which Josh is also guilty of making) are incivil and do not assume good faith.

I propose a two-week general sanction against accusing others of "transphobia" on Manning-related discussions. During that period, trans issues and the importance of recognising the chosen gender of trans people can of course be discussed - but it must be done without accusing others of "transphobia" or similar accusation.

--RA (✍) 12:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

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) [124] 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) [125], 15:04, 22 August 2013 (UTC) [126] - 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) [127] 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) [128] A revert of a poorly-worded 'proofreading' that contained multiple grammatical and stylistic errors.

15:25, 21 August 2013 (UTC) [129] 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 [130] 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 [131] 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)

Sanity check: reverses the actions of other editors seems clearly to not cover typos, spelling errors, or the like. An "action" consisting of errant spelling is not conceivably covered by the revert rules. Collect (talk) 16:40, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Clearly you've never witnessed an edit war over typos. Believe me, they have happened. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And worse. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Insane stuff. Punctuation, diacritical marks, capitalization, etc. - all manner of stuff that matters to no one except the ones arguing about it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

And whitespace. Edit wars over blank spaces. The horror, the horror... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes. That might be the craziest one of all. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

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

This looks like a legal threat to me [132] 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)

Citing a concern regarding a potential legal issue, whether or not it would actually realistically have any legal implications, is a perfectly valid issue to raise and is not the same as a legal threat. In my mind, there were serious BLP/defamatory concerns in using the subject's male name and male pronouns and that tends to lead very easily to issues concerning slander and libel. I have not threatened anyone with any sort of legal action nor do I have the ability to initiate such action. Haipa Doragon (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It is NOT a valid issue to raise, but rather it's an attempt at intimidation. There IS NO BLP issue involved here. What the subject decides to call him/herself this week has no legal standing; and NO ONE, least of all wikipedia, is obliged to capitulate to the subject's whims. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So how exactly would I go about the issue if there were clear libel on the page, then? I don't stand by what I said about libel originally, because frankly I don't know enough about said laws, but to state that it is intimidation just because I expressed my belief that an action would have legal implications is absurd and bad-faith. "Talking about libel" occurs all the time on Wikipedia and it is not an automatically reprehensible issue. Haipa Doragon (talk) 19:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"If you are going to defame people as Homophobes be informed there anti-defamation laws." That kind of comment is a threat. How to raise the question legimitately? Just say, "Is there a risk of liability on the part of Wikipedia if we say [such-and-such]?" That's the way to go about it, if there's a question. If it's obviously defamatory, such as "[celebrity] is a criminal", without any such facts being ine vidence, that's fair game for removal. As is obvious vandalism such as "[celebrity] sucks". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

My pointing out of a potential action as libellous is not a legal threat: to state that I may initiate legal action, which I have never stated, is. A threat is a statement that I intend to do something against another person or an entity, and I have made no such thing. This is basic semantics and I will not put up with editors twisting words against me. Haipa Doragon (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This isn't a legal threat per se, since saying "there are anti-defamation laws" is not an actual announcement of intent to sue. However, accusation of homophobia falls under tendentious editing, and is itself grounds for blocking if this has persisted in spite of warnings.--WaltCip (talk) 15:36, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Talking about libel and such as that is an attempt to intimidate other editors, and thus qualifies as a legal threat. The idea that Wikipedia could be held liable for using the legal name "Bradley" instead of the new nickname "Chelsea" is a bluff, and basically a joke. Sourcing does not support "Chelsea". Manning would have to sue those sources first, and since the name has no legal standing, neither would any such lawsuit. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I believe the reference to anti-defamation laws was about the user xemself (that xe was being called homophobic/transphobic), not about what name we call Manning. Once again, Bugs, you seem to be the only one who actually feels that strongly about this issue. — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

PinkAmpersand, I fail to see how that matters? Does WP:NLT say "no making legal threats in relation to the subject of articles"? I thought it was a pretty blanket ban on legal threats. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I do feel strongly about the rule against legal threats, yes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

TO clarify, CW (love the username, btw), I was simply pointing out that Bugs's little rant about Manning's first name had nothing to do with the alleged defamation. As for what to do with Fs (I tried to post this a few hours ago, but the edit didn't go through due to "loss of session data," and by the time I noticed that I was busy), I'd say we should give xem a chance to respond before taking any action, so xe has the opportunity to retract the borderline threat, or clarify things, if xe didn't mean it like that. (You'll note that I gave xem a warning for this yesterday.) — PublicAmpers&^{(main account • talk • block)} 18:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Pointing out the existence of anti-defamation laws isn't a threat per se, but given the context, it seems Fs is making at least an implied threat to use anti-defamation laws against a person or people they see as calling them a homophobe. —me_and 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Closing RfC on Tammy Duckworth

Not an issue for Administrators' noticeboard. Referred elsewhere

 – not an "incident" Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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)

Edge3, you might want to list this article here to get it closed. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:56, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Liz! I have posted on that noticeboard. My apologies for the inconvenience. Edge3 (talk) 21:48, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem, Edge3! I'm glad I could answer your question. ;-) Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:28, 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,[133][134][135][] but he is continuing to protest my removal of his commentary on Wikipedia policy from the article space.[136] 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)

This is still clearly a content issue, just like it was a few days ago when multiple editors told you the same thing here. Look for WP:3O or another form of dispute resolution. rʨanaɢ (talk) 14:03, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Two users expressed their POV that it was a content issue. This time I have provided evidence that this user, despite being told multiple times what the policy is, is continuing to dismiss it. It has nothing to do with content, since none of the edits concerned affect article content. The problem is with Enkyo2 adding references to Wikipedia policy to the article space and refusing to desist even when pointed in the direction of the relevant policy. I was not given a chance in the last thread to respond to the question regarding what kind of admin action I want. I want Enkyo2 to stop assuming bad faith on my part, or for someone in authority whose good faith he HAS TO assume to tell him the same thing I have. No one has thus far disagreed with me on the substance here. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone should definitely help this user out on the matter. (I would, since I've worked a lot in self-referential parts of the 'pedia, but I'm a bit busy.) However, he's clearly not the only one doing this. I've noticed several articles where there's a blacklisted link and it says in the footnote "(link not allowed by Wikipedia)"—there's one on Nate Silver that I've been meaning to fix for ages. I.e., this isn't an incident, since it's a fairly common mistake. Maybe the Help Desk or the Teahouse would be a better place to find assistance in explaining it? — PinkAmpers&^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 17:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Hijiri, there are multiple interpretations of what is and is not acceptable under WP:SELFREF (which, by the way, is a guideline, not a policy), and your complaint appears to be not about an editor's behavior but about content being put in an article--that makes this a content dispute. Based on my brief skim of the diff you gave in your first ANI posting on this, that user's edit does not look egregiously out of line (pronunciation notes are not uncommon in articles), so instead of coming to the drama board you should be looking for a reasonable consensus.

Now on to you. Your own behavior in this dispute, as far as I can tell (I have not taken time to dig up all the relevant diffs and history), has not been above reproach. You started a frivolous ANI thread about article content, where you accused your opponent of not speaking English, when that was nowhere close to true. The four complaints that you raised in that thread were all content concerns, and you never explained the issue (which I saw you mention on the user's talk page, not in ANI) of the clarity of the user's talk page posts, so I have no idea which thing you are actually upset about. Finally, as far as I can tell, User talk:Enkyo2#"Jimmu" and others is the only place where you have attempted to have a discussion with the user about that issue (the other diffs you provided are a revert of his edit--reverts are not discussion--and your own ANI thread). This ANI posting is completely premature. The user in question had already responded to you at his talk page before you posted this second ANI, and yet you chose to return to the drama board rather than actually respond to the user. Why don't you try to go resolve this content dispute in a constructive way? rʨanaɢ (talk) 20:07, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The user in question responded on his talk page, but the response essentially said "I don't care what the guideline is, and I'm not going to listen to you". There may be multiple interpretations of SELFREF, but surely inserting one's own controversial interpretation of a Wikipedia style guideline into an article in order to undermine an ongoing RM is near the bottom of potentially acceptable SELFREFS... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, since you have made absolutely no effort to explain the context of this disagreement, why should I (or any other editor here) just take your word that your view is right and the other editor's is wrong? Secondly, you still have not indicated how this is anything other than a content dispute. ANI is not a venue for solving content disputes; people have already given you links to appropriate venues. Continuing this discussion here would be a waste of time. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you have any idea how hard it is to edit English Wikipedia on a Japanese smart phone? I have mentioned a couple of times in the last few days, including here on ANI, that my computer is in bad shape and I can only post from my phone. I have made a TREMENDOUS effort to explain the context. Enkyo2 didn't like my proposed move of Emperor Jimmu, and he responded by posting a note in the first line of the article that expresses his personal interpretation of a guideline that myself and a number of other users including In ictu oculi clearly interpreted the opposite way. This edit did not alter the content of the article, but clearly represents an attempt to bring a dispute about style guidelines into the article space. I can't take it to DRN because there is no content dispute. The closest thing to a content dispute is the original RM (which is still open) which only concerns the spelling of one word. But my problem is Enkyo2's way of dealing with this, which is posting comments that belong on the talk page in the article itself. I am sorry if I sound hostile, but it's NOT fun trying to deal with issues like this exclusively from a phone that keeps trying to convert everything I type into Japanese. (That's also why it's difficult to post a full record of diffs.) Seriously. The other issue I'm dealing with at the moment is an obvious sockpuppet/vandal/POV-pusher, and I wasn't even able to open the SPI myself... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:05, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Based on what you just said, this is absolutely a content dispute. A footnote is article content; if you guys disagree about a footnote, you are disagreeing about article content. Your claim that Enkyo2 refuses to discuss the issue is bogus, because he had already responded to your discussion attempt before you opened this unnecessary thread. Let me say it again (this is the last time I will say it): this is a content dispute.

Also, your problems about your phone are exactly that: your problems. It is frankly ridiculous that you expect someone to take administrative action against some other editor because you can't find a practical way to edit. (Ever think to try a library or internet café?) Likewise, the fact that you're dealing with an unrelated sock is totally irrelevant to this dispute. rʨanaɢ (talk) 05:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Mister Potato 47

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

---

User: Mister Potato 47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

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

Mister Potato 47 is a repeaded vandal on ePSXe[137] and other articles[138]. His previous vandalizing using multiple IP addresses resulted in blocking of at least one of them.[139][140]. After ePSXe was semi-protected, he dug up an old WP account to circumvent the page protetion. This account was also previously involved in edit warring.[141] As this link shows, he is doing this since at least three years and seems totally immune against reason. —KAMiKAZOW (talk) 12:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing vandalism. Disruption maybe, but you might want to read WP:NOTVAND.--v/r - TP 13:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not vandalism in your eyes? What is it then? In this case his edit summary was apparently so harsh, an admin had to remove it. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

That didn't come from this account. There is no vandalism coming from the Mister Potato 47 account. Lashing out at the only administrator who has yet to take notice of your report isn't going to get you anywhere. It's certainly not going to convince me to push the block button and it's not going to encourage any other administrator to jump in either.--v/r - TP 13:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry if it sounded like "lashing out". It wasn't meant this way. The Mister Potato 47 account admitted in this edit summary that he is the same as the other IP users. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:35, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I AM NOT A VANDAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have NEVER caused disruption on ANY page! Years ago on Google Chrome, I went to the talk page to say why my edit should be included, and the majority agreed with me (source: [142]). Now on ePSXe, I have NOT made ANY edit that has damaged the article! Your explanation in the edit summary was again incorrect. Where's that reference I destroyed? Why should the Android build be added to the table? It should only show the PC releases; provide a separate table for the Android releases. And that date table you linked shows that MM/DD/YYYY is an acceptable date format. Seriously, quit this! You're more of a vandal than me because you keep reverting my good faith edits without ever giving a valid reason, and I will not tolerate this! Also, those IP addresses are not actually mine. I'm using a VPN service, so they're very likely shared IPs. Those edits that caused User talk: 198.7.62.204 to be blocked were made by someone else. I'll say it one last time: I'M NOT A VANDAL!!! --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 13:32, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

@KAMiKAZOW, the reason I linked you to WP:NOTVAND is because vandalism requires an intentional "bad faith" attempt to deface Wikipedia. Mister Potato 47 has shown a level of good intentions but lacks a whole lot of competence. That's not vandalism. It may be disruptive, but that's treated separately.

@Mister Potato 47: Perhaps you should spend more time talking about the issues on the article's talk page. You seem to be having difficulty understanding how Wikipedia works and by using the talk page, you can take advantage of the advice of others.--v/r - TP 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

He seems to grasp Wikipedia's inner workings at least so far that he changes IP addresses once one is blocked and digs out an old account once a page is semi-protected.

At first I was not sure if he just lacked competence but seeing how he adapted to blocks, I'm very certain that he does all that in bad faith just to mess with others. I really hope that I make an error in judgment because I'm usually not one to report others but in this case it goes on since almost two weeks: I extend the article with new info and references and he just reverts it – not a single constructive edit (ie. adding(!) content) that may suggest that there is merely a difference in vision for the article. Just destruction, nothing but destruction. --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 13:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said?! As I said before, I have NOT removed a SINGLE reference or ANY info! Seriously, link to an edit that I made where I removed a reference. This admin obviously doesn't agree with you that I'm a vandal. And TParis, I would go to the article's talk page, but I highly doubt he'll ever agree with me. --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to show four references removed by you:

One reference in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EPSXe&diff=569813605&oldid=569806811

developer = ePSXe [[Sociedad de Responsabilidad Limitada|S.L.]]<ref name="android" /> ⬅ This is a reference.

Three references removed in edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EPSXe&diff=568585803&oldid=568500954

[…] ePSXe does not come bundled with any of the PlayStation BIOS images, requiring the user to provide one for the emulator.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.epsxe.com/forum.php |title=ePSXe message board rules |publisher=ePSXe.com |date= |accessdate=2013-08-04}}</ref> ⬅ This is a reference.

* GPU: Most GPU plug-ins run with either [[Direct3D]], [[OpenGL]], or the [[Glide API]], and are available as [[freeware]] or [[open source]]<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.racketboy.com/retro/sony/ps1/enhance-ps1-graphics-with-the-best-epsxe-plugin-settings |title=Enhance PS1 Graphics With The Best ePSXe Plugin Settings |publisher=Racketboy.com |date= |accessdate=2013-08-04}}</ref> ⬅ This is a reference.

[…] though few games have patches available.<ref>[http://forums.ngemu.com/forumdisplay.php?f=46 Game compatibility list for ePSXe]</ref> ⬅ This is a reference.

All these were deleted by you, no matter how hard you deny it or how many times you switch IP addresses via the VPN service you admitted to use. —KAMiKAZOW (talk) 14:41, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I stopped removing those last three references, yet you still reverted my edits! The first one is not even needed. The emulator is developed by three people, there's no company behind it. Seriously, quit accusing me of vandalism. Like I said before, ALL I DID was put the full names of the months on the releases table, put the original date formats back in which YOU changed, and removed the Android version from the table as it is not needed (the table should only show PC releases - make a separate table for the Android releases). Nothing wrong at all with those edits. --Mister Potato 47 (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The emulator is developed by three people, there's no company behind it.

The reference says otherwise.

ALL I DID was put the full names of the months on the releases table

No, you reverted countless of other edits by me.

I follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates with the decision to use abbreviated dates in the table…

put the original date formats back in which YOU changed

I created the table.[143] I changed no date format in it because it was like this since the beginning. I also use proper date templates.

ePSXe is a Spanish product as the S.L. company type tells. Therefore there is no logical reason to force US date formatting onto the article as you tried several times without any explanation.

the table should only show PC releases - make a separate table for the Android releases

You have no authority to order me around.

I am currently the only actual contributor to the ePSXe article. No one else adds content (Bunny Metal Blue with the 1.9 release info being the sole exception this entire year) – reading through the article history, no one added as much content as I did last month for years. Unless a Wikipedia rule changed without me noticing, this gives me some room for creative decisions random “disruptive editors” do not have.

Nothing wrong at all with those edits.

Let's ask the admins who protected the page and blocked the IP addresses you used previously via your VPN service. Maybe User:DMacks, User:GorillaWarfare, User:Mark Arsten, or User:Toddst1 have anything to say whether there was “nothing wrong” with your edits as IP user… —KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

"Unless a Wikipedia rule changed without me noticing, this gives me some room for creative decisions random “disruptive editors” do not have". Nope. Wikipedia is a cooperative effort. Nobody 'owns' an article. Regardless of any other issues, you will have to accept that other people are entitle to propose changes, and you don't have a veto. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Fine but no change was proposed. My additions were just blindly reverted by a person who is known for vandalizing. Isn't there a rule against block circumvention? After all, he admitted to be the IP user who was blocked several times with different IPs… --KAMiKAZOW (talk) 16:33, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've unprotected the page. This is a trivial edit war. Take it to the article talk page and stop edit warring. Nobody WP:OWNs that page. Toddst1 (talk) 16:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

User:MrYesMa'am

I've been dealing with User:MrYesMa'am/User:GagsGagsGags for some time now; he/she has no contributions to Wikipedia, other than to create hoax DVDs/tours/albums by Beyoncé Knowles. I'm not sure if this is done maliciously (the person seems to be very focused on the subject), but nevertheless his/her edits are extremely disruptive.

• I reported User:GagsGagsGags in June for creating three hoax articles, the result of which was a final warning from Drmies. (See here)
• This was then violated within the week and the user was blocked indefinitely. (See here)

Recently, the user appears to have emerged under "MrYesMa'am", and decided to vandalise The Mrs. Carter Show World Tour (the tour Knowles is currently on) by adding a lot of fictional dates. Within the past few weeks, the user has slipped back into hoax/inappropriate pages: "Mrs. Carter (Beyoncé Knowles album)", "Beyoncé: Grown Woman" and "Queen (Beyoncé Knowles album)" (all invented albums, 2 have been deleted via CSD, 1 I have just nominated) and for the latter, extensively edited the Beyoncé Knowles page to include these inventions.

The creation of "Queen (Beyoncé Knowles album)" comes just hours after I issued the user a final warning for their disruptive behaviour, and just demonstrates how this user has no regard for wanting to improve the article. Although they were indefinitely blocked, it seems it was simple for them to just come back under the guise of another account to continue this editing pattern. I find it strange that a user wants to create fictional articles -- it almost comes across as some sort of fan fiction, but any sort of communication with the user is useless as they never reply. I'm not sure what the next steps are, but I don't feel that an account ban will work with this user, as he/she will just not learn. Is there anything that can be done to stop any of this for good? —JennKR | ☎ 13:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• There's no learning curve here: there is nothing to learn. You're dealing with someone who is obsessed, and the best we can do is continue semi-protecting those articles and keeping eyes on new creations, as you have been doing. I just blocked this one, but I think you should file an SPI to gather evidence and help pull out more of those disruptors. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 13:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

The GagsGagsGags account does indeed have a number of of socks, all of which are now blocked. I would suggest going through the contributions of the accounts listed here to ensure that no erroneous information remains in the relevant articles.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you -- I'll check out the socks' contributions to see if I find anything. —JennKR | ☎ 19:19, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

POV IP editor

92.118.26.189 (talk · contribs) made this edit expressing a fairly blatant antisemitic sentiment in the edit summary. I reverted his edit (because the change he made resulted in a mix of BC and BCE, rather than consistent usage throughout per WP:ERA) and left a message at the editor's User Talk page. However, the editor has again restored his edit at Prophecy of Seventy Weeks. Based on the editor's previous edits I'm not sure the behaviour is going to improve without an official warning.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Blocked 36 hours for the racist edit summary. Please try to open a discussion on the content aspects of the dispute on the talk page; there's been no posts there since January. -- Diannaa (talk) 14:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The offensive edit summary was the main problem, which seems to be an escalation in the editor's behaviour that should be 'nipped in the bud'. The application of WP:ERA itself seems fairly uncontroversial, but I'll raise it at Talk if it becomes an issue.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:37, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've revdelled the edit summary too. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Finkellium

• Finkellium (talk · contribs)
• Alice Crimmins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I first came across this article, and editor, following a request from Randykitty (talk · contribs) at WP:BLPN. This editor has an extremely poor grasp of WP:BLP policy, and an even worse attitude. They insist on adding unreferenced, or poorly referenced, and contentious material to an BLP, example diff, despite numerous editors raising concerns on both the article talk page and the user talk page. They have removed valid maintenance templates here and here. They have told me to "go away" and advised me "do not edit it again". They have used faux-complimentary nicknames and comments to insult both myself ("your Giantness" and "GeniusSnowman") as well as Randykitty ("genius editor"). Basically, I feel that they do not have the correct attitude or grasp of policy to edit constructively - I am bringing it here for the community to decide what, if any, action needs taking. GiantSnowman 15:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I agree with the above. This editor has clear problems with WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:RS, WP:I didn't hear that, etc. The attitude problem is obvious, but I start to think that WP:COMPETENT is an issue, too: I originally came to the Crimmins article (not usually an area I edit) because I checked this users edit history, after seeing the badly-researched AfD nomination of Doug Bremner and the inane arguments presented in that AfD. --Randykitty (talk) 15:34, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
  • The Bremner AFD nomination is not over and insulting the valid arguments is not appreciated. GiantSnowman is hurt because I was able to provide accurate support of material he insisted on trying to create a revert war over. He then started the insults. I do not see any reason to escalate this with the complaints to daddy but he does. Sigh. I am scarcely incompetent when in fact I was right. Finkellium (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
    • GiantSnowman did at no point insult you, although he did make a comment about your incompetent editing. Apart from that, you have up till now been wrong on all counts. --Randykitty (talk) 16:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
      • While there are problems with this article, they are ones that I've seen frequently on BLP. Yes, there are issues, but, unfortunately, they frequently appear in individuals notable at an earlier time. Can't these be fixed without filing an ANI? I thought editors were supposed to come here after they've tried to work things out. Why not take this to the BLPN or RSN? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:16, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
        • Thank you Liz. I feel that their personal animus is coloring the decision. I am not ashamed to admit that I was reverting the edit NOT intending to remove templates- I literally just reverted them. I have learned better now but it was not to intimidate them and make them cry like happened. Thank you. Finkellium (talk) 22:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Finkellium, please read WP:BURDEN. It is entirely appropriate that unsourced or poorly sourced content is removed, and should an editor wish to re-add this content, then the burden for providing acceptable sourcing lies with them. Also note that it is entirely appropriate to revert a controversial change, after which time the correct course of action for you would have been to discuss the issue on the talk page (see diagram), instead of engaging in an edit war. It is inappropriate to remove maintenance tags without discussing the concerns on the talk page. It is grossly inappropriate to tell another editor not to edit a page again. This could be interpreted as merely discourteous or threatening. I draw attention to the fact that you do not "own" any wikipedia page, have no right whatsoever to tell other editors if they can work on the page or not. As soon as you make any contribution to an article, it is no longer intellectually your work. Read the Terms of use. It's just under the save page button every time you make an edit. You are clearly not sorry about your behavior, by using words like "cry" above. What do you think this is, some internet forum or online game where you think you can be impolite for no reason? I always think it's pretty funny when people are pointlessly aggressive to people they don't even know, it says so much more about them than the other person. I strongly suggest you familiarize yourself with guidelines and policies that you are clearly not aware of instead of being pointlessly aggressive when people call you on your disruptive behavior. Be polite and respectful and that is how other editors will treat you, it's very simple. Continue as you are an your editing will be a loosing battle that most likely will end in you being banned.

TLDR summary: Editor unfamiliar with editing policies and guidelines, being pointlessly aggressive to editors who are trying to advise them and clean up after him/her.

See also: Online disinhibition effect ; Sea of Cowards. Lesion (talk) 00:14, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• • • • I will thank you for telling me how I feel, I obviously am unable to determine my emotions myself. I do know very well what this is. I told the user to READ the sources before saying something was not sourced next time. I stand by that. I have apologized and admitted that the templates were not removed on purpose but were removed. I would hate to be involved in a "loosing battle" since I think tightness is a virtue. I have just today learned that legal documents detailing the facts in a case are not considered valid. I learn so much here it is amazing. And again, the controversial change apparently is trying to be factual and correct. I am sorry I am so controversialFinkellium (talk) 00:27, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
• This is a good example. I have dyslexia, and I consider myself generally a courteous editor because, e.g. when other editors have to clean up after my typos and errors, I do not start being rude to them. Lesion (talk) 00:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
  • an example of what? I have "Sillus Syndrome and sometimes stub my toe. Finkellium (talk) 00:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was drawing contrast between my not attacking people who have to clean my typos and people who are pointlessly aggressive to others who have to clean up them for other reasons, such as not being familiar with how to edit. And for the record, I did actually spot that after I clicked save, but it's only a talk page and it didn't seem that important =D Lesion (talk) 01:00, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• "Sillus Syndrome and sometimes stub my toe" seems to merit a block, grossly inappropriate. And such a PA after having been warned multiple times (and on ANI at that) is nothing less than a provocation. --Randykitty (talk) 07:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I think they've made it obvious they are not going to stop being discourteous. Attention seeking. Ban might help. Although, it could be argued that Finkellium's deeply unhappy life is punishment enough for anyone =D Lesion (talk) 10:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Lesion, comments like that are not helping the situation, please retract them. GiantSnowman 10:18, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay ... sorry ... =D Lesion (talk) 10:43, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Advice Please

Hello, I've recently registered an account having edited previously with my ip address. With my background I thought I'd be of some help with citations and referencing of information. I picked a new and relatively small [144] article on which to cut my teeth, and have found the experience less than satisfactory. Having offered what I thought was helpful advice, and requested information from a specialized group [145] I seem to have raised the heckles of another person who has being acting in a less than inviting manner. They appear to me to be making peculiar and irrational demands of me [146] and I'm finding the experience less than comfortable. The editing on the encyclopedia is extremely easy, and having edited in the past I've never come across any person like this. I hope I have come to the right place, and if not could someone be good enough to point me in the right direction. --Dr Daly (talk) 16:59, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have left the template on the persons page. --Dr Daly (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr Daly, I hope you do not get discouraged and stop volunteering. There are always frustrating editors, differences of opinion, all that happy primate nonsense. It's much more common for people to cooperate, so don't lose heart. :) Damotclese (talk) 17:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

User:Mabuska should be admonished for biting a newbie by calling Dr Daly a sock without providing solid evidence. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:49, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So what IP did you edit under Dr Daly? This is contrary to what your user page states- that you are a new user who has just studied Wiki policies and only now confident to make edits, now you edited as an IP previously?

Dr Daly to be honest may have just been a new editor to arrive at the wrong time in the middle of an ongoing problem wth a certain editor involving SonofSetantas edits and the latest isue in question: copyvio at Wolfe Tone Societies.

Whilst we should always assume good faith, Dr Dalys recent appearance on Wikipedia and involvement in this very newly created article that has hardly any linked too pages and been very little viewed raised suspicions that they are a sockpuppet of another editor who has been following user SonofSetantas edits and filing AN/I and AE reports on them. Dr Daly has only contributed to this one and only article.

SonofSetanta created the Wolfe Tone Societies article 15:50, 12 August, just after 2 hours it is copyvio tagged. At 22:27 that night Dr Dalys account is created. Dr Dalys first article edit is on the 19th on the Wolfe Tone Societies article - the only artcle they have so far ever edited. Their only issue seems to be in regards to sources, which ironically is what SonofSetenta gets reported for at AE on the 20th, though this is in regards to the copyvio that was tagged on the 12th. Seems too coincidental, and possibly an attempt (by a certain editor who has been stated by several at SonofSetenta quite recent AN/I of being vindicive towards SonofSetenta) to make SoS's usage of sources a sign of troublesome behaviour.and no doubt hoping to get them riled up on the articles talk page which didn't happen.

Problem was, I was the one that added some of the main sources Dr Daly queried, and other stuff was copy and pasted from the older article by SonofSetanta. After taken action in regards to the issue, with my suspicions made known, the initial issues are sorted. Daly then raises a new one and I tell them to be bold and make an edit. They haven't since.

At Dr Dalys talk page I made a reasonable request for them to prove they aren't a sock by making a cntribution to an article on Roy Johnston, a person mentioned in the Wolfe Tone Societies that Dr Daly had a problem with the wording cited. It has similar source issues however despite making a big deal out of the sources on the WST, point blank refused to contribute to an article with similar problems that me, him, and SonofSetanta had not edited before (until I put a tag on the page).

This editors curious behaviour and quickness to file an AN/I report only further fuels my suspicions that Dr Daly is a sockpuppet. Maybe I'm wrong and as stated it's just bad timing on Dr Dalys behalf, but only Dr Dalys actions in the next few days and months such as editing articles that SonofSetanta hasn't edited before and highlighting similar issues as at the WTS article will convince me otherwise..So far they haven't edited any other article and my behaviour is hardly that 'biting' to put them off.

Dr Daly can go about editing as he pleases, I've no beef with that and will make no further issue of them unless it becomes apparent they are following SonofSetantas edits. If he is genuinely a new user to this site, then I apologise wholeheartedly to him, however the coincidental arrival of him is what got me miffed.

Mabuska ^(talk) 20:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Many people chose to contribute through IP because they weren't sure of their commitments to the project. And IPs can't create articles, something you should be very well aware. To create an article, they must register. I fail to see how a new user creating a new article is instantly considered as socking. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 20:46, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote and try to fully understand the situation. Most of your comment is based on something I never said and what I laid out makes it clear there is the potential that Daly is a sock. Take time to read what I actully wrote please. Just to clarify, though it should be obvious in what I wrote above - I'm not claiming Dr Daly as a sock of SonofSetanta. I never said an IP or Dr Daly created anything other than their own account. Also should I notify this potential sock issue at the AE concerning SonofSetanta seeing as it possibly relates to an editor currently at odds with them? Mabuska ^(talk) 21:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, having spent some time going through edit history of the two editors I believe Dr Daly to possibly have been a sock of and comparing it alongside Dr Daly's, I have to say that unless they where logging in an out every minute to make edits under both accounts, the first suspect is extremely unlikely. The second hasn't made enough edits to substantiate a comparison, thus I have most likely made a serious error in judgement and am quite mistaken by the coincidental nature of events as they unfolded.

In that case, I fully apologise to Dr Daly for any distress I may have wrongly caused them, and will issue such an apology on their talk page. Mabuska ^(talk) 23:10, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Dr Daly, the two editors you had differences with have withdrawn from editing that particular article. But, being Wikipedia, you can expect conflict and debate in the future, it's how we reach consensus. You took the right route, discussing it on the article Talk Page then going to RS noticeboard. I'm not sure that filing an AN/I was required as the situation worked itself out. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

FLASH: BRAND NEW EDITOR FINDS RSN ON 16TH EDIT AND AN/I ON 28TH EDIT WITH NO ONE POINTING THEM THERE: FILM AT 11 Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Main Page ->Help Desk->FAQ->Contributing FAQ->Dispute resolution boards. It's almost as if we want new folks to be able to find things. NE Ent 12:08, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

IP Block for Edit Warrior after RFC Resolved

The page Talk:Investment_Industry_Regulatory_Organization_of_Canada#IP_Ban:174.114.18.119 covers the history of this, we had two or more individuals engaged in edit warring after which an RFC was requested, discussed, a decision rendered, and the RFC closed. This morning one of the individuals engaged in the dispute has resumed the edit war so I'm asking WP:AMI to evaluate whether a temporary block is appropriate.

The individual utilizes an IP, not a user name, ergo their Talk: page has not been notified. Damotclese (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

They still need to be notified. I have done so. We don't block people for failure to follow the outcome of an RFC, especially without warning and on their first edit since April. If the disruption continues, please try discussing the problem with the other editor and then if that fails, consider requesting page protection at WP:RFPP. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:05, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, difficult to alert the offending individual when he's using an IP address. We went through a lengthy discussion, several days to allow the individuals to work out an agreement, then RFC, now one of them is back at it. -sigh- Damotclese (talk) 21:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Keansburg

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

---

Good Day, I have been making some useful edits to the KEANSBURG page on Wiki. There is only one Keansburg page so it should be easy to find. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keansburg

Wiki user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alansohn has been reverting my good faith edits and deleting my work. This is a step back in the information sharing process and is detrimental to the progress of the site as a whole. I fear that some of these people are simply making edits to earn a special status or award.

Fireems71 (talk) 19:15, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Judging by the highly confrontational note left on User:Fireems71, it appears that Fireems71 doesn't understand that this is a collaborative project and you can't bully your way through the project. I encourage this user to review Wikipedia:Five pillars and severely adjust his/her mode of interaction with other editors. If that doesn't happen, this user has no place on Wikipedia and should be blocked from editing. Toddst1 (talk) 20:02, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

Threat to contact Interpol by IP User 82.166.140.117

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

---

The ip user made a threat to contact Interpol at User talk:82.166.140.117, specifically "I kindly ask you to remove it, otherwise i will contact the Interpol." Not sure if this falls under WP:LEGAL or not, but it's close enough to me to err on the side of reporting it. Transcendence (talk) 19:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

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

• Guys, the "threat" was against me. I do not think it is a credible threat anyway. The IP user (a new a user) asks for a reproduction of a painting to be removed from an article of Aristarkh Lentulov as a forgery. Apparently there is an article in Haaretz that alleges that the painting is somehow related to criminal rings and forgery. Getting the relevant part of the article requires a paid account that I do not have, but the user seems to have. Obviously if there is a controversy around the painting I would either remove it from the article or write a couple of sentences about the controversy. In the middle of the conversation the new editor got an idea that I might be connected to the criminal ring and threaten to report me to Interpol. Honestly, I do not mind to help police but the only knowledge I have about the painting is the source of the commons image, a reasonably respectful site of a Russian museum. They seem to think the painting is genuine. I am sure that as a new user the IP was not aware of WP:NLT and I would rather work with him or her on the article then see him or her blocked. Is it OK if I unblock the IP? Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Please be sure to re-block them if they do more of the same. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Didn't you know Interpol has a team dedicated solely to finding Wikipedia editors and bringing them to justice? ;) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 06:47, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I did not know either although many years ago I was contacted by a German police regarding me uploading an image to commons. Apparently the painting was stolen by Nazis and they though I might know the real location of it. Unfortunately the only help I could provide was a link to the web site I have downloaded the image from (the info was already on the commons page). Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

I unblocked the guy Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Beatles Vandal

The community banned Beatles vandal is back at cultural diversity. A range block was applied a few days ago to a different range. Here are some of his recent edits in case it will help determine a new range block. (Most of the individual IPs are already blocked.) [147][148][149][150][151][152][153][154][155][156][157][158][159][160][161][162] Sophitessa (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I've made a couple of narrow 6 month blocks to 2.93.81.0/24 and 93.81.16.0/24. We'll see if we collect more data points. Acroterion (talk) 01:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

User Mmay2

• Mmay2 (talk · contribs)
• 67.171.217.5 (talk · contribs)
• Tigger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piglet (Winnie-the-Pooh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Rabbit (Winnie-the-Pooh) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Winnie-the-Pooh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bambi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Faline (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Bambi (character) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

...and perhaps more. Messing with the infoboxes without explanation. Who knew these characters had occupations? JNW (talk) 20:30, 23 August 2013 (UTC) ‎ ‎

• I've added an IP account that looks related, and has been warned multiple times for copyright violations. I suspect this is someone who jumps accounts and plows ahead. JNW (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

• I first encountered the user Mmay2 yesterday when I reverted several edits and left a note on their talk page. They declined to respond to my note and have continued their editing, changing infobox colors seemingly at random (sometimes with illegible results), saddling various notable fictional characters with non-notable (in some cases, made-up) nicknames, and making various other changes that are unconstructive. I've just been reverting a few more—and finding it awkward since in some cases there have been subsequent edits from someone else. I suspect we're dealing with a competency issue here, not vandalism, but whatever it is it is disruptive and needs to stop. I'm off to issue a sterner warning now, but if the user proves redeemable I'm guessing a shot across their bows is going to be needed first to get their attention. I'll cough up some diffs if they're really needed, but honestly the history of the above-linked articles tells it pretty well. Add Eeyore to the list. Rivertorch (talk) 07:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC) If anyone would like to help sift through the user's contributions, please be my guest. There seem to be some constructive edits mixed in there, including at least one new article: the mistitled but apparently legitimate Disney's DTV MONSTER HITS (1987 film). Rivertorch (talk) 08:12, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

The sole prose sentence in the Monster Hits article (which is all that the article originally consisted of) appears to be a copy/paste from elsewhere, so that the article is foundationally a copyvio. I don't know what the procedure is to get rid of the copyvio in such cases. Delete the article and then restore it with the sentence rewritten? Deor (talk) 12:17, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

That dovetails with what I was about to add: I've also found and deleted copyright violation passages of movie plots in several articles he/she created. You can tag the articles as copyvios, remove the offending passages, or if the whole thing is rotten request speedy. JNW (talk) 12:23, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit war at Wikipedia:Banning policy

Multiple users, most making only one revert, in a manner not unlike the unsolvable ArbCom case on the Tea Party movement... Someone not using his real name (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Um, I don't really see an edit war there. I see several reverts, yes, but then I see discussion moving to the talk page. This is not an AN/I matter, suggest closing forwith. And although with reccomended closure it's a bit of a moot point, I don't see you having notified any of the participants in this putative edit-war that you opened this AN/I thread, so I have done so, and here's a {{minnow}} for that. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Plip!

Soccer in Australia - chemical weapons deployed

Just taking a quick look at Talk:Soccer in Australia, and (without highlighting anyone in particular) there seems to be a lot of personal abuse going on there. Perhaps some sort of official chill could be dropped on it? --Pete (talk) 22:01, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Unless something has been redacted recently, I don't see anything needing attention. There is one "BULLSHIT", but a very quick skim (and believing the more plausible statements) makes me think it is understandable that such a comment was used because (apparently), "That claim is simply incorrect. It has been explained several times earlier in the thread." I'm not supporting use of "BS", I'm just saying that its use seems understandable when claims that are incorrect are repeatedly made, and one such usage doesn't really rate as personal abuse. If there is something more, please quote a few words to make finding it easier. Johnuniq (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I said "BULLSHIT" because, as you noted, it was "BULLSHIT". I later withdrew from that thread because it was obvious that rational conversation had ceased from those pushing the line I had called "BULLSHIT". And now, while I perhaps shouldn't have used such language, I think it did have the desired effect and made those posting the bullshit think a little, but only a little, more deeply. What I'd like to know now is, what are the consequences for those who posted the bullshit? Do they get off scot free despite repeatedly posting absolute nonsense here? Incivility comes in many forms. HiLo48 (talk) 07:20, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, that whole thread was based on a false assertion, quickly clarified as such, but the proponents of the change (now correctly ruled out by the closing Admin) continued to post falsehoods for days on end. This wasn't the first thread of its kind about that article, and really the whole issue of the naming of the game in Australia on Wikipedia, and it won't be the last. Future threads are almost guaranteed to be equally volatile because of the beliefs and ideology rather than knowledge of those pushing the soccer=football line. Can we stop it? HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

HiLo, I agree with your position on this content, but not your way of expressing it. There's a fairly liberal spread of abuse there, but can't we use facts and logic rather than rudeness to make a point? When we lose our temper, it raises the temperature of discussion and things are said that shouldn't be. --Pete (talk) 08:16, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

No, many of us tried using facts and logic, repeatedly, over several days, and it didn't work. Next suggestion? HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

And more importantly, what is Wikipedia going to do about the small group of editors who continued to spout bullshit in response to our facts and logic. That's where the real problem lies. They need to experience some consequences, otherwise it will all just happen again. HiLo48 (talk) 08:44, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Otto Placik editing plastic surgery articles

Otto Placik (talk · contribs), whose user page identifies him as a Chicago-based plastic surgeon, fails to follow WP:BRD and insists on edit-warring a major re-write into labiaplasty. He has now been reverted by three different editors: User:SlimVirgin, User:‎Christopher Connor and myself. His large-scale changes have been reinserted five times this month:

• 20:51, 8 August 2013, by a Chicago-based IP,
• 04:23, 19 August 2013 by Otto Placik
• 06:01, 22 August 2013 by Otto Placik
• 03:03, 24 August 2013 by Otto Placik
• 04:33, 24 August 2013 by Otto Placik

All of us feel that the changes turn the page into an advertisement for the procedure (which is, after all, one Mr Placik performs in his day job as a plastic surgeon in order to earn a living).

Also note this earlier revert by a similar Chicago-based single-purpose IP. (Note: Casliber has now fully protected the article.)

As SlimVirgin has pointed out on Talk:Labiaplasty, there is a significant and recurrent history of COI and neutrality concerns expressed about Otto Placik at WikiProject Medicine, over a period of years. The most recent discussions were [163] and [164] – note for example comment by Jmh649: "I would agree that some of this appears to be little more than advertising." Also note the list of single-purpose accounts and IPs editing Wikipedia solely to come to Otto Placik's aid, provided by Paravis in this discussion. They were all blocked by PeterSymonds in 2009:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Emilymiller123
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sarahjjohnson123
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.63.221.230 (yet another single-purpose Chicago IP)
• Sockpuppet investigation

In my opinion, there is a consistent pattern of abuse, incl. edit-warring with the aid of meat- or sockpuppets, across multiple articles, spanning at least four years, and Dr Placik should be banned from editing articles on plastic surgery, broadly defined, if not community-banned.

Speaking to the broader point, we have had problems with plastic surgeons in this topic area before (e.g. WP:COI issues re plastic surgery articles; Plastic surgeon using Wikipedia as an advertisement for his services; etc.). Vigilance should be exercised, as almost any woman or man contemplating plastic surgery is likely to consult Wikipedia as a supposedly neutral reference source before making the decision to spend several thousand dollars on plastic surgery. They trust Wikipedia not to be written and illustrated by the same people who author and illustrate plastic surgeons' commercial websites and brochures (example: [165], [166], [167], [168]). Andreas JN466 05:51, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Support ban

• Support both topic and community ban, given the above history, especially the recurrent pattern of single-purpose meatpuppets or sockpuppets. Andreas JN466 06:06, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Support with proviso that if he can be more WP:CIVIL than the comments I saw on the article, I would not have a problem with him proposing changes on the talkpage. He definitely needs to stay away from the article space in that area. Clearly both WP:COI and WP:SPAM. Are the other accounts tied to him? I wasn't sure if you are also questioning the use of sock- or meat-puppets for action here. I mean besides the ones that are already blocked. If so, that needs to be addressed at WP:SPI, not here. GregJackP Boomer! 06:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment It is unlikely that the user in question is going to edit anything other than plastic surgery and therefore a topic ban is more or less a block. While some of his images are concerning others are good as discussed below. Concerns however include the "other new accounts" that have appear to help him and the use of some primary rather than secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:39, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Discussion

GregJackP, as for the various single-purpose accounts, all of whose edits were related to Otto Placik, Sarahjjohnson123 (talk · contribs) and Emilymiller123 (talk · contribs) were indefinitely blocked; 75.63.221.230 (talk · contribs) was blocked for a week in 2009. As for the other Chicago-based IPs that have been active recently,

• 64.107.183.186 (talk · contribs) has only one contribution in the last seven years, edit summary: "Reverted POV version by Slimvirgin, restored NPOV version by User Otto Placik."
• 64.107.183.115 (talk · contribs) has only one article space contribution in the last seven years, edit summary: "Restored factual version by User:Otto Placik, Because Wikipedia is not censored, will the 'majority' of four editors please explain their bogus COI-censorship of Dr. Placik's contribution?" (plus one edit to Talk:Labiaplasty).

The pattern, focus and geographical proximity are clear enough without troubling SPI. Andreas JN466 06:33, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes the potential use of sockpuppets or others closely tied to him to help him edit is of concern. Also the edit warring here [169] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:56, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

• While many of his images are professional looking they are also a little spammy. Take a look at this before and afters [170] no makeup on the before, wearing on the after, [171] no suntan on the before suntan on the after, [172] no suntan on the before however suntan on the after, and same here [173] and [174]. There appears to be efforts to improve the after images in ways other than the surgery which makes them look like an infomercial. Other images however are not so bad [175] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:21, 24 August 2013 (UTC)