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

Harassment

I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples:

• DYK nomination for Tripedalia cystophora
• DYK nomination for Euglossa dilemma
• AfadsBad's talk page My name and reputation gets dragged into a discussion where the subject is something else entirely. User HalfGig was also harassed and stopped editing after this incident.
• AfadsBad's talk page again I ask for guidance on my errors but do not receive it.

The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar". Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I am not going to read all this. "Underemployed scholar?" Lol.

Anyway, Cwmhiraeth cannot accurately place information in Wikipedia, and her level of knowledge is frequently too low to communicate what is wrong to her, like why C4 and CAM photosynthesis have different names. Every article of hers has made up information, inaccurate information, random pieces of information that give undue weight to what she has added, and plagiarism. Her main sources are usually too old, and she cannot overcome the problems of the disagreements between 1963 taxomony books and advances in modern biochemistry. She does not repair articles when she can understand what is wrong, and continues adding the same errors.

Go ahead, check her articles against their sources. "Tropical Southern Ocean," "no cacti have leaves," "CAM and C4 photosynthesis are identical," the sea disaster corrected after it was off the main page.

Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, it is surprising that Wikipedia editors and admins would fight to keep 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia with made up science and taxonomies in them and want to continue adding them.

WikiCup Ahoy! And onward Essjay! Or whatever his name was, he has good company with WikiScholar Cwmhiraeth. Her articles are passed and passed to the main page based on the strength of her having written so many, she doesn't claim expertise, but Wikipedia editorial superiority over the "underemployed scholar." Expertise exhibited. Taxonomy for Dummies, anyone?

Correcting bad science is harassment? So what is making up 1300+ main page articles for probably millions of hits, replacement of accurate science in Google search results with fantasy taxonomies, and making a mockery of an encyclopedia?

And Colonel Henry demanding that intrusive liquid metasediments intruding imaginary rocks is a Good Article?

You don't need experts, just qualified ninth graders.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates WP:NPA. However frustrated you might be with a user, do not under any circumstances patronize him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of AfadsBad's critiques of DYK science content being very well founded. Mind you, AN/I probably is hardly the right venue for that discussion. (I'd suggest Wikipedia:Editor review or an WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.

As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for Desert and this is the response I got, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" The chunks of text I removed was misinformation; it is not true that all cactic don't have leaves, and no sources said that. I removed the misinformation about C4 plants being just like CAM plants, and Cwmhiraeth reverted the removal and claimed that it was true, again. And, in addition, also claimed that this information was sourced. She does not listen to corrections, and the only reason she is paying attention now is because of her claims, and now yours, about my "shitty way of bringing things up." Does any one on Wikipedia care that the content is wrong? I tried just stating that it was wrong. I was insulted and scolded as if I was an incompetent child interfering with someone's owned article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.

The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.

I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

  I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."

If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her wikihounding at the project, and the offsite harassment. Correcting an error or discussing an error is one thing...but AfadsBad's behavior, especially the counterproductive incessantly-repeated ranting and attempts to drive away editors (WP:CTDAPE), is downright bullying and abusive. I would propose some sanction also if AfadsBad keeps rehashing the same argument--it's old, it's tiresome-- she's said over five times and is older than two months (i.e. water under the bridge)--since most of her complaints have been repeated to anyone who would listen and happened last year (rehashing old shit is bad form to begin with...rehashing it as an attack is disruptive and a waste of anyone's time).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor and the commentary I saw at Cas Liber's page and User:AfadsBad as it appears today suggests a level of personal attacks that is over the top. This sort of thing is unacceptable; people can disagree over content without behaving like this. Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly no good reason nor intention from AfadsBad when User:AfadsBad directly names and shames User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know. Something must be done to stop AfadsBad from acting as so. starship.paint "YES!" 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out to Cwmhiraeth three days ago at the Editor Review that she added the following information to Desert in May 2013: "Cold deserts can be covered with snow or ice for part of the year; frozen water unavailable to plant life. They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica. The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F) ..." and that this information was false. Her response to me did not acknowledge the problem, and she has not seen fit to correct the article. (If you don't understand why the information in the desert article is so wrong, look up Godthab#Climate, Qaanaaq#Climate, Cape_Dorset#Climate, or take a look at File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png.)

So for most of the past year, the article desert has contained information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts that is completely false. Even when it has been pointed out directly to Cwmhiraeth, she has not corrected it. She also didn't correct a misleading citation I pointed out to her. I think it is fair to say that she is not very responsive to criticism, and in a collaborative project, that is a problem. Assuming AfadsBad's statement "she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct" refers to Cwmhiraeth, it is an accurate description of what I see happening.

The desert article is rated as a Good Article, and attracts around 100,000 views a month. It is one of Wikipedia's 3,000 most viewed articles. Since the false information about the winter temperature in cold deserts was added, the article has seen around a million page views. If it hadn't been for AfadsBad's criticism, this would not have come to light. Now I would like to ask everyone who commented here to think seriously about who serves Wikipedia's reading and donating public, and indeed this project's fundamental goals, better – AfadsBad or the editor who added this and other false information to Wikipedia and shows little inclination to acknowledge that there is any problem? Andreas JN466 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, the statement you make above is very misleading. In my review, you made a number of comments on the Desert article and I responded to most of them, but not to the one you mention above. This was because the information was cited in the article. It was not until several hours after you wrote the post above that you looked at the article, saw the statement was sourced and added "unreliable source" tags and I have now dealt with the issue. On my editor review page you then apologized to me and hid the discussion under an "I misunderstood" heading. Why did you not also retract your accusation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, still, there will still be consequences for off wiki harassment and NPA violations, regardless of the quality of their edits. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says a user who has been here for just about two months and has had his user page revision-deleted by an arbitrator. Good show. Andreas JN466 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas, This comment is confusing, what are you trying to get across? What should I do? Could you explain your advice? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, was there any reason for you to attack Happy Attack Dog? It seems rather suspicious that you resorted to Ad hominem. HAD's rev-dels were apparently done to suppress revealing personally-identifiable information, by the way. starship.paint "YES!" 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Much like me, Andreas is unimpressed about a child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor. — Scott • talk 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if a "child" can talk sense, why should I discount his opinion? You've made yourself look much worse with your comment and edit summary of Adults are talking. starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That was completely uncalled for, Scott. There's been enough mudslinging in this thread as it is. Let's keep it objective here and stick to what we know: Cwmhiraeth has charged AfadsBad with harassment, and there is evidence that while AfadsBad has some good points she could, to say the least, communicate them much more politely. Anger doesn't help a situation like this; let's refrain from slinging childish insults at each other and focus on the matter at hand - improving articles to reflect the truth. LazyBastardGuy 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to someone who calls himself "LazyBastardGuy", pointing out that someone is a child is a personal attack. I can't wait for the next Through the Looking-Glass style revelation that emerges from this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, a "child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor". Your use of "child" was inappropriate, and I do not care about the age of the editor in question (your use was more of a reference to immaturity than actual age). As for my username, it's a reference to me, not to you, not to anyone else. And trust me, the irony of it is not lost on me in this situation (I would have been a fool to expect no comment on it). Maybe if we could all step back from name calling and not care who is doing what, we could then look at the situation rationally and focus on the main ideas I've outlined above your post. I'm done here and if I were you I wouldn't respond to this so as to avoid the appearance of trying to WP:WIN. LazyBastardGuy 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The only way I could "win" would be if I could magically remove all the crud Cwmhiraeth has added to Wikipedia, retroactively, so that thousands of children of "Happy Attack Dog"'s age group could have been spared from being exposed to it. — Scott • talk 18:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Per your points above, LBG, that I could have communicated my points more politely. When I did, Cwmhiraeth scolded me for messing up the format when I removed one piece of bad science (so, formatting is a much more important policy than verifiability?), reverted me on a second piece of bad science I had removed, restoring it to one of en.Wikipedia's mostly highly accessed articles, and ignored everything else I said. How polite am I expected to be in the face of clear evidence that Cwmhiraeth has ownership issues with articles she writes and does not take to editors making corrections on her articles? I have been pointing out her errors for months now. She is upset and considers this harrassmnt. But she doesn't see any need to correct her errors. Pointing out errors politely failed. Pointing out errors in a straight-forward manner failed.

Does verifiability and accuracy matter at all to the encyclopedia? Another editor, below, points out that Cwmhiraeth obviously and repeatedly and problematically makes exactly the types of errors I claim she makes. They are not discrete, occassional or difficult to catch. They are howlers. And she has over 1300 articles full of errors she will not correct. One GA requires a reassessment, a FA required extensive rewriting of its howlers while and after appearing on the main page, and yet another is being rewritten during her editor review. Is she making the corrections? A few, but mostly she is focused on writng more articles in the race to the WikiCup, and they all have the same sort of errors. I think en.Wikipedia culture and especially its WikiCup and DYK subcultures make it impossible to correct a "popular" editor, because the culture favors social relationships built by insiders over accuracy and encyclopedic content. :::::::::::En.Wikipedia has an essay about experts that diminishes and scolds experts to show the supposed superiority of Wikipedia's content delivery system over other encyclopedias, warning experts not to rely upon personal opinion, and that their information must not be OR and must be verifiable. It appears these rules apply to experts, but not Cwmhiraeth. There is no method that will get Cwmhiraeth to correct her howlers, politely pointing out errors was dismissed and scolded, while the errors were returned to en.Wikipedia or ignored. Are we writing an encyclopedia here? Not around those 1300 articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

I won’t comment on any of your interactions with other editors, but I will say this: Take a deep breath and relax; now an editor review is open and things are getting done. I hope it is to everyone’s mutual satisfaction; we’re moving forward, hopefully, to what the end result should be and should have been all along. LBG out. LazyBastardGuy 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the end result being 1300 bad articles that fail verifiability and fly in the face of policies on OR and SYN remaining on Wikipedia, uncorrected, and the next editor who notes a problem wiith the science also being told, "Hold your breath little girl, you're too tense." As if this is the only problem. A GA was promoted full of nonsense, imaginary rocks and time travel. I was told the editor had followed rules in promoting it, so it could not be delisted even though it was far worse than a hoax. A Featured Pcture was promoted that contradicts the article, pic or article is either wrong or unsourced or pure OR. I noted this at the FP selection template, but the picture was promoted anyway, because consensus on en.Wikipedia is a majority vote, and, again I find that verifiability is the lowest policy on Wikipedia. There is no method for an editor to safely remove a scientifc mistake fom Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth is not correcting the mistakes she knows about, she is creating more. That is the end result, another thousand mistake-ridden articles gracing en.Wikipedia's main page to follow the last thousand she put there. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light.

Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopia^speak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the most sensible post on this debacle so far. Andreas JN466 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet, as obvious and glaring as her errors are, they require that Wikipedia spend thousands of hours pointing out every one of them, instead of her stopping with their creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yes, but moaning won't help. As far as I can tell, you're right on the science; you just need to decide whether you care enough to do something about it here, on Wikipedia, or not. If you want her to stop creating these articles, draft an RfC/U with the appropriate evidence and make a case for a topic ban. Or simply walk away, leave Wikipedia to its devices, and contact editors of science journals. Andreas JN466 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. It is especially obvious the editor review is a waste of time, although I will post a list there. Many other editors have seen and can see the glaring errors in her articles, but Cwmhiraeth is content to create more, and the community is content to let her. Verifable, accurate science articles, that are not OR and not odd syntheses of random facts and factoids are not wanted on en.Wikipedia, and my moaning and groaning about the crud will have no impact until en.Wikipedia demands competence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Harassment ok now? Need sanctions on editor

Whatever the content problems, I can't help but wonder why this harassment hasn't been dealt with quickly per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and anything else that might apply. Off wiki harassment wise, I see on her blog User:AfadsBad has a number of posts about user Cwmhiraeth. Why not just change the section title and content to: Feel free to trash editors/admins/arbitrators offline if the policy is not enforced? The editor needs some sanctions til she admits it's bad behavior and stops it permanently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore WP:Verifiability should be added first, it's a higher pilar. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here or elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like this, this, this, this or this. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. Andreas JN466 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that. (Will check the links.) Are you talking about Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment which is linked from Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment? So we can criticize away on our personal blogs as long as we don't link to it from wikipedia or "out" others ourselves? Even ones you are forbidden to interact with on wikipedia? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Mostly conjectoral/rethorical question. Not something I would do myself, but it could get annoying and feel like harassment if others did it to me more frequently than they already done. I have seen two editors using their user names say nasty things about me on one of the Wikipedia-critical sites (one now site banned for other reasons, another who stopped editing a year or so ago). And an anonymous non-Wiki user with off wiki issues trashed me repeatedly about Wikipedia on his personal blog (someone was blocked recently for linking to one of his posts about me). So I have to have sympathy with Cwmhiraeth. Plus it's not the sort of thing we want to encourage Wikipedia wide and at the least should be considered a negative factor when looking at the whole picture, which I think the harassment policy makes pretty clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad no one will ever be blocked for creating 1300 unverifiable articles. The criticism on my blog is largely content criticism, but, I do mention the editors who create the content. I have problems with the WikiCup which appears to create an atmosphere that encourages promotion and front page dispay of articles full of made up science. Did you create bad articles, filled with unverifiable nonsense, then revert and scold the editor who removed the nonsense? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Actually we do want to encourage people to pay attention to bad science in articles, as well as editors who cause issues in multiple articles. It is not harrassment to look at, and point out an editors errors in detail when they show a pattern. The relevant quote from the harrassment policy (hounding subsection) would be Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. From the evidence at the review its becoming quite clear there are related problems on multiple articles. Well, a related problem. Perhaps next time pay attention to the whole of the policy rather than the specific bits you want to sanction someone for. The harrassment policy is designed to prevent people from being unduly harrassed. It is *not* a shield to hide behind when you come under the spotlight for your bad editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and the incessant repeating of vitriolic harangues and browbeating to anyone anywhere who would listen with few genuine efforts to correct problems. If AfadsBad worked like a little gnome to correct errors and actually contributed to the greater pool of knowledge no one would be having this conversation. Instead, she has the kindness of a rabid hyena and can't stop sounding like a broken 45. If Cwmhiraeth made errors, fine, she's working in good faith and if approached in the ideal spirit of Good Will that Wikipedia prefers (as I've experienced working with her), she would work to correct the record. However, AfadsBad doesn't have an ounce of good will in her, and in eight months of constant harassment, hasn't done much to "fix unambiguous errors" or "correct related problems". Just ranting and obsessive attacks. Thus, sanctions are not just appropriate--they are sorely overdue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Do you think Cwmhiraeth will correct all of the errors in her 1300 article contributions? When? She does not seem to be able to correct the errors in five articles in a week. Say 2 days/article, a couple of years from now, while those articles stay on Wikipedia? The Desert schtick is old? How come editors are still having to correct her errors in the article? What would really make the schtick old is if the errors had ben corrected. They haven't. It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. You should feel free to correct them yourself, if being here so I can talk about them bothers you. Better yet, she could correct them while stopping to add more. It is an encyclopedia, after all. And competence is required. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Laugh all you want. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project--one person adds, another adds more or subtracts a little, etc., until eventually it's polished. If you don't intend to contribute, then why are you here? If you only exist to sit on the sidelines and scream at the participants but never played the game yourself... well, I could find some colourful metaphors for "go home" that would not be in good faith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. WP:SOFIXIT exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

When you discover an oil spill which is the better fix a) mop up the mess day after day, or b) shut off the faucet? John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried. She reverted, scolded and told me that she owned the articles and would do as she pleased. And, Cwmhiraeth is well supported in this, in keeping her 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia, on its main page, in its FA and GA queues. SOFIXIT doesn't really allow for battling a popular incompetent editor. She wins. Even you are supporting her, Bushranger, by saying the problem is not her writing 1300 bad articles, by saying that WP:Verifiability is trumped by WP:SOFIXIT, and the real problem is my not fixing them. Lol. You don't have to be competent to write Wikipedia articles, because fixing your incompetent edits is someone else's job? 8 months telling her, and she continues to add hundreds more bad articles, and it's now my job to fix all 1300 of them? It's taking her a week to partially fix five of her articles. Why don't you go fix 650, then, when you're done, I'll begin working on the other 700. Meanwhile, she'll create more. And, Wikipedia's reputation as a source will continue to plummet. Editors will question, rightly, whether they need to have verifiable articles, whether they can just fake or make up what the source says, whether they can just mix and match a bunch of different things picked randomly, carelessly, and inaccurately from sources and call it a DYK or GA or FA. Yes, look, Cwmhiraeth does that, and look at this ANI thread, and this editor review, all these people know she does it, and she wins awards and praise for it. Everyone should just do that. And, then, if anyone questions the incompetency, tell them to go fix it! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You keep bantering around that number 1,300 like it's a real statistic...so far you've complained about maybe a dozen articles, maybe 15 at most. So while you harp on about bad science, maybe you should consider bad statistics...in the vein of knowing 500% of statistics are exaggerated, put up the facts and stop the rhetoric. If you have a list of 1,300 articles with their errors, put it up. Instead of bitching and complaining and repeating yourself over and over and over again....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Identify the specific errors succinctly (no rhetoric), fix them yourself, or go back to your day job pushing a mop at walmart and be a intolerable miserable curmudgeon on your own time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you had me working as a night clerk at WalMart, now I mop floors days, too? In spite of all this work, I can still spot those science errors, like the imaginary rock formations.

Find one of hers without errors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Can't shift the burden of proof. Put up or shut up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that another one of your rules, like the Good Article review rule? Lol. Just one. She even offered a list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

And in those 8 months have you actually done anything about the problems or just scream harrassment too? 8 months is a long time for an editor to have no improvement. It cuts both ways. Because if AfasBad has been doing this for 8 months and no one is listening, it doesnt really reflect badly on AfadsBad. It reflects badly on the people blaming the messenger. "Working in good faith" does not excuse poor writing. Well actually it probably would excuse poor writing if someone else did the clean up. But it does not excuse synthesis, bad sourcing and blatant factual errors. Nor does it excuse the people reviewing, promoting, then defending such as great work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If AfadsBad rolled up her sleeves and got into the mix, or provided an actionable list of things to correct, they would have been corrected. Instead, aggressive rants was the only m.o. Unfortunately, trolls can only be tolerated for so long and best ignored. If AfadsBad was ignored, and she was often, it was because of method, not message. I have only so much time in this transitory life to be hunting for the chance that she's provided one gem of a worthwhile actionable correction in the massive pile of dung she spewed in her tediously repetitive rants. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to let this play out without commenting, but what the hell. The issue is systemic within the DYK, GA and FA crew. Hardly any of them have expertise in the subject matter. What the editors are doing is grabbing books from libraries, and pdfs from the web and mixing and matching the content. However, they don't have knowledge as to whether the works they are referencing are reliable, up to date, or aren't works of fiction. The mix and matching process that then takes place is an effort to avoid complaints plagiarism, by the the close paraphrasing nazis, so synonyms are used, sentences swapped about, and the science that may originally have been in the sources becomes mangled. The reviewers come along and, being just as clueless as the editor, looks for phrases in the source which are similar to those in the article. The result, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe: all the right words are there they just aren't in the right order. The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. John lilburne (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and your opinion was heard on Wikipediocracy already. No one has ever accused me of plagiarism, paraphrasing, or being egregiously wrong in the articles I've written--so, apparently you're talking from your posterior, IMHO, in painting me with your broad brush. You find something to correct, I'll correct. But a critic who aggressively rants and raves and abuses in the petulant manner as we have seen directed at Cwmhiraeth and others, and someone like AfadsBad deserves to be banned--and I'm rather certain AfadsBad has been before (under other names) for the same crap.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well now it is being heard here too. Now weren't you the one that promoted garbled Geology to GA status only to have it yanked 24 hours later? Despite evidence being presented you still seemed hell bent on dismissing the nonsense science in the article. I think it is plain that you are incapable of discerning rubbish science, and resort to bluster and moaning when called on it. Others might also be inclined to think that your comments here, in particular the mean minded speculations and aspersions about AfadsBad above, are little more than sour grapes on your part. John lilburne (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I said articles that I have written, and that you bring that up (one out of a ton of GA reviews) shows you're AfadsBad's talking parrot who flew here after being canvassed at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned in this paragraph The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. The Geology GA review adequately illustrates the point that you are 'tone deaf to the science' in the articles you are supposed to be reviewing. I don't care about the articles you write but it wouldn't surprise me if you had Mermaids in the South China Seas based on some 16th map drawing, or talking horses because one of you had got hold of a copy of Gulliver's Travels. John lilburne (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, hic sunt dracones, and Wikipediocracy's talking horses have all shown up here--just like you and AfadsBad and Scott did before. Sounds like canvassing, or gangland bludgeoning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet a number of editors accused you of being egregiously wrong in the articles you promote to Good Article, with this sentence which was included in the Pedra da Galvea article when it was promoted by you, ColonelHenry, to Good Article, "The gneiss layer dates to around 600 million years ago; the granite layer is younger and dates to around 450 million years ago and is the result of lava flow.[2][6] The mountain, much like other stone outcroppings that surround the area, is the result of Meso-Neoproterozoic high grade metasedimentary rocks intruding into Neoproterozoice granitoid rocks and thin Cretaceous diabase dikes.[7]" Granite, by distinction is not a lava flow, middle age rocks that have never been liquid, by definition, cannot intrude (something that liquid rocks do) into younger rocks that don't yet exist, in particular, metamorphosed (never liquified) sediments, are very unlikely to melt, since by definition they've never been liquid, as they are metamorphic, into thin dikes that won't exist for at least another 800 million years. The amount of nonsense in these two sentences is stunning. The author, however, took blame and apologized. The promoter fought tooth and nail to keep this article, as is, a "Good Article." --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yawn...do you have anything else than continuing to banter around one bad GA review that I've done out of dozens from months ago that you've already repeated like 2000 times since then because you have nothing original or insightful to add except harping harping harping on tired bullshit? My dispute was that you liked to hijack reviews back then instead of collaborate. Imperious and aggressive at ranting and abuse, just like you are now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet you're still supporting her creating bad science on en.Wikipedia. Creating it, writing it, promoting it. It all leads to bad articles on en.Wikipedia. It's always about someone's behavior, but it's never about the lack of WP:Verifiability. Stop Cwmhiraeth from creating bad science articles, correct the 1300+ existing turds, and I'll stop harping on everything here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

WP:V isn't the crux of this issue--because if you had a list of 1,300 articles with errors, you would have put it up, if you so concerned about errors, you would have fixed them yourself. Instead you provided a wall of text with aggressive rhetoric with nothing constructive and would complain to high heaven. If you care about fixing errors, get your hands dirty. If you don't want to collaborate, go home. If you only want harass and assault others who in good faith are volunteering their time for the project, go home. Quite frankly, you're an anonymous bully hiding behind a computer screen, but unlike some of the less than palatable Wikipedians (myself included) who actually build content, you don't contribute anything but vile disruptiveness and vitriol. When you get blocked, I will raise a glass of Laphroaig to your departure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is the crux of the issue. It's a Wikipedia policy. As for collaboration, aren't you the one that freaked out and thought that you owned a Good Article review? She keeps creating hundreds, and you and she keep getting upset that the errors are pointed out. Find one of her articles without these errors. If you don't want your errors pointed out on Wikipedia, don't edit. As for being blocked, I'm already essentially blocked from correcting errors, because correcting a single bad article takes eight months. So, you have my permission to toast now! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

If this site had any kind of sane management, ColonelHenry's behavior in that disgrace of a GA review should have not only immediately disqualified him from doing it again, but also sparked an investigation into how he was able to do it in the first place. — Scott • talk 08:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for some kind of editing restriction on Cwimhraeth, and I'm all for some editing restriction on AfadsBad. As said above, they are both a mixture of good and bad: good faith but sloppy editing on one hand, useful criticism in a sea of harassment on the other. Both need to stop. What I would do, if I were running this place, is: 1)Restrict Cwimhraeth new article creation and article-space editing until a comprehensive review on her edits has finished 2)Put some accuracy warning tag on all articles Cwimhraeth has created, so that at least we can warn readers 3)Enforcing on-wiki harassment of Cwimhraeth by AfadsBad to stop: if AfadsBad wants to do useful criticism and/or fix stuff herself, all the best, but any more personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, if I were running this place, but luckly I don't. --cyclopia^speak! 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds User:Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Even if I hadn't been constantly sidetracked by BLP nonsense in 7 years in wikipedia, I can't imagine writing 300 good articles in the relative less complex areas of politics I'm interested in. And looking into possible collusion or whatever the allegation is in the Good Article process would be helpful. (I've never paid much attention to all that ranking business myself.) If those charges are exaggerated and someone is mostly ticked articles aren't written to impossibly high standards and would rather just complain about it and harass a more productive editor, that's definitely even a bigger problem. We'll see if there's an admin willing to be proactive and creative on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please have a look at the editor review. We are not talking about failure to meet "impossibly high standards" here. What we are talking about is a million readers being told, for nearly a year, that the average winter temperature in cold deserts like Greenland and Antarctica is between –2 and +4 °C, for example. And that live penguins' feet are kept at deep-freezer temperatures to prevent them getting chilled. These were absurdities. Andreas JN466 03:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Endorse the opinion that Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Just throwing out an idea, perhaps Cwimhraeth editing should (for a while) be restricted to cleaning up all the previous articles that she has previously edited (if you trust her on that). But AfadsBad's attacks on Cwimhraeth simply have got to stop. starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think we need to close this and focus on the content at the editor review. Really. Bluster on both sides that engenders more antagonism is unhelpful. No comments on this thread are going to do anything but add more heat and less light. Anyone who wants to help out please go to the editor review page and please focus on (or fix) specific articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor review will probably help Cwimhraeth, but how will the editor review affect AfadsBad? Has AfadsBad at the very least agreed to be nice and guaranteed better future behaviour, if not expressed some form of remorse? I see User:AfadsBad still mentions Cwimhraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fix the issues at GA/DYK WikiCup etc and the problems vanish. This could have all been sorted long ago with the animosity if people in those groups had taken notice of what they were being said. But they didn't. They circled the wagons, vomited out policy and process acronyms to avoid addressing the issues, and generally behaved as spoiled brats. All so that they could continue accumulating points for competitions, and add extra bragging tags on their user pages. The systemic problem is that those involved don't have a full understanding of the subject. That isn't a problem with writing an article on pop culture, you can rephrase stuff, use synonyms, mix and match bits from different sources, and it doesn't matter so much whether you are an expert or not. When the same techniques are used with the sciences the result is garbled nonsense. The process for GA/DYK in science articles needs to be overhauled, you need someone in there with a grasp of the subject, it is not enough to simply tick boxes: got a picture, passes spell check, passes grammar check, not obviously plagiarized - OK good to go. You need some one there capable of asking "does this make any sense at all, and is it accurate?" John lilburne (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Casliber. But, try to emphasize that it is not just the articles at the editor review it is all of her science articles. I checked about 50 for my blog, looking at her early ones, later ones, insects, bats, plants. Every article contains the same sloppy editing, made up descriptions, imaginary colors, falsely weighted information, inaccurate information, made up information, synthesized taxonomies that are complete OR. There are only a few articles at the editor review, and it looks like it will take days for every article to be checked. There are 1300 articles that need rewritten. Time spent doing that would be time much better spent than this discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't know whether all his articles contain serious errors, or whether even most do, but it seems clear that many of them do, and that this is based on a lack of understanding, not on typos or the like. The editor review lists some examples, I reviewed two other articles he proposed very recently for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Spicara maena, which contained rather blatant original research; the discussion at the DYK showed to me that this editor doesn't understand the science of the sources he is using, or doesn't care enough about getting it right. Such a thing happening in one or two articles isn't a real problem, people make mistakes and we are indeed a collaborative endeavour. But if the same problems continue to happen, then it is no longer logical or useful to wait for someone else to correct them, one has to try to prevent them as well, gently if possible, forcefully if necessary. I see no indication that this thread or the editor review will produce any change in his approach, but I may be proven wrong; if nothing changes though, a RfC/U is the next logical step. Fram (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please come up with actual examples, if you can Fram. Not your vague innuendoes. If you really have anything of substance, the proper place to air it is at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember the same kind of discussion last time we met, Epipelagic, with you never being satisfied with any answer and constantly shifting the goalposts, and I have no intention of starting another round of this. If you can't see the actual example in my post and only see "vague innuendo", then so be it. Fram (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Things need to be put into perspective. We are talking about 1300 articles here. You have offered one specific example. Readers can judge for themselves whether this should properly be called original research, or whether it would be more accurately described as hair splitting in an over zealous attempt to make someone wrong. As for the last time we met, there was indeed "the same kind of discussion". As was said then, and seems to still apply, "Fram specialises in attacking minor issues concerning high flyers and worrying at them like a pitbull until he can turn them into gaping wounds." --Epipelagic (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is such an ugly thread. Several pitchfork admin are slavering and gesturing in hideous ways on the sidelines. AfadsBad doesn't seem to have contributed a single article of worth him or herself, so it is not clear if he/she is even capable of such a contribution. Cwmhiraeth has contributed 1300 articles according to AfadsBad. AfadsBad has been given his/her best shot at demolishing Cwmhiraeth here, and has come up with remarkably few issues with any real substance.

You ask, AfadsBad, whether correcting bad science is harassment? Yes it certainly is, if you do it the way you are doing it. It is not altogether your fault. If Wikipedia had any will to set up a functional admin system, issues like this one would be accommodated as they arose. There will always be editors who overreach themselves in certain areas. If we had an ideal system, such editors would be intercepted and guided so they are more aware of where their limitations are. All editors have limitations outside their particular areas of expertise, and often the best articles are written by editors who are writing outside their areas of expertise. That is because such writers can be more sensitive to confusions that confront people who not experts in that area. This issue has been allowed to develop in the ghastly manner we see here because Wikipedia lacks an admin structure worthy of its content builders. Having said that, I want to commend the admins BlackKite and Cas liber who have responded in honourable ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did I ask that? I have been talking about the bad science for eight months, on and on notes ColonelHenry. But no one is correcting it. Cwmhiraeth continues to create it, meanwhile. Other editors pointed out the same problems, two years ago on Tree, a couple of times through the years on her talk pages. Did anyone listen to them? Did Cwmhiraeth? If I had not been strident, blogged, joined Wikipediocracy, no one would have listened. Even now, I suspect she will continue adding bad science. She's working on another FA. --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Another inaccurate statement from AfadsBad - "She's working on another FA." Oh, really? It's the first I knew of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked the question, at least rhetorically, here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I just reread your post that I haven't contributed a single article of worth. Then nominate them for deletion. My best contribution to Wikipedia came as the result of what I was doing here, adding citations, and it was an AFD, not an AFC. When you misspell the name of a plant family in the title of an article, leave it that way for seven years so the misspelling gets 50,000 g-hits, and see it translated to half a dozen other languages, AFDing the article here and elsewhere and correcting the links is worthwhile. But, as the articles I created aren't of worth, please delete them. But I think Fram covered you well enough. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You haven't taken your articles past the stub stage, often just one-line stubs. I shouldn't have said they have no worth. I should have said that that they are not substantial. If you risked yourself, by writing some substantial articles which could be examined as models for the impeccable standards you advocate, your attacks would carry more weight. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think John lilburne's vulgar advice at the Wikipediocracy forum, in the discussion that is has become the venue for both coordinating this assault on Cwmhiraeth and a general gloatfest by her assailants, that I should "lick his wounds or balls which ever gives him most comfort", or referring to another contributor by a sexual act is appropriate.[1]. Never understood why persons who indulge in venting their hate of Wikipedia at Wikipediocracy continue to hang around Wikipedia or continue to think their opinion matters to people who contribute to the project. You would think they would get another trollish hobby. Perhaps if Scott, lilburne, and AfadsBad were sanctioned with bans, they can spend more time griping at Wikipediocracy instead of disruptive behaviour and agitation here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm coming to that conclusion myself. These people are trolls who, as far as I can tell, have no agenda to improve any of the articles they are complaining about, they only wish to attack a good-faith editor who has worked very, very hard here. My advice to these individuals is this: Before you criticize, how about getting off your high horse and try fixing the thing yourself? Put up or shut up. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The ways to address this have been adequately expressed above. Fixing individual issues is NOT the way to proceed. You examine the cause of the problem "the non-subject experts writing science articles by applying techniques appropriate to none science articles" and you find away of fixing that. The answer to the problem I can guarantee won't be "get some other ignoramus to check it over before promoting it to GA status, or shoving it on the main page as a DYK." Fer goodness sake last year a FA article boldly stated that Richard II was king of England in 1345, and it had been that way foir three years, the copy editor says that their role is NOT to fact check. Which is crazy because how can you effectively manipulate sentences if you don't know what the facts are? The system is broke, doesn't work, and those involved in the process are circling the wagons. Now I've shown you the way to the fix what are you going to do? BTW the sandpit with the ostriches is over that a way ----->. John lilburne (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The way to address this was a reasonable discussion 8 months ago saying "this, this, this, and this need to be corrected"...instead, AfadsBad came in with the demanding ominous presence of a bat-wielding street gang. 8 months later, with her behavior of harassment, attacks, and aggression unchecked and unabating, she needs to be blocked. This is inimical to what the project is about. That you endorse this kind of aggressiveness toward a good-faith contributor is downright appalling, your attacks on anyone who disagrees with AfadsBads methods are despicable, and I hope you and your equally detestable buddy Scott can join AfadsBad's fate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I did say this, this and this need corrected. Cwmhiraeth scolded me for this1, reverted this2, and ignored this3. Tried and failed. Yet you keep saying that what I should have tried that failed is what I should have tried. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
          • No you didn't, you ranted and raved, no one likes to read that shit. People are here to contribute, not to read angry vituperative and sanctimonious jeremiads that go on and on without getting to the f&*%%ng point. WP:WALLOFTEXT applies. Further, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar--I told you that--but you were downright hydrofluoric acid about it all. I told you to play nice, that you'd get what you wanted by more pleasant congenial means, you never stopped being nasty and dictatorial about it. People like you need to take your circus of nastiness to the next town, or be run out of town on a rail.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Pointing to content problems is not "inimical to what the project is about". Turning a deaf ear to such pointers, on the other hand, is. Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch at the editor review, and acknowledges that there have been problems in her work. Perhaps it would be more conducive to a peaceful and constructive solution if bystanders here were to disengage from attempts to ratchet up tension? Andreas JN466 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
          • AfadsBad needs to go. Abusing another editor the way AfadsBad did is what I described as inimical. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Content disputes come and go and can be worked out, but aggression like AfadsBad needed to be nipped in the bud long ago. This would have all been worked out long ago if not for AfadsBad's relentlessly nasty behaviour. Seeing that Cwmhiraeth has never mistreated anyone, there is no doubt in my mind where the blame squarely belongs. Whether or not the message was correct, the method of bludgeoning another editor relentlessly is inimical to the project's state goals.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Andreas - you say "Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch" - as a uninvolved editor I have to ask why isn't AfadsBad doing the same? I've already said this before above, is there any evidence that AfadsBad's future behaviour will change, or any sign of an apology for past behaviour? starship.paint "YES!" 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issues of User:Cwmhiraeth

See the discussion in the section on Boring clam (should be the last). Her answers to the points I raised on a review of a random article of hers -mind you, one that she edited after the editor review and the start of this thread- make me worry that some of the unpleasant frustration of AfadsBad could be justified. --cyclopia^speak! 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is point AfadsBad was a while ago before being dismissed repeatedly. After all this time, s/he has been hardened to the point where they are now. I have some scientific knowledge especially in geology and climate and some of the things pointed out by AfadsBad and Andreas, albeit not so tactfully in AfadsBads current mindset, are serious enough to warrant closer look at all 1300 articles touched by the editor. I state this because that is the standard policy when a copyvio editor is found as if there are enough serious examples of issues, all edits come into question (I am not stating she is a copyvio editor!). She clearly wants to edit in good faith but I think she may fail short of the needed skill to incorporate science texts into the articles. Mentoring should help in that. 129.9.72.12 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The ends don't justify the means. You cannot in good conscience justify the pummelling a man close to death and say "I did it for his own good, he needed to learn". AfadsBad needs to be sanctioned and harshly for the means she employed. Just saying "but there are inaccuracies that need to be fixed" offers no excuse for her savagely wielding a bloodied cudgel.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Indeed. And where there are actual inaccuracies (as opposed to stylistic decisions to make an article readable for the masses, which inevitably implies a certain degree of simplification), the solution is to get off your own duff, go find appropriate reliable sources, and FIX THEM, not to whine and complain and then viciously attack a fellow human being who is acting in good faith. What a nasty pile-on this has become. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Two issues: One is a normal part of Wikipedia; anyone can edit and some are more expert than others, and some think they are more expert than others. Incompetence is a given for every editor at some point in their WP career This is not a reference to anyone's work on Wikipedia. Second, and the sanctionable issue, is that disagreement on content is not a reason for abusive and vicious behavior, or harassment. This is both an encyclopedia and a collaborative project . Destroy the collaborative environment and the encyclopedia as it has been structured will disappear. And I 'd agree with Montana. If things don't seem accurate, help fix it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
  • The collaborative environment argument swings both ways. If an editor points out errors (and a good number of such errors have been pointed out now by a number of editors in the editor review, and in part acknowledged by Cwmhiraeth) and the other editor says "Go away", that too is a failure in collaboration. And it is a failure that hampers improvement of content quality, which is the core mission of this project. Andreas JN466 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • The reference to a "bloodied cudgel" is completely unwarranted hyperbole. Andreas JN466 21:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• If it's unwarranted, then it ranks right up there with AfadsBad's yet unsupported "1,300 articles full of errors". I stand by my comment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• By "yet unsupported" you mean "hypothesis with 100% experimental confirmation to date". So entirely unlike your hyperbolic comment, then. — Scott • talk 12:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Cherry picking" works for AfadsBad as a tactic, like any one-trick pony, but it is a logical fallacy, Scott. Even you're smart enough to not to insist that cherry picking as some irrefutable "experimental confirmation."--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • It's the sort of turn of phrase your people like, as I'm sure you remember. Anyway, who said "Go away" (the quote marks are yours) when given concrete examples of things that needed fixing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bashing the messenger because of his/her manner is all very well, but should not distract us from considering the message. If it is correct that Cwmhiraeth has been creating large numbers of inaccurate articles, and is continuing to create them, that is not a problem that should be obscured by personal attacks, or dismissed by saying SOFIXIT. All credit to Cwmhiraeth for requesting an editor review, but Cyclopia's work seems to be confirming that there is a problem. I think we should be looking for some more scientifically qualified editors to join the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea, JohnCD. I don't know my way around the relevant WikiProjects very well, and would appreciate it if you could leave some neutrally worded messages at the relevant talk pages. Andreas JN466 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I don't disagree that collaboration has multiple layers of meaning. I do disagree that the core of this project is to build an encyclopedia or to improve content. If that were the case this encyclopedia would be edited and written by experts in their field, and subject to peer review . The medical articles and all that entails come to mind. This project is at its core two-fold and collaboration is one of those aspects. I personally, and this is my position, am fed up with viciousness. There is no excuse for it, or for off-WP attacks. There are two issue here and they have to be delineated. If there are concerns about an editor's work we do have to deal with it. Behaviour and harassment is something else. Our DR processes might be more effective if we did delineate issues. I always respect your views but I assume we disagree on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

I wrote a FA with Cwmhiraeth, and found her to be a careful and considerate co-editor. We all make errors, but it seems to me that this discussion is driven by someone who is NOTHERE and is more concerned with character assassination than facts. I've not noticed any major problems with edits to pages on my watchlist by this user. It would be odd if none of the 1300 (made-up data from the "expert") bad edits were on my science-orientated list. This is a witch-hunt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think that being so dedicated to the cause of accurately representing scientific fact that spending months sounding alarm bells, under continuous anti-expert pressure from entitled amateurs, about an editor continuously inserting misreadings of sources, synthesis, and plain old made-up stuff into our articles - and not throwing up one's hands and walking away in disgust - is "not being here to build an encyclopedia", your understanding of what this project is has gone haywire. — Scott • talk 12:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You will notice in this discussion that there are two groups of editors, one group that is happy with my work and another that is not. I think that is because they are judging it by different criteria. The main faults found by editors led by Cyclopia involve original research. They accuse me of including information in articles that is not in the source. I think these editors are not normally "content creators" and do not understand this page where it states : "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material". For example, in the article Boring clam the source stated "The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface." When expanding the article I wrote "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface". This was condemned as being original research and the new version in the article, provided by Cyclopia was "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white, sometimes with a hint of pink-orange, yellow or orange colour -this colouration can form a band near the top margin, especially on the interior surface." In another criticised article Millepora alcicornis, my description of the organism was "cream-coloured, yellowish or light brown with paler tips", while the source stated "Brown to light creamy yellow, with white branch tips". My version was adjudged once more to be original research. I repeatedly argued that such close adherence to the source as Cyclopia advocated was close paraphrasing but to no avail. That this editor is unfamiliar with MoS guidelines is also shown by a comment about my referencing. I put a single reference at the end of a paragraph if all the text comes from the same source. Cyclopia wrote "I also find it quite annoying that the leads of articles you write never have inline sources, this makes it very hard to understand what comes from what. Also entire paragraphs are sourced only at the end. At least every sentence or two should be supported by a source ... perhaps there's some MOS contradicting this, but if so, it is a problem."

To return to the boring clam, I started expanding the article on 9th April 2014 and was working on the description at 10:06, 10 April 2014‎. Less than five hours later, at 14:50, 10 April 2014, Cyclopia was criticising the article as if it were a finished product and not a work in progress. If you are expanding an article in mainspace, there are bound to be periods when it is unbalanced and less than perfect. I also protested about this, but in vain. I have not continued to expand the article because I was warned off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, MOS does not trump accuracy. You can't just put in false information because you want to paraphrase. Your "paraphrases", simply, do not have the same meaning of the source. They mean different things. A paraphrase is supposed to convey the same meaning with different words. You convey a different meaning. And that is not all. What about the "unattached" sessile organism, for example? What about switching sexes and sizes of a species, and, in the same article, making up completely a date? --cyclopia^speak! 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Above is WP:TLDR but if User:Cwmhiraeth has WP:Competence issues we might as well let the last person to leave Wikipedia just turn out the light. Tigerboy1966  15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been a concerted and horrifying attack conducted in a manner that is offensive to any standards of decency. No less than five Wikipediocracy participants, including a shameful pitchfork admin, lay siege to a single highly committed and hard working editor. Admins responded in typical fashion as loose cannons. There was no coordinated response. Wikipedia lacks centralised control and has no guiding principles such as a mission statement or constitution. So it just comes down to individual whim. Two admins, Black Kite and Casliber, responded well, put themselves on the line and made genuine efforts to investigate what was going on. A third admin indulged a rambling all things to all people and nothing in particular to anyone line that is his trademark. At the ungodly end of the spectrum, two pitchfork admins started gibbering at the prospect of destroying another content builder. The Wikipedia community of content builders must share in the shame. Most seemed to run for the hills during the onslaught. Cwmhiraeth was largely abandoned and hung out to dry.

I commend you Cwmhiraeth, for the courageous way you held your ground. It must have been a nightmare. I apologise and feel ashamed to have been here. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that Cwmhiraeth hasn't walked away from Wikipedia given the sustained onslaught form this nasty little gang. They can't find any other Wikipedia editor who (allegedly) makes bad edits, which seems astonishing. They also come from a position of ignorance. Not having references in the lead is an FAC guideline, but of course they wouldn't know that, no interest in high quality content. Building good content takes more than five hours, but of course they wouldn't know that, no interest in high quality content (I've spent longer than that on Yellowhammer and it's still rubbish, so you might as well sanction me too. Close paraphrasing is a copyright infringement, but better to get it almost exactly as the source says and sod the Wikipedia rules and the copyright laws. This harassment disgusts me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am no part of any "nasty little gang". If anything, I am usually extremly skeptical of Wikipediocracy and the associated editors -I and them know them well. Turns out this time they are right. FAC or MOS guidelines cannot trump accuracy. Cwmhiraeth does not "paraphrase", she changes the meaning of what she writes. She makes stuff up out of nowhere. She invents "ovals" where there is none. She figured out a sessile organism was forming "unattached" colonies -why? Because it looked more plausible this way, to her. She made up a native species where there was none. Nobody says she shouldn't paraphrase and use her own words -she absolutely has to do that. But she fails to do that. She's terrible in paraphrasing, because what she writes often does not have the same meaning of the source. All of this happens in more than 50% of the articles I managed to check. --cyclopia^speak! 12:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest an uninvolved admin close this

Discussion should revolve around reviewing article edits - all this commentary serves to do is polarise camps. Hence would be best closed and discussion diverted to the editor review page. Please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May I support Cas Liber in this. Cwmhiraeth is an exceptionally careful, sensible, patient and thorough editor, and extremely hardworking. This discussion is doing damage but achieving nothing, and should be closed at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion should inform administrators that there is a systemic issue with a prolific, good-faith editor. She is extremly hardworking, patient etc. but the fact she is constantly peppering articles with mistaken paraphrases, original research and other factual errors is extremly worrying, especially because she is completely blind to the errors she is making. This is a delicate issue, and I'd like to see experienced admins deal with that. I understand Cwmhiraeth is a nice person and a good faith, enthusiastic editor. I appreciate these qualities. I am sorry this is overwhelming her. But something has to be done -some cleanup effort needs to be put in place. There is simply too much evidence to just let this go under the carpet.--cyclopia^speak! 13:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others

For the last several months, and on and off dating back least as far back as April 2013, editors User:Brews_ohare and User:Snowded as well as to a lesser degree and at various times users User:Bob_K31416, User:Machine_Elf_1735 and User:Pfhorrest have been involved in a series of long-running disputes accross a number of articles, including (but not limited to) Meta-ontology, Free will, Mind–body_problem, Moral_responsibility, Dilemma_of_determinism, Subject–object_problem, and most recently Enaction (philosophy). While at its core these are content disputes (primarily over the inclusion of, or the degree of emphasis on certain references put forth by User:Brews_ohare the (perhaps legitimate, perhaps not) content issues have been eclipsed by a pattern of tendentious editing and refusal to get the point on the part of User:Brews_ohare. At issue (at least as I understand it) is Brews' insistence on using a melange of citations from primary sources, to advance a novel presentation without citations or references to other, secondary sources supporting this presentation. This runs afoul of Wikipedia policies of No Original Research and avoidance of Synthesis. Despite this being pointed out to him repeatedly (mostly but by no means exclusively by User:Snowded) the process has become completely mired in edits, reversions, accusations, accusations of bad faith and general battleground mentality (see the talk page discussions of any of the articles listed for ample examples). This also leads to forum shopping and canvassing with seemingly endless RFCs and petitions on policy pages (Wikipedia_talk:NOR#Explaining_rejections.3F), project pages (Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Philosophy) and various users' talk pages to bring others to Brews' d way of thinking, almost always to no avail. Then the whole cycle starts again on another article.

Perhaps complicating the situation is the fact that User:Brews_ohare is (or was) under an ArbCom sanction relating to a very similar pattern of behavior (see the original case and the attendant amendments and requests for enforcement) resulting in a topic ban from all physics-related articles, broadly construed. While the current disputes (to the extent that they are content dispute) does not (as far as I can tell) run afoul of the letter of Brews' topic ban as they concern different subject matters not falling under "physics, broadly construed", the similarity of the patterns of behavior on Brews' part is troubling and is evidence of someone who is WP:NOTHERE.

At the very least, some outside parties with fresh eyes to try to defuse the long-running user conduct issues would be welcome as the patience of those involved has long ago been exhauted (with the possible, notable exception of Brews' himself who seems to have absolutely nothing but time on his hands to engage in these behaviors). Beyond that, some clarification of the relevant policies WP:OR, WP:SYN would probably not go amiss as this seems to be the biggest sticking point between User:Brews_ohare and User:Snowded among others. Then, once (when as and if) these issues are resolved or at least ameliorated, perhaps (dare to dream) actual editing of the articles could resume. 12.234.39.130 (talk) 00:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Other eyes would be more than welcome. Brews has received no support and rejected attempts to help him over multiple articles (the most recent being the very patient work of Pfhorrest on the Free Will article. Having explained WP:OR and WP:Synth several times when Brews first made a failed attempt to change the definition of Philosophy (that debate with multiple editors itself deserves examination) I've run out of patience. I really wish someone could get Brews to listen and he has time and ability but will not abide by policy and is incapable of working with other editors unless they agree with him ----Snowded ^TALK 05:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the behavior pattern that caused the Arbcom to ban Brews_ohare "indefinitely from all pages of whatever nature about physics and physics-related mathematics, broadly construed." So he picked his next-favorite topic area... Dicklyon (talk) 06:03, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

His choice of topics, (free will, meta-meta-physics, etc.) could also be read as a response to the ban itself and, force of nature that he is, even a direct result... I agree it's exactly the same behavior. Say what one will about it being insufferable, it is being tolerated outside of physics. I hate to say it but if the physics editors need some pointers in coping, we've got that down to a science. So I appeal to Brews, go get you some physics/free-will and us some relief.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

This complaint is brought by a numbered account, a non-participant in the matters raised, and with no record of substantial contribution to articles on WP, or of engaging in any serious talk page discussion over content. Although WP:OR and WP:SYN haven been asserted on occasion in Talk- page discussions between Snowded and myself, such claims have never been supported, and all such claims have been abandoned upon challenge. The basic issue, as noted, is content, and a preference by some editors for insisting upon personal views rather than discussing sources. As Wikipedians are aware, it is pretty non-controversial to report what a source says, while getting WP editors to agree about each others' opinions is hard. However, many WP editors prefer their own judgment, and simply refuse to deal with sources. Driving discussion toward consideration of sources is like herding cats, and some WP editors find contradiction of their beliefs, even if opposition is reliably sourced, to be irritating, especially where an editor is somewhat inarticulate or is unable to locate supporting documents. Irritation leads some to avoid support of their beliefs using sources, or logic, and instead to resort to dubious means to quash an impending confrontation with reality. However, WP is written by non- experts, and appeals to personal expertise are denied, replaced by reference to reliable sources. So sourcing is a sine qua non of talk-page discussion about content. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what prompted the OP to include me. I think my last interaction with either Snowded or BrewsOhare was 9 months ago in a discussion between just Snowded and me. I didn't think there was any hope for agreement so I ended the discussion.[2] --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:43, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I looked some more and found an interaction I had with both Snowded and BrewsOhare 8 months ago.[3] In my message there of 18:35, 6 August 2013, I tried to give Snowded and BrewsOhare the following advice, "A discussion between only the two editors doesn't seem to be making progress towards agreement, and seems pointless. It may be that there are no other editors who wish to get involved. For situations like this in the future, the two editors might try to reach some general understanding about what to do when they disagree on an issue and no other editors are interested in getting involved." --Bob K31416 (talk) 17:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

It is correct that this started as a content issue. But it became disruptive editing when, after having had his contributions removed or declined and the reasons explained to him, he has persisted to disregard policy and continued trying to insert original research across multiple articles. He understands the policies, he just disagrees with them, so much that he has tried to change policy to match his way of editing. Having had these rejected and explained again to him he continues to edit as if policy doesn't apply, ignoring editors that disagree with him.

Arbitrators imposed restrictions on him that might apply here but that remedy expired long ago. So I don't see any grounds for arbitration enforcement. But I also can't see how this won't end up at arbitration eventually, once other avenues for dispute resolution have been exhausted.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote this three and a half years ago.

On the wider point this is not about physics, or natural sciences, or mathematics. It's about every other page Brews ohare takes an interest in becoming a battle ground, of edit warring if its an article, of tendentious editing on a talk or project page – dominating the discussion so other editors are swamped, ignoring consensus and process, repeatedly refusing to AGF, ignoring requests to stop and warnings – before trying to lawyer himself out of the inevitable visit to arbitration.

the 'visit to arbitration' doesn't apply as sanctions have expired/he is editing well outside the bounds of his topic ban. But otherwise I don't see anything that's changed from then to now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 04:18, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm disturbed that WP:CANVASSING is happening here. Brew's is not a perfect contributor his posts are lengthy and that disturbs many people. I think though that the encyclopedia experiences a net loss when we run out qualified contributors. I think in this case the dispute has mainly been between snowded and brews and snowded tries damn near everytime to run to AE. I think an interaction ban would be a good idea, it seems right now snowded is the only one having problems. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, ban me too.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 14:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says the long-time career Brews booster. Pray, enlighten us how a single post to ANI is ‘canvassing’. I suppose Brews’ carpet-bombing of talk pages, policy pages etc. don’t count as canvassing, by your definition. 173.166.17.106 (talk) 15:59, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Hell in a Bucket has had a problem since s/he tried to elicit Brews support for an attack on an admin who had banned them both. Since then s/he appears from time to time to support Brews behaviour. For the record (I) every editor who has engaged with Brews on philosophy articles has had problems and attempts to portray this as a personal conflict do not bear examination. Todate Brews has failed to get ANY support for his edits (II) three of those editors who have a lot of experience on philosophy articles have thanked me for monitoring, someone has to (III) I have not brought anything about Brews to ANI, I know I am too involved I do that. Worth. Opting that Brews has not responded to the concern raised here at all ----Snowded ^TALK 17:11, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try User:Snowded, I've never been banned, a few blocks in 2009 and 2010 but nothing since so your entire line of reasoning is so full of shit I don't even know where to begin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 02:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are forgetting this ban. I don't know if it still applies (to you and Count Iblis). As for the rest of your comment: WP:NPA.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC) It no longer applies: see WP:ARBSL#Motions #4 and #5.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I"m not forgetting that at all, a ban is something altogether different then what you are alluding to and I('m sure if you put just a little more effort you'll see where that was rescinded lol. Also please point out any personal attack made, I have not attacked anyone, I've called the viewpoint or reasoning is full of shit that is hardly a personal attack. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

OK you were blocked by the same admin who blocked and banned Brews., you then tried to canvas Brews in an ANI case against that Admin and I was one of the editors who pointed out the issue. Since then this type of intervention by you, with the belligerent language has been typical and distracts from the real issues. ----Snowded ^TALK 06:40, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes Snowded I think Sandstein blocked me once and who gives a flying fuck if I cuss. I think what you are doing is deperately trying to smear any opinion against you and if your argument is that by using the word "shit" nyour logic must be weaker then I first thought. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 12:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like me, Brews is the sort of editor who is most suited to edit articles on scientific subjects where the kind of logic he is used to applies. But this will only work in those subjects that he is an expert in and knows the literature quite well. The problems started a few years ago when he ventured out of his usual domain and in the speed of light article he caused problems. That led to an ArbCom case which imposed rulings that made things worse, because he was banned from all physics articles, while the only thing he could edit well were certain physics and math articles. Then because things were worse than they were, that led to more broad topic bans and he was banned from all math articles as well.

I have said many times before, if a topic ban were imposed on Brews that would ban him from editing any articles except a few approved ones (e.g. accelleration in curvlinear coordinates, Lagrangian mechanics etc.), he would be happy and the rest of Wikipedia would be happy too. So, I see the Brews problem more as a symptom of the new Admin/ArbCom ideology that exists here since aboput 2008 clashing with certain realities here than some big unsolvable problem. It's a purely ideological problem that has caused some editors to be banned from Wikipedia just for speaking out on the stupidity of the situation, an Admin has been desysopped for reversing some block that was argued to undermine ArbCom's authority. Count Iblis (talk) 17:58, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a thoughtful solution. Relax the topic ban to areas where he has expertise would benefit Wikipedia. Maybe a 'give up if you do not get other editors to buy in' on all other articles. I'd happily support a case being made to relax the current ban to keep him engaged in a useful way----Snowded ^TALK 18:34, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

That applies to all of us though. We all have our own areas of experience and expertise which we can usefully contribute on. One of the key skills of WP or any collaborative enterprise is knowing where your talents lie and focussing on those to make your most useful contribution. Once you reach adulthood you don't expect others to tell you what your best areas are, you're expected to know them yourself with only occasional pushes from peers.

And editing only approved articles implies some sort of oversight, e.g. another editor approving which articles he can edit. Something like this has been suggested before but thought unworkable. Any editor involved with Brews in a way that he disagrees with inevitably ends up with their arguments ignored, their motives questioned and often their ability to edit or character attacked. Assigning an editor to tell Brews which articles he can edit would be a particularly cruel and unusual punishment for that editor.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 18:51, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It was thought to be unworkable, but knowing Brews reasonably well and some of the articles he has worked on in the past without much problems, I think that this is something we should try. E.g. Slavomir asked Brew a few years ago to work with him on dirac delta function, and they had a good collaboration. This is completely different from the fighting that we've seen in other articles. Thing is that there is already a topic ban in place, so you just change this topic ban into a flexible one. A small list of approved articles may to Brews be a lot more than a big pool of articles that he really isn't interested in. If you give me one interesting math problem , I can work on that the whole day. If you give me an entire museum of modern art, I will be bored to death. Count Iblis (talk) 19:30, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting that the conversation is running along the lines that contributing articles to WP is best done by experts in those topics.

First, I have found WP editors to be unimpressed by expertise, and ready to argue with all comers, even regarding specialized topics like centrifugal force where they know nothing. So arguments won't be fixed this way. But second, and far more important, WP by it's very concept, it's basic nature, is to be written by non- experts.

So the real challenge for WP is to develop a culture where non- experts can do this. A key ingredient in a conversation among non- experts is to rely upon published sources. That reliance means discussion is about sources. If discussion is confined to what sources say, that goes much easier than arguing with each other to build a popular consensus. Unfortunately, many WP editors do not wish to address sources, but wish to assert their opinions, and that holds at least as much for real experts as for WP self-professed 'experts'. If the focus can be held upon sources, WP would be on its way, IMO. Brews ohare (talk)

Brews response here illustrates the problem raised by several editors here. Despite the fact that many editors have explained that it is not just about assembling sources he simply ignores them and carries on with the way he thinks Wikipedia should work. In practice Wikipedia has developed the culture where non-experts can contribute; Brews does not want to respect the rules that make that possible. When he has challenged the rules on the various Forum discussion pages his position has been consistently rejected, but he doesn't learn from that. Just yesterday we find a situation where he creates one article to use material rejected elsewhere. I opened a discussion about agreeing an appropriate name for an article but Brew's response is simply to create another one with the same rejected material and to use PROD, inappropriately, to delete the first one. He simply will not engage with the communityother than on his own terms. Talk a look at the essays on his talk page for more evidence on this. For those interested I re-directed his new article back to the first he created and have made yet another attempt to engage him in agreeing things on the talk page first. ----Snowded ^TALK 07:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Count Iblis, I do think you are onto something here. Maybe a list of articles and a mentor agreed by Brews and the Community who can add to that list and help Brews learn the rules, accepting the mentor being a condition. I think you have the measure of this, would you draft something? ----Snowded ^TALK 06:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It might help if the vicious cycle of Brews ohare contributing, Snowded deleting, Brews ohare restoring , Snowded deleting ... is broken. From what I've seen, Snowded doesn't contribute material to article pages. Perhaps Snowded and Brews ohare could agree to a contribution, for example on the Talk:Enaction (philosophy) page, and then Snowded could make the edit that adds the contribution to the article. --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob: You are such a beacon of hope; your suggestion is wise; Snowded has refused this invitation by myself to do the 'heavy lifting' to flesh out his ideas. Brews ohare (talk) 16:25, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, if you check out the free will article you will see that Pfhorest went through all of Brews material and proposed some limited amendments to the article. Brews then refused to accept those changes unless all of his edits were accepted. I've had similar experiences in the early days, as did you when you tried to help him and I stood back. I can find the diffs if you want. If you check it out, I leave as much of. Brew's edits as I can (so I disagree with your characterisation) but there is extensive OR and synthesis of primary sources. Every RfC todate has supported the deletions by myself, Machine Elf and others. Most recently on Enaction you will see another editor asked to engage by Brews, starts by supporting the deletions (I left a lot of the original draft). So the process you propose is fine, if Brews is prepared to compromise and work with other editors on the he talk page to agree text. Todate (as on Physics articles before) he has refused. If you look at the comment above Brews wants me to engage in primary research and I'm not doing that; I think you actual proposal is sensible butI I don't think Brews understands it.----Snowded ^TALK 16:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, you have an evocative term for what you don't want to do: "Engage in primary research". or what Jc3s5h has supported as "Source-based research [which] is the method used to write Wikipedia; without it, Wikipedia cannot exist." Here you have hit upon an excuse for never discussing sources - either they are "primary" sources that should be avoided, or they are "secondary" sources that need no comment. Add to that the vagueness of WP policy about the distinction, and you never have to do more than simply revert what you don't like without going into any detail.

I have caught on that you don't want the labor of adding to articles, and offered to do the heavy lifting if you provide an outline of what is on your mind. Why not do that? Brews ohare (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Brew's every editor who has engaged with you over multiple RFIs has tried to explain WP:OR to you. Your views have not received support from other editors over multiple articles, but you persist in stringing together quotes based on your personal selection of original material. Pfhorest in particular put hours into trying to explain to you how you had misinterpreted that material on Free Will, as multiple editors did before when you tried to change the definition of Philosophy. It is a simple verifiable fact that you have not been supported by any editor over multiple articles. Until you learn from that you will get no where. It is, as other people have pointed out, a more or less exact repeat of the behaviour that got you permanently banned from all articles on Physics. If you carry on I suspect sooner or later it will come back here. It would be useful if an uninvolved admin or two could review the editing history and comment. ----Snowded ^TALK 21:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed a recent section at Talk:Enaction (philosophy).[4] If you continue there, the suggestion I made in my last message might come to pass. Also, I noticed some productive work in another recent section there involving you, Brews ohare, and another editor.[5] Maybe it's time to give peace a chance (all I am saying). --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I initiated that, but as yet I just see the same old response from Brews. I or others try on most articles then after being rebuffed give up. Maybe he will change this time but I very much doubt it. Shifting all the disputed material onto another article rather than engage on the talk page you reference was his first response. ----Snowded ^TALK 03:55, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded: Your remark is incorrect and inappropriate. My response to your suggestion was to ask you just what work by Leslei Paul Thiele you are referring to, as none that I looked at fitted your description, I also suggested that you might have meant to refer to Rowlands. whose discussion does fit your description. But rather than reply in thoughtful manner, here you are stirring the pot. Brews ohare (talk) 05:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I freely admit that I missed that response Brews. I was dealing with your creating another article with material that had been rejected by myself and TonyClarke in the coffee breaks while teaching here in New York along with responses here. Material by the way that I discovered you had restored again (with a misleading edit summary) when I got back to the hotel late last night and posted above. Keeping up with the volume of your comments can at times be difficult. I'll respond and see if we get anywhere this time. In this case I had to repost on the 7th April my original material on title and scope (posted 3rd April) as you had not engaged with the proposal other than to defend the deleted material and then post it (three times at the current count) to a new article. The deletion was supported by TonyClarke and Machine Elf during the same period. ----Snowded ^TALK 10:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I accept your convoluted excuse/apology for being too pressed to think about your responses. I have therefore provided a very detailed question about the relevance of Leslie Paul Thiele's Heart of Judgment to Enaction (philosophy). Perhaps you will provide some page numbers to identify the content you wish to source? I hope that does not violate your resolution to avoid 'original research'. Brews ohare (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, with the sheer volume of material you post people are going to miss things. When you set up new articles or edit ware to reinsert material rejected by three editors it creates confusion and difficulty. You had ignored the suggestion the first time round and forced me to repeat it, while edit warring in parallel ....----Snowded ^TALK 15:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Snowded, none of this matters. Your "suggestion the first time round" and its follow up are so vague it is impossible to act upon them. You keep promising to do more: let's see that happen. Brews ohare (talk) 16:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That reminds me of a practical question. Suppose an editor comes along and makes major changes in an article that would take more time to check than other editors have the time to spend. If an editor is trying to maintain the integrity of the article, what should be done in that case, keeping in mind the premise that the editor doesn't have the time to check the changes in detail because there are so many of them. --Bob K31416 (talk) 16:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Especially when the length of talk page comments requires hours of study and are tenacious in nature. Keeping up with Brews is a full time job as he never changes no matter how many editors engage.. I've done my best to check the material and leave what I can, but Brews often edits over edits with multiple changes which means you have to open two windows and make detailed changes. His separation of references from the text means you then have to make another round of checked to get rid of ones that are no longer relevant. A responsible editor would leave references in text until the article had stabilised. ----Snowded ^TALK 18:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Bob, this 'hypothetical case' of yours could be taken to refer to me, as Snowded has done. However, I don't think my changing of a subsection title and addition of the authors' source for the term classical sandwich in a WP reprise of their work quite amounts to an overwhelming set of "major changes in an article that would take more time to check than other editors have the time to spend", even though I used the list-defined references Snowded objects to. Brews ohare (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be useful to consider without thinking of who it refers to, without identifying with any of the hypothetical editors, and without prejudice. --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, Bob, as an abstract issue, divorced from ANI, that consideration belongs on a policy page. Brews ohare (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This abstract question actually gets at the heart of what I find difficult about working with you, Brews. If I had unlimited time and patience there really wouldn't be any problem at all. The challenging thing for me is that you're not a clear vandal who I can just blanketly revert (thus requiring little time on my part regardless of the size of your edits), but neither are you someone I feel I can trust to make mostly constructive edits, any problems with which can and will be fixed eventually by someone else if not me. I feel like if I ignore you, you will slowly change the article for the worse (whatever article we're working on in question, this is a repeated pattern across multiple articles), and nobody else will come along and fix it; but if I am not going to ignore you, I have to engage you properly, on the content issues at hand, which quickly becomes extremely time consuming and anxiety-inducing as what seems like a never-ending black hole of intractable misunderstanding and disagreement yawns open before us.

So I find myself trying to find the quickest way to justify my objection and move on. But that never really seems to be possible. Snowded and others give much terser responses which take much less of their time but then you complain that they are not engaging you on the content dispute. If these articles had more active editors, then a large number of people would be discussing the issues and a consensus would quickly emerge that no one editor could effectively continue struggling against, but with hardly anyone engaged on these articles, it becomes a battle of attrition, who can continue arguing the longest, and frankly you're quite capable of talking your opponents to death -- an ability I used to pride myself on when I had the time to engage in it, but now that I'm on the other side of it I'm learning how troublesome it can be.

I don't know what the solution to this problem is, but that's the problem as I see it. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: One thing we do agree upon is that there are too few editors interested in philosophy. The main parties involved have been you, me, and Snowded with occasional sideline jeering from MachineElf. With more participation at least there would be help to correct Snowded's contretemps. Brews ohare (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not "jeering" Brews, you've taught me the mercy of brevity.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 17:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have made a proposal here in an attempt to engage Brews on first agreeing the subject matter and range of an article before jumping into mass edits and forcing reverts. I've also made proposals as to the manner of editing to reduce the volume of talk page material and make it easier for other editors to change the text while the article is in active development. Bob (and others) it would be really helpful if you could chip in. ----Snowded ^TALK 08:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This is (going forward) for the second version of the article under a different title. Regarding #2 "If agreement is not reached after 1/2 iterations between two editors the discussion ceases unless other editors engage", he's just not going to do that. Better that until such time the other editor's objections survive any number of re-presentations and insubstantial alterations.—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 16:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm of the opinion that Brews should focus on making the complete argument in one go as much as possible, with only one opportunity to address criticisms. This is pretty much what you have to do when you submit an article to a journal, so this is a well tested method that works in practice. In the case of editing Wikipedia, it means that you have to make sure what you edit is well thought through, as you get only two opportunities to defend them on the talk page. Count Iblis (talk) 17:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Count: You may be unaware that I have followed this prescription of presenting a complete argument complete with sources as a standard operating procedure. That does not necessarily avoid talk-page dispute, especially when the entire contribution is summarily dismissed with a cryptic one-line edit summary like "This material is OR". A challenge on the talk page results in "Read the policy". Further request for clarification is followed by "Reasons already given. It's not my job to teach policy". This kind of nonsense is everyday activity for hit-and-run editors used to dealing with vandalism and completely uninterested in adding information to WP. The length of the discussions is largely due to attempts to get some concrete suggestions for improvement.

There are other situations of less stupidity that lead to long talk page discussions. A recent example is Pfhorrest's discussion with me about 'moral responsibility'. Pfhorrest has taken it upon himself to educate me on the subject, and he has done so to a degree. However, that mindset that I am an ignorant non-philosopher also leads him to expound where expounding is not required, and to focus upon his views and not sourced opinion, which is more diverse than his own understanding.

So my solution to the issue of extended talk page discussion in both cases is simple: Insist upon discussion of sources, avoid vague appeals to WP policies, don't simply advance your own opinions, but instead present published opinion, and above all do not regard discussion as polemic. Brews ohare (talk) 17:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, I expound on areas where you seem to lack comprehension of the source material or the necessary context to understand it. You seem to ignore that expounding as unnecessary, thinking that you already understand what I am talking about, and missing that I am arguing that you misunderstand it, that your understanding is not correct. And I am not ever trying to discuss my views, but rather the correct interpretation of the "sourced opinion", which you repeatedly seem to misunderstand as somehow contradicting things I've said before when to my eye they clearly support everything I've been saying all along.

This problem about arguing over the correct interpretation of primary sources is why Snowded et al keep bringing up how it's inappropriate synthesis and original research to rely directly upon them, instead of upon secondary sources. You can show that some notable figure has written some words, but then you take those words to mean something which seems (in my educated opinion as someone who has extensively studied the subject at hand) like a clear misunderstanding of those words, and use them to cite claims in the article that they clearly (again, in my educated opinion) do not support. But since this is Wikipedia and one editor's academic credentials don't mean a thing, we're effectively just two anonymous editors arguing over what a source really means. How do we resolve that? We find a secondary source giving a notable opinion about what those primary sources really mean, and how they relate to each other.

Though I guess that could just push the problem back a step to interpretation of the secondary sources too, but at least it brings us one step further away from just arguing our opinions on the content, and thus a step closer to neutrality. --Pfhorrest (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no question that Brews gives it everything he's got, all in one go, every time. But if (for any reason) that substantially duplicates his similar presentations in other sections, new/existing articles etc., it should be enough to give a link and briefly say "Reasons already given..."—Machine Elf ¹⁷³⁵ 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Pfhorrest: Your remarks are entirely consistent with mine, but from your standpoint. Education is a good thing. It should take the form of saying something like: "Read such and such about so and so. You'll find it says such and such.". It should not take the form of: "You just don't get my point of view", followed by a supposed paraphrasing of my latest response that reads conflict into what is actually agreement. Addressing sources would stop all this. As for sources, the drive here is not really about primary vs secondary sources; it is about objecting to contributions that aren't just condensed repeats of canned summaries from existing encyclopedias. The idea is that if the Stanford Encyclopedia has an article (taking philosophy as an example), then we can just copy and don't have to hunt down sources or even read them. It's not better information to do this culling of review articles, it's just less work. Unfortunately there are a great many topics that have no such Stanford Encyclopedia article, so unless we are willing to try to summarize monographs and anthologies and sometimes papers, WP is out of the game. Brews ohare (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Policy on disruption

OK if we look at Brew's response to Pfhorest and others above along with comments here I think there is a prima facia case that for over six months at least Brews has been a disruptive editor and more specifically refused to accept the [[|WP:LISTEN|concensus position of engaged editors]] on his use of primary sources. A simple examination of the history of his edits both on philosophy articles and on policy forum talk pages demonstrates this. When this happened before on Physics articles, after a similar period of time, Brews ended up with a permanent topic ban.

Now no one wants to sanction an editor with the time and energy to improve Wikipedia, but an editor who persistently refused to accept community consensus is disruptive. I am too involved to propose anything by way of sanction, but I would like to suggest that (i) Brews has to accept that his views on the use of primary sources are not shared by the community (ii) in consequence he should not attempt to change that policy by directly editing Philosophy articles. If he is not prepared to do that then I think it is more than time for an independent admin to review the material and determine action. That at least is my take, other people may have better ideas.

I know that Count Iblis came up with some ideas for mentoring that might have allowed Brews to edit Physics articles productively. I'd be prepared to support a request to have his sanctions on Physics revoked if something like that was put in place for all articles. What is clearly true is that if something does not change it is only a matter of time before the matter comes back here again.----Snowded ^TALK 08:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

See this response to Snowded's ongoing efforts at a smear campaign. Brews ohare (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

If I may say so, I think revoking the Physics topic ban is a very bad idea. I understand the philosophy department might want to push the problem back to the physics department, but that really wouldn't solve the problem. I disagree with the claim made above that Brews ohare has been a productive and valuable editor on topics such as Lagrangian mechanics. As a lurker, I observed for many years his amazingly energetic edit warring on such topics (see, for example, the endless crusades at Centrifugal force). It was always the same problem: Novel synthesis consisting of quotations of primary sources that other editors contend he simply misunderstood and misrepresented. Then huge volumes of endless argumentation on the Talk pages, never seeming to absorb any of the explanations people gave him, etc., etc. I really think the best way forward would be for Brews ohare to consider that he has a lot to say about these topics, and that although he may not realize it, his writings are a creative outlet, and he is putting forth synthesis that is novel, which may be quite valuable, but is not appropriate for Wikipedia. He should find a more suitable outlet for sharing his understandings of these subjects.VeldmanGB (talk) 19:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

VeldmanGB: We could (if I were permitted) discuss centrifugal force in all its technicalities. I don't (as you might imagine) agree at all with your summary of my activities there. In fact this topic was greatly improved and many examples and diagrams provided by myself, as well as improvements in the historical treatment of the subject. The subject grew to the point that it was broken up into three or four separate articles, and the mathematical treatment greatly improved because of my involvement, generalized in an article I began Mechanics of planar particle motion. I think it is easy to get caught up in the emotional rhetoric of some participants and let the enjoyment of spectacle override evaluation, and that may be what has happened here. Brews ohare (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Once more

Brews has identified the conflict of his edits with policy, by seeking to change policy so they no longer conflict: here he asks

Can such a modification to WP:OR be made so it cannot be used to justify deletion of useful material, and to avoid even the discussion of such deletion?

Of course when yet another pointy attempt to change policy so he can win a content disputes fails, it won't matter. He will return to articles editing the same way, as if the policy doesn't apply to him. It's not that he doesn't know or understand the policy, he knows it perfectly well, otherwise he would not seek to change it. He just thinks the policies on sources, like others on consensus and civility, don't apply to him.

Lather rinse repeat. It doesn't matter whether it's physics, maths or philosophy. This long term disruptive behaviour will continue until something is done to address it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 19:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Blackburne: You don't seem to be able to separate policy matters from personal differences. Snowded and I have a basic disagreement here about WP:OR, and if that policy is clarified this disagreement will be settled, one way or the other.

In the meantime, your contribution to all this is not as a mediator or as a wise councilor, but as a hornet. Brews ohare (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as another hornet, I find this one messy. Yes, there's the personal problem with Brews, who likes to synthesize some fairly unusual viewpoints and bloat articles with them. On the other hand, I have some sympathy for his disagreement with the overly strict interpretation of preference for secondary sources. This is particularly a problem in medical-related articles, where the medical establishment and their wiki-editing sympathizers use this rule to make sure that nothing alternative can be represented in a better light than how the medical establishment sees it. Look at Vitamin D, for example. Dicklyon (talk) 21:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We all have policies we disagree with, or disagree with the interpretation of. My biggest bugbear is the deletion policy, where in the past I have often found myself on the wrong side of a deletion debate. I would prefer if the policy were much more strict, prescriptive and less open to interpretation. But the rules are the rules. So I find myself working within the rules trying to persuade other editors to my viewpoint. I don't try and change the rules to match my views. I don't disregard other editors views and consensus and proceed on regardless. And over time I've involved myself in fewer and fewer deletion discussions, and been less argumentative in the ones I am involved in, recognising better where the consensus is or would be against me.

Consensus is key, fundamental to how Wikipedia works. Whether it's local consensus on an article talk page or in a formal discussion, or global consensus that has gone into creating the policies, all editors should work within it, not against it. And it's that, more than any particular policy or topic, which is Brews ohare's greatest problem: repeatedly ignoring and challenging consensus, whether local or global, not accepting consensus has gone against him even long after everyone else considered the matter settled and closed.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Brews, the policy has been clarified twice at the OR notice board and by other editors on other articles. The question is when are you going to accept that? The fact that you play fast and loose with sources makes it difficult to be other than strict (I have sympathy with Dicklyon) with the rules ----Snowded ^TALK 22:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I give up -- what concrete Administrative action is being asked for here? Anyone? Bueller? 72.93.233.150 (talk) 02:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think what is needed is for an independent admin to look at the history and determine if community action is needed. Personally I think we have a clear case of Brews simply refusing to accept consensus and repeating the behaviour on philosophy articles for which he was sanctioned on physics. But I know I am too involved to make that call or make any recommendation. Fresh and independent eyes with experience of this type of thing are needed. Also this is the second time round for Brews as evidenced by this comment about his work on Physics articles. The identical behaviour has now persisted for the best part of a year over multiple Philosophy articles and we need some radical behavioural change from Brews or sanctions ----Snowded ^TALK 08:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruption and malicious editing

Requesting assistance with the current state of affairs at Jews and Communism. The article is, in my view, being deliberately sabotaged by vocal advocates of its deletion, in order to facilitate future nominations. Particularly the users USchick (talk · contribs) and IZAK (talk · contribs), with the assistance of Galassi (talk · contribs) as an edit-warring proxy. A good example of the "sabotage" is the current campaign to deliberately prevent the article from sporting any lead image.

First, a poster depicting Leon Trotsky (in a positive light as the guardian of Russia), has been removed for being "anti-Jewish propaganda", even though it was in fact - issued by Trotsky himself (i.e. the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky). Now, a photograph of Karl Marx is being removed from the lede on such grounds as "Marxism is not Communism" and "Marx was not a Jew, because he was baptized" (even though there are a half-dozen refs in the article stating the renowned philosopher was, in fact, "a Jew", and none stating otherwise). It used to be "Marx is not mentioned in the article, hence we can't have him in there", until he was actually mentioned in the article. Now of course the objection shifts.

In short, one argument more absurd than the other, essentially pro forma to allow for the clique to edit-war anything they oppose out of the article, and essentially keep it without a proper lede and lede image. See this thread, and this one in support of my above outline. Here's a quote of the latest post, to illustrate my point:

“ If this article were about Marxism or the theory of Marxism, then Marx's photo would be appropriate. This article being about Jews and Communism, Marx being a Christian is not a very good representative of Jews. Marxism is not all encompassing of Communism, so his ideas about Communism are not the best representation of all of Communism. On both counts, his photo does not qualify as the lede photo. ”

This article was the subject of an unsuccessful AfD nomination, and, very quickly afterwards, a DELREV review. Participants in support of its deletion are now very active at the article, and are stonewalling proposals to improve its quality. I hope to find out whether our illustrious ANI corps regards their arguments as honest and justified, or whether they are, in fact, malicious disruption with a mind to future deletion attempts. -- Director (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards USchick, I would like to suggest for consideration the possibility of a topic ban on communism, independent of this issue. Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one, or, just now, posts like this. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that "disagreeing with Director" is evidence of deliberate sabotage. By the way, wondrous text like "The philosopher Karl Marx was a descendant of two rabbinic families." in the Karl Marx caption should be on some racist blog, not an encyclopedic article based on secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? How is it racist to say someone is a descendant of rabbinic families? Also, the term "Jew" is not purely religious. There are Jews who self-identify as atheist, so it's not necessarily contradictory to describe a Christian as a Jew. Howunusual (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose the communism/jews topic ban for DIREKTOR himself, on the basis of habitual pushing of antisemitic POV.--Galassi (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to solve the problems of this article is an AfD as it is a first class battleground. And secondly, I am not entirely convinced that the information is true and properly balanced. The Banner talk 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. As a matter of fact, I revised the caption, which was introduced in the first place as a response to talkpage claims that Karl Marx wasn't Jewish (which are, btw, actually offensive to Jewish people as well as untrue: Karl Marx was a great philosopher). Then Galassi restored the caption you're reading [6].

Further, if you believe being descendant from historic rabbinical families is insulting, then I would suggest its your own views that belong in said racist blogs. Perhaps even more so through your implication that Jews are a "race".

As for "disagreeing" with me, I invite you to actually read the exchange.

@Banner. One dispute over an image? The article is actually pretty quiet compared to many that I've seen. If we deleted all articles that are "battlegrounds" by such standards, I dare say we'd halve the project. As far as I'm aware, Wiki is here to cover controversial and difficult topics as well as the rest: whether an article is warranted or not is hardly determined by the level of controversy its topic engenders. -- Director (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the entire article seems shaky to me. The Banner talk 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the text is disputed.. it really isn't. But this isn't the place for such discussion? -- Director (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how biased the other editors involved are, but by what I have read, I can't avoid noticing that Director is not very used to addressing actual arguments and frequently makes personal remarks, threats and fallacious arguments instead of presenting valid reasons to support his position. That can be easily noticed here: [7]. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm to blame..

That's only one of several discussions with USchick, I make no secret of the fact that I am very annoyed with the user's conduct - hence this thread. But I believe I have good reason: the user is extremely unfamiliar with the topic she's trying to discuss, but insists on her positions regardless (that's the mild formulation). Please read on past the first couple of posts (which basically amount to a groan of annoyance on my part at the prospect of another "discussion" with the user).

As Altenmann points out, talking to her is WP:CHEESE, its infuriating. In that exchange she basically demands that the poster be "Jewish", which baffles me since the person in it is a famous Communist of Jewish ancestry (Leon Trotsky). It quickly becomes apparent she never heard of Leon Trotsky, and upon my explaining who the person in the poster is, she continues to demand more "Jewishness", until Altenmann realized she was talking about the religion. Yes: she wanted a communist poster with the symbols of Judaism. Her reply was "Imagine that! Is that too much to ask?". I won't relay the whole discussion, but there's the gist of its first part. She moves on to how the person in the poster isn't really Trotsky, etc.

In my view, the user is simply opposed to the article, but nevertheless hangs around the talkpage - to block any attempts at expanding it or improving its quality. When the article was posted, she attempted to blank it almost entirely on grounds that "Marxism isn't Communism"; I'm not kidding: its a "theory" she still pushes on the talkpage right now! -- Director (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You claim the person in the uniform is Trotsky, and the only actual reason you or someone else gave for that is his uniform. That's not necessarily a good reason to believe it's him since other people probably wore it too. Regarding the diff concerned, all I have seen is USchick ask for a good reason to identify the person in the picture as Trotsky, which is the only reason you gave to consider the poster jewish, and I think you failed to present any proof of your point. That doesn't mean I agree with any particular political view of USchick by the way. But since you presented that diff as an example of misbehavior by USchick, I think it speaks more against yourself than her. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, please look closer: #1 the poster was obtained from image hosting websites listing it as a poster of Leon Trotsky, and links were provided. #2 The photograph of Trotsky apparently used as an inspiration for the depiction in the poster, has also been produced (he looks practically identical in the two). -- Director (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Director, who otherwise is quite capable, loses objectivity when discussing Jews. He thinks the connection between Jews and Communism is self-evident and ignores that even if it is, we need sources to say that. I would suggest he avoid articles about Jews. I disagree with any action against USchick, IZAK or Galassi resulting from Director's complaint. TFD (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, TFD has never missed an opportunity to imply antisemitism on the part of those who oppose his various agendas. For him "its all about the Jews". To me, its about adding a damn lede image to one of our articles. He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong to oppose to an article. I myself, at reading the article, wonder why is it any more relevant than if someone created an article called Blondes and Communism. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course. But if I don't think we need an article, I don't try to torpedo it if I don't have my way in the AfD.

As for "Blondes and Communism", the difference is - sources. There are numerous sources covering the topic of the article. There are none for "Blondes and communism", or "Brunettes and Communism", or "Hot-dog vendors and Communism", etc. :) I myself don't presume to decide which topic is relevant and which isn't: I see if scholarly sources think so or not. If you think its "racist" to draw such parallels, then I can only suggest you take it up with the sources (which, by the way, appear to be mostly Jewish scholars researching the phenomenon). Its also implied in these sort of comments that Communism is something "bad" (as opposed to "very, very good"), which is a view that millions and millions of people might disagree with. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this source used to justify the poster. [8] A personal blog that describes a military uniform (Шинель) as a "red dress" hardly qualifies as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

*groooaan* They don't mean a female dress! Uggh.. Dress (noun): 1. a piece of clothing for a woman or a girl that has a top part that covers the upper body and a skirt that hangs down to cover the legs. 2. a particular type of clothing. As in "dress uniform".. for goodness sake. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A SHINEL is a MILITARY overcoat.--Lute88 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

She thought they mean a female dress, as in a gown. I've come to expect things like that from USchick. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Response by User:IZAK

1. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a highly skilled, obviously extremely professional and highly knowledgeable editor who writes on a very high academic level and therefore I have enjoyed co-editing the Jews and Communism article with him. Prior to this I do not recall having any interactions with him. DIREKTOR has rightly been complimented for his extraordinary abilities many times. But when he enters controversial zones, he seems to be blind to the raging fires that are already built into such topics as "Jews and Communism" or "Communism and Jews" where it is vital to keep calm and avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL at all costs so that, as I have warned a number of times, WP not become like a shadow of the antisemitic and racist anti-Jews and anti-Judaism Jew Watch hate site God forbid! That much should be obvious. It is truly amazing how DIREKTOR manages to come up with mountains and myriads of sources on short notice as if he had a staff of people, or very good data bases backing him up. Well done, we don't know how you do it! Not everyone can be as efficient as DIREKTOR is and he often uses his skills and resources to swing articles his way and resulting in a WP:OWN syndrome, so that whenever he is challenged he complains bitterly and simply cannot fathom that other users may feel just as deeply and passionately as he does about a topic and also have the ability to go toe to toe with him, and while they may lack his resources and his ability to dredge up sources on short notice, they are not afraid to stand up to him if they can survive the frustration of his tactics, such as running to ANI when nothing is wrong about just some ongoing CONTENT disputes over a contentious topic with everyone behaving in line, albeit in a feisty spirit.
2. The recent article Jews and Communism was created on 27 February 2014, by two determined users User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) who clearly and consistently violate WP:OWN in all their interactions with other users. For some or other odd reason they fail to see and blithely ignore the fact that this is a highly volatile and inflammatory topic that needs to be handled with utmost care and a high degree of WP:NPOV and skilled editing so that it not come across as a violation of WP:LIBEL in and of itself and that it not read like a mere accusatory "list" against Jews or anyone, as is self-understood by any truly neutral observer.
3. To add insult to injury one can fairly say that this article was born in sin/controversy. See the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (1 March 2104) with a huge majority of 22 users in favor of deletion, 3 to merge, and 14 to keep. That was then taken to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14 with 17 users endorsing the closure and 14 voting to overturn it in favor of deletion. With the over-all topsy-turvy results, that in the AFD the minority won while in the DRV the minority lost.
4. But be that as it may we all go on, and in my case in the AFD I had not voted to delete, rather, if possible, to save all content and redirect to History of Communism [9] [10] for the sake of better context and NPOV.
5. There have also been several good faith suggestions by a variety of users on the talk page to rename the article into a more suitable NPOV name, see Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move; Talk:Jews and Communism#Alternative proposed move: Communism in Jewish history; Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move: Jews in the history of Communism, some resolved, some still wide open.
6. I have been contributing to the article constructively since 13 March 2014 always striving for NPOV and to keep up with WP:RS and WP:V: [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17].
7. I have added a number of sections to the article, some about other Jews who were communists and those who opposed them [18]; and about Jews as victims of Communism [19] [20] always using WP:RS and WP:V citations often found in other related articles as well.
8. I tried to move the page to a more NPOV balanced title of Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism since many other articles deal with the topic this way [21] backing it up in a "See also" section with [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] but I was reverted. I did not agree but I accepted that even though the current title is very unclear and will always be a problem.
9. I have always tried to engage User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in good faith serious dialogue but he finds it difficult to communicate with an equal -- but that has not deterred me or others, see examples at Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Response by IZAK; Talk:Jews and Communism#Name change without consultation; Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent additions by IZAK disputed by Director; Talk:Jews and Communism#IZAK's draft; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosenbergs; Talk:Jews and Communism#"Jews as victims of Communism" suggestions; Talk:Jews and Communism#Picture of Marx for the lede; Talk:Jews and Communism#Pic of Emma Goldman; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosa Luxemburg and Spartacist League.
10. As for the Trotsky poster File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, that DIREKTOR would like in the lede, there is already one good photo of Trotsky in the article that I have never disputed. As was discussed in Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Edits by IZAK. The problem with it if left in the lede is that it is not truly NPOV because with one glance it automatically evokes a feeling of either "you hate Trotsky or you love Trotsky" (as it was meant to do as a propaganda poster) and is not suitable for setting the tone of an already volatile enough topic because it is a blatantly very controversial caricature. People can agree to disagree but it is not "obstructionism" and it does not belong on an ANI discussion.
11. The issue about Marx, after long debate, seems to have been somewhat settled at this time (obviously, how it will develop no one can know). After my and others' initial objections, DIREKTOR finally added some lines about Marx's connection to Communism. No one disputes that at the age of 6 Marx was converted into Christianity by his father when he renounced his and his children's Judaism and at 16 Marx by free choice personally confirmed himself as a Christian and practiced as such, all before anything else Marx became famous for, and I created a section to deal with DIREKTOR's insertion and my additions with citations added, with the pic of Marx in it [28].
12. As they say in the classics, DIREKTOR should stop over-reacting, quit demonizing other editors he does not agree with, stop the crankiness and deprecating lines, and return to the bargaining table of the talk pages and improving the article bit by bit and as best we all can together in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and most vitally WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

About the poster: I would like to point out that the red soldier in the poster is highly stylized, without very much detail in his uniform. Anyone who claims this person is Trotsky, lacks a basic understanding of communism, and maybe that's why Director is having trouble finding sources to support his novel idea. In communism, the individual, even the leader, is not at all important, as demonstrated by the credo "All for one and one for all." The reason it can't possibly be Trotsky, is because to single out any one individual in a communist movement (like a revolution) would destroy the movement. The soldier in the poster represents a regular soldier, part of the proletariat, which is much more important than any specific individual. As proof, you can see his sleeve. The uniform in the poster is very generic with no tabs on the sleeve. If this soldier were Trotsky, the uniform would have a tab on the sleeve showing the rank of an officer [29]. I respectfully request a topic ban for Director on the subject of Communism, since he lacks a basic understanding of the subject matter. USchick (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Director wrote above "Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one" and I did have a look at it, I agree that it is appalling, but not in the way Director means. Director wants to use a poster of a soldier in a red uniform dominating a map of parts of Eastern and Central Europe as an illustration of "Jews and communism". USchick wants to know how that image is an illustration of the topic. Director tells her it is because it is a drawing of Trotsky, who was Jewish, and refers her to two websites, which however when you click on the links, do not bring up that poster or a discussion of it. USchick thinks that is not an appropriate image to illustrate "Jews and communism" and Director responds by repeatedly insulting her.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see, having looked closer at those links Director provided, that if you search for that poster on them you will find it and they do say it is a drawing of Trotsky. This would not be obvious to readers though and it makes me wonder why Director wanted to use an image of a scary looking soldier dominating huge parts of Europe, brandishing a rifle with a bayonet on the end of it, and bringing his heavy boot down on grovelling people at his feet, as the lead image for an article on "Jews and communism".Smeat75 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either I'm posting fake links, or I'm trying to push some kind of sinister image. Typical. The image itself, once somebody clicks on it, naturally provides the source. Further, aside from the links, there's also the Photo of an Identical Trotsky.

To answer your second post, the caption says "Be on guard!", and its meant to show Trotsky guarding Russia from the foreign, pro-White interventionists who were invading it at that time, and also the Poles, who were also invading the country. Its a defensive pose, he's defending Russia, he's not shown "dominating" any part of (non-Russian) Europe ("Russia" was much bigger back then). The reason why Trotsky is in uniform, is because he is the founder and first commander of the Red Army, actually leading the military at that time.

Also, that's the only poster I could find of Trotsky, aside from this one. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this is such a historic poster, is there a historical explanation that goes with it? From a reliable source? USchick (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reliable sources" here? Are you seriously requesting a scholarly publication that covers obscure Russian Civil War posters?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The poster is obviously Trotsky, that's pointed out wherever the image is hosted, and there's the photograph of him looking exactly as in the poster. Yet its impossible to introduce it in the article due to WP:CHEESE arguments like that. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim it's Trotsky in the poster, yes, you need a reliable source if you wish to make that claim. It could be lots of other people as well. [30] USchick (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely undaunted by the "dress" thing above, you just keep on going.

That's just more of your absurd, malicious WP:DISRUPTION. The person in the poster is effin' Trotsky. The sources are perfectly reliable for the confirmation of the blatantly obvious - why don't you present a source that its not Trotsky, considering everyone else in the world seems to think it is. If every image on this project required a scholarly publication as the only "reliable" source - we'd be left with twenty images. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That image, whether of Trotsky or anybody else, of a huge intimidating soldier bringing his boot down on pitiful, grovelling figures at his feet, is completely inappropriate as an illustration of "Jews" in any context at all. The fact that Director does not seem to see this makes me question if he should be editing articles connected to Judaism or Jews.Smeat75 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not an illustration of "Jews". Its an illustration of a Jewish person defending his country against foreign incursion - issued by his own propaganda. The person was very much a military leader, as are many Jewish people. If Trotsky and his party thought it appropriate - who are you to say its somehow misrepresentative (though again, its supposed to be the "stomping" of aggressors). But all that is not the subject here, because you're voicing a completely different argument from what we saw on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this argument really over which image to use in the lead of the article? What is wrong with the photo of Leon Trotsky that is on the article now? This seems like a talk page discussion and off of AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I'm asking is a review of the arguments presented in the two discussions, as I hold them to be indicative of a pattern of disruptive conduct aimed at deliberately diminishing the article's quality. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any rs that says it is Trotsky. The artist, Dmitry Moor issued another poster in 1920, "Have you enlisted?", that has a similar figure. But rs says the figure represents a Russian soldier not Trotsky.[31] TFD (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 Everyone says it Trotsky. #2 I don't see anything in your link. Does your source say its not Trotsky in that poster? -- Director (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone. Trotsky's uniform is not red. It's OR and wishful thinking to claim a soldier representing the Red Army [32] and wearing a coat that doesn't belong to an officer is Trotsky. See my first comment about why it's not him. It may look like Trotsky, but it also looks like Colonel Sanders [33]. I hope an admin can stop the madness. This is a perfect example of Director inventing history as he goes along and expecting everyone else to go along simply because he said so. USchick (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Getty images: Soldiers of Red Army hunting profiteers and foreign invaders, 1920, Poster by Dmitrij Moor (1883-1946), Russia, 20th century [34] No mention of Trotsky. USchick (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you click on image in your link it says, "Dmitrii Moor: Be on Guard! (1920) Moor produced over fifty political posters for the Revolutionary Military Council during 1919-1920. This one, showing Red Army defending the Russian border, appeared after the Russo-Polish war and warned that enemy armies--depicted as capitalists incited by a French officer and a Ukrainian hetman--may again invade. Source: Peter Paret, Beth Irwin Lewis, Paul Paret: Persuasive Images: Posters of War and Revolution from the Hoover Institution Archives. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1992." No mention of Trotsky. Your argument that it could not have been Trotsky is convincing. He looks too manly. But we should not have to do that. Director should not have introduced this picture without evidence that it was Trotsky. TFD (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Director 's argument of "prove it's not Trotsky" is an inversion of the burden of proof. That blog is not a reliable source, not to mention it could even belong to Director, who knows? "Everyone" is not saying it's Trotsky, and also "everyone" does not constitute a reliable source even if they did. In the absence of real evidence and sources to support this picture, Director is making use of fallacies to try to prove his point. That may be a sign of a non-neutral point of view, otherwise why did Director not just leave the picture, since there are plenty of further ones in the article? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Once sources have been provided, the burden is on the user opposing them. Its an obscure poster, sure, but here's a zoomed in, full length version [35]. You might notice its signed "Л. Тро́цкий". Also, here's another hosting link (in addition to the two in the thread). Have you seen the photo? -- Director (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The poster is not "signed by L. Trotsky." The words printed on the poster are attributed to L. Trotsky. [36] USchick (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The poster is, in fact, signed by Leon Trotsky. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it is signed by Leon Trotsky does not prove that the figure in the picture represents him. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact there is no signature. His name is printed under the message of propaganda attributed to him. Here's a higher resolution. [37] USchick (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of this poster and the identity of the person depicted on it continue on the article talk page rather than here?Smeat75 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh for god's sake.. its a printed signature, USchick.

@GreyWinterOwl. One could hypothetically raise the bar of "proof" on these things until it becomes such that we'd need to delete or exclude every single image on Wikipedia. I submit that:

• three different websites hosting the image describe it as depicting Leon Trotsky.
• that Leon Trotsky, leading the Red Army, appeared exactly as in the image [38].
• that the poster is signed by Leon Trotsky.

And I hold that it is silly to demand some kind of scholarly publication in further evidence for an obscure 100-year-old poster. The general idea, as I thought, is to improve the quality of the article. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3 different unreliable sources put together don't make a reliable source.
• Is his face visibly Trotsky's face or just the uniform? Was he the only person to wear the uniform? Was that a military basic uniform of his troops?
• The signature does not prove it is him on the picture. Mona Lisa is signed by Leonardo and obviously isn't his depiction.

If you think it's silly to demand a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia, then your concept of working on Wikipedia is very different from what I have understood from reading the guidelines. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The question here is about who is being disruptive. Director is pushing OR with no reliable sources about the identity of a cartoon and then claims that the cartoon is Jewish. Then he pushes OR that printed words L Trotsky are a signature. When presented with facts, he feigns reading comprehension and pushes more Synth and POV. USchick (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the websites are trying to slander Trotsky by implying he was a Communist? That must be their POV? Owl, its not the uniform: its the face in the uniform. Also, right off the bat, I could link some a hundred prominent Wikipedia images that have sources just as "reliable" as these.. some image hosting site or whatever.

Mind you, as a poster bearing Trotsky's message, it could justifiably be included even if its not him being depicted (as it obviously is).-- Director (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the process is for an uninvolved editor to register a constructive contribution to a discussion like this, so I'm just going to say here that the poster is quite clearly Trotsky and it's very confusing to understand why USchick is giving DIREKTOR what seems to be such a hard time about this, as if the goal might be to neutralization of possible inclusion of the poster by exhausting the participants w/ what appears to be WP:CHEESE, even as the article seems to merit a primary or lead image, which the poster would seem to be a good fit for. So again, I don't understand why USchick is giving DIREKTOR such an apparently/possibly-uncivilly hard time, despite my best efforts to understand by reading many of their comments. JDanek007^Talk 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a reliable source is not giving someone a "hard time." USchick (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To refocus the discussion on user conduct, I'd like to point out that this was first opposed as an anti-Jewish propaganda poster, then as a double depiction of Trotsky - and then as not depicting Trotsky. -- Director (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An unidentified cartoon on a propaganda piece attributed to an atheist person from a Jewish family is the best image available for the lede in an article Jews and Communism. Synth? USchick (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Unidentified"? "Cartoon"? "Synth"? I swear, half the time I don't even know how to respond to your posts, USchick. -- Director (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Those 3 different objections to the picture are not necessarily self-contradictory. They may just mean that the picture is inappropriate for more than one reason and whether or not the cartoon depicts Trotsky. And I can't see any obvious similarity between the cartoon's face and Trotsky's except for the presence of a mustache, which I doubt is an exclusive remark as much as the uniform. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very narrow perspective, and naive, in my view. It doesn't correspond with the manner in which the arguments were presented. The goal is simply to keep the article from having a lede image - any lead image, and by any "arguments" necessary. When stock arguments ("its antisemitism!") turn out to be ridiculous, a poster is equated with a photograph and a double depiction is claimed. When that does not work, it is argued that its not Trotsky at all. When another image is posted, the story goes on ("Karl Marx was Christian!", "Karl Marx was not Communist", and so forth). Now, a photograph was removed from the lede on grounds that it should be less than 190px wide. -- Director (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that to oppose a Marx photo on an article about communism is silly. But that's not the image we are talking about. If the problem is having any lede image at all instead of the specific poster of a man in a red uniform, then I think the best way for you to try to prove your point is to forget the cartoon poster, about which I don't think you are right on your claims, and focus on real misbehavior by the people you accuse. Asking for a reliable source or proof that the cartoon depicts Trotsky is not misbehavior. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Christianity prominently features Jesus, who was a Jew, not a Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Return of User:PRODUCER

The horse is dead, it's ceased to be. If you have legitimate evidence that this is puppetry, WP:SPI is thataway, but look out for boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. NOTE: For the record, as this discussion unfolds, and after a relatively longish absence, now that User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is bogged down in the very ANI discussions he initiated, all of a sudden his partner and virtual doppelganger User PRODUCER (talk · contribs), the original creator of this article, appears on the scene and starts to aggressively edit this controversial article. It is truly amazing how their names and work compliment each other as if in PRODUCING and DIREKTING a movie with a "producer" and a "director" with the virtually identical coordinated moves. Hopefully he will oblige us with a visit here soon. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The sockpuppet accusations have been brought up repeatedly and refuted repeatedly. Yambaram found himself in some rather hot water recently after doing this, and will likely be blocked if the accusation is repeated. I think you can essentially consider yourself in that same boat. Knock it off. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Hi Tarc, I am not making any such accusations, just an obvious observation about a curiosity about the way Users PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) compliment each other perfectly to the point where it is hard to know the difference between them on the work they do in unison "producing " and "directing" this article. That much should be obvious for anyone following the way the article was created and is being guided by DIREKTOR and PRODUCER in unison, neither of whom has had any know WP:EXPERTISE as regards the topic of Jews that I have been around for over eleven years on WP, that makes this all very odd, and even disturbing to some Wikipedians (we can agree to disagree, but you cannot stifle the troubling feelings of how and why this is so), to ignore this would be acting tone deaf to a not so subtle disturbing undercurrent. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I think this at the very least is a case of meatpuppetry.--Galassi (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failure of DIREKTOR and PRODUCER to answer the question Why?

1. As anyone in academia knows, at the outset there are two important questions that begin any inquiry or topic: What? (including Who? and When?) but then more importantly Why?
2. So far all this article does is list the "Who" and "When" and "Where" but nothing more! This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (viz. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed") and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing") and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (viz. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources").
3. Together the question/s of What/Who/When/How AND answer/s plus the question of Why? fulfill the needs of the Empirical domain and research.
4. It then goes further than that because the next issue is how to deal with the Normative domain meaning of "What ought to be?" and that is accomplished by understanding the values that people attached to things. It is too early to expect this to be dealt with at this time.
5. So far, all that Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) are doing is compiling a bare-bones mind-numbing List of Jews who have been Communists without ever explaining Why? that was so, or How? it happened.
6. There are plenty of good sources and a wide variety of reasons (historical, political, social, economic, religious etc) for why and how Jews were drawn to Communism but the article presently does not supply them. Even if mentioned in other related articles. But DIREKTOR and PRODUCER limit, enforce would be a better word, the title to its narrowest limits without ever allowing it to become a rational and informative scholarly article e.g. [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46]. This is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and obviously of WP:OWN. When I have tried to insert that into the article e.g. [47] they immediately react and cut it out with feeble excuses and deprecating comments e.g. [48] [49] [50].
7. Not just that, but any time a user tries to get into the question/s of why Jews were so drawn into Communism and not to Nazism or Fascism as many of their gentile compatriots and countrymen were, both DIREKTOR and PRODUCER will react by either censoring it out or excoriating the one making such efforts.
8. It is time to move beyond the creation of a de facto list and start working on explaining and understanding why and how Jews were drawn to Communism and for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER not to stand in the way of that. In fact they would go a long way to clear the air if they lead the way with providing such important material to fill the ever-growing gap that straddles what is nothing more than a list that could be misconstrued as just looking around where to find 10% Jews here or 3 out of 10 there, but never talking about the other 90% or even who the 7 out of 10 were or why that was so. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have at random clicked one of the diffs you gave above, [51]. I can only applaud the work of (in this case) User:DIREKTOR in keeping such extreme POV-introducing edits out of the article. The above post by IZAK shows the same inclination to use the article as a means to present a POV instead of giving the facts, and is littered by badly applied links to Wikipedia policies, like WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Now, there may be problems with the article or with User:Direktor, but the above statement and the edits by IZAK are at least evidence that trying to get him out of the picture at that article is a logical request. Fram (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just saw your comments and with all the complexity involved here, I have clarified, see above: WP:NOTDIRECTORY (viz. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed") and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing") and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (viz. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"). Please check all the diffs for accuracy and I will gladly respond. You also need to focus on the difficulty of moving on the question of Why" and how to formulate that. I have always provided as many sources I can gather with the building of each step. It's a process that takes time as any user knows. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You have changed your statement, but I don't see how it makes any difference. In the above diff I repeated from your list of diffs, it is your edit that clearly violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX, trying to use an article for propaganda, and thereby completely missing the topic of the article or the balance required under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. And (after edit conflict) your edit did nothing to address the "why" at all. Fram (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Fram, I was in the middle of posting my final version when you jumped in and it does make a difference. I honestly posted as many diffs as I could for the sake of comprehensiveness. Please point out the exact diff you are referring to and I will respond, I cannot respond to you until then because in some instances material was inserted taken directly from other WP articles and not from my head, in others I was not given a chance to build in the spirit of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, Rome was not built in a day and as you know it is laborious to write and contribute. Again, please show which diffs show that it is "me" that has anything to do with "soapbox" when all I am talking about is putting things into context and giving reasons for the question of Why, of course with sources. This is a long tedious process and one cannot provide sources for every word as one types. If anything is not obvious and needs a source I will provide it, and I have done so many times. I have also given many examples of where I did not dispute removal of material that I inserted even if it did have source, and that would have helped answer the question Why something that is lacking from the article. Again, I ask that you look at all the diffs and not cherry pick anything out of context. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You were in the middle when I jumped in? There was more than 1 hour and a half between your post and my reply... As for the diff I'm talking about, it was given in the first line of my first reply above, [[52]]. Fram (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Fram, I am not a quick typist, it does take me hours to type and I am not that young, and it takes time to notice all the comments when there are a few subsections and threads going on simultaneously, so I was not aware and did not notice your points. Okay, I now took a good look at the diff but it is a diff of DIREKTOR editing DIREKTOR and has nothing to do with the context of the material. In addition, whether one agrees with DIREKTOR or not there are plenty of refs in what he edited out, it was only DIREKTOR's POV that it was not good, now as you see DIREKTOR wants ANI to take care of the problems he creates (controversy and dissension, few are happy with what's going on) rather engaging in dialogue and article building. Most of the material cut out by DIREKTOR in the diff was not original or POV because it was taken and/or summarized from sections in the History of the Jews in the United States article, such as (1) History of the Jews in the United States#Revolutionary era, (2) History of the Jews in the United States#World War I and (3) History of the Jews in the United States#Postwar (see and compare it's all from there) and was not a violation of anything on the contrary it was obviously meant to create more historical context that in turn would show Jews in the USA in a NPOV position (it is not "soapboxing" to state that fact!!!) to prove that the vast majority of USA Jews had nothing to do with Communism at all. Quoting verbatim from another WP article is not "soapboxing" but rather it shows familairty with other related WP content and is good research and it's good faith and WP:NPOV desire to put the topic "Jews and Communism" in the kind of context answering the question Why? and How? this all came to be and not just creating what DIREKTOR and PRODUCER want which is just a raw List of Jews who were Communists without any attempt at getting into the reasons and factors behind such an important topic. If you have any questions about any other diffs please feel free to ask and I will try to put it into the context of the discussion and the subject as a whole. Thanks for your interest, IZAK (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • It was a diff you provided, of Direktir removing material you provided, so I don't see what your objections are against using it. But if you prefer, we can take the edit where you added all this and more, [53]; a 5K addition of the section "American Jews as non-Communists with no relation to Communism" in a general article on Jews and Communism. That is a WP:UNDUE violation, no matter where you got the material from (and you should have attributed it if you copied it from other articles). Material that is suitable for one article may well be soapboxing when used in another article, and e.g. a lengthy addition of what one American Jew did in 1781 is not a good addition to the Jews and Communism article, and seems only to be there to demonstrate that American Jews are good Americans, and the occasional bad apples like the Rosenbergs get sentenced to death by their fellow Jews. The section is about seven times as long as the one on Jewish American Communists, which is much closer to the subject of the article and doesn't discuss people like Rose Pastor Stokes, or Frank Oppenheimer, J. Robert Oppenheimer or other Jewish Americans who became a victim of McCarthyism. Your edit didn't bring balance to the article, but slanted it excessively in one POV direction (your edit strongly gives the impression that one can't be a communist and a good American at the same time, and that it is essential for an article about Jews and Communism to clearly show that Jews have done more than their share of good citizenship in America throughout its history, no matter if it had anything to do with Communism or not, like fighting in WWI). Fram (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I do appreciate your observations. Please consider that contributing to articles is a complex process and takes time. We can spend hours debating these points but one cannot place them on a knife's edge, writing and editing is a far more complex evolutionary process. In the course of spending many long hours on finding related texts and starting the process of adding balance not every attempt will succeed. No one sits down and writes up "the perfect article or section" in one shot because as you know it is a process. The section you refer to was removed and I did not dispute it, that is part of the give and take, so its a moot point really. At no point am I trying to say anything about "American Jews and Communism" and I was not drawing your conclusions, what I was trying to do was start the process of creating balance, reaching for the question of Why? and How? not just focus on inserting names of Jews who were Communists, something neither DIREKTOR nor PRODUCER have even done, other editors have done that and they deserve to be complimented. As I have mentioned I have inserted a number of other sections and they have been retained, albeit in summary form in an effort to improve the over-all balance of the article. Bottom line, I have added sections and even names of Jews who were Communists (such as the Rosenbergs in the USA [54] [55]) to the article. I was the one who added sections that are still integral parts of the article, namely, Jews and Communism#Downfall of Soviet Union [56](later abbreviated); Jews and Communism#Persecution and emigration [57](later abbreviated [58]) [59]; Jews and Communism#Karl Marx [60]. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So, a diff you gave as an example of their problematic editing, "This is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and obviously of WP:OWN.", now turns out to be "The section you refer to was removed and I did not dispute it, that is part of the give and take, so its a moot point really.", and on the other hand you indicate that a fair number of sections you added have remained in the article, also indicating that the problems are not so extreme as your post here strongly suggested. So, basically, some things you add remain, some get shortened, and some, like the one I highlighted, get correctly removed. Isn't that all part of normal editing on a contentious topic? No editor is obliged to add sections on "why", and the section you added on Jewish Americans had nothing to do with "why" anyway. If you can create a well-sourced, neutral, and not excessively long section on "why?", then it could be a good addition to the article: but no one else is obliged to write such a section to satisfy your demands, and at least one of the examples you gave above have nothing to do with people stopping you from adding such a section, and everything with keeping POV and UNDUE sections out of the article.

Randomly checking other diffs you gave, I note that you complain about edits that got reverted like this one and this one; but looking at the articles you linked there, I see nothing related to Jews and Communism, the topic of the artcle, so it is normal that these ones were reverted. It would greatly help your case if you would stick to the real problems, because as it stands a casual glance of your complaints indicates more problems from your side than from the ones you are complaining about. Either this actually reflects the situation, or you have very badly presented your case. Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Third lede image removed

IZAK has removed a third image from the article's lede. So lets recap:

• He removed the poster of Leon Trotsky, on grounds that it was anti-Jewish propaganda (it is in fact published and signed by Leon Trotsky himself). Then he removed it on grounds that it was a "double image" of Trotsky. Now its claimed that its not Trotsky at all.
• He pushed down the photo of Karl Marx because Karl Marx was baptized as a child (and, in spite of sources, IZAK decided that makes him not a Jewish person: "Marx was a Christian and that is what defines him").
• When yesterday I moved up the photo of Trotsky to the lede as a sort of compromise, he demanded that it be the same size as before [61]. When I pointed to the MoS, he removed it from the lede [62]: "Trotsky is neither the founder nor single most important person in Communism" - yes, that's after he removed the photo of Karl Marx.

The user, as I said, seems to be deliberately out to hurt the quality of the article.

As regards Karl Marx, in his long essays you will find IZAK basically rejects sources out of hand as a basis for Wikipedia editing. This was essentially my position:

IZAK - its very simple: the sources say Karl Marx was a Jewish person. You say he wasn't. Provide sources that say that. Exactly that. Not sources that say he was baptized or whatever, wherefrom you draw your own conclusions - but sources that directly say that which you claim. I can not accept your own opinions, nor any of your own "conclusions".

IZAK responds with things like this (buried in massive tirades)

Wikipedia cannot accept half-baked half-truths and partial theories, even if accompanied by so-called "sources".

And of course, provides nothing at all in support, other than his own OR. The whole thing is here. When "so-called sources" provide a problem for IZAK, he assumes the position that his own evaluation of a prominent historical personage stands above ("Marx was baptized hence he isn't a Jewish person"). That's just the Marx affair of course..

This article can not move forward while these folks hang around, being nothing but disruptive obstructions, to even the most basic and obvious improvements. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason people are finding it difficult to agree about what image represents the subject matter is because the relationship between Jews and Communism has not been established in the article. USchick (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between communists who happen to be Jews, and Communists where their Jewishness is somehow intrinsically linked to their communism. Marx may meet the technical definition of a Jew, but the sources are not saying that his Jewishness is an intrinsic part of his philosophy - to the contrary, they repeatedly say he lived his life as a Christian, and that his parents converted before he was born. Had he been born a woman, (s)he and all their female descendants for 100 generations would technically be Jews too. There are sources discussing the intersection between communism and Jews - that does not mean all jewish communists are in scope, anymore than an article on the crusades brings all soldiers who are christians in. Images for the article needs to be ones that are specifically and explicitly being discussed in the scope of Jewish Communists. Surely there are propaganda (pro or con) images that are using both communist and jewish imagery. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_Lithuanian_poster.JPG etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A user has found what I believe is a suitable image and added it to the article. Another user mistakenly believed that the article "Jews and Communism" had been plagiarised from a banned site, as you can see in the section "Plagiarism" on this page, but it was the other way around. The fact that the banned site was so eager to copy this WP article is not a good sign in my opinion. I do believe the article "Jews and Communism" in its current state is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda.Smeat75 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at a meta-level, there is almost assuredly a notable historical argument (Jewish Bolshevism). That argument was anti-semetic. But our covering of that argument is not itself anti-semetic, but we should be covering the topic at a meta level, and not just repeating the historical argument itself. I am not convinced that this isn't just a WP:CFORK of Jewish Bolshevism, unless there are other sources discussing the intersection of communism and Jews from a scholarly angle (which there is some evidence of [63]). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your link shows that a scholar has written an article about "Jews and Communism in Eastern Europe." That does not establish that the topic Jews and Communism in Eastern Europe is notable. Notability only occurs when more than one person writes about a subject in reliable sources. And the scholar's article is too narrow in scope to support an article about Jews and Communism globally. If a scholar were to write a book or article about Jews and Communism, he or she would have to mention examples where Jews played little or no role in Communism, compare their membership in liberal and social democratic parties, and explain the reasons for these phenomena. Otherwise we just have a coatrack where we pile on examples of Jews who were Communists. That gives the article an implicit thesis, that Jews and Communism are connected, not supported by external sources but by our researches. The connection may be obvious, but that does not absolve us of having a source that draws the connection. TFD (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess TFD is just going to keep repeating the rejected argument over and over and over again.

I think everyone here would have to be pretty dumb to actually buy the concept that the topic of "Jews and Communism" is somehow different from the topic "Jews and Communism in [region/country]". It is only to be expected that the vast majority of historical studies focus on the relationship in specific geopolitical and historical circumstances. You are latching beyond all reason onto one statement from a source where the author expresses his wish that a global study be conducted (scientific publications often list subjects as suggestions for further study). The source does not indicate that the topic is not covered, merely that it would be good to conduct an overarching, global study. Such research, if ever conducted, would in either case be of dubious value (compared to the detailed research) due to the very different conditions in which the relationship has developed.

The idea that large amounts of reliably-sourced content, dealing with a topic, should be deleted from our project because we don't have a "global" study on the topic - is, in my view, preposterous to the point of absurdity. Even if that's actually the case, though it seems we actually do have research dealing with the topic with a view on whole regions, in addition to specific countries. But I guess TFD is perfectly willing to ignore all these sources and actually claim the topic is not notable. Weird, and disturbing. -- Director (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A google search for "Blonde and Jews" gets over 30,000 hits under "books" like this one [64]. Just because people write about something, doesn't make it notable. A relationship between Jews and Communism still needs to be established in the article. USchick (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Director, the behavior of a race in one country may not relate to its behavior in another. For example studies about the relationship of blacks in the U.S. to economic and political power may not be relevant to nations in Africa, unless one assumes that black people have racial characteristics that determine their economic or political achievement. And of course we are discussing Jews as a race, because we are including "Jews" who were Christians. If we want to create an article about "Blacks and poverty" for example, we would need a source that addresses that not just blacks and poverty in America. TFD (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol, the relationship between Jews and Blondes would be easier to establish than Jews as a Race. USchick (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing any focus on what the participants are asking admins to do. I don't think there is any reason for an admin to block or ban any editor from what has been posted here. "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me, and the discussion should continue on the talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. There are no such things as "races", TFD. Certainly Jewish people are not a "race". -- Director (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And apparently it is not a religion either, otherwise an atheist who was baptized could not be a Jews. So what in your terminology is it? TFD (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How about a nation? Or ethnic group? Talk about your false dichotomy.. Frankly I'm more than a little appalled that you view Jews as a separate "race". -- Director (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, when you stated above that "He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it": firstly, by now it is obvious what you mean by "improving" the article, for you it is just about adding more people to the List of Jews who were Communists and nothing else because you never give any reasons why that happened, just spending time looking for the 10% here and there who were Jews that got mixed up with Communism. Secondly, you are surely being facetious at best as regards myself and it is a false accusation against me that you should apologize for. You know full well that I have never asked that the article be deleted, ever, my constant request is that the topic be put into greater context and not just read like an accusatory list almost like a "Gestapo/KGB/Stasi list of most wanted/hated/feared Jewish Communists". Thirdly, as you also so know I have added sections and even names of Jews who were Communists (such as the Rosenbergs in the USA [65] [66]) to the article. Fourthly, I was the one who added sections that are still integral parts of the article, namely, Jews and Communism#Downfall of Soviet Union [67](later abbreviated); Jews and Communism#Persecution and emigration [68](later abbreviated [69]) [70]; Jews and Communism#Karl Marx [71]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: 1 At the present time the question of a suitable pic for the lede is moot because User Pharos (talk · contribs) has recently introduced an excellent compromise File:OZET poster.jpg [72] we can all agree on with his logical reasoning that "better to have image in lede representing a movement/group, rather than an individual". 2 DIREKTOR conflates and mixes up all sorts of things creating half-truths. For example, in his first point above about about my removal of the controversial Trotsky poster (I was not the only one who has given reasons for its removal in such a controversial article) File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, my own position was an remains that one good picture of Trotsky File:Leon Trotsky (crop).jpg is okay and it's in the article and I have never disagreed with that. I have never gotten into the discussion of who is depicted in the controversial poster, just that it sure looks like a mean caricature meant to stir "love-hate" emotions, and that should be left out of a NPOV lede no matter who is depicted in the poster or who made it. 3 The good pic of Trotsky File:Leon Trotsky (crop).jpg that was in the article was not suitable for the lead should and is a part of the section on Russia as I noted "...put him back where he belongs with Russia. This article is about the worldwide involvement with Communism by Jews." [73]. But DIREKTOR never lets facts get in the way of trying to get his WP:OWN way even if it means confusing different users edits and positions to suit himself, as Yoda might say "good he is, at that". 4 A lone imageof Marx was inserted which is all that DIREKTOR/PROCCER wanted, and the objection was that it should be kept out of a major discussion of "Jews" in relation to Communism, eventually DIREKTOR put in a one liner in the article so that got the image of Marx into the article as well. As for Marx, he was baptized as a Christian at age 6 and he confirmed it at age 16 and I have provided sources that are even in the article, that is not made up, and according to Judaism, DIREKTOR does not seem to be an expert in Judaism at all to know that someone who converts to Christianity is no longer Jewish or regarded as Jew in the Jewish religion which is the source of the ethnic definition of a Jew as well. DIREKTOR only cherry picks what is good for him and PRODUCER, Judaism and Jews be damned. This discussion is way beyond what DIREKTOR can fathom, so he keeps harping on the fact that Marx was born Jewish, which is true but he ignores the equally true fact that Marx was an official Christian whose family renounced Judaism which puts their Jewish status in doubt. There are sources for this but it does not belong in a discussion about Communism so I have limited the talk about that even though I have tried some minimal discussions on the point that just misses the mark with DIREKTOR that I cannot help but that he uses as some sort of pathetic "complaint". 5 Finally, the utterly absurd and false claim about me that "The user...seems to be deliberately out to hurt the quality of the article" is hilarious because by now everyone knows DIREKTOR's and now on the scene again PRODUCER's aim is NOT to create a "quality article" on the contrary their idea of "quality" here is to produce as massive a List of Jews who were Communists and damned be the question of WHY that happened or any true and relevant historical, political social, economic etc factors that cause this as any normal study of historical events and personalities deserves, and as all my attempts at improving the article clearly show if you look at everything I have done to make this article move beyond being an ongoing hot potato point of dissension and divisiveness on WP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

as massive a List of Jews who were Communists - and using a very wide definition, without explanation or nuance, of who can be simply labelled "a Jew". For instance, the article has a quote "Hungary was ruled by a Communist dictatorship. Its party boss, Béla Kun, was a Jew." An editor attempted to clarify this to a certain extent by inserting "(Bela Kun was actually half-Jewish and raised a protestant)." [74] According to Béla Kun, his father was Jewish, his mother was a "former Protestant", they were secular, non religiously observant, Kun was educated at a Calvinist school. Presumably as an adult he was an atheist. However any clarification of this kind is not permitted in the article and it was reverted [75] so that the article once again says flatly "the party boss was a Jew". There are many instances of this kind in the article of people born into nominally Jewish families, quite a few who converted to some form of Christianity, then as adults and communists were completely secularised atheists, who are simply given the label "Jew" and any qualification of that removed.Smeat75 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover and Jewish editors and this discussion

NOTE to closing admins, with the close approach of the Jewish Passover holidays, Passover eve is on Monday April 14th, continuing through April 22nd, it will greatly limit the ability of Jewish and Judaic editors to respond adequately to this discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be over by now, what makes you think it will extend until then? ES&L 14:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What does a fast from eating leavened bread have to do with Internet access?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Um.. I'm not very religious myself, but isn't Easter at about the same time? I imagine most Wikipedia editors would be celebrating a holiday these days. -- Director (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This comment was meant for closing admins. Unless you are a closing admin, if you have any questions about how people celebrate their faith, please google it. USchick (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you ought to stop posting these offensive/strange posts everywhere. -- Director (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you a closing admin? This comment is not for you. Belittling statements about why or how people celebrate holidays is highly inappropriate. USchick (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Belittling ? Highly inappropriate ? Lighten up. Religious practices don't get a special pass. People can ask whatever they want. They might learn something. Ryulong asked a question, Collect kindly answered it. The end. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Jews become a tad more "orthodox" during Passover, and many will, in fact, not be on-line during that period. Even typing on the Internet can be viewed as "work" not to be engaged in. Walking is "in" as is using the stairs, for many. The Internet is not on the "in" list. Collect (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

YMMV, as some like to say. In other words, SPADFY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"SPADFY" has no meaning that I can find. My post was expository, and not directed at you by any means at all. I have had Orthodox friends and relatives, so am pretty sure that what I posted is correct. Collect (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Passover brisket. The entire sedar is unappetizing, but that abomination is a crime against nature.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

True enough -- though I suppose this means you put an orange on your seder plate… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested admin action

I am sort of surprised there have been no admin comments on this long thread, they seem to be happy for long content discussions to go on here, although as I understand it, maybe imperfectly since I am not an admin, this is supposed to be a board where incidents that need administrator attention can be reported. Here are the actual requests for action that I can see on this thread, people can comment, support or oppose underneath the proposals, I probably won't set this up right, maybe someone else can correct any mistakes.

USchick to be topic banned from discussion of communism

as suggested by Director at 20:23, 7 April 2014

• Oppose.Smeat75 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because User USchick (talk · contribs) is a reliable and feisty and knowledgeable hard-working editor who writes well and will not be bullied into submission by anyone. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing in the differences provided to support a ban. TFD (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews and communism

as suggested by Galassi at 21:52, 7 April 2014

• Oppose,see below Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a good editor, however he has to accept that he cannot impose his WP:OWN view on a situation and that other editors will oppose him. He must learn to live with WP:CONSENSUS and at all costs avoid WP:LAWYERING by using WP policies to stifle other editors from contributing. 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of communism

as suggested by Uschick at 14:55, 8 April 2014

• 'Oppose - I don't know enough about his editing history with regard to communism to want to ban him from that.Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because everyone is entitled to their private and personal POV provided they stick to WP:NPOV on WP when creating and editing articles. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews or Judaism

which I am suggesting right now Smeat75 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Support as nominator. The fact that he wanted to use a grotesquely inappropriate image of a monstrous figure, identified by him as "a Jew", trampling on a map of Europe and crushing pitiful people beneath his boot as the lead image for an article called "Jews and Communists", makes him a highly unsuitable person to be editing in this area in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 to be sanctioned for personal attack and slander.

Amazingly - everything you wrote is wrong, and disgusting in its implication. The image is an (early) Soviet propaganda poster, depicting a Soviet soldier (probably Leon Trotsky himself). Unless the Soviet Union depicts its soldiers as "grotesque" and/or "monstrous" in its own war propaganda, then maybe if the poster is a bit crude - its because its from the middle of the misery and chaos of the Russian Civil War?! And the figure is NOT "trampling" a map of Europe, he's supposed to be defending Russia from the foreign intervention and Poland ("BE ON GUARD!" is what the poster says). The figure is actually not outside Russia at all: I honestly think you have no idea about the proportions of the country in the period.

If anything, the demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of the relevant history indicates you ought perhaps not involve yourself in the topic. Not to mention that this was all explained about a dozen times, and included in the caption as well - which may in fact say a thing or two about the effort you devote to reading other users' comments. Either that, or this is an attempt to get another user sanctioned through deliberately posting offensive falsehoods.

All that said, I don't doubt there'll be "support" for your proposal, among everyone else over there who'd rather be without someone who disagrees with them. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are you sure you posted enough subsections to topic-ban me from the article you're now involved in, opposing my position? How about an attempt at discussion at least, before you try to eliminate your opposition over here? -- Director (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is necessary. Considering that collectively, we have wasted enough electricity to power a small country, I think a ban on Director for all proposed topics seems reasonable. USchick (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you spend some of that electricity to improve the article. -- Director (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I did, but you reverted it, because you asked to wait for someone who can count in decimal points. USchick (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to suggestion that "Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews or Judaism" but he, i.e. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), should be encouraged to develop a kinder and gentler understanding attitude that shows he is sensitive that other users may be offended when he gets into the sensitive area of writing about Jews or controversial ideologies such as Communism, as has quite obviously happened in this case, and he should please avoid "anything" that is bound to stir controversy and lead to either de facto or de jure WP:BATTLEGROUND and create dissension that does not enhance either the editing environment on WP or the reputation of WP. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support unless Director agrees to leave the red coat man poster. The fact that director spends so much energy and is so eager to put that single specific poster as lede image, even after failing to provide evidence that it's Trotsky or any jew at all, is in my opinion a sign of personal POV which may be as Smeat described, or even if his intention is not anti-semitic, which we can't be sure. I also find very relevant that the article seems not to have established any causality between Jews and Communism, being at the moment merely a List of Communist Jews. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually including the "red coat main poster" as the lede is no longer an issue, and hasn't been for some time (did you check the dates?).

"That said, if the file is widely opposed, I'll naturally concede. Its an entirely arbitrary issue. But I would like to see alternatives presented. An article needs a lead image."

It was brought up as an example of user conduct, not to discuss a content dispute on ANI. We do now have a decent lede image. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Director appears to be unable to edit objectively about Jews. TFD (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD I think you are one of the least qualified people to lecture other users on objectivity. You have blindly tried every possible attempt to get rid of this article and its information, be it by merging it, deleting it, splitting it, or, most recently, accusing it of being plagiarism. The last one could have easily been avoided if you bothered to spend a maximum of 30 seconds checking what the dates were and who "plagiarized" who. I think that speaks volumes of your "objectivity". Your eagerness to jump at any possible attempt to minimize or suppress it and other editors is incredibly transparent. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. One could just as easily say the same thing about you, with your unapologetic 180 degree flips on issues whenever it suits your immediate needs. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose : Per IZAK, and this article had so many red links. Made me discover about less known people. OccultZone (Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this AN/I thread was opened five days ago by Director with a complaint of "Disruption and malicious editing" directed against a whole group of editors and the thread quickly switched focus to be about his editing, not others'. Now, while this thread is still open, he has started a second thread on this very page with a complaint about another editor entitled "Racist personal attack" and the focus appears to be switching in a similar fashion. It seems to me that Director has a problem collaborating with others and lacks sensitivity in dealing with the highly-charged ethnic/religious issues he chooses to edit in. I never heard of him before this thread which he started drew my attention to the disgraceful article "Jews and Communism".Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Smeat75, do you fail to see the irony of your wanting Director banned from editing any articles related to Jews and Judaism while stating, "... this thread which he started drew my attention to the disgraceful article "Jews and Communism"..." in the same breath? Your objectivity seems to have been tainted by your personal WP:POV ambition of WP:CENSORing articles because you believe them to be offensive (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

*Clarification please? When did this ANI turn into an RfC? Should uninvolved non-admin editors be commenting here? The request was for Admin participation, not for an RfC. USchick (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification being provided for you, USchick: Not only have I been following the article in dispute for some time, I have also been following this ANI since its inception (something which you are well aware of per[76]). Considering that Smeat75 only became involved with the article concurrently with the ANI, and his/her only contribution to the article itself has appeared to have been a tendentious one[77] IMO, I'm wondering why you made no objection to his/her involvement here. Perhaps your objection lies with who is responding to the comment left by Smeaty75, rather the substance of the observation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your question above "do you fail to see the irony" etc is yes, I do fail to see it. If you want to discuss my "tendentious" edit to the article, I think it would be better to do that on the article talk page than here.Smeat75 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat's ability to criticize others for a lack of objectivity while at the same time removing sourced information on the basis he finds it "disturbing" and that he considers facts from reliable historians anti-semitic is astounding. As is his quickness to dismiss in an unrelated incident bigoted racial personal attacks against Direktor because he is in a dispute with him. [78] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What you are referring to was not "sourced", it was a misquote which took a very debatable statement and twisted it (do you think there might be, oh, a teensy little difference between "violins" and "perpetrators") into blatant anti-semitism and yes I do find that "disturbing".Smeat75 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, uninvolved editors are allowed to comment on ANI discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this partly about the Dmitry Moor poster ? Are you looking for an academic source that discusses the poster and its use of Trotsky ? If so try "Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters Under Lenin and Stalin", p. 152, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0520221536 Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll be. My thanks, Sean.hoyland. Try as I might I couldn't find anything on GB. Lets quote from that publication:

In 1920, [Dmitry] Moor designed a striking poster, "Bud' na strazhe!" (Be on Guard!) that featured a drawing of Trotsky holding a bayonet and standing, larger than life, on Russian territory, with minuscule enemies around him.

So I guess its not, in fact, the Loch Ness Monster "trampling Europe", as some have suggested? Its frankly unbelievable that, with the photos provided, with Trotsky's own signature, alongside the labels and descriptions all over the internet - we require an actual Google Books link before the sky is recognized as being WP:BLUE. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, that poster is clearly not Trotsky. There are no spectacles and no beard, present in every photograph or representation of him since at least 1915. Instead, it is clearly another version of the much more famous figure in Did You Volunteer? created by the same artist in the exact same year.--Pharos (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake... In every photograph? No. Please click on the link. Lev Trotsky did not wear a goatee and glasses at that time. And what are we doing now? contradicting published sources in addition to everyone else on the net? The ref is by Victoria E. Bonnel, professor of sociology at Berkeley specializing in "Soviet/Russian and East European Society". I don't care if its actually included, but the person in the image is Trotsky. I honestly don't know what additional sources anyone could possibly provide. Its not ours to speculate, but its entirely possible the figure on the Did you volunteer poster was actually based on Trotsky in some way. Even if its not, that doesn't mean this poster somehow can't be Trotsky: note that the poster carries his message, and is signed by him. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The figures in the two posters are clearly the same, the fact that the vastly-more-obscure version has been misinterpreted by one author should have no bearing. If the identification with Trotsky was real, it should by any reasonable standard be documented for the much more famous version. FWIW, you have given a rather low-res image of that photo, the Wikimedia Commons version looks very much like a short beard to me. There is no way there is enough evidence that the clearly drawn clean-shaven soldier in these two posters is Trotsky.--Pharos (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"vastly-more-obscure version"...not sure about that. It's one of the more famous posters by one of the most famous propaganda artists of the period. It's true that it's debatable whether the soldier is Trotsky but the text is certainly Trotsky's as Director says. The important point though I think is that it would far better for people to spend their time improving the neglected articles about these immensely talented artists than trying to get each other blocked especially if the motivation is a misinformed interpretation of the poster's imagery and what the poster's use tells you about an editor's intent. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not making any comment on the general ANI rigmarole, just wanted to put my two cents in on this particular image, which I've spent in inordinate amount of time researching lately, along with a few others of its kind :) Perhaps we should move it to another room.--Pharos (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is still going on?? Pharos, not to imply any disrespect, but your own impressions are not something that needs to be discussed. Either you've got someone who says it somehow isn't Trotsky, or you don't. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Much more serious than the argument about that image,which is not being considered for inclusion any more anyway, is that Director and Producer have found a quote which says "the first violins in the orchestra of death of the tsar and his family were four Jews", referring to the people who actually fired the pistols, which they change to "the main perpetrators of the death of the tsar and his family were four Jews" and pay absolutely no attention to the four sources I have provided so far which confirm the now accepted historical fact that the killings were ordered by Lenin.It is not only me who opposes that lie "Jews killed the Tsar", which you only find on extremist webssites, but when it is removed, one or the other of them put it right back in again. I appeal to some admin or authority or someone reading this to take some action, please do something. Does WP really want to turn into an anti-Semitic website?Smeat75 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to engage in a discussion, let alone reason, with someone who consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [79] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". He criticizes others for their wording yet his only alternative to throw sourced statements straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". You clearly lack the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and thus continue to ignore inconvenient reliable sources and try to associate other users with malicious statements or views. You have a personal beef with Vaskberg based on some emotional past reading elsewhere and consider his work a "lie". All I can say is tough luck: your personal feelings are utterly irrelevant and constantly crying wolf does not help your case. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'd better have me thrown off WP then, hadn't you.Smeat75 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just be civil and stop inferring at every chance possible that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-semite. Not asking for much. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Hi This may not be on the serious end of attacks, but since I made a proposal for an Infobox to be added to a page, one editor has insulted my quite a lot. The user Timeshift9 has made the following comments towards me:

• Evidently there are editors who can only read results if they're in infoboxes *snigger*
• You have dyslexia causing you to only read infoboxes? Wikipedia must be a real struggle for you
• Allow me to start and finish by saying this... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want
• Allow me to say it again for your infobox... "it ain't happening". RfC all you want, I have no problem with everyone, Australian or not, having their say
• Countries on wikipedia often do things their own way. Wikipedia may be global but contributors and consensus are usually majority local

He appears to resent be editing the article because it is Australian and I'm not 'local'.

Infoboxes tend to be standard for election articles so I cannot understand the hostility. Please give me advice. LordFixit (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can edit articles. Consensus still applies though. You're flogging a dead horse, there's half a dozen oppose and only you support. It ain't happening. You've already claimed WP:CANVASS, WP:MEAT, and WP:VOTESTACKING. And as someone else said, "Gosh, how dare three people disagree with you? It must be canvassing! I mean, obviously you can't say that, because you can look at our contributions and see that no one has discussed it outside this page, but by all means throw the implication out there anyway. Or maybe they're all meatpuppets! Yes, multiple editors of more than six years in good standing are clearly throwing it all away over an infobox on a minor electoral article. It couldn't possibly be that other people have an interest in this article and disagree with you, now, could it? Perish the thought!". Timeshift (talk) 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, still following me. I've answered these claims on the other post. LordFixit (talk) 01:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

All those who oppose have a long history of Wiki friendship. I want some imput from other editors. LordFixit (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm allowed to follow you, especially when you start raising me on ANI without notifying me on my talk page. And perhaps have a look around to see who contributes the most to oz politics articles. Could it be the same names you're claiming "have a long history of Wiki friendship"? One's even an admin. Stop creating stories please. Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

As you know, I did notify you. Not immediately, but shortly after and one minute before you posted this comment. I'm talking about people who claimed they would 'turn gay' for you and who constantly post on your talk page and your user page LordFixit (talk) 01:40, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You added it on my talkpage at 01:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC), I replied here first at 01:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC). And what are you saying, that contributors can't be friendly to each other? We disagree on many things up for discussion. Because we agree, we're in cahoots or something? Give the conspiracy theories a rest please. Timeshift (talk) 01:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the comment I'm allowed to follow you, especially when you start raising me on ANI without notifying me on my talk page. And perhaps have a look around to see who contributes the most to oz politics articles. Could it be the same names you're claiming "have a long history of Wiki friendship"? One's even an admin. Stop creating stories please was added at 01:22, the notification was on your page at 01:21. Will you admit that or not? LordFixit (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Of course. But my first comment here in reply to your ANI was at 01:18. Before you put the ANI notice on my talk page. Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the comment in which you accused me of failing to put the notice on your page was at 01:22, I put the notice on your talk page at 01:21. You are being misleading with due respect. LordFixit (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're correct with the first sentence, but not the second. I first replied here prior to you putting the ANI notice on my talkpage. Correct? Timeshift (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The dyslexia comment was unnecessary. Timeshift, would you consider striking this? It adds nothing to the discussion and can cause offence. LordFixit, thanks for raising this but the other comments don't immediately fall within the definition of personal attack, or are, as you noted, at the lower end. If you object to another editor's longterm conduct, you might consider a request for comment. Outside these you have an ongoing content dispute which is best resolved through seeking a consensus on the article talk pages. On what has been presented, its hard to see what other action is required. Euryalus (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I am here because I have User:Timeshift9's talk page on watchlist. LordFixit posted a complaint about Timeshift9 at Editor Assistance too, and here is what I said there: I was the one that posted the "go gay for Timeshift" comment on his talkpage. I have not been canvassed by Timeshift9 for the discussion about the Infobox. The "go gay" comment was meant in jest, referring to the fact that Timeshift9 and I had years of animosity on WP, but eventually managed to establish a constructive working relationship. Timeshift9 and I still often find ourselves on opposite sides of content disputes, most recently here: (click). --Surturz (talk) 05:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

...and what do you think the reaction of the other millions of people who read Wikipedia would be about that comment? DP 09:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Vociferous indifference, I expect, since the comment was on Timeshift9's talk page between August 2013 and March 2014 without complaint.[80] Did LordFixit trawl through Timeshift9's talkpage history to find the comment? As far as I can tell the infobox dispute with LordFixit only started early April[81] --Surturz (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. The comment (and others) shows profoundly poor judgement. It also raises the question of whether you are really impartial in content disputes between Timeshift9 and other editors (excluding yourself, obviously). It also is an insult of gay people to suggest sexuality is a choice that can be changed at will. LordFixit (talk) 02:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are taking that comment (section heading, actually) out of context. It occurs amid a reasonably heated discussion between the two of us about the Australian election.[82] The comment was meant to lighten the mood, and certainly not intended to offend; if anyone took offense at it I apologise unreservedly. I think editors should be allowed to be reasonably genial with other editors without incurring accusations of WP:CANVASS violations. --Surturz (talk) 07:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

History page vandalism?

I can't say who did this, since the history page has been altered, but in the Estes Kefauver talk page I pointed out that the map was inaccurate and the map was altered (still inaccurate, but that's not really germane) and the history was then altered to make it appear that the map alteration occurred several months before I complained, not several months after. This is easily confirmed by a look at the internet way-back machine. This makes me look like an idiot who can't read. Who even has the power to do this and isn't this a violation of some rule? I assume whoever did this must be abusing a position of trust here and probably has continued to do so. Is this an accepted practice here? My initial post is under the name ezra c v mildew desire Jr. Vladimir tsarejamewitz (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The article uses templates and images. Those are edited separately. Perhaps someone edited the image in question. Enigma^msg 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the OP is referring to File:1952DemocraticPresidentialPrimaries.svg. The map was changed on February 2013 which amongst other things, added DC. So the history is indeed there, the OP was simply confused about where. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to link to the history of the image in question, but there was more than one image and I didn't want to spend the time figuring out which one he was referring to. Heh. Enigma^msg 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The DC info was NOT added in 2013! Check the page for may 2012 and you'll see that it already lists DC and other changes which were responses to my Dec 2012 talk page entry. This is a falsified history, and the proof of this can be found via the way-back machine. I STILL would like to know if this is an accepted practice here or if it is against the rules, And how it can be determined who is messing up the history.

And Enigmaman, the image history shows the image I referred to being replaced BEFORE I mentioned it (again, the way-back shows the truth). The first image was the one there when I complained, the second was the one added after that, although the relevant wikipedia histories show it being added before my complaint(that is, unless the page histories have been altered again!) And learn some damn manners, enigmaman, if you have a question try asking it instead of laughing at me while you discuss me in the third person. Or do you feel that all the grandiose talk here about civility is somehow beneath you?Vladimir tsarejamewitz (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

When you view an old revision of an article, it always displays the current version of the used images and templates. That's just how the software works. The wiki source of the revision is rendered as it would look today. If you want to see the history of an image or template then you must view its file page or template page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Everestrecords

Hum...Everestrecords (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been insistant on using a self published website in a series of possible BLP violations. Here in a bio on a recently deceased mountain climber Chad Kellogg he is using a source to offer an inaccurate assessment of the use of a performance enhancing drug, which the person that used it claimed in the source provided that he used it as a preventative, not an aid. Everestrecords instead wishes to promote the belief that the drug was used as an aid. In a further effort to add blemish, I have twice reverted his edits to the Mount McKinley article where Everestrecords was seeking to use a self published website to further promote a possibly inaccurate assessment about Kellogg, as shown here, and claims this website and associated pages are a reliable source. Earlier, on the article Tina Sjögren, Everestrecords was using the same sourcing to violate our BLP policy. I issued a ryeminder to Everestrecords which he summarily removed and after trying to remove his nonsense and my warnings he has now decided that the next plan of attack is to call me mentally ill, and kind of funny..."You're a sick person. Stalking me, obsessed with Kellogg, even removing a national magazine source that revealed his use of steroids for Everest attempt. Internet sociopath. Get help monster. Seeking you to be banned, persistent vandal sociopath. Climbing forum obsesser also. Spend hours a day on forums. Autism/Aspergers?"[83]...I heard of this Kellogg person only today. Would an admin care to have a chat with Everestrecords?--MONGO 06:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for personal attacks and 3RR violation. No comment either way on the content issue - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You must have been in lenient mood, Bushranger. Bishonen | talk 16:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC).

I do have my moments. Either the block will result in a re-think of his conduct on both edit-warring and PA accounts, or he'll return to doing it and get hammered, if the former then all will be well, if not, well, we tried! - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Evertestrecords is back at it...his block expired and he's back at the Chad Kellogg article misrepresenting sources, edit warring and accusing others of vandalism.--MONGO 16:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • I've commented about this at the Talk page about this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chad_Kellogg I've tried to add only 1 edit, of 1 sentence, with a national source. MONGO has removed 4 POV related tags, before the problems were resolved. I discuss this in the Talk page. He/she is clearly personally connected to the subject of the article, as seen by his/her comments and behavior. I requested administrator-help several times in the Talk page. I accused only MONGO of vandalism. I didn't misrepresent the 1 source I used. MONGO is ignoring editing warnings. I placed one in the Talk page. Everestrecords (talk) 17:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hum...somebody needs to inform Everestrecords of our BLP policy which he or she is apparently unfamiliar with...possibly the part about recently deceased. As I stated above, I never heard of Kellogg until a couple days ago...Everestrecords was adding poor referencing and bias to the article in Mount McKinley which led me other infractions they have been up to.--MONGO 17:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Everestrecords has now been blocked for a week for edit-warring, by a representative of a species endemic to the continent in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow...that's a definite COI! Somebody better warn Dangerous Panda that he should have had an Antarctican do that block....--MONGO 17:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Participants in litigation edit warring

There has been an ongoing edit war between two new users at Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Polychlorinated biphenyl. One of those editors has stated that the edit warring involves participants in litigation related to these topics. I warned both users about the edit warring and have asked both to refrain from editing the articles any further and to discuss potential changes to the articles on the talk pages. I don't know if there is anything further that needs to be done at the moment, but this is a situation that could probably use a few additional pairs of admin eyes to make sure it doesn't get out of hand. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Both of these users are single-purpose advocacy accounts. They are not here to improve Wikipedia as a repository of knowledge, they are here to further an external agenda by using Wikipedia to promote facts or interpretations that are supportive to their cause. I recommend we topic ban or outright block both, promptly. Guy (Help!) 12:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The sections that we added about Non-Hodgkin lymphoma and Polychlorinated biphenyl is a far more thorough, comprehensive, and fair assessment of that scientific literature. All of the references cited in that section are discussed in the sections that we added. The version you reverted to is not a fair assessment. I am interested in contributing to Wikipedia to improve the repository of knowledge. All of the changes I made did just that. I will be discussing further on the talk pages. User:Kdelay13 — Preceding undated comment added 13:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Not as such, no. It asserts a point of view. As does every single edit you've made, as far as I can tell. Guy (Help!) 22:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Impersonation of User:Carrite by Wikipedia User:Randy from Boise

While the effect was not malicious, THIS is a clear effort by User:Randy from Boise, clearly an alternate account of someone, to represent themselves as me. I use the pseudonym "Randy from Boise" at Wikipediocracy, as is well known. I request that some administrator indefinitely block this account as an abusive use of multiple accounts. Thank you. —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 15:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You can do whatever you like on the Wikipediocracy site, but your activities there convey no "rights" to any branding here. If I'm somehow mistaken, please provide a clearer explanation of what you think that user is doing wrong. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't claim rights to "branding" — I do want a person pretending to be "Carrite" and signing as "Randy from Boise" to be shut down at once. Read the whole thread, please. I was having a conversation with User:Drmies and a person pretended to be me, which is an abusive use of an alternate account. Carrite (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• They have also been here since 2009 DP 15:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That is interesting and also irrelevant. That person represented themselves as me on April 6, 2014. It is an abusive sock account of someone. Carrite (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

You're making an assumption that they know you from Wikipdiocracy (never been there myself, so I wouldn't know)... now, the fact that they have not edited in almost a year, but show up to poke their nose in another conversation is odd. Do you have any on-wiki history with that user? DP 15:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whose account it is. My guess would be that it belongs to someone at WPO. As I say, the effect of their edit was not malicious, but it is nevertheless someone intentionally representing themselves as me and that shouldn't be allowed. Carrite (talk) 16:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that they registered the account seems pretty relevant. You registered "Randy from boise" on Wikipediocracy in 2012. If anything, you're impersonating them. That's relevant. Did you also have "Randy from Boise" on Wikipedia-Review? When did you register it there?--v/r - TP 17:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

"Impersonating"?!?! Look, this not-very-orginal name (source obvious) is shared by two people on two websites. Joe Job WP User:RFB registered here before WPO User:RFB (me) registered the same name there. Joe Job WP User:RFB barely has used the account at WP, obviously a "sleeper sock" account, or as I like to call them, an "argyle" (since it sits in the sock drawer for a long time unused). WPO User:RFB (me) was having a conversation with WP User:Drmies under my one and only account name, User:Carrite on WP. Joe Job WP User:RFB activated the little-used account to jump into a thread pretending they were me. This is the problem. This is an abuse of multiple accounts. Shut it down. Carrite (talk) 19:11, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a stretch. Someone had to know the future to know you would use the R.F.B. 3 years later and then they could register an account so they could impersonate you 5 years later? Evidence strongly suggests a coincidence. Not a sleeper sock.--v/r - TP 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you paying the slightest bit of attention to the actual thread in question? What is "quite a stretch" about my statement that THIS is an attempt by a Joe Job with a convenient pre-existing account in their sock drawer to make use of it by pretending to be me? It is what it is — a flagrant abuse of an alternate account. Carrite (talk) 05:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Not a sock. You've got no evidence of that. There is nothing to say that account was meant to target you. And even if that edit was meant to pretend to be you, it's a bit funny in that case. You're blowing this way out of proportion.--v/r - TP 05:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

By the way, I have directly requested that they chip in here about that specific comment DP 15:53, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of when the account was created...and an account with scant edits and occasional bon mots traded with Eric Corbett indicate that is is quite likely someone's sock...the user behind it did knowingly insert himself into a conversation with the intent to cause confusion. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that this is most likely "someone else". I found the remark somewhat confusing and insinuating but stopped short of responding to it since, as Tim said, they were not part of the conversation. "WPO" is Wikipediocracy? I would assume that's a likely guess on Tim's part, but I don't know WPO or its cast of characters well enough to say much more than that. Drmies (talk) 17:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I assume that "Randy from Boise" is a reference to Randy in Boise, originally from this Wired article. That likely inspired both the WPO moniker (correct me if I'm wrong, Carrite) and the account that exists here. I don't see that this is an impersonation account, since it does a pretty poor job of the impersonation; someone has to both know that you edit WPO under that name and yet somehow not know that you don't sign your posts over here with the same name. The account has been active since 2009 and from what I can tell hasn't been impersonating you. The editor's user page doesn't try to connect itself to you. So I don't see it as an impersonation account, it definitely doesn't seem to fit what is outlined at WP:IMPERSONATOR.

The account did inject itself into a conversation, acting as if it was you (through implication) but did a lousy job of impersonation; seriously, they could have just posted and copied your signature to make it more plausible, which takes much less effort that creating an account specifically to impersonate and waiting 5 years to use it. It does have a weird history and I suspect it's probably someone's sock. But to my knowledge we don't block people who are "probably a sockpuppet of someone but we don't know who". -- Atama頭 21:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify... The reason I suspect that it's a sock is because it's an account who is very familiar with other editors and yet has very little activity on Wikipedia. Not nearly enough to block it, but enough that my sockpuppet radar pings pretty loudly. -- Atama頭 22:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify me too: I am not thinking "impersonation" at all. Drmies (talk) 22:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• All right, I have logged my complaint, disavowing any connection with this fraudulent misrepresentation. I am obviously not going to get anything resembling justice from AN/I, which is no surprise per Timbo's Rule 19. Carrite (talk) 05:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is not about "justice", it's about facts. And the facts in this case is that while this does appear to be disruptive trolling, there is no blockable evidence that this is impersonation or a sock. As noted, the fact this account came first, before you registered the RfB name elsewhere, means that it can't possibly be an account created for the purpose of impersonating you - unless there's further things than the diff you provided, this is grounds for a warning (and probably a 4im), but not a block. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
    • We should give justice, but I don't see any reason to say that sanctions are just here. The user's made precisely two edits since 2012: [84], from May of last year, where he says something in a discussion far from your comments; and this one, where he does inject himself into a conversation, but not in a deceptive way. I assumed this was going to be something with a deceptive signature, either just using your signature or [[User:Randy from Boise|Carrite]] ([[User talk:Randy from Boise|talk]]). Justice means not condemning the innocent, so justice is being done here. Nyttend (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not impersonation, that's trolling -- quite successful trolling, as this silly thread indicates. After it all it was only on Drmies talk page, not someplace important. . I've removed it. NE Ent 12:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• If, as you suspect, "Randy from Boise" is someone from WPO, there's one sure thing: whoever RfB is, since they have never claimed to be the most influential person on the internet, we know they're not Kohs. (Or that's what someone told me. Never heard of either WPO or any person of that name myself.) --Shirt58 (talk) 00:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Koenraad Elst machine

It seems to me (and to other editors) that the work of Calypsomusic (talk · contribs) amounts to little more than writing up articles on non-notable books by Koenraad Elst. Their contributions to the many AfDs started by Darkness Shines (DS, you are hereby pinged) indicated that they lack much wherewithal in the areas of WP:RS and WP:NPOV--now that's no crime, nor no sin either, but given that they are basically an SPA, one wonders if this warrants administrative action or at least wider discussion. So far any disruption seems limited to copying and pasting "keep" rationales in AfDs and then flooding said AfDs with walls of text and links to blogs and supposedly important testimony, and I'm in the process of closing some of those AfDs, but I think this is worth being looked at by others. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya, The Finale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, and there may be more. Note: I have closed a few of those as "keep", on admittedly on the basis of less-than-ideal evidence. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate as "redirect" on the suggestion of Tokyogirl79; I have no objection whatsoever to the ones I decided as "keep" becoming redirects as well. In a nutshell, I found the "mentions" brought up in those AfDs to be relevant enough, but there is no way they are going to help in article writing. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird, I never got a notification that you had pinged me? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave up participating in those AfD discussions due to the walls of text, incessant comments and potshots being taken by Calypsomusic. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What Flat Out mentioned is flat out important. When AfDs get hit by walls of text like that - and I've unfortunately seen it happen a lot on AfDs related to South Asian politics and religion - people lose interest in participating. That's bad, because such discussions are enhanced when more editors participate and share thoughts. Additionally, it becomes a hassle for the closer as they have to sift through a lot of text, much of which is often irrelevant. It just messes it up for everybody. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The account seems dormant now. It made its first edits on March 11, and its last edits on April 11. Exactly one month of activity, and now that the AfDs have been closed the activity has stopped for now.

Shall the problem areas simply be noted and we move on? The editor is a noob; if they come back, there is a chance they could be guided toward more productive editing. Most of us made large blunders when we were new. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Temp-Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions

Dear Admins,

Please block {Dicklyon} from editing articles because he deems that my editing generally is bad and evidently that he will save Wikipedia from it by reverting whatever past edits of mine he disagrees with--sometimes without my knowledge.

He began on my talk page, calling me incompetent and telling me to stop copy-editing. Sixteen minutes and another talk page message (I only discovered it now) later, he reverted an edit of mine; three minutes later, another; one minute later, yet another! I had already faced this problem before, driven into a month's anxious silence and failed dispute-resolution efforts by another editor's threat to call AN/I: I sought arbitration for this longstanding problem of accusations and threats, with Dick's deeds being the straw breaking the camel's back.

I told Dick I sought arbitration, which would have sufficed had Dick not made this problem urgent by openly reverting three more of my edits and, I discovered, reverting three more without telling me. Some of his edit summaries were just "Please stop that," or "Removed more of Duxwing's odd editing," evincing that his problem is not with the articles but me. Most egregious were his secretly reverting my Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus. I cannot understand why his disliking my editing has not driven him to instead call administrators to block me: any reasonable person would know that seven reversions and two talk page threads cannot be simultaneously discussed and that however many secret reversions cannot be discussed at all. Dick has thus neglected the "Discuss" of Bold-Revert-Discuss, whereby articles are edited throughout Wikipedia, and circumvented editorial conduct dispute resolution to effectively block me. I therefore want him blocked from editing articles until he and I can resolve this dispute.

Open Reversions

1. [85]
2. Rocket
3. Impulse
4. Turn
5. (Crocodile)
6. Awareness Office

Secret Reversions

1. Principle (consensus)
2. of Style (consensus)
3. Music

Note: This request for administrative help is my first and therefore may contain unintentional errors.

Duxwing (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this edit on the Hardy-Weinberg article makes sense to me--esp. the last tweak ("are in real populations") is an improvement. More importantly, how is this a secret edit? Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By "secret" I don't know have any idea what he means; perhaps whether he received a revert notification. Please see discussion at his talk page. And please do let me know if you think any of my reverts were less appropriate than the one you said makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. The "secret" reverts were reverts that undid Duxwing's changes but not directly after Duxwing made them (there were intervening edits), so Duxwing wouldn't have gotten a notification about them. I feel like pulling the old man's "back in my day" rant... The whole automatic notification thing still feels new to me. :) -- Atama頭 22:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not use the word "incompetent", but yes I was less gentle or patient than I could have been, because I saw in User talk:Duxwing that quite a few editors before me (Tony1 (talk · contribs), Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs), Cyclopia (talk · contribs), U3964057 (talk · contribs), Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), McGeddon (talk · contribs), Supasheep (talk · contribs), Velella (talk · contribs), Jim1138 (talk · contribs), Theroadislong (talk · contribs), AddWittyNameHere (talk · contribs), David Eppstein (talk · contribs)) had tried to get him to improve, modify, curtail, or stop his "copy edits" that were doing so much to make articles worse; his edit on the WP:MOS is what drew my attention in the first place (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Copy_Edit_of_Lead where 3 other editors explain to him that his edits were a big problem). On reviewing his recent edits, I found quite a few doing more harm than good, and felt that a revert would be most effective; if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that. But instead he jumped straight to trying to get some higher power to remove me as an obstacle; see our brief interaction of yesterday at User talk:Duxwing#Copyediting. If anyone sees portions of these reverted copy edits that would be worth salvaging, by all means go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing's complaint has no merit. The user has failed to improve despite the many suggestions from more experienced editors, leaving Dicklyon to conclude that Duxwing is a net drag on Wikipedia's resources. I agree. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh dear, I remember this user. I urge administrators to look at User talk:Duxwing and to his contributions. There is something... weird. He seems to be bent on doing "copyediting" edits which regularly make the articles worse, since he has poor command of English language and grammar (this is evident even to me, not a native English speaker). See where for example he changed "callus" to "callous", with a totally absurd reason. I think we are in definite lack of competence territory.--cyclopia^speak! 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

cyclopia, I think you are speaking in jest: are you? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dick You are woefully misrepresenting what you said, which was: “Duxwing…back off on the [copy-edits] ... you should not be doing them.”

I'd like to add that Dicklyon's behavior seems justified per WP:HOUNDING: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." -- Atama頭 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet I have already covered your point: if Dick believed that I were a net drag, then he should have called for my blocking instead of so reverting my recent consented edits as to prevent my knowing that he did. I had to root through his edit history--which never explained the consented secret reversions--just to find what happened. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DISPUTE, it is conventional to try to talk things out first, not go straight to asking admins for sanctions. And there's no firm rule against being a net drag on the project, as far as I know. It's a thought, though. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, take a look at WP:WATCHLIST; you'll find it a lot easier to notice when someone edits an article that you have edited, making it easier for you to be aware of "secret" reverts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dicky, I find your claim that I could talk about the reversions disingenuous considering how many and what kind you did. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to use cute names for me. The various article talk pages are a good place to talk about your edits. Or your talk page, where you told me to get lost. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not tell you to "get lost". I told you I would not talk to you because I sought arbitration because you would not stop reverting my edits even when I tried talking to you--you seemed not to care what I had to say. You ignored the very dispute-resolution process you claim I broke, and claiming that I was in the wrong because I should have put those articles on my watchlist to accommodate your preferences is victim-blaming.

@Atama Hounding continues to describe how these reversions can be used, indicating an intention for this allowance. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is one of his edits that I haven't reverted yet, but will, unless someone beats me to it or pipes up to question whether reverting it would be the best thing here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This sort of reversion is exactly what I am talking about. The only difference between this discussion and our last is that in this one he warns me. Do you understand that I cannot carry on a multithreaded AN/I discussion and dispute your reversions? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The SSME edit just got reverted by an IP Address. Quite a coincidence, eh, Dick? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The same IP is reverting my edits one after another--literally seconds apart. I think you are sock-puppeting. Duxwing (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the open discussion of your edits here, and since Dicklyon is active on his account, that's pretty weak evidence for sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone is working hard to make one or both of us look bad. It happens. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no friends, Dick, and to my knowledge you have no enemies. You already have shown that you don't care for discussion. Why should you care about AN/I? Duxwing (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed your edits as the discussion here was of interest. I reverted your edits as you have much to learn about copy editing. 86.135.164.83 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We therefore can conclude that "if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that" is a lie because you have just agreed that "I [Duxwing] ... am the obstacle" to your goals and therefore not someone with whom you would discuss any edits: why should we believe that you have good faith--or anything you have to say that isn't nailed-down with diffs? If you are willing to lie before this Administrative Board, then we must doubt whether you even thought my edits were bad--you very well may just be "working hard to make [me] look bad". And even if you are not, lying to the board is wrong in itself; furthermore, declaring it too a mere object that you must "railroad" and admitting that you cannot take responsibility or understand others also evinces your contempt of its decisions and our Wikipedian community, thus further evincing that the IP is a sockpuppet.

Most condemningly, the IP's edit history begins with exactly the edit that you proposed to make--reverting my edit to the Space Shuttle Main Engine--and beyond the other rapid-fire reversions has only one edit, which it made after its post here. Coincidentally, this edit was also a reversion. Whatever I accusations I have previously made are trivial to the ones that your agreement has evinced.

Duxwing (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I say the above not to assassinate your character before the mods but explain why you would be controlling the IP: you have already done unto me like it has. Duxwing (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Awful convenient of you to do exactly what I was complaining about to exactly what Dick was talking about, eh, IP? Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, when you started this thread I understood what you were saying. Parts of it made sense and the logical gaps were, well, clearly logical gaps, so OK. I can't claim to have read the threat in its entirety, but toward the end I don't know what you're talking about.

Many WP articles need copyediting. A quick look at your copyediting suggests that you get some things right and some things wrong. Here, you change "A large number of" to "Many". Excellent. "Many" is what "a large number of" means. (If it didn't mean "many", it would be misphrased.) Perhaps you should concentrate on some kinds of edits rather than others. Famously, there's a (to my mind) unfortunate page titled Wikipedia:Be bold; one of these days I should write a superior replacement, "Be timid". -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoary, would you please move this concern to my Talk page if you think moving it is appropriate? I want to keep this discussion focused on Dicklyon's conduct. Duxwing (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hoary Thanks for your first paragraph, which I missed.  :) I recommend reading the entire thread to understand what happened.

@Mods, can we continue this discussion? Dick has admitted to my claims and even bad faith (not caring what anyone, and therefore AN/I, has to say about his behavior) and lacking empathetic competence (not understanding how people work). I think these problems exceed my original complaint and therefore warrant more discussion about whether and how Dick should be among us: good faith and competence are required here. Duxwing (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Dicklyon is of immense value to the encyclopedia while you are a net negative. You have no leverage against him. This whole discussion should result in a WP:Boomerang effect. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Being of "immense value" does not excuse bad behavior, and being "a net negative" does not prevent me from reporting it. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting this discussion it seems this is a new user who needs useful feedback. Someone should point them to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and maybe WP:edit warring, and maybe a place where they can do something useful (patrolling?) as they figure out how things work. Reverting a good edit with the edit summary of "vandalism" is not good practice. —Neotarf (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I already know about BRD, and I was specifically trying to get Dick to participate in it when he evidently refused. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As I pointed out, about a dozen editors tried patiently to counsel him before me. My multiple reverts were partly to get him to understand that he needs to take input. If you'd like to volunteer to mentor him, maybe he can be helped. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The only advice anyone asks me for these days is about leaving Wikipedia. If he wants adoption there is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, or failing that, the tea house or Wikipedia:Questions. Otherwise I have restored one of your edits that he reverted, that's all I have time for. Someone should check the rest of his edits, a lot of articles don't have page watchers.—Neotarf (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing?

The issue here is skill. Your editing skill is being questioned, but you do not have enough skill to understand the issues other editors have with it. The choir analogy is a good one here. IMHO you need to take a break from doing the kind of editing you have been doing, and either do something else that will develop your skill in that area, or find a different area where you have better skills. Instead of working style issues across a broad range of topics, it might work out better to pick one or two topics you are passionate about, or want to read up on, and work on articles in those areas. The style issues that are such a stumbling block for you now would come more naturally if you were trying to find a way to express something you found important about that topic. Or if it is style issues that really interest you, there is a huge internet world of grammar and lingua-blogs out there, not to mention community resources, that can help fine-tune your understanding, for instance, of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.

The Wikipedia is really an interesting phenomenon. It is a place where you can learn things about human nature, and about yourself, that you would never be able to find out in real life. But in the end it is also about building an encyclopedia, and when it gets to the point where you are actually causing other people more work than you are doing, it's time to change direction. —Neotarf (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If I am so unskilled as to not understand their complaints, then would you please dumb them down enough for me to understand? :)

Style issues are what interest me here, and if you would please show me the way to improving on them, then I will take it. Duxwing (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You will have to take their complaints up with them directly, if they have the time to engage on the issue. But this is a little bit like walking into a car mechanic shop, not knowing what a carburetor is, and expecting to have it explained. For linguistics you might start with Language Log, or maybe David Crystal's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language"--it used to be readily available online for download, or just start googling to see what interests you. If you can't access your local university or community college's writing courses, you might try Perdue OWL. —Neotarf (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, it's not really productive to tell newby editors "Go back to school and don't edit until you're good at it." What's needed here is simply a change of behavior and attitude. Many editors have taken the time to explain to Duxwing exactly what's wrong with any edit that he cared to inquire about; as I would have, if he had asked. He can easily fix the problem by putting more time into asking and listening, rather than just complaining that his campaign of editing is being impeded by those who revert him. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My "campaign of edits" is not what I'm complaining about. I was complaining about my talk page and not being able to keep up with the pace of reversions. Duxwing (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, the more I look at this, the more it looks like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Multiple explanations have been given here, by many many editors who have issues with his editing, and Duxwing has not shown that he even understands them. In fact, he has asked for simpler explanations. If Duxwing can't keep pace with the reversions, he is the one who needs to slow down, and understand just one edit at a time. —Neotarf (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with Duxwing's description of his MOS edits as "Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus". If he is referring to his edits [86] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, then three editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics have disagreed with them and no others have supported — those edits were definitely not consensus. It was also disturbing that Duxwing should edit the MOS while in the middle of a discussion at Talk:Waring's_problem#Copy_Editing, in order to support his minority opinion in that discussion. Deltahedron (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Another editor had removed only the parts of my edit with which he disagreed, and Dick, ignoring the Talk page, carefully reverted everything else. Thus, Dick removed my consented edits. And I did not change it to support my opinion; I changed it because I happened upon some errors, just like I do any other article. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this diff at the WP:MOS lead, I changed your #1 to #2 because your version used the unnecessarily awkward plural possessive, the "like" where "such as" was correct, and other non-useful differences. There's a certain idiomatic parallelism to "certain X ... and others", which was lost in your version where "others'" seems ambiguous, as if it might be referring to input from other people. You could have asked me for further info on this one or any other one, but I don't think you did:

1. (yours): fully covering various topics (like punctuation) and presenting others' key points.
2. (longstanding): covering certain topics (such as punctuation) in full, and presenting the key points of others.

The fact that you had not yet been fully reverted does not mean you should claim you had consensus for this part of your change. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I came upon Duxwing after their edits to the Maths MOS. I also had a look at their user page where they described themselves as a grammar hammer. It was pretty much immediately obvious to me that they had a highly inflated opinion of their own competence and were determined to fight to stick in their changes. From the discussion here it seems to me they have been fighting for quite a while. this puts me in mind of something I read recently in Help! How to deal with choir members who sing out of tune? which I think is an interesting read on a similar type problem in another setting, and the last section on 'the biggest problem of all' is particularly relevant here. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote "The Grammar Hammer" as a joke about my edit summaries when I helped a Netherlander write Spore fanfiction when I was twelve; I liked how "grammar" and "hammer" rhymed and had tired of writing "spelling, grammar, and style". I don't think I'm some magical grammar guru, just that I can fix bad grammar like anyone else. And I am not determined to "stick in my changes" because they are mine: I think some wordings are good and others bad, and when I think of a good wording to replace a bad--often after having considered many also-bad options in quick succession--I pursue it to better Wikipedia. Hence my seeming narcissism: I would not knowingly and purposefully make an edit I thought worsened the article. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you put in edits that you think would worsen articles. What I'm saying is that in my opinion and that of a number of other people as shown here your edits often worsen articles. That is why they are reverted. You are fighting to put in your edits; you have raised a complaint here trying to block a person who reverted some of your edits. In terms of the blog I pointed at you are a choir member who sings loudly out of tune but says yes when the choirmaster asks them if they think they are pitching correctly. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you accused me of bad faith but trying to explain why I do what I do. How often is too often? I am only human, having about five hundred edits and only thirty-five ever contested, giving a 93% success rate. What is the requisite? 95? 99? A perfect record? I asked for the block to prevent his vendetta against me--one whereto he has admitted--from ending with my entire history's being reshaped to his satisfaction. Your comparison of me to the choir member is inaccurate because less than one in ten of my edits have been reverted; I am at worst a choir member whose voice cracks every once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs)

Ok, you can't have it both ways here. If you've only had 35 of your edits complained about (which I doubt it's that low), then you have no need to be bringing ANYONE to ANI - you should back away, and learn. Nothing worth complaining about with 35 - and I'd bet that they weren't all complained about by Dick, were they? Now ... in reality, it's actually more like only about 35 of your edits have been good (maybe 35% on a good day) ... that's a number I can get behind. DP 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I counted in February (25) and added the ten from this dispute (35). Even if I missed another ten (45) I'm still over 90% success. I got AN/I wanted to pre-empt the problem from occurring, like it almost did when the aforementioned IP editor reverted four of my edits faster than I could refresh this page. Can we separate this discussion into two parts: one about Dick, and the other about me? My head is swimming with the effort of keeping this stuff straight. Duxwing (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am confused why Dicklyon is being singled out in this way. I too have had very significant differences of opinion with Duxwing and I now chose not to respond to his comments on my talk page because it just leads to endless time wasting. The whole editing pattern by Duxwing seems to be set upon entangling editors in endlessly arcane discussions about the minutiae of English grammar and its meaning which is a grave waste of everyone's time and energy. I have not yet seen an edit by Duxwing that adds anything of any merit (although I certainly don't go looking for his/her edits - there are much better ways to spend my time) but I have encountered several that have had a seriously deleterious effect on the articles and which I have had to revert. There are many other editors who expressed serious concerns about the editing style, the bizarre use of often archaic English and about grammatical constructions that are most awkward and unnecessary. I shall try and refrain from any further significant inputs to this debate, but it seems very clear to me that the complainant has no case, and that the many reputable and established editors who have properly raised concerns on the complainants talk page have raised very real concerns that cannot be allowed to continue unabated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick is not being "singled out". I wanted to slow his reversions to a pace I could discuss. I am disturbed that you would doubt my good faith. If you have read only a few of my edits, then why should we believe your categorical condemnation of my editing is anything but a hasty generalization? I have gone to great lengths to address those concerns, stopped only by people like you, who simply refuse to tell me whether my editing has improved. Duxwing (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody simply refuses to tell you if your editing has improved; it has not. If you think that I reverted something that was actually worth keeping, point it out and let's see if others agree. The input will do us both good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I said "whether" not "if," including the possibility of its not having improved; don't twist my words. And people can and have refused; e.g., you by admitting you see me as an "obstacle" and Velella by saying he "chose not to respond to [Duxwing's] comments on [Duxwing's] talk page". The falsehood of your assertion that they do not is so obvious that I question your good faith. The question I've brought here is not about the reversions or the edits; it's about your having made them so quickly that I never could dispute them all. Finally, stop disingenuously pretending you care about this input: you already have said the AN/I and I are only "an obstacle" to you. Duxwing (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My point was that you could start by disputing any one of my reverts; what you learn might apply to others, and then you wouldn't need to dispute them all. Can you pick one to ask me about? Have you ever asked me about one? If so, I don't find it (checking back, I find your very first words to me were on your talk page, where you wrote "I will request arbitration on this issue because I have already discussed my copy-editing with other editors and want to permanently resolve this issue."). Since you referred specifically to the MOS edit above, I provided details reasons there for why I reverted. If this process is slowing you down, we seem to have agreement that that's a good thing. If it's slowing down a half dozen others, such as me, that's less good. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick, you are misrepresenting the truth again. Your very first words to me were, "Duxwing, I seriously think you should back off on the copy-editing" followed by three reversions. I then correctly reasoned that you only saw me as "an obstacle"--why has no one commented on your admitting that you do?--and one never talks to obstacles unless necessary to remove them. Duxwing (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The boomerang has to hit

It seems there is a consensus that Duxwing (talk · contribs) edits are overall disruptive, and that he refuses to hear when they are called into question. I fear some edit restriction would be in order. --cyclopia^speak! 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia, whether my edits are overall disruptive or not (remember that my editing changed after the February conflagration on my Talk Page) I so do not refuse to hear other's complaints that I have spent this entire AN/I discussion trying to get Dick to tell me why he reverted my edits and to slow my discussion with him to a reasonable pace. Moreover, any restriction would be pointless because my only edits were to the IP's sudden reversion of my most recent edits. Duxwing (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had really changed in February then you would not be here now at ANI. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - a quick review of Duxwing's talkpage - and my sincere attempts to assist being ignored and questioned as to "why" shows that Duxwing hasn't learned anything. I'd never heard of Duxwing until yesterday DP 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DP, I am sorry for not having replied to you sooner--your huge message necessitated a huge, considered reply--and I really was only curious about "why".  :) You have not been ignored, and I greatly appreciate your help. Duxwing (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with a warning, by an admin with the power and intent to enforce it if the advice to behave better is ignored. Something like "Duxwing is advised to follow the "D" part of WP:BRD; when edits are reverted, they should be discussed, preferably on the article talk page, and the reverted edits or others like them should not be repeated unless the problem is resolved; he is warned that further disruption such as repeating contested edits or seeking adminstrative sanctions for simple editing disputes will lead to a block." Or whatever some admin sees as more appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That wording works for me. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you talking about BRD? You stated and admitted you were never open to it in the first place. And if you look on any talk page of any article wherein I have recently had contested edits--e.g., Manual of Style or Hardy-Weinberg--then you will find that I have always followed BRD. You are the one who broke it. Duxwing (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no wish to be unhelpful, but there are times when attention to the First law of holes can be helpful.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you want me to drop the request? Duxwing (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough to ask Duxwing to do more discussion after his edits are reverted as he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved. The issue as I see it is that he persists in what he calls "copyediting" and does not understand - even after receiving detailed feedback - that these edits change the meaning of articles and/or make articles more difficult to read. Therefore it seems that there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue that I don't think talking or explaining more will alleviate. Perhaps direct oversight of his edits to articles by a mentor will eventually help, if such a mentor can be found. Failing that, a restriction on "copyediting" might help, if such a thing is possible. Ca2james (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, not practical. WP has a policy of tolerating semi-competent writers by getting them to behave sensibly. Where you say "he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved", that's half true. The problem is that he stopped discussing and went for administrative interference. I don't mind reverting every incompetent edit he makes, if he'll then take the time to go the talk page of the article in question and discuss what improvement he thinks he is making; sure I might get impatient with him, but more likely he'll eventually learn that there are ways to move forward and ways to be stuck, and that everything he has tried so far has left him stuck. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing has Duxwing explaining (perhaps for the first time) that one of his goals at Wikipedia, even his main one, is to rewrite articles to use "less ink", based on what seems to be his misunderstanding of "the Wikipedian Copy Editing Guide I read years ago". It may be the case that this goal was so obvious to him that he never brought it up when his edits were challenged, assuming that every other editor was operating under the same imaginary policy. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but skimming his edit history, very nearly every "copyedit" edit he has made since last July has a red, negative number next to it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Competence is definitely an issue. Although Wikipedia generally suffers fools gladly, usually the editor must show an interest in changing the objectionable behavior. Otherwise people like Dicklyon will forever be spending their precious energies dealing with the editors' messes. That seems like disruption to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is my competence an issue if my edits are due to a single misunderstanding, and when did I say that I would not stop trying to shorten articles if it were against policy? Duxwing (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a single misunderstanding. This is at the very least 12 competent and committed editors expressing real concern over a period of months about your editing conduct. Please do try to understand. You brought this issue here , but if you hadn't another editor would probably have done so quite soon. You may recall my advice to you some months ago that your editing conduct might lead to a block. Unless there is some real sign that you both understand that and the seriousness of the comments being made, I regret that my warning all those weeks ago, may become a reality. If you need help, then fine, we can give help, but there has to be a real sea-change in behaviour and understanding before I, for one, will wish to expend much more time on this cause. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect I ask: would you please elaborate? I think you mean to say that I should have from the complaints' number intuited that I needed a general review of my editing, and that I should have therefore sought someone to help me. I did both back in February with Jim1138, AddWittyNameHere, and seraphimblade and stopped getting help from them only because they would or could not reply. I concealed my deeds, concerns, and hurt feelings as much as possible because, knowing almost nothing about Wikipedia, I assumed one false move would cause my doom and that the less anyone knew, the less they could hurt me for or with; e.g., when you told me my editing might get me blocked, I stopped for thirty-one days despite Wiki-withdrawal and quivering every time I saw the site.

I recognized the concerns' seriousness again today when I asked for adoption, which seems necessary to help me with my confusion about copy-editing and this AN/I discussion. Again, with respect: is this behavior the sea-change you described?

P.S. The misunderstanding I mentioned was of Wikipedian Copy-Editing policy. The twelve-editor pile-up is a fiasco wherefore I apologize. Duxwing (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Seeing that I cannot seem to resolve my dispute with Dick, I want to get some help understanding what happened and various other concerns. Anyone know how to get adopted? Duxwing (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That could be a great step. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I feel like all my complaints about Dick's behavior have been ignored. Why? Duxwing (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignored? You've got hundreds of kilobytes of reactions to your complaint right here. Read it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon's behavior is a lot like mine would have been had I taken an interest in your edits like he did. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not wholly convinced that off wiki posts like this are actually very helpful to your cause, being neither true nor mature.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that Dick hasn't really done anything wrong. He's protected articles from issues that have been approved by the community as a whole. So, you actually don't have compaints about Dick, you have complaints about the decisions of the community, and Dick's your target by substitution. Oddly enough, the community has tried to bend over backwards to get you to see things in one way, but you merely attack and argue otherwise. You are the one showing poor behaviour against Dick and the rest of the community, not the other way around. ES&L 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots more to clean up

Whatever the resolution here, it would be useful to have more eyes reviewing Duxwing's contribs, and repairing the widespread damage. I just found one that remained current since Feb. 1 (that is, on a thinly editted article), and reverted it becaused it mangled the meaning and grammar of the lead: [87]. There are lots more needing repair. Dicklyon (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up another I just found, per my detailed explanation at Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing, where I make the point that each of the 8 sentences he touched was made worse, not better, by his copy edits. If anyone disagrees with any of these points, this would be a good time to say. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, not so many. As I scan his edits, it is very hard to find any that have not already been reverted by someone previous to me. You would think this would be a clue ... Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick, I have plenty of non-reverted edits:

• [88] (actually 2 in a row)
• [89]
• [90]
• [91] (actually 4 in a row)
• [92]

If you want more, then I can provide them. Do more research before making a huge allegation like that one. Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what you brag on. In the first one (including your edit before it that the one you linked was patching), the copy edit that was most obviously needed, to fix number disagreement in the lead sentence, was just worked around to churn other things (the article is so thinly edited that the mistake inserted in 2008 by Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) here had gone unnoticed all these years). And you did several of the "there exists" manglements that you have discussed extensively with another editor. See if you have learned anything: try to fix it yourself before someone just reverts it. Are any of the others net wins? Not clear. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Too late, most of them have now been reverted and/or otherwise fixed. Did you make any edits that survived review? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if Duxwing would agree to discuss any changes on the talk page *first*. And considering the way he has misinterpreted the lack of consensus for his proposals in the past, going to far as to change the MOS to support his proposals, it would be better if someone else made the changes. Perhaps Duxwing would agree to limit his edits to talk pages. —Neotarf (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not change the MOS to support my proposals: you are presuming bad faith not even reading my edits, which changed only the article's form. For how long would I limit my edits to talk pages, and are you essentially seeking my indefinite blocking? Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. Duxwing made this edit [93] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics replacing "The lead should as far as possible be accessible to a general reader, so specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided as much as possible" by "The lead should be accessible to general readers: avoid special terminology and symbols", signficantly changing its meaning on a point directly related to a debate at Talk:Waring's problem relating to that very topic, in which Duxwing was arguing for his own wording on the grounds that the article lead was too technical [94]. Deltahedron (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I blush at that edit when I regard it in retrospect, and I apologize for having accidentally muddied the waters. It was part of a larger one I made because I noticed tons of word cruft in the article, and removed the qualifiers because the article already had a general "common-sense" qualifier in its heading. Duxwing (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, simply. Duxwing has a good eye for what seems to be expressible in fewer syllables. And thus for example, yes, a passive clause with "by" plus noun phrase can be reexpressed as an active clause. But reexpressing it so doesn't necessarily improve it. English doesn't have passives merely in order to give twits like Strunk and White something to write about; on the contrary, the passive is a handy information packaging device (as are "it-clefts" and more besides) and is a good tool for certain expository purposes. People who don't realize this should reserve their BOLDness for areas other than copyediting. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Where can I learn about these subjects? Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Request immediate admin attention

Is taking the dispute public off-wiki like this tolerable within WP policy? If not, I request an admin take appropriate action against Duxwing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is it tolerable within our policies for a user to take a dispute off-wiki, half the admins here currently are (or have been) members of sites devoted to "watchdogging" this place. See WP:OFFWIKI. Doc talk 05:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And tolerable to tell such vicious lies about a fellow editor? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, only the most egregious offenses on off-wiki forums are actionable here. Like posting your home address and threatening your life. We have no jurisdiction over what people say about us in off-wiki forums. Doc talk 05:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki attacks says

Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

So, I hope some admin will take this aggravating factor into account and do the right thing here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You're requesting "immediate" action here (a block?), for a personal attack that occurred off-wiki. Request denied. The link you provided lays out how off-wiki attacks can be cited as evidence in a future case. Doc talk 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was requesting immediate attention. Thank you for that. If the right thing is nothing, so be it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry as well if I was terse. The first time I went to Wikipedia Review I was shocked how many active admins were there. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And don't demand justice with Dirty Hands, Dick. You see me like I said I saw you: "Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" Duxwing (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Minus the chimpanzee and substituting a common username for a real name, WP:DOX states, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". I want this attempted outing removed. I think I may have accidentally removed a comment. How can I replace it? Duxwing (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no "outing" here. Google "Duxwing Wikipedia". And in reading your own quote above, note the "under your own name" part. Lots of editors here edit under their actual names. Even if your name is legally "Duxwing", you have no outing case here. Doc talk 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Although taking things "off-wiki" in that specific fashion is not against policy, it's indicative that a) Duxwing 100% fails to recognize his own errors, b) Duxwing is under the immature/naïve belief that such an off-wiki post was a "good idea", and c) Duxwing has COMPLETELY missed the point: nobody is "kicking him off Wikipedia", and such ridiculous rhetoric is astronomically bad ES&L 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and I love this response to Dux's thread there: "How can we know he is lying about your competence as an editor if we have no evidence of your competence?" <--- this is pure gold, AND is the crux of the matter! ES&L 11:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at the overall situation in the morning (US ET) and try to bring this thread nearer to a conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

174.57.156.12

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

---

This anonymous editor is repeatedly adding bizarre italics and bolding to Thomas & Friends articles: 1 2 3 4, for a few examples. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Long term problem, last block was for 6 months, I blocked for 9. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Edit warring and accusations of racism

Can someone else please drop User:Fredin323 a line to let him or her know that it's unacceptable to edit war and label other editors "racist" as he or she has done several times in edit summaries? I've tried to engage with him or her (as have others) but my efforts have been fruitless and have in fact been met with baseless accusations of "[having a] vendetta," [being a] racist," and "[being] a very unhappy person" with close ties to the subject of an article. He or she certainly has the right to disagree with others' edits and discuss those edits but the personal attacks, baseless accusations, and edit warring must stop. Thanks! ElKevbo (talk) 04:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring is an issue for AN3 but I don't see any edit where an editor is labelled a racist. Claiming that the singling out of an ethnic group is racist is a far cry from suggesting the editor is racist. A poor choice of words at worst IMO. Flat Out let's discuss it 09:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I too see no place where someone has been called "racist" in an edit summary DP 10:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
• I searched for all occurrence of the string <rac> when viewing all of his contributions, and I found just six occurrences: [95] (two occurrences), where he makes a valid point about the results of the way the article's written; [96], where he makes a similar valid point; and [97] (two occurrences), where he's talking about race without using "racist". The only other occurrence of the string <rac> on all of his contributions is on the sidebar's "Interaction" header, above "Help", "About Wikipedia", etc. No comment on the editwarring, but re racism, this is definitely not the problematic situation that I expected from the original statement. Nyttend (talk) 12:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So let met me make sure I have things straight. It's acceptable for an editor to edit war with multiple other editors, making baseless accusations that their actions are racist (because that's definitely not the same thing as accusing them of being racist!) and pursuing a vendetta, right? C'mon people, be real. I'm not asking for this editor to be banned, just warned by someone else because obviously my warnings that this behavior is unacceptable are going unheeded.

Clearly this behavior is unacceptable regardless of the particular nuance you place on it. Trying to keep an eye on many of our college and university articles to keep them clear of fluff added by alumni and staff and attacks by disgruntled students and others is a thankless task and I would really appreciate just the tiniest bit of support. ElKevbo (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, be real. Accusing someone of calling others racist is almost as bad as calling someone racist. Provide a single diff that supports your statements, because 3 people have been unable to find any such claims. DP 17:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

So you're not seeing that the edit summary "it is also designated at a Af-Am serving institution and a native-american serving institution - singling out Hispanics is racist and unnecessary. this is not an article about race. deleted." is explicitly calling another editor's actions - and by extension, that editor - racist? I don't know how much clearer it could be.

I'm going to take some time off of this project. I'm incredibly disappointed and frustrated that no one can even be bothered to warn a problematic editor who is clearly edit warring and attacking other editors doing good work. ElKevbo (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

ElKevbo, in my experience on Wikipedia, there is an enormous difference between calling an action racist and calling an editor a racist. The first action is uncivil and probably inflammatory but the second is considered a personal attack. Similarly, calling one of my edits "stupid" is different from calling me "stupid". You can make a very valid argument that there shouldn't be any difference (or that the first action is a crafty way of implying the second) but the fact is that most admins look at criticizing an edit as less severe than criticizing an editor, directly.

ElKevbo, you might be dissatisfied at the lack of repercussions from your posting at AN/I but it does put the complaint on record. More people are aware that there is a problem. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Akhil300 using Wikipedia for political promotion

Akhil300 (talk · contribs) has been trying to use Wikipedia for promoting the Aam Aadmi Party ahead of India's election. He has been edit-warring to fill Aam Aadmi Party with electioneering puffery. He also included a puffed-up version of the article in his user page and his sandbox - I nominated those for CSD:G11 but he blanked them. He has recreated the puffed-up electioneering version of the article in his sandbox again, at User:Akhil300/sandbox. He is aware of the issues, as he has had warnings and CSD notifications on his talk page, which he has blanked - I shall now nominate his sandbox for deletion again and will notify him of this report, but he is clearly not here to help us build an encyclopedia. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Deleted the sandbox but as a WP:BLP violation and warned them for it as well. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

There is an obvious sock, who has created User:Aam Aadmi Party/sandbox. The sock is blocked as a promotional username. I've just nominated the sandbox per G11 but that, too, is also a BLP violation. - Sitush (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And gone. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 13:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks folks -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• And we've got another one, Mohamedalla (talk · contribs), adding the same electioneering and BLP violations to Aam Aadmi Party. Time for some protection measures? -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  And he's edit warring over it. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

  It's been dealt with - thanks again. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Akhil300 has engaged in userpage vandalism, too. They're a partisan incapable of being a good faith contributor. I'd recommend at least a temporary block. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius

This concerns wholesale removal by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of flagicons from sport articles and continuing to do so despite being challenged under the terms of WP:BRD. There has been a case at Edit warring & 3RR which resulted in Ohconfucius being warned. He escaped a block because one of his four reverts was not in the same 24-hour period as the other three. The key article here is Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990), which was elevated to WP:GA on 7 April.

Ohconfucius edited the article 04:51 on 9 April and made his first removal of flags from the lists of players, arguing in his edit summary that "per [[MOS:FLAG - nationalities have no relevance whatsoever in this context". At 23:46 on 9 April, the edit was reverted by PeeJay who argued in the edit summary that he "completely disagrees, as it (use of flags) shows the international make-up of both teams". Thus far, everything complied with WP:BRD and Ohconfucius had made a bold edit and PeeJay, citing a valid reason for disagreement, reverted it.

At 01:44 on 10 April, Ohconfucius re-reverted and so made the first violation of WP:BRD as well as commencing an edit war for which he has subsequently been warned. At this stage, no attempt had been made to open a discussion. At 02:12 he followed up with a removal of three categories which is itself contentious though outside the BRD issue.

At 02:42 the article creator VEO15 became involved and pointed out that the article is about the full match and not just about a twenty-second brawl within the match, as Ohconfucius was arguing (this, by the way, led to a later proposal that the article should be renamed but that is a separate matter). VEO15 also restored the three categories. Immediately, at 02:45, Ohconfucius reverted both VEO15 edits.

The matter was then taken to a talk page when, at 02:51 on 10 April a discussion commenced on the WT:FOOTY talk page when Ohconfucius complained about "opposition to my attempts to eliminate MOS:FLAG violation". This received its first answer at 08:26 on 10 April when PeeJay defended the use of flags and criticised WP:MOSFLAG. The discussion then grew with several people contributing but the salient point raised is that hundreds of articles with flags already removed by a script, run by Ohconfucius, must be restored/reverted and the script modified to stop this happening, especially as the script fails to replace the graphic information with textual information. The main complaint is that Ohconfucius, having initiated the discussion on WT:FOOTY, subsequently unilaterally removed acceptable flag icons from hundreds of match and season articles, via his script. All of these articles should be reverted and use of these scripts by Ohconfucius must be stopped.

In between the 02:51 and 08:26 talk page posts, VEO15 restored the flags and categories at 05:21 and, at 07:18, Ohconfucius reverted for the third time and, having opened a discussion about the issue was now clearly in direct violation of WP:BRD which clearly states in its discuss criterion: "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)". Ohconfucius can have no defence against his actions in direct violation of that standard.

What has made matters worse is that, since opening the WT:FOOTY discussion at 02:51 on 10 April, Ohconfucius has continued to run his script removing flags from hundreds more sports articles: for example, the 2006 FA Cup Final. He made a fourth revert of the disputed article at 18:37 on 11 April but this was more than 24 hours after the previous one and so he was warned and not blocked when the matter went to the 3RR page.

Meanwhile, at 11:17 on 10 April a discussion commenced on the article talk page when Tony1 raised an issue about the use of flags. An argument developed there which lost its way because of Tony1's views about graphics being a distraction and eventually it has evolved into a proposal that the article should be renamed. Ohconfucius has been involved in this secondary discussion but it is really of academic interest. The main thrust of discussion has taken place at WT:FOOTY as described above.

In summary, I would contend that Ohconfucius has acted irresponsibly by continuing to revert edits and run his script in defiance of WP:BRD while a discussion about his issue is still ongoing. In addition, I recommend per several comments at WT:FOOTY that his script should be decommissioned and that all sporting articles it has edited are reverted or restored. GnGn (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GnGnome alerted me to this thread. I must say I was confused already by the conflation of several themes on that page. Can this not be worked out through discussion? I'm sure Ohconfucius won't remove more flagicons while this is ongoing. Tony (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why has this been brought here when there is a current proposal on the article's talk page to which Ohconfucius has responded, and an active discussion at a football related project page? Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than flagging up how weak the GA process is, what is the merit of bringing this here while it is under discussion in two other venues? --John (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Flat Out and User:John need to read again what I have said above. Yes, there are discussions going on as required by WP:BRD but Ohconfucius has flagrantly edit-warred and continued to remove icons while the discussions are ongoing in direct breach of WP:BRD. Doesn't that stike you as wrong? Why does User:Tony1 hope he won't remove more while it is ongoing? GnGn (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What I see is an editor attempting to apply policy, and then taking up the issue appropriately in the other forums. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Ohconfucius for trying to apply MOS:FLAG. Flags and other pointless decorations are not helpful for an encyclopedic project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Answering Flat Out, I have no objection to Ohconfucius "attempting to apply policy" as that is the first part of WP:BRD and no objection to him commencing the discussion at WT:FOOTY or taking part in the secondary discussion as, again, that compies with BRD. The objection concerns his edit warring in violation of BRD and continuing to attempt his application of policy (as he interprets it) after the discussion on use of flags in football articles had begun. There appears to be a consensus forming here that his interpretation of "policy" is correct. So, you are effectively saying that he can ignore BRD because you agree with his interpretation of MOS:FLAG. In that case, what do the people at WT:FOOTY do given that they interpret the policy differently and they believe there has been widespread disruption to football project articles? GnGn (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there was no reason to bring it this forum when is already being discussed at any forums. If you believe Ohconfucius is edit warring then take it to AN3. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a reason to ignore standard procedures, and neither is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There may well be a group of editors who like flags (there have been several such groups in the past), but that is still not a reason to ignore standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So, is WP:BRD a redundant policy that anyone can just ignore? What is the point of having something like that on the site if it has no effect? GnGn (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. --John (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not policy to remove all flags. He did a heavy string of removals (100s) on tennis articles awhile back but they were systematically all reverted back with warnings at Wiki Tennis Project to treat them as instant rollbacks in the future. The bot did a lot of good things so we had to carefully dice what stayed and what went, which took hours. I really haven't seen a big problem since over there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think you've missed the point of the icons in those articles. They are not simply there for decoration, they are there to provide extra information to the reader in a more efficient format than simply naming each country. Flags are universally recognised as being representative of their countries, and the ones that are easily confused (i.e. and ; or and ) can be easily looked up by clicking on the flag thanks to the functionality of {{flagicon}} providing a link to the appropriate nation's page. By all accounts, WP:ICONDECORATION is desperately outdated in that regard. – PeeJay 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What extra information do the flags carry that text alone would not? Why is the nationality of every player in a domestic match so vital? ICONDECORATION enjoys strong project-wide consensus and has done for quite a few years now. Is there a special reason that certain sport articles should be exempt from it? --John (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where each argument has been made over the course of this incident, so I can forgive you for not having noticed earlier. Nationality is an extremely pertinent issue in many professional sports (especially football), and indicating the nationality of each player in a domestic match helps the reader understand the international nature of the sport. Having just read the article on the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, which somehow managed to get to FA status without flags, I found myself desperately seeking info on the page about where each team's players came from. Without the flags, I could have easily assumed they were all American, since the game was played in the United States between two American teams. The reason flags are more appropriate than text is that icons are more efficient at conveying the information and at saving space; the aesthetics of the flags are a bonus, yes, but they are not simply there for decoration, as many people seem to be assuming. – PeeJay 09:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a definition of what "nationality" means in the context you describe? In an international encyclopedia, that word is rather fluid and would mean different things to different people. What is the pertinent issue addressed by knowing a player's nationality? I'm sure some readers would be interested in knowing the religion or ethnicity of each player—why not include that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity have no effect on the regulations regarding which players may play in a match (and never have done), whereas nationality has been a determining and limiting factor on some teams' squads in the past. Furthermore, nationality is defined in this case as the national team for which the player is qualified to play, which is easily sourced for 99.99% of all players, while religion and ethnicity are barely sourceable for even 0.01% of players. This isn't about what readers might find "interesting", it's about providing pertinent information in as efficient a manner as possible. – PeeJay 12:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity have had a great impact in one of the countries which invented football, and before about 1980 there was one famous club who did not employ Catholics. I am sure there are a great many readers in certain parts of Western Scotland (and possibly elsewhere) who would find it very interesting to see which religion and ethnicity all the players were. Why would that situation be markedly different from this one? --John (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a false analogy. Rangers almost exclusively picked Protestants, while Celtic almost exclusively picked Catholics, and by the time either side began drawing from the other side of the Christian divide, it really didn't matter. Plus, when you talk about football on a global scale, one rivalry really makes very little difference. – PeeJay 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oof. Totally wrong. Read up on it. Disagree on flags too. Global consensus trumps local, especially when no coherent reasons can be given to diverge. --John (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What the two Johns say. And Ohconfucius. Global consensus etc: no amount of text in FOOTY and the tennis project, never mind the Tour de France, can change the fact that this usage of flag icons is disruptive for a reader, useless, and not in compliance with MOS:FLAG, even if typically in such discussions the MOS adherents are outnumbered by the other parties. It's ironic that in MMA, where "local" interests ruled the roost for so long, the MOS is being followed.

In most cases nationality is simply irrelevant (esp. in those club articles, and esp. since the Bosman arrest). Athletes in the Tour, in non-international soccer games, at Wimbledon, etc. are simply not representing their country in any official sense, though the heart may disagree--one of the saddest days in my life was missing the Wimbledon final when Krajicek finally won one for us, but that's emotion, not national representation. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it disruptive for the reader to use flags in this manner? If you were talking about flags breaking up the flow of prose, I could agree, but it is ridiculous to say that a flag in a sea of whitespace is disruptive. Just to quickly address the tennis point for a moment, whenever I watch Wimbledon, the players' nationalities are often clearly stated next to their names in scorelines, and the nationalities of the winners are frequently recorded for statistical purposes. The same really applies to football. – PeeJay 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent you setting up a fork of Wikipedia which uses flags in the way you suggest. On this project we have decided not to. To change this would take quite a major reconfiguration of the community's opinion, which you are also welcome to try to do. In terms of admin action, I don't think Ohconfucius should or will face any sanction as he is right and those opposing him are wrong. --John (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Back from a weekend away and so late to this discussion, but we need to consider the fact that an awful lot of reliable sources used on these articles also use flags to indicate nationality, including the website of FIFA (though they also use their trigramme - that is perhaps a compromise that should be introduced here, and indeed is already in use at Boca Juniors#Current squad). If the template is wrong, or violates current MOS, then a discussion needs to be had to change the template or the MOS - but mass removal of flags, without discussion and against the current use of the template, was borderline disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The most important tennis websites use the flag icons and Tennis Project also found his mass removals disruptive. This was pointed out to him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. That's a super suggestion; I suggest you take it up at WT:MOS and have the MoS amended if you can attract a consensus. Meantime, we'll continue to use the one that currently enjoys consensus. The suggestion that editing to make articles more compliant with MoS is "borderline disruptive" is borderline stupid. --John (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologise for the tone of my previous comment but still stand by the point I made, and those above. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will do; I suggest we all re-locate to WT:MOS. And no, my comment was not stupid - what was was suddenly blanking content from a template that a) has been in place for years and b) is in use on thousands of articles, without attempting to raise the matter somewhere first (ideally with the relevant WikiProject - we are very active), by citing a MOS that is clearly not fit-for-purpose for these kinds of articles. GiantSnowman 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. GiantSnowman 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Giant. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Bigoted personal attack

Reporting highly inappropriate comment by Silvio1973 (talk · contribs):

"I still do not understand why you are so aggressive. If you were not from the Balkans I would be offended by the way you talk to others (not just to me). But looking to the last 70 years of former Yugoslavia I understand why you do not find peace. Basically, because you do not need it. Now I am busy but as soon as possible I will ask for a Move review. In the meantime Dear Direktor, take a break. Wikipedia is not Vukovar. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)"

("Vukovar" refers to the Battle of Vukovar.) The context here is Silvio1973 posting an RM on Talk:House of Gundulic, upon the failure of which he posted an RfC entitled "RfC: House of Gundulić/House of Gondola, which version of the name is more prevalent in English sources?". For the record, this isn't the first time I've had the opportunity to be enlightened by Silvio as to the inherent nature of my nationality (see the last two paragraphs here). -- Director (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any racial issues being mentioned in any of the diffs you give; Slavs and others in the Balkans are quite obviously white Europeans like the Italians. Not the most civil, but there's nothing in your diffs that warrants a civility block. If you want any kind of sanctions, you're going to need to provide more diffs of incivility. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, really thank you for posting this ANI. Because you have been offending me for the last 2 years and I never replied. Because I never gave enough importance to your aggressivity. Indeed even my last post is a mild reply compared to the words you used towards me many times before. And by the way, the issue is not merely between you and me, because you used similar words also with other users. However you never really offended me. I lived many years in the Balkans and I know that there people are very direct and confrontational. Unfortunately the last 70 years of their history confirms how disgraceful this can be. And mind well, that this is not a fact of racism, because being confrontational is not 'per se' a negative feature.

Now, for the benefits of the WP community let's list some of your inappropriate "comments", so everyone will understand how incredibly patient I have been so far. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

19 February 2014 - Lets be blunt: Silvio is an Italian-nationalist POV-pusher who goes around the project searching for areas where he believes Italy has been "wronged" and then posts masses of posts in bad grammar that ignore most of Wikipedia's policies ("heraldry expert"?) in pushing a pro-Italian bias.

31 October 2013 - User:Silvio1973 is here only through following my edits, as a sort of petty "revenge" for my opposing his edits elsewhere. He is not here to provide a constructive position, but only to oppose my own, and you may expect that's pretty much all he's going to do (in poor English). I personally doubt he has any background understanding of the Republic of Kososo issue.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

22 September 2013 - I used to think its a communication issue. But now I'm convinced you're just a nationalist POV-pusher attempting to have his way through fraudulent referencing and edit-war. You would have to be institutionalized if you did not understand: #1 non-Italian/Yugoslav sources. #2 Scholarly. #3 With page number and quote. Very simple...

Not sure we need a list. I agree with Nyttend. I don't see the racism. I don't even see it as particularly heated, just a little snippy. If we blocked for "snippy", Wikipedia would have less than half the articles it now has. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, I beg your pardon but I really want to list the comments Direktor directed to me. I believe he really should take a break and this ANI could be the right occasion to make him understand that should pay more respect to the others.

I'm not here to tell you what to do, my comment was only that it wasn't needed to address the original complaint, which looks to be without merit. If you want to present a new complaint with diffs here, you are certainly welcome to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fellas, you've got to be kidding me. Here he is telling me I'm "aggressive" because all people from the Balkans are uncivilized barbarians, insulting whole nations - and that's "snippy"? Yes, it is racist: you and I are perfectly aware it doesn't make sense, but I think you may be missing the local political context - namely Italian fascist ideas about the "barbaric Slavic race" [98], very common in the far right even today. Hopefully I won't have to elaborate further on that distasteful subject.

As for the rest of Silvio1973's disruption and appalling conduct, I don't think I'll be writing up some stupid "counter-list". I posted this to hopefully put a stop to this user's ethnic personal attacks. Though it does seem the user was thinking he can insult others however he likes, and get away with it, by being ready to post a cherry-picked compilation of anything they wrote from the last five years or so. -- Director (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to say that this is a lot more than "snippy". Imagine, for example, that there was a dispute on Racism in the United States and one editor had posted "You are being aggressive to me, but that's understandable because you are black". I don't think anyone would dispute the racism inherent there. Clearly, Slavs aren't a "race" but there's clear bigotry involved here. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

agree with Black Kite. Denigrations, dismissals, or even calling out someone based on ethnicity or national origin are unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

From reading this thread it appears that the complainant is "Slavic" and the one being complained of is Italian. Those are not two different "races" therefore it cannot be a "racist" attack and I think it is highly inappropriate to fling that word around like that.Smeat75 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You gotta be shitting us. — lfdder 13:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The whole point of being a "racist", is insulting people on the basis of non-existent "races". All "races" are more-or-less generally viewed as non-existent in the scientific community. Racists often do view Slavic people as some kind of inferior "race" (the irony being I'm mostly Italian and Austrian by ancestry). I will also mention that Smeat75 and I are currently involved in a discussion elsewhere, hence I feel I ought to question his impartiality.

And besides, is it really better if its "just" an ethnic personal attack? -- Director (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For interest see the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 1.1[99]

• "In this convention the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Silvio1973 saying that there has been a lot of aggression in the formerly Yugoslav area over the past 70 years, that is quite different from the claim that he is calling all Slavic people "uncivilized barbarians". Considering how many times I've seen comments implying Americans are gun-toting rednecks, this just seems like standard Wikipedia incivility that goes by unsanctioned every day. It's not great, to be sure but I come across much worse almost daily. Also, considering the comments he posted, it seems like the ethnic slights went both ways. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh.. no. What he is saying is "Balkanites are naturally aggressive so I don't take offense at your 'aggressiveness'", an #2 "People from the Balkans are naturally aggressive and do not need peace". Topped off with a condescending remark to the effect that "you must think you're fighting one of your Balkans wars" (i.e. Vukovar). And no: I never insulted Silvio1973 on the basis of his ethnicity; I'd be pretty stupid if I did, as I said - I'm mostly Italian myself.

As for Silvio's English skills - they are pretty much terrible, and his posts are borderline-unintelligible most of the time (unless he puts special effort into into it, but they devolve again pretty soon). I reserve the right to say that, esp. after damn near going crazy trying to discuss with the user [100]. Its terrible when you have to repeat your point over and over and over again, while the other user acts like he understands you, but just continues on as if you wrote nothing. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Silvio's posting most definitely is an ethnic slur and a personal attack, and frankly I am shocked to see how some outsiders here on this board are willing to excuse and downplay it. It's completely unacceptable. What makes the whole matter worse is another aspect of Silvio's behaviour: it appears that he has been disrupting that House of Gundulić talkpage with an endless single-purpose POV campaign about a renaming demand, for multiple months, in a form that has clearly gone beyond the bounds of "WP:STICK" and "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". That in itself is sanctionable, and I'm quite willing to apply WP:ARBMAC on it if necessary. Has he ever been formally warned about discretionary sanctions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Liz, there is no issue of racism here. It is regrettable that Direktor believes that here there is an issue of racism, but does not surprise me. It's so easy to reduce everything to an issue of racism. Indeed the problem is that he really think there is such issue. Mind well that a lot of tragedy had place in the Balkans in the last 70 years because problems of economical and political nature are perceived as issues of race and ethnicity.

However, I will show you with how much incivility I was treated in the last two years, so you might understand that I have been so far very patient. And about my proficiency in English, I never had an issue with anyone. Not in the real life and neither in Wikipedia. Again, in the last two years Direktor has been offending me all the time qualifying my English of being crappy. I am above that, but I believe I have the right to be respected. Even if my English is not good as those of a native.Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Future. Yes. -- Director (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Direktor, I have been warned less times than you. And opposely to you I have never been blocked. Is it worth mentioning that you have issues with a lot of people, not just with me. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Are you going to admit that it was personal attack or not? If you want to talk about blocks and warnings, you must be aware about the fact that you have 2,063 edits, DIREKTOR has over 51,000. OccultZone (Talk) 15:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Balkans peoples are not a race or even an ethnicity. They include Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Turks and others. IOW they are people of diverse ethnicity who live in disharmony. This is a case of projection on the part of Director. He denigrates another editor and when that editor complains he accuses him of racism. I do not think any action should be taken against Silvio, but suggest something be done to stop Director. TFD (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD and I are involved in a talkpage dispute at the moment. I can't imagine why he's posting these sort of things here.. TFD, as far as I can see, the Balkans are in perfect harmony, thanks for your concern. In fact, as far as I know, the people of ex-Yugoslavia fought each-other twice in recorded history. And, uh.. no, there aren't significant Italian populations in the Balkans. -- Director (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, you are involved in issues with a lot of people. However, I hope someone will give a look to the nice comments you made me during the last two years. Really you should learn to respect the others like you want that they respect you. And yes, you are right. There is not anymore any significant Italian population in the Balkans. I am pretty aware of that. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really think someone should read our exchanges in full (this and this are the latest installments, where Cyclopia also tried to deal with him). In my opinion (and I think this shows), Silvio1973 is neither capable nor willing to contribute to this project in any useful way: his English skills are below such as might allow him to participate. It may not seem that way from the few posts here, but 90% of the time, unless he makes a special effort - he doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, and writes posts that in turn also require a special effort to understand (if they're at all intelligible). Of course, that wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't also act as if he fully understands the language - by simply ignoring that which he doesn't quite get, and taking offense when clarification is requested. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. He regularly misquotes sources, completely ignores WP:OR and policy in general, posts ethnic insults, constantly assumes bad faith, his article contributions are barely-intelligible and require proof-reading, but he'll edit-war for them anyway, he won't "accept" when you've sourced something, he demands to modify sourced text in accordance with his POV, etc.. I could go on.. -- Director (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting spread out in too many directions, and this isn't a brawl. As for "racist", I think that is overstated, although it is obviously rude. I do see plenty of good old fashioned incivility on both sides, and looking a bit closer I can see that Silvio1973 does have a WP:DE problem starting a new move discussion less than one month after one just closed against his wishes. I just had to threaten to block another user for doing the exact same thing in an equally problematic part of the encyclopedia. That was accurately described as a WP:STICK and WP:HEAR problem. I closed that RFC, it is not been long enough since the last discussion and hammering away like that is simply disruptive. I strongly suggest Silvio drop the stick for 90 days on the name, and that both of you pull back on the incivility. Perhaps avoiding each other for a few days will help. Otherwise, Fut. Perf is correct that ARBMAC will be justified there and discretionary sanctions become an option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis Brown. I have no problem in following the suggestions coming from a more experienced user. I will wait for a while before touching again the articles in dispute. Fair point. In the meantime please appreciate I have problems only with Direktor and still I do not understand why he denigrates so much my English. Honestly, are my edits so bad to the point of being not intelligible?Silvio1973 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Director, Italy controlled several coastal areas in the Balkans, such as Fiume and still controls Trieste and Gorizia. There is still a sizable Italian population in Istria. The point though is that the Balkans is not an ethnic group but a region containing many ethnic groups and is a byword for ethnic conflict. (Hence terms like "balkanization".) Of course you may be right that all that conflict is in the past. TFD (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, English is a funny, mangled language. If I hired someone to create a new language, and what they produced was English, I would fire them. There is so much nuance, so much variation, so many subtleties that it is an easy language to mangle or misunderstand. I can talk to Brits in English such that they have no idea what I am saying, and they can do the same to me. If your English isn't perfect, don't feel bad. The same is true for most people who speak it as a first language. Direktor is an experienced editor. He is not without his flaws (we all have flaws), and he often is a bit more blunt than he needs to be, but he is experienced. If you find you disagree, it is better to go get an outside opinion instead of pushing ahead. WP:3rd opinion is one such place, or just ask a random admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

None of this takes away from the fact that what Silvio said is bigoted -- it's not just 'rude'. Are you telling us you don't see that? — lfdder 19:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion, there is dispute to how far the comment goes, so my singular point of view isn't as relevant as the consensus view. Administratively, my concern isn't about punishing anyone, it is about finding a way forward so similar acts are less likely to occur in the future. I think it is pretty obvious to Silvio that if those comments are repeated, he will likely be blocked on the spot. More importantly, his tone is more conciliatory, so a little WP:ROPE is warranted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to take any administrative measure. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but don't give me this evasive crap. My impression is Silvio's slur has been made to seem more mild than it is 'cause some of us thought it important to debate the semantics of 'racism'. — lfdder 20:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia editors seem to be bigoted in one way or another, or at least have simplistic models of out groups. Sometimes, like in this case, it occurs to them that their opinions matter enough to be shared with others. It's not so bad, just people talking. I'd rather deal with an honest bigot than a dishonest sociopath who hides their bigotry beneath carefully constructed language to game Wikipedia's rules any day of the week. It's the editors who spend their time imposing their bigoted views on Wikipedia content that are the real menace and they need to be brutally suppressed. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean we don't acknowledge it for being bigoted (see also TFD's, Nyttend's and Smeat75's replies above). I've not said that he should be blocked for it or anything of the sort. — lfdder 20:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to also understand that an insult might be more obvious to one person than another. "Redneck" is one example. To some, it is a badge of honor, to others, it is an insult. Again, my focus (including on his talk page) is to insure it doesn't happen again, whether or not I "get" the full gravity of the insult. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, I never said my comment was polite (and I did not intend being polite). It was impolite exactly like the comments Direktor directed to me before during two long years. But there was no racism, it was just a sad consideration. Said that, I find somehow surprising that I can dialogue in English with anyone in my real life and on Wikipedia, understanding and being understood by everyone except with Direktor. And the way Direktor talks to me (and to many other users) is not less unacceptable. And strange for someone with more than 51,000 edits. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I went to Silvio1973's talk page to give them one last warning to stop personal attacks against me and found a link to this ANI. I would like to add that this user has made personal attacks and did not AGF numerous times in the last week or so. User behaves as an edit warrior with a battleground mentality on all things Russia and Ukraine related (see edit history on Russia, this AN3, and comments on Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects and Talk:Russia#Text now coherent with the source). So many horses have suffered in this edit war. Frankly I'd like to see a topic ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? This discussion is about Battle of Vukovar. Uninvolved editors with an axe to grind who have been warned in unrelated Russian/Ukrainian topics [101] asking for a topic ban? Which topic exactly? USchick (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

From Russia/Ukraine stuff, but I know it's a pipe dream. I was warned for 4 edits in 48 hours. Never warned for personal attacks, which is what the issue is here. I linked the AN3 because it contains a personal attack (again). My "axe to grind" is about Silvio's behavior. USchick, you are not assuming good faith. We've butted heads in the past, but have always been able to resolve things civilly and for that I respect you. But Silvio seems to be unable to let an opportunity to make a dig at me slide and I'm getting sick of it. That's why I commented here. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have an unrelated disagreement somewhere else and you're "getting sick of it," is it good faith to come here and Wikipedia:PILEON and throw the kitchen sink at an editor simply because you don't like him? You're asking for a ban on unrelated topics and then you claim to be the victim. That doesn't reflect very well on your behavior. USchick (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to far. And this is not the place to solve the issues that other people have for other reasons. EvergreenFir, please be aware that you posted a 3RR report and the endehaviour was that we are both warned to be blocked. Concerning the discussion we had, you could aknowledge that in the end I proposed a solution acceptable for the both of us.

EvergreenFir, I have currently a problem with Direktor but I am not participating in any of the ANI's involving him if I was not involved. So if you have a problem with me feel free to report me, but use some common sense; the last time you did it you were warned of being blocked, Have a great sunday EvergreenFir. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly some people have been concerned with my behaviour and told me that I might be blocked. The issue is that Direktor speaks to the others very badly but takes any comment directed to him extremely serious. However, I might seriously report him in a few days. The issue is that I am not experienced enough to know if there are the conditions to report him. The only thing I know is that he treats me like shit and I do not like it. However, the next time he will bluntly and boldly make a comment about my proficiency in English or about my alleged political orientations I will report him. Because I also have a dignity and Direktor has been litterally walking on it for the last two years. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a thread discussing your conduct. Its precisely the place to bring up other personal attacks. There's a difference between being not-entirely-polite after months of fraudulent referencing and language issues, and posting bigoted, condescending, arguably even racist attacks based on nationality and ethnic group. Or indeed, insulting whole ethnic groups based on offensive stereotyping you seem to sign-up to.

And I'd like to request the crew from the above discussion (Smeat, USchick, TFD) kindly refrain from carrying over grudges to completely unrelated threads. The point of this is ultimately to invite uninvolved (admin) input. -- Director (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't WP:RFC/U. Enough points have been made that now I question if we are just beating a dead horse. He's admitted the comment was rude, he has been warned, perhaps you need to drop the stick and see if if the lessons stick. Otherwise, you are making the situation worse. This can probably be closed without further action, as we've had enough drive by comments and poking. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, dropping it. -- Director (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Schily's personal attacks and biased editing on Cdrtools and other UNIX topics

Schily (talk · contribs) (Jörg Schilling) is the author of cdrtools, a collection of tools for interacting with disk drives. He was recently blocked for edit warring, POV editing, and personal attacks by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) after this AN3 discussion. After the conclusion of his block, he returned to Talk:cdrtools and made statements I think fall on the wrong side of BLP, such as:

[I]t seems that you are just missinformed by anti-OSS people like Eduard Bloch […] In September 2004 Linus Torvalds introduced a fatal Linux kernel SCSI interface incompatibility while claiming to fix a security bug.
— User:Schily 10:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bastardized variants are created by people that have more self-confidence than knowledge […] The SuSE programmer that discovered how to send file descriptory via sockets in 2001 and believed to be a security expert for this knowledge. […] : The Debian packetizer Eduard Bloch that discovered how to call make in 2004 and then believed to be a C and SCSI expert with more knowledge than the authors of cdrtools. He managed to add aprox. 100 own bugs within a year and wins a price for the best long term support in preserving bugs over 10 years.
— User:Schily 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether these remarks fall far enough outside WP:BLP that they need to be struck, but they most certainly seem to be a continuance of the original problematic behaviours for which the editor was originally blocked. I do not believe he is able to contribute to this topic productively. For that matter, his contributions show a history of edit warring and POV-pushing, dating back to (at least) 2010, see User_talk:Schily#Bourne_shell_section_on_criticism, User_talk:Schily#Edit_war, User_talk:Schily#March_2012, and other examples later on the talk page.

Disclaimer: I am involved in Debian as a volunteer developer (and am also involved in the Ubuntu distribution). While I am on the team that reviews new packages for inclusion into Debian, I do not believe I have interacted with Schilling's software in this capacity. I also made some edits to the article to clean it up. LFaraone 16:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Per policy, BLP applies to talk pages. However, practically speaking, a little more leeway is given editors to say negative things on talk pages than they do in articles (who is Eduard Bloch?). What troubles me most about Schily is his obvious conflict. Some article subjects can simply not edit their own articles without creating problems. However, they can at least offer useful suggestions on the talk pages. Some authors, though, even if they restrict themselves to the talk page, which Schily hasn't done (although he has since his block expired), they are disruptive. I believe that Schily falls into that category. Although I know this isn't a blatant legal threat, another disturbing comment Schily made on the talk page is:

Note that soneone who likes to express his doubt on the legallity on the other side needs to present a valid legal reasoning. If he is not able to present such a reasoning, his clains must be seen as no more than libel and slander. This may look unbalanced, but sorry - this are the legal rules from law. A laywer that discloses internals from a client will go into prison for 1-2 years, depending on whether the disclosure was made in order to harm his client or not. A company that asked their lawyers and ships cdrtools verifies that there is no risk. A company that does not ship cdrtools does not verify anything. ([102])

Mentioning libel, slander, and prison all in the same post is inherently problematic. Schily has a total of 581 edits (284 to articles and 244 to article talk pages) since he started editing using this account in 2006. 47 edits have been to cdrtools. 69 have been to the talk page. Most of his other edits have been to related articles, e.g. Cdrkit. At a minimum, I would suggest a topic ban for cdrtools and its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the recent block for me: I am not sure why this happened, but the pretended reason (personal attacks) was not true. I did critizise a user because he intentionally added false claims to an article. This was of course not an attack against his person but critics against his behavior. Critizising someone for what he did is something different than attacking him for his person and needed if you notice that this person is intentionally adding false claims.

I am not sure what you like to achive overall, but maybe you can help me to improve the cdrtools article. The article is currently full of personal attacks (false claims about me) and attacks against the cdrtools project. The people that added the attacks and unbalanced or false claims mostly have a direct connection to Debian - note that Eduard Bloch from Debian started attacks against the cdrtools project in 2004 after he has been unhappy that a patch from him against cdrtools was rejected by me because it had only bugs and no usable benefits to the project. His modifying activity on the copy of the cdrtools sources at Debian resulted in aprox. 100 Bug reports in the debian bug tracking system. The problem with the unbalanced claims in the article is that they are usually tagged with pointers to quotes that do not prove the claims, but they may look as if they did on the first view. The most problematic editor in this context was User:Chire. Without his edits, I am sure that the other editors could agree on something that is fact based. User:Chire seems to be on a crusade against cdrtools since 2010 as he shows similar activity against the cdrtools project at different places. In discussions, he repeats his claims many times even after his claims have been proven false. I am not sure how this is in the US, but in Germany you can get sued if you publish claims you cannot prove against a person. Please note that User:LFaraone who started this thread recently started to edit the cdrtools article and introduced unbalanced claims and modified text so that the new text is less balanced than it has been before.

If you don't care about the correctness of Wikpedia articles or if you like to allow people to use wikipedia as a platform for propaganda against OSS projects like cdrtools, it may be the best if I stop trying to help wikipedia. If you however care about what is in the articles, I like to get help and advise on how to deal with people that are poison to discussions and advise on how to get to balanced articles even if there are editors that try to prevent balanced articles.

Are you interested in balanced articles and can you help me to achieve this? Schily (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, you come very close to a legal threat (Germany and lawsuits), and you attack two editors. Given your attitude and approach, your idea of no longer editing at Wikipedia is a good one. It will certain save us the effort of having to block and/or ban you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please try to understand what really happed, you then will see that I am the victim and not the attacker. Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"I will sue you!" is a legal threat. Saying "lawyer" threes time is not. NE Ent 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, NE Ent, wikilawyering about legal threats. How appropriate. I never said Schily made legal theats. I said he came close, and he did. How many lawyers does it take to initiate a lawsuit? None.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you missinterpret the text. I did never say "I will sue you". I did however explain why a lawyer is not allowed to say anything about a specific case because Chire in former times wanted to have detailed information about three legal advises from three independend group of lawyers that happened in the past and that caused Sun, Oracle and SuSE to publish cdrtools. This proves that there are a lot of false claims in the licensing section of the cdrtools article - if the claims in that section would be correct, no distribution could risk to ship cdrtools. Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying "an editor inserted false information" is a comment about their behavior. Saying "an editor intentionally inserted false information" is a personal attack. See the difference? We do want, as best we can, correct information in the encyclopedia. Because we're amateurs, the way we try to do this is respectfully and collaboratively work with others to find reliable sources to determine what to put im. Disparaging others doesn't work well in the long term, so you'll get blocked again if you keep that up. NE Ent 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you call it if someone inserted false information and after he has been proven to be false, repeatedly inserts the same false information again and again? BTW: you may like to look a bit down and will see again false claims against me, I did give away cdrecord-ProDVD for free (when it was closed source because of an NDA) and I made cdrecord-ProDVD OpenSource after that NDA did no longer apply.

But the question still stands: how do we get the false claims and unbalanced wordings out off the cdrtools article when a group of people is adding more and more of them? How can we deal with unrelaiable sources that are used by this group of people, when you need to dig to verify that these sorces are just copies from one initial false source? Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Schily, your habit of personally attacking people, often for things they may or may not have done 10+ years ago is really a bad trait. You should stop this, in particular on Wikipedia. Also your notion of "fact" and "neutral" diverges from Wikipedias, unfortunately. Wikipedia tries to document reliable sources; you try to insert your personal opinion (and call this "balanced").

I tried to research the whole quarrel, to find some reliable sources. None of them are worth citing in an encyclopedia, though. What I could find is actually E. B. openly defending you: "he is still the upstream and author of good software products. And he wrote code for Unix systems when some of us were in kindergarten." as well as "Pissing of the upstream by making changes without telling him is not a good way go to." [this refers to adding a dvd writing support patch, while you were trying to sell cdrecord-ProDVD]. Stop making personal attacks. Your behaviour is really inappropriate. --Chire (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that the article isn't adequately sourced. I see only two RS, which don't mention cdrtools at all but talk about OSS licensing in general. The rest are primary sources and a few blogs/user created content sites. Almost all of this is about the internal controversy and doesn't even firmly establish the notability of the software. A lot of excessive detail about a software that is becomming increasingly obsolete (what is a CD-ROM? :) This isn't encyclopedic at all, but a playground for internal quarrels. 80.132.79.144 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and reverting of edits without addressing in Talk to gain consensus

Coretheapple has made repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses throughout Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, while making changes to Fort Lee lane closure scandal that are in contradiction to previous Talk discussions.

It was agreed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality & Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion that details of Zimmer allegations would be included in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities, and other organizations.

It was just addressed again in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether details of Zimmer allegations should be added. I reminded everyone that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article. Coretheapple made no further comments about a statement for inclusion in the Fort Lee article that reached consensus between JackGavin and myself with no reference to Zimmer and a link to the "Governorship of Chris Christie" section.

Instead, Coretheapple went into the Fort Lee article and started adding detail about Zimmer allegations.

I opened up Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid to address content based on Coretheapple's addition of details about Zimmer allegations.

Coretheapple responded with the same points they made in a variety of Talk discussions that did not accept those arguments. I addressed each and every point that Coretheapple made about adding more content about Zimmer allegations and explained why they were not needed and that it contradicted consensus reached in past Talk discussions. Coretheapple began to make personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses.

Coretheapple's latest personal attacks and denigrating comments against me in their Talk discussions included their entries of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments.

I repeatedly requested Coretheapple in that Talk discussion and my recent History edit comments, (i.e. [103] and [104] ) to address their arguments in Talk about content additions for details about Zimmer allegations. Instead, Coertheapple either ignored my Talk requests and History edit comments or made more personal attacks on the Talk discussion page, and then continued to add details about Zimmer allegations (see [105] and [106] ).

Instead of complying with my requests to address content, Coretheapple has continued with personal attacks on the Fort Lee Talk discussions and History edit comments in the Fort Lee article.

As clearly shown in Additional details for Zimmer allegations, Coretheapple is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus, as they did not reach any consensus and ignored and contradicted consensus reached in past discussions in complaints, Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, and content issues about Zimmer allegations that I previously cited above.

I have tried to work with Coretheapple in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus based on Coretheapple's bold additions for additional Zimmer details.

Based on evidence of Coretheapple's unacceptable and disruptive edits in contradiction to consensus reached at past Talk discussions and their objectionable personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses or edits, I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I have found Wondering55 to be one of the most difficult people when it comes to a) working with others and b) taking advice. Astronomically difficult. As an admin, I've just had shake my head and say "WTF" quietly to myself many times DP 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, rather than address the facts that I present for this particular case, DP has mis-characterized my past efforts and clearly good faith efforts for this particular case, and continues to make negative assumptions about me in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When a Wikipedia administrator has to refer to another person's good faith efforts, as demonstrated in this specific case, as "WTF", rather than address the specific facts and actions by another editor with clear evidence of personal attacks against me and my comments that appears to violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines that I presented, there is something seriously wrong. Wondering55 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh, you're right ... something is seriously wrong. Remember, when you file at ANI, your own behaviour will come under the microscope as well DP 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I welcome review of my behavior for this particular instance and these particular facts. To try and confuse the issues with a debate on other past issues would be disingenuous and very time consuming. So far, I have not seen any constructive, neutral points of view about the facts of this particular situation. Wondering55 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on my Talk comment of "Let's be reasonable" and my subsequent editing to give Corethapple practically all of their requested revisions with only one brief mention of Zimmer's name, Coretheapple goes in and adds more details about the allegations and puts back Zimmer comments about the investigation into her allegations, none of which were agreed to in the Talk.

Coretheapple's changes below were removed since they were not made in accordance with WP:BRD, as clearly shown in the Talk discussion. Coretheapple was requested to go back to Talk to address these issues based on [107].

[108]; [109]; [110]

Coretheapple ignored this request and put back details below into the article.

[111]; [112]

When those changes were reverted by me with another request to go Talk, Coretheapple simply reverted the changes and claimed that their revert details "are explained on the talk page" without indicating that the explanations, which were contrary to all past Talk discussions in several Talk topics, were not accepted on the Talk page.

[113]

In essence, Coretheapple reverted previously agreed to modifications three times within a day's time without addressing or gaining any consensus, as requested in my History edit comments and Talk. This does not even include Coretheapple's other previous edits regarding the addition of details about Zimmer allegations that were not in accordance with past Talk discussions with other editors and Additional details for Zimmer allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just from an uninvolved editor's perspective, not many people will want read through all this text and weigh the merits of your complaint. Can you boil it down to two paragraphs and 3 diffs that best illustrate the point you are making? I'm only saying this because I assume you want editors to respond to your posting here and you're demanding a lot of attention from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In Additional details about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, Coretheapple's repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses culminated in their final inaccurate and denigrating insults of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of Talk edit comments, as shown below.

[114]](April 12 13:34 - 14:09)

Those comments were made in response to my previous Talk discussion where I indicated "Let's be reasonable" on April 9 that was followed by my April 12 response below, which included "In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer."

[115] April 12 4:01)

Other examples:

[116] (My April 9 15:36 response to previous personal attack about my comments as "insane" and "blah/blah reply")

[117] (My April 9 16:54 response to previous personal attack of my comments as "blah/blah fix")

I had repeatedly stated in that Talk that further details, which were removed, about Zimmer belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per consensus in past Talk discussions:

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality { See [118] (February 16 00:08) }

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart { Starting at line 514 in [119] (April 7 15:28 to 17:06) } Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections.

Coretheapple continued to make changes to the article in contradiction to those Talk discussions.

Coretheapple's changes for adding more Zimmer details were reverted in accordance with Bold Revert and Discuss with a request to address their proposal in Talk to see if they could gain any consensus for adding details. Instead, Coretheapple simply reverted these changes on three separate occasions within a days time between April 11 & 12 (if needed, see my previous response at 20:53, 12 April 2014 for diff examples) and put back all of the Zimmer details without any further Talk discussion.

I responded in Talk that Coretheapple's actions were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus and that Coretheapple's final retort contained so many personal attacks against me and my comments. They violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The changes made by Coretheapple for adding details about Zimmer allegations in contradiction to past Talk discussion and no consensus for including them based on the latest Talk should be revised.

I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues rather than any personal attacks or denigrating comments like Coretheapple has made. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Asked to "boil it down to 2 paragraphs and 3 diff's" and we get a wall-o-text. Helpful indeed, and indicative of behaviour so far DP 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More denigrating comments and personal attacks by DP rather than focusing on the facts. DP continues to question my good faith efforts and behavior in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. For some reason, DP has a very biased view of me. That is not right, particular by a Wikipedia administrator.

It should be clearly seen that my updated presentation makes it much easier to focus on the facts. DP's unnecessary claims of wall-o-text is clearly contradicted by that guideline that addresses "overly long unformatted statements". My clearly outlined and focused presentation with very short paragraphs is in accordance with the guideline's recommendation to "distill one's thoughts into bite size pieces."

As per the very constructive request, the first 2 paragraphs clearly highlighted the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that clearly support my position. That is all the administrators need to focus on regarding my request to block Coretheapple based on their personal attacks.

As requested, I provided the diff's for 3 long past Talk discussions, so that administrators could quickly see past consensus that contradicted Coretheapple's proposal to add details about Zimmer's allegations into Fort Lee lane closure scandal rather than include those details in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple was previously requested to comply with this consensus in one of these referenced Talk discussions, without any objections by Coretheapple.

I also referenced 3 Fort Lee article diffs to show how Coretheapple repeatedly added details about Zimmer allegations without discussing or gaining consensus in Talk in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus.

The facts are clear and my updated presentation focuses on the key information with very clear diffs that should make it much easier for a constructive and fair review by Wikipedia administrators.

While not as blatant, Coretheapple is continuing to make condescending remarks about my behavior and editing, rather than neutral constructive comments. Wondering55 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above Mt. Everest of text concerns approx. 15 words in the article, and my efforts to lure this editor into a discussion of the merits have been met by the kind of tactics that we see here. Wondering55 is especially emotive on this because he was blocked for edit warring based on a complaint I brought a few days ago, during the course of which his access to his own talk page was blocked. I am almost literally out the door for a few days and cannot respond further, but I am sure that Wondering55 will have plenty more to say on the "consensus" that did not exist and the terrible "personal attacks" to which I have subjected him, most recently concerning some comments concerning overuse of the word "indicate" in the article which didn't involve him at all and were not directed to him or any editor. I am not the first editor who has had this kind of encounter with Wondering55, and I am sure that I won't be the last. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, rather than focus on the facts of this particular situation, Coretheapple continues with their inaccurate denigrating comments of "Mt. Everest of text", my supposed "tactics", which incorrectly implies bad faith on my part, and "especially emotive", and brings up totally unrelated incidents to this particular situation, which stands on its own merits. The diffs for the 3 past Talk discussions that I provided clearly show the "consensus" of editors that Coretheapple has repeatedly ignored. Coretheapple's personal attacks are very clear in the first diff that I provided in my updated presentation (06:38, 13 April 2014). I am not even sure why Coretheapple even raised the issue of the overuse of the word "indicated" in the article since I never thought or indicated anywhere in this Talk or the Fort Lee article Talk that Coretheapple's comments were personally directed at me. I have not brought up any other past questionable behavior by Coretheapple since I wanted to focus on the clear facts of this situation where Coretheapple has made personal attacks and inaccurate/inappropriate denigrating comments against me and my editing.

There have been close to 200 editors in the Fort Lee article. Coretheapple has been the only editor to continually ask for additional details about Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief for Hoboken that is separate from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. All other editors agreed that those details, with a link to that other article, belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation, along with many other scandals that have been publicized as people have looked into other aspects of the Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Coretheapple had added around 55 words (fifty-five) about Zimmer and her allegations in the article in their past edits in contradiction to consensus and Talk discussions. Coretheapple's final edit has added 41 words to the article. All other editors were satisfied with no additional words about Zimmer and her allegations beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation. Wondering55 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking that the WMF server and bandwidth bill doesn't need this user? Guy (Help!) 7:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • No, Guy, I'm another. Of course the most precious commodity the user is squandering isn't server space but the attention and energy of other volunteers. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

A block request for a deliberately disruptive editor

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

---

Hello, I'm constantly being bullied and blocked by user User:Thomas.W (talk) and his errand boy, Bishonen User:Bishonen (talk). This has continued for ages and I'm anything but Thomas.W's first target [120]. My sourced edits are systematically reverted. Please, see my talk page and the articles Kvenland, King of Kvenland and Rus'_people. I tried WP:DNR and at the moment there is a discussion going on at WP:NPOVN. User:Thomas.W (talk) has been warned a dozen times but nothing helps.Finnedi (talk) 18:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Psst...Bishonen is a girl DP 18:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I haven't been warned, your repeated addition of totally unwarranted/frivolous copy-pasted user warnings on my user talk page, copied from your own talk page, doesn't count. And, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you look at the now closed case at DRN and the still open case at NPOVN you will find that it's a case of a long-time POV-/fringe-pusher from Finland, currently editing as User:Finnedi, who is trying to get his/her way, in spite of a clear consensus against him/her. Desperately forum-shopping, hoping that he/she will find at least one other editor here on WP who shares his/her views.

Finnedi previously edited as, and was blocked as, 91.155.236.125 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (with the connection between Finnedi and the IP seen here), and RasboKaren (talk · contribs), mentioned by Finnedi above, is IMHO a WP:DUCK. So it's a case of a repeatedly blocked serial POV/Fringe-pusher calling for a block on an editor who has called his/her bluff, hoping to get his/her way here on WP with me out of the way. So may I humbly request a boomerang? Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 18:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC) (Since Finnedi didn't notify any of the users named in his complaint, neither me nor Bishonen, I have done it for him...)

You have not only been warned, but you reverted the warnings.[121] Talk about POV/Fringe-pusher [122] who reverts sourced edits. You have to understand that Wikipedia is not a place where you can embellish articles Kvenland, King of Kvenland, Rus'_people with Swedish royalist utopias.Finnedi (talk) 18:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors are allowed to revert warnings on their talk pages (see WP:TPO). NE Ent 19:05, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

And repeatedly issuing unwarranted/frivolous warnings is clearly against the rules. Doing so just before frivolously reporting someone to ANI, in order to make the reported person look bad, is also plain stupid. Thomas.W ^{talk to me} 19:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It isn't the only way you break the rules. What's even worse, you know nothing about the topics you edit. A long, healthy block will cool you down.Finnedi (talk) 19:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If there is to be a block here it won't be for Thomas W. Not only are they allowed to remove warnings, they're certainly allowed to remove spurious warnings given by an editor for reverting their gibberish edits (as on Rus' people). I'd strongly suggest to Finnedi that they cease their disruptive editing (including this ANI posting) or their next block will be a lot longer. Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You are not an admin. I'm interested in the opinion of an admin here, not your opinion. My edit [123] is sourced, but Thomas.W's edits in Kvenland, King of Kvenland and Rus' people are not sourced so take a deep breath before you call the original, sourced, translation of Primary Chronicle "gibberish".Finnedi (talk) 19:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

It was gibberish because it made no grammatical sense. And (not that it really matters, because my comment would have been valid regardless), you might want to read this section of List of Administrators. Black Kite (talk) 20:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thomas.W is in the right here, Finnedi is in the wrong. Finnedi is advised to consider why everyone is telling him he's in the wrong and that this might be because he, not them, is in the wrong, and drop the stick before the WP:BOOMERANG hits. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nah, that can be time late 'cause it's bot updated. Special:ListUsers gives up to the minute information. NE Ent 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

BK is one of those stealth admins who have chosen not to cat themselves in Category:Wikipedia administrators. NE Ent 21:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

User Finnedi has been blocked with an expiry time of indefinite (long-term tendentious editing). Are there any objections to closing this? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Implicit threat of violence?

Perhaps not very credible, but difflink here. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked 48 hours for WP:HERE issues. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Trolling editor Lvivske

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

---

The editor User:Lvivske is trolling and can not be reasoned. He keeps posting bombastic messages, and disruptive editing in talk pages of articles like Donetsk People's Republic, or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donetsk People's Republic, and many other places. He keeps insulting me, saying I am an idiot, a supporter of terrorists, suspect of being a single purpose account, and other insults.

In the article Donetsk People's Republic, some people keep adding links to Nazism in the "see also" page. For some reason, they think that it is right to insert random links to nazism (Adolf Hitler, Anschluss, Gleiwitz incident). I consider that vandalism. So I acted in good faith and I wanted to help Wikipedia, so I removed these links over the last few days. Since it happened often, I decided it would be better to discuss the issue in the talk page.

And when I asked in a civil way to refrain from posting these links (talk:Donetsk People's Republic#"Nazi" name calling), the user Lvivske kept saying it is fine to do this vandalism. He was clearly trolling me. I give him warnings 2 times on his talk page (and to other people who inserted that vandalism), but it seems that it fed his trolling.

His last quote is a gem:

I am insulted. --Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am Iron Man. --Львівське (говорити) 23:32, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Statement by Lvivske

Oh boy oh boy, this is a doozy. Today Cmoibenlepro (I'll abbreviate as CPRO for brevity here) called me a 'vandal' after he reverted me, assuming bad faith for some reason. In similar behavior, he called another user out for inserting "pro Nazi spam".

He then started harassing people, handing out 'Godwin Points' (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Toddy1&diff=prev&oldid=603938768 1], 2). The former user was trying to help him, and when asked why he was given the "Godwin Point", CPRO called him a troll.

There was a content dispute on the 'See Also' section of the page in question, he was blanking the content. He then asked us not to discuss it at all because it 'offended him'. When asked why, he lashed out. It's all on the talk page, no real reasons were given. Suffice it to say, you can't have a talk page discussion about a Nazi incident (for whatever reason) and not type the words being discussed. What is this Voldemort?

With regard to the following statement "He keeps insulting me, saying I am an idiot, a supporter of terrorists, suspect of being a single purpose account, and other insults." The user provided no diffs or proof, and I'll just go ahead right now and say every single one of them is a lie. I never called him an idiot, ever; I never said he supported terrorism (what??); or any other direct accusations. Please provide evidence for alleged trolling, vandalism, accusations of bad faith or personal attacks, otherwise this is a form of libel.

And yes, I am Iron Man.--Львівське (говорити) 00:08, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry but I do not follow you. Putting a video of IronMan is hardly an argument. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

edit: "First, I do not have to justify to you why adding random links to Adolf Hitler and Anschluss is offensive." - to the admins, I never did any of this, it's all make believe. Even if I did, it's not a violation of anything. This whole piling on me is the most bizarre I've seen in a while.--Львівське (говорити) 00:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I complained in the talk page that people were putting links about nazism (Adolf Hitler, Anschluss, Gleiwitz incident) in the "See Also" section. I deleted a couple of these in the last days. I asked that in a very polite way. This was the precise subject of the discussion (please see: talk:Donetsk People's Republic#"Nazi" name calling). The "see also" section is not a place to put random links to discredit your opponent's POV. You disputed that, and apparently you still are by looking at your comment above, and your comparison to Voldemort. I just don't see why this kind of vandalism could be accepted in a serious encyclopedia. Please stop. Are you reading yourself? This debate is very sterile. This was my final comment, and I am very tired of your trolling.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Just because you libel me and say I'm trolling, vandalizing, or evoking Voldemort, doesn't mean I actually am. Provide diffs and proof or rescind this baseless request.--Львівське (говорити) 00:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree that inserting random links to nazism (Hitler,Anschluss,etc) in a "See also" page is not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia like Wikipedia? Yes or no? I am not saying that you put that link yourself, but the fact is that you are defending the right to deface an article you don't like with these kind of nazi labels. This is trolling. Please stop. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 01:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If the content is related to the article then I or any other user is free to express their opinion on the content on the talk page. Having an opinion is not "trolling". I've seen no user mention Hitler or Anchluss once so not sure what you're talking about one way or another. Saying I'm trying to "deface" an article I am the primary contributor to is also very odd of you to suggest.--Львівське (говорити) 01:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The mention of the Gleiwitz incident is still there currently. It is not gone. It's still there. Perhaps you did not see it. Fine. But then what are you talking about? I was only trying to help. You have the right to have the opinion. Your opinion is that is fine to put offensive references in the "see also" section. I do not agree with your opinion. And you did not state any arguments. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing "offensive" about someone mentioning the Gleiwitz incident in the See also section as it's entirely within context. If someone, for example, put "Holocaust" or "Operation Barbarossa" in there entirely out of context, then sure, that may be offensive. Your perceived indignance is rather confusing - this remains a content dispute and should be handled on the talk page, as it has. So anyway, where are those diffs of namecalling, where are the mentions of Hitler? Did you imagine this stuff? --Львівське (говорити) 03:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If it is put totally out of any context in the "see also" section, yes it is rude. If someone notable (not you, I mean a notable source) did stated the similarity between this event and the Nazi Germany invasion of Poland, then you could add a section "Reactions" with the comment, and I'd agree with that. But it is not the case here. You (and other editors) decided by yourselves that there was a alleged similarity and you put a random reference. These random references are reducing the credibility of the article, this is called POV. That is why I tried in the first place to remove them. You may say that I imagined that there is a mention of the the Gleiwitz incident, but I did not, it is still there. Also I do not know what a diff is.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if this (who else would delete a comment to you?) is you but deleting talk page comments is very frowned upon behavior. --Львівське (говорити) 02:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

My bad. I am sorry. I am acting in good faith. I do not understand why you have so much hostility against me. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 03:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You opened a grievance against me full of libel and false accusations, and now you're accusing me of being the hostile one?--Львівське (говорити) 16:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I apologized, more than one times, but you continue to be angry after me. I do not understand why. I APOLOGIZED AND I APOLOGIZE AGAIN! Please stop talking to me, this is the only thing I ask you in the whole world. Every time you talk to me, I feel bullied and threatened.. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Further

Apparently Marek bringing up a possible SPI and sockpuppet connection with another disruptive user has prompted CPRO to request his account be deleted (and make a new account? who knows). He was already shown to be deleting my comments on one talk page under his IP, and now he is deleting my own comments on my own talk page, with an edit summary of "fuck you". Also, as seen below, there is significant erratic behavior (look for the giant red text). On his user page he calls me out now, saying I have "nationalistic hatred" towards him, and threw more baseless accusations of 'bullying, harassment, slander, trolling, and threats' my way.

Please take this into consideration, something's not right here. --Львівське (говорити) 21:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

statement

First, I do not have to justify to you why adding random links to Adolf Hitler and Anschluss in an encyclopedia is offensive. I can not comprehend that we are still having this discussion. This is trolling (even if you are Iron Man) Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondly, here is your comment to me saying I am a sockpuppet

Comment It seems clear now that there is no consensus to delete the article, on the opposite there is more general consensus to keep the article (at least until further developments). The event is notable, and present in global news. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Most of the people voting keep are pro-Russian sockpuppets, though. This is like the Crimea fake referendum all over --Львівське (говорити) 20:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Львівське. Do you have any proof of your accusations? Cmoibenlepro (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't do an SPI on everyone, but take you for example: started editing for single purpose in March, your first actions were to edit war and blank info. Suspect. --Львівське (говорити) 21:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[124]

I am trying to find your comment about "putin-lovers, terrorists supporters, sockpuppets like you", but it seems you deleted it, at least.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 00:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, since the subject came up, this doesn't happen to be you Cmoibenlepro, by any chance? The style is very similar, compare [125] with [126]. Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Also same accusations of name calling (again) vs. the same from canadianking. Also CK started editing seemingly to support an AfD CPRO started here. Though, I will say CPRO isn't nearly as inflammatory as CanadianKing. --Львівське (говорити) 05:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am very tired of your inflammatory comments just like that. You are chauvinistic and you are trolling me AGAIN. I apologized yesterday against the people whom I reverted their posts as sign of good gesture, and you come back TODAY to troll me again, why? Can't you just leave me alone? This is harassment. I asked you yesterday. I ask you again. I beg you. Please. Stop your personal attacks and your slander against me. Can we have a truce? I promise I won't post again on the Donetsk Republic page, Ukraine or whaterver crisis ever happen in this part of the world. Please. Just stop, please. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:33, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Per the SPI question, it should be noted then that CPRO has a Canadian IP address (50.100.123.207), which may make the CanadianKing connection closer. Just circumstantial though.--Львівське (говорити) 16:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Lvivske comes from Ontario too (according to his user page). The last time I checked Ontario is in Canada too. Just circumstantial though. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Conduct by Cmoibenlepro

I am rather surprised that this matter is at ANI, because Cmoibenlepro has apologised to me at 03:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC), to Volunteer Marek at 03:45-9, 13 April 2014 (UTC) and on the article talk page at 03:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC) saying that he/she was mistaken. It is really weird that he/she has not also apologised to Lvivske as well.

The problem was not because he put a link to a nazi incident (he clearly did not). The problem was that he was trolling me for pushing his POV.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro's contributions show that he/she made a first edit on 5 November 2007, and three more in March 2011, and then between 3 March and now has made 752 edits. Of those 752 edits since 3 March, 739 concern the Ukrainian crisis, and thirteen concern other topics. He/she appears to be a single-purpose account, which was created six and a half years in advance.

Yeah I knew it the Crimea Crisis would happen 6 years in advance, so I created this account in the single purpose to cause havoc. This is non-sense. Stop your personnal attacks against me. Please Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

1. It is not uncommon for people to create accounts on Wikipedia in case of need on some future occasion. We have a name for such accounts: "sleeper accounts".
2. I love the way here you accuse Lvivske and myself of making personal attacks on you, without apparently noticing that your improperly posting vandalism templates on other people's user pages was uncivil.
3. Cmoibenlepro brought this to ANI. His/her own behaviour is therefore also subject to scrutiny. See Wikipedia:Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--Toddy1 (talk) 14:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are 2 against me for some reason. Lvivske and you. I do not understand why. I apologized for reverting your posts about the Nazi Incident that you liked. I only want to help Wikipedia. I apologized, and I apologize again. And again. And again. What could I do more? Please tell me! Please stop your hostility against me. Could you please stop talking to me? I am begging you! Please, I could not sleep because you are all against me, and I feel bullied, threatened and insulted. This is not funny at all. Please stop your personal attacks against me. This is only what I ask. I want to be in security when I post to wikipedia without being harassed. Please stop, I will never go to your talk page again, I promise. Please. COULD A MODERATOR PLEASE CLOSE THIS DISCUSSION?Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So far you are the only one harassing others and your accusations of others harassing, threatening, and insulting you have been entirely fabricated. Please provide diffs and quotes to prove your accusations or just stop putting words in others mouths. Case in point, Toddy did not 'like a Nazi incident'. Back up your statements or stop digging this hole deeper.--Львівське (говорити) 20:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What is your problem? Did you even tried to read what I wrote? When did I say that he likes Nazi incidents?!?!?!?! I never said he liked the Nazi incident. I think my English is not good enough. This is not what I meant and it is not what I wrote... I am crying now... I just said that he wanted to see a connection between this article and this incident, and he'd liked to put it. I never wanted to say anything more. Please stop talking to me and I will never again go to your User page or post anything on Wikipedia. PLEASE STOP HARASSING AND BULLYING ME, AS YOU ARE DOING RIGHT NOW Your current comments about me are driving me crazy. COULD A MODERATOR STOP THIS DISCUSSION? I thought I could maybe get help hereCmoibenlepro (talk) 20:34, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Cmoibenlepro appears to think it is normal to accuse other editors of being vandals:

• In the most recent example (the one Cmoibenlepro has apologised to two out of the three other editors involved, whilst taking other to ANI)) Volunteer Marek added a link to an analogous incident in 1939. So Cmoibenlepro accused Volunteer Marek of vandalism. When I reverted Cmoibenlepro's deletion of the link, Cmoibenlepro accused me of vandalism and deleting content. But if you look at the edits, you can see that I did not remove content.[127] Strangely enough, that was what Cmoibenlepro did.[128] After I complained about the inappropriateness of the notice he/she put on my talk page, he/she wrote that I was trolling, and that this was a form of vandalism.[129]
• 23:25, 12 April 2014 misused vandalism template on Lvivske's talk page.

Not it was not misused, he was trolling with me at the moment, and he still his. Just look his bullying above. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• 17:42, 12 April 2014 "They were removed by a vandal called Lvivske" in edit summary

I did not know it was him. His signature is NOT Lvivske, but some text in Russian letters that I could not read. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• 04:34-40, 18 March 2014 misused vandalism template on Dl2000's talk page. The dispute was that Cmoibenlepro wanted the dates in US format instead of European format.

The 2014 Crimean Crisis page and the other pages about this subject use MDY format, so I wanted to be consistent. I did not think there was any reason to use the British date format. When it was reverted, I did NOT continue.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• 07:03, 17 March 2014 misused vandalism template on Iryna Harpy's talk page. Though he/she retracted this a minute later.
• I retracted because I realized I was wrong, and I was thanked by that user. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• 21:41, 3 March 2014 misused vandalism template on Psubrat2000's talk page

• It was NOT a misused vandalism template. He was pushing his POV by putting text like "Russians are nazis" so I removed that blatant spam. The problem was resolved. And now the article is clean.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

--Toddy1 (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You do not seem to understand the vandalism templates. In the case of Psubrat2000, you not only posted a message, but the vandalism-1, vandalism-2, and the vandalism-3 templates all at once.[130] So what exactly did Psubrat2000 do that you call vandalism - he/she posted edits using reliable sources. You are only supposed to use the vandalism templates for edits that are vandalism - not to attack people with who you have a political disagreement - because that was what you did. Furthermore, you are meant to start at vandalism-1, and gradually go up the scale to vandalism-4. The idea is to warn people, and give them a chance to stop. However, just like all your other victims, Psubrat2000 was not engaged in any kind of vandalism at all!--Toddy1 (talk) 21:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Close

User Lvivske is, in my opinion, for which I apologize, not meaning to insult, a nationalist, prone to ownership, and a pain in the ass. That being said he's not a troll, and calling him a troll based on one editor's dispute with him is tendentious and not worth addressing. There are no diffs above supporting any administrative action. And "I am Iron Man" was a great retort, worthy of archiving if we have some sort of metapage on best wikiretorts ever. μηδείς (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that he is a PITA, that why this happened. If he remained civil and courteous it would not have happen.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 13:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So all the times you improperly posted warning messages on people's talk pages accusing them of vandalism were Lvivske's fault?--Toddy1 (talk) 16:05, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything's my fault, Tod. Not a single diff to back up all the things he claims I said but it's all just me being a pain in the ass that triggered this. --Львівське (говорити) 16:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Lvivske thanks. For the first time I agree with you. A moderator should really close this discussion please.Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Perhaps as a compromise we could get both banned. Cmoibenlepro (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User talk:61.195.236.81

This IP has had a history of being disruptive at the Powerpuff Girls articles, including vandalism, changing things that are no tsupported by the sources given, and just recently blanking content without a word saying anything [131]. I gave this user another warning but is it enough given the disruptive pattern? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yep. Blocked for disruptive editing. Such unexplained blankings, without talk page discussion, that's not acceptable, and they've been warned often enough. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLP violation by Vanamonde93, WP:COI

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

---

• Narendra Modi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Already on 3 revert or more, in last 24 hours. User seems to be heavily engaged with WP:COI and violating WP:BLP for months on Narendra Modi. It has been discussed(Talk:Narendra_Modi#Jaffrelot_Christof.27s_report) that the report[132] had no criticism about the department of Narendra Modi, the whole report didn't even include a word like criticize or criticism, neither any other report/news has interpreted such report to be criticism. But this user always asserts that its a criticism, and his sole backup is some old discussion[133] which is unrelated with this BLP Violation. While Vanamonde93 says "I am unclear what is meant by "report" here", it becomes even more obvious that nobody had access to this report until 2013-2014, yet they would still misrepresent it.

Then this user claims that "The statement "he has been cleared of any wrongdoing" is a blatant NPOV violation, because no court has done any such thing." Contradictory with WP:RS or things that really happened[134], [135].

I think I can bring this user to number of content dispute related pages, like I had done before,[136] but this user is not going to reply, only going to edit conflict on these pages. D4iNa4 (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

During this whole period, it is only Darkness shines, who keeps pushing POV of Vanamonde93. Although he hasn't explained even once that why he is doing so. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Because you are wrong, and ignoring the archived conversations you have been pointed to, such as this and this. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

None of them proves the false interpretation of his report, that has been done in both lead and sub section. First of all, none of you even had the access of his report, so how you could even view that jaffrelot's report is a criticism? It is obvious that the source has been misused all time, by vanamond93. Biggest evidence is, that you would revert my change whenever I would correct the figures from that report[137], later you would write same thing on your talk page.[138] That his report mentioned gujarat ranking at 10th out of 21 states. Until yesterday it shown 21/28[139]. If we go by 'consensus' you are ignoring a total of 3 editors, but supporting only one who has deliberately failed to explain their opinion. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What are you on about? I have had access to that paper from the get go. As did Regentspark, who posted on the archived discussion I have linked to, as did Vanamonde93, who has told you that a lot. So stop making shit up. Darkness Shines (talk) 09:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Even If I agree. Answer me, why that reference was tagged with 'subscription required'[140]? Why you kept misinterpreting that line, "10 out of 21 states" as "21st out of 28 Indian states"?[141] Also why you are citing it for "However, his administration has also been criticized for failing to make a significant positive impact upon the human development of the state." Which purely WP:SYNTH, and made up. Instead you could have written "However, according to Jaffrelot, the some groups in rural areas of Gujarat remains marginalized, while middle class families have highly benefited during his administration." It wouldn't be WP:SYNTH, maybe irrelevant for lead, but either way it wouldn't be a misinterpretation of source, or Violation of BLP. D4iNa4 (talk) 09:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

First of all, I was very scrupulous to avoid violating 3RR. Second, D4iNa4 insists on completely ignoring a very lengthy TP discussion that established consensus for exactly the content that he is objecting to. Contrary to his statements, there were 7 editors involved in that conversation, including an admin. Having been through that battle once, I did not intend to go through it again, but directed D4iNa4 to that conversation. They first denied its existence, then claimed it was not about the lead, and now appears to be saying that all those users are engaged in misrepresentation. Finally, I would point out that D4iNa4 did not notify me about this conversation, it was Darkness Shines who did so. Vanamonde93 (talk) 16:27, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Ahtehsham100

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

---

Ahtehsham100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - User keep on creating similar article about WP:BLP and other non notable stuff. Providing no any reasonable source. Articles have been tagged for speedy and proposed deletion but user didn't seem to get point. A.Minkowiski ^{_Lets t@lk} 11:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@A.Minkowiski: I'm not sure, how I'm involved in this case. Well, this user has created one non-notable/spam article (Ridhwan khan), one hoax article, (Mushqil) and additionally vandalizing Wikipedia article Vivian Dsena, apparently to make his articles notable or wikilink his non-notable/spam articles. It should be reported at WP:AIV instead. However, I was not supposed to be notified on my talk page about this ANI. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 11:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Behavior of Boeing720 at Landskrona BoIS

This whole disagreement is very silly, but user Boeing720 has been conducting himself in a manner that has caused me to feel that I cannot contribute to the Landskrona BoIS article. My attempts to clean up the tone and grammar of the article are consistently undone by Boeing720, and now he is resorting to simply reverting my edits (repeatedly, borderline edit warring), [142][143][144] despite the objections of User:Reckless182 [145]. He has also posted a disruptive edits warning on my talk page, quite unjustly I would think. I hope that someone can convince Boeing720 to allow edits of his writing, as at the moment continuing to edit this page is pointless as it will simply be undone by Boeing720, who seems to think he has some ownership over the page. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

These matters generally have two sides to them. I have warned Boeing720 for miscalling the edits of others as vandalism. Let us see how this plays out. --John (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The background to what has happened here, is that two other users, for a rather long time now, have attempted to destroy the history part of the article. Which I find to be well referenced and containing a University level composition and other good sources. Their so called "help" have included re-writing of the material in the way that statements needs references (that preaviously was sourced) aswell as unnecessarily shorten down the prehistory of the club. What led to a merging between two clubs and which other sport clubs that played importaint part of making football popular in Landskrona. Allegations of all kinds of "WP:THIS" , "WP:THAT" like the article being POV, aswell as harassment at my talk page. Especially one of them. Their intentions are disruptive, possibly due to the fact that the history part now has become longer than most history parts of Swedish sports clubs - or possibly that I don't think that history must be boiled down to table format. I wanted to tell the history of Landskrona BoIS by the use of available sources. When I've put destroyed part of the text back, I may have done it in an unconsciously wrong way. But it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the two "helpers". I have called for help by administrators in several ways now, and I thank You for your intervention. By the way, may I ask - is putting a headline to a certain time period POV, even if waht the headline states is sourced in the following part ? Like Helsingborgs IF history part (I'm not certain of how well referenced those headlineas are, bur assume they are). Reason one of the "helpers" states that it's POV to do so. Thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by distruptive IP directed at users

This IP address 31.48.113.148 has made personal attacks at me and at other users. When I reverted the IP on the article Alejandro (song), he/she told me to "fuck off" AND called me a "bastard". I then gave the IP an only warning for that attack (see here), but the IP had the nerve to remove it and did another insult on me. The IP has done the same thing on User:IndianBio's talk page, calling him/her also a "bastard" and to take themselves elsewhere. User:XXSNUGGUMSXX has also warned the IP to not make personal attacks before I warned them (see here). User:STATicVapor also warned the IP again not to attack users (see here), but they removed all the warnings given. If this continues, I would suggest an interaction ban from myself and all the other aforementioned users and an indefinite block.--IPadPerson (talk) 16:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Keep a close watch after IP gets unblocked. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 16:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Shayer2 - copyright violations

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I've asked user Shayer2 to stop copy/pasting content from various copyrighted sources into the article Khaleda Zia. I reverted these 2 edits as they introduced large and multiple chunks copied from Banglapedia. I warned the user about copyvios after this. User restored that content and added more lifted content in these 3 edits. I issued a final warning. User then copy/pasted this content from this site. The content is referenced, but it's still not acceptable to copypaste this much content, and the user seems to need to hear this from someone other than me. Thanks. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Update: After being notified that there was an ANI discussion about them, Shayer2 added two more edits here where they again copy/paste content with some really lazy attempts (minor phrase changes) to disguise the fact. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely for copyright violations. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Voice-to-skull

Greetings. I created an entirely new article on this subject. I understand there is some sort of dispute over a previous article that was deleted (and subsequently recreated) repeatedly. I looked into the subject and found that it is in fact notable. It seems to be written about with hyphens, so that's why I used them. Another editor has redirected. I have reverted. I also need help redirecting the Voice to skull page to this article since that page has been protected. I know people can get testy, but this is indeed a new article created in good faith so it should be treated and assessed as such. I don't see any issues as far as notability as it is well cited. Thanks for any and all insights and assistance. I am going to be offline for a while, but will check back in when I get a chance. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Utter bullshit. Only one of the sources cited even uses the term 'voice to skull'. This is a clear and unambiguous attempt to recreate an article on a subject deleted as non-notable fringe nonsense in a recent AfD. The topic (in as much as it merits discussion at all) is already covered in other articles, and has no independent notability - it simply doesn't exist except as a term bandied around on conspiracy-theory websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome to take it to an Articles for Deletion discussion. You say it is covered elsewhere, but where? Electronic harassment seems to me to be an entirely different subject. So where exactly do you think this subject is already covered? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Acoustic harassment. I hope this satisfies Andy's concerns. I still need help with the redirect requested above. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't base articles on a single source. [146] Everything else you included in the article - by clear and unambiguous synthesis, since none of the other sources used the term 'voice-to-skull' - can be covered, if properly sourced, in existing articles actually discussing real technology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that article has just recently been deleted TWICE, at AFD and MFD. I'm debating if I need to just CSD it under G4 and salt it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Voice-to-skull" is a POV re-hash of material already covered at Electronic harassment and Psychotronic_weapons. I've redirected accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the acoustic harassment, as in fact used on birds and marine mammals, have to do with the weird electromagnetic warfare articles you are talking about? Please restore the article so it can be discussed. Also, if you don't think it's notable you are welcome to propose a merger or better yet take it to Articles for Deletion. I welcome the scrutiny because the subject is obviously notable. And I suggest you actually READ the article so you have some idea about what you are talking about. Are acoustic harassment devices covered in the articles you are talking about? That's all I will say for now. Hopefully some cooler and calmer heads will weigh in with some rational input. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted and salted for 3 months. Full protected Voice to skull 3 months as a redirect as well. One AFD, one MFD, plus a few times failed at AFC have already clearly shown that the community says "no" to this article. Please note that this may be subject to discretionary sanctions under Fringe Science.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

LMAO Here are Google book results for acoustic harassment. And Dennis Brown is clearly involved. This is a gross and incompetent abuse of his tools. I hope he will come to his senses and revert himself. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are welcome to ask about my incompetence at WP:AN, or my involvement. I haven't edited nor participated in the deletion discussions on the articles, so not sure how you get WP:INVOLVED out of that, I was just helping the previous editor understand why the article isn't going to happen at Wikipedia any time soon. That makes me informed, not involved. Just as you claim I was canvassed on my talk page, and I have no idea who canvassed me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that none of the articles cited used the term 'acoustic harassment' either. Synthesis is synthesis, regardless of the article title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

...and it should be noted that Google books search results on marine aquaculture have nothing to do with 'neuro-electromagnetic devices' supposedly developed by the U.S. Army to transmit voices into people's heads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm puzzled why they were put forward by Candleabracadabra as some sort of proof. At best, this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good deletion/salting/protection. It looks like a UK website called "Christians Against Mental Slavery" is a major hub for pushing this topic.

Question: Shouldn't Voice to skull redirect to Microwave auditory effect instead of Electronic harassment? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, several others said EH was the best choice, but any admin can change it easily if a discussion finds a better redirect. Had others not previously redirected it, I would have just deleted and salted it. I'm not sure the redirect is needed, but it was the community's call. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Microwave auditory effect is a real thing that delusional people have latched onto as supporting their delusions that Electronic harassment can and is taking place. To redirect V2K to MAE would only reinforce that delusional association between the two things. GDallimore (Talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, Guy, I was looking for the off-wiki source of this POV-push. That group was apparently founded in the UK, which suggests that Mike Corley might be involved. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Synsepalum2013

Can we finally do something about User:Synsepalum2013, and his/her relentless, tendentious and clueless campaign to add fringe conspiracy-theory drivel concerning supposed 'voice-to-skull' devices (allegedly created to project voices into peoples' heads - if you believe the dingbat websites) into Wikipedia? We've gone through multiple AfCs AfDs, Mfds and god only knows what else, but :Synsepalum2013 is still insisting that policy doesn't apply here, and that Wikipedia should provide a webhosting service for the delusional - this in spite of clear and unambiguous warnings from admin Dennis Brown EdJohnston that the subject is covered under discretionary sanctions regarding fringe pseudoscience, and that repetition of the tendentious behaviour already noted would lead to repercussions. [147] As the latest MfD discussion illustrates, Synsepalum is still basically saying that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply, and that his/her interpretation of policy overrides everyone else, and that s/he is entitled to argue endlessly with anyone who suggests otherwise. [148] - and to make it worse, even after everything else, Synsepalum is now once again arguing that the failed AfC (a recreation of the article already deleted at AfD by overwhelming consensus) somehow deserves to be moved into article space: [149]. It seems self-evident that isn't going to stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense until he/she is indefinitely blocked, per WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE and as a humongous waste of time, space and energy. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on that, Microwave auditory effect. Same thing right? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Minus all the synthesis, unreliable sourcing, and general moonbattery, yes, quite possibly. Though I think our article on auditory hallucination is actually far more pertinent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor is promoting a fringe organization which is fighting a fringe battle against notional targeted electronic harassment. I see big problems with WP:HERE—the user is not here to improve the encyclopedia. The user is bull-headed, refusing to listen to all of the experienced editors saying 'no'. I see no future for this person on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston issued a discretionary warning on their user page, under Arb's decision on fringe science, and since then I've tried to help keep it from being exercised against the editor by educating them, although I won't claim success. I've already done some G4 deletions and salting on this topic, so will leave it for others to adjudicate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• If this is till going on tomorrow, I say we show him the door. This is someone whose only interest in Wikipedia is as a vehicle for their own mad ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Made this a subtopic of the "Voice-to-skull" topic that was one section above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• These links might help for both issues above: the AFC, and the MFD as well as the older AFD. Also check out the talk pages for the editors, and my talk page, and the AFC talk page. Oh, and Jimmy's talk page. It's complicated... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And now there is another copy in user space, User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. I'm starting to think that someone else needs to get involved in a very real way here. Discretionary warning might be a good first step. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not really complicated. I created a completely new article with quality sources. When it got redirected because someone thought it was the old article I posted here so I could get more scrutiny. Within minutes Dennis speedily deleted the article with a dishonest edit summary with claiming it was a recreation.It wasn't. The article had absolutely nothing in it about mind control as I didn't find any mention of that subject (which seems to me to be totally distinct) in any of the sources I found. Dennis violated numerous policies, he was involved, and he should stop trying to hide the truth and cease bullying those he disagrees with. If he thinks the new article isn't on a notable subject he's welcome to propose a merge or take it to AfD as per policy. I'm absolutely confident that acoustic harassment is notable, but maybe he can get enough people to vote "I don't like it". At any rate, we don't obliterate subject so editors can't see what we're discussing and then misrepresent and lie about what we've done and why we did it. That's bullying of the worst kind. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not really complicated. This is an offsite campaign to advance an extreme fringe POV by stating as fact a belief that is held primarily by people who are mentally ill, and is already covered in electronic harassment. It's been deleted a few times now, so it's time to stop. And Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment for good measure. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

These claims of involved, bullying, dishonesty, policy violations are of course complete bullshit. Help, I'm being oppressed. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure

Looking at the history, it seems that Synsepalum2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was well aware of the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, but nonetheless created Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull, which was moved to article space, deleted again, then re-created at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull. Sensepalum2013 seems to be completely unable to accept that there is any problem with this, and unwilling to accept the judgment of others that this subject is adequately covered at electronic harassment. Synsepalum2013 is a single-purpose account. The case for a topic ban of Sensepalum2013 from the subject of voice to skull, under any title or in any article, seems very strong.

Candleabracadabra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems identically unwilling to accept consensus against this article. There is some suggestion of off-wiki collusion. Candleabracadabra is a user in good standing. In this case I believe an admonition to drop the stick and step away from the deceased equine is warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see no point in a topic ban for Sensepalum2013 - s/he is clearly not here for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, and there can be no realistic prospect of useful contributions from someone so clearly incapable of working in a collaborative environment. An indefinite block would be simpler, and we've wasted too much time over this already - a topic ban would simply give Sensepalum2013 another excuse for Wikilawyering nonsense. As for Candleabracadabra, I can't say I'm convinced by suggestions of collusion, and inclined to put the article recreation down to poor judgement - I suspect that if it hadn't been for Sensepalum2013's interminable tendentiousness, we would probably all have been less hot-tempered about it, and much of the strife could have been avoided. I still say that the article Candleabracadabra created (under whatever name) is synthesis, and it certainly shouldn't have been called 'voice to skull', but this is largely a content dispute, and not really an ANI matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I could get behind a topic ban (edit: provided that a breach of the ban is dealt with in a decisive manner by moderators confident enough not to engage in pointless arguments/wikilawyering and wasting their time. If he breaches the ban, that's his fault). Oversimplifying my reasons, it's more of a moderated, preventative measure rather than outright punishment, and I like that idea even though I agree with Andy that there is no likelihood of positive contributions. Having said that, Andy, you need to learn to walk away stop engaging (sorry, I didn't mean "walk away" from the article, I meant walk away from an argument which isn't going anywhere) when it's clear you've won and stop wasting your own time unecessarily. I'm bad at it, but you're worse than me! GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Synsepalum2013 has already been given a DS warning via Fringe science, so a topic ban can be unilaterally be implemented by any admin (although that is NOT my favorite way to issue a topic ban). As for Candlebracadabra, they have been abrasive to everyone at every turn, and I still think that a DS warning is due, allowing any admin to use whatever methods are necessary in the future, should they not comply. Also note, they have a copy of the article in their user space, showing an unwillingness to drop the stick and use the processes here to get a review. Both have shown an unwillingness to consider community consensus and instead try to bypass the system. That is troubling, thus why the DS warning is needed. As I'm already neck deep in this, I would prefer a different admin consider this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to notify Candlebracadabra of ARBPSCI so I have done so on the basis of this discussion. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but let me add that I also have no reason whatsoever to suppose that Candle is colluding with this other editor. I mean, it's possible that they've been emailing or whatever, but whatever Candle did in that userbox did not require the other editor's help. Sure, they're abrasive, but this article they're working on is an effort to improve the project--at least according to their opinion. If Synsepalum is to be blocked (I have no opinion, not having checked their entire record), Candle certainly should not be blocked for the same reason. I say let them move their article to main space and settle it, if it needs to be settled, via an AfD; it is a content matter, not an ANI matter. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Legal concern??

Not sure who to reach out to over here. I came across this User:CroArhiva, which talks of a "joint military offensive" during "between 25 and 29 July 2014" (Note- todays date is 13 April 2014, that is BEFORE the date). There may be some security concern there too (and why hes posted it here I have no idea). May want to look at it...Maybe it needs the attention of some security force (although, note, id be the last to notify the spying regime in this age but its so simple). Look at ihis infobox for the belligerents..

As I though stealthy..

Also not reported to the editors page per WP:BEANSLihaas (talk) 17:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I guess it might have been an April Fools joke based on the date in the info box, with the content from Operation Summer '95. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Razvanus

The user persistently attempts to push a confused sentence at Moldovans. Attempts at dialogue end in failure. Judging by this outburst, this is a clear case of WP:BATTLEGROUND in dire need of administrative intervention. --illythr (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The user "illythr" delete my posts at article Moldovans. This is not normally does it. I don`t delete nothing of any users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvanus (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Razvanus: Oh really? What do you call [150] and [151]? Illythr and Razvanus, please take this to Talk:Moldovans. Anon126 (not an administrator) (talk - contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

new user at Frankfurt School conspiracy theory

today a new user, Bakaso appeared on the Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page and for their first edit immediately tagged it with a NPOV tag, and then went to the talk page and explained that the purpose of the tag was to identify that the page was written by followers of the frankfurt school using extremist sources to cover up their agenda. After talking with them, and having a back and forth over the appropriateness of the tag, it is clear that they believe that scholars in the field are extremist and therefore the reliable sources are suspect. What they want to do is insert qualifiers which cast skepticism on the existence of the Frankfurt School Conspiracy Theory, proposing that it has been made up by the reliable sources.

Bakaso is also interested in identifying Jewish scholars as Jewish, as their only other edit was on the Martin Jay page which did just that, and they have added that information to the conspiracy page as well. I am curious if this may be a former user I have not yet encountered, as their first edit was to tag the page, their second edit was to go to the page to back up the edit, and their third edit was to tag Martin Jay as Jewish, complete with a hyper-linked source which surprisingly fulfills the WP:BLP requirements of identifying the ethnicity or religion of a BLP. Thank you.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

before I forget to mention, the reason I am against this is evidently because I am a communist and a neo-Marxist.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the discussion regarding the sourcing concerns to the Reliable sources noticeboard.Coffeepusher (talk) 21:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and declared personal views seemingly incompatible with NPOV editing concerning User:Drowninginlimbo

User:Drowninginlimbo is a relatively new editor but has often edited contentious articles concerning gender issues since joining. Their conduct can be quite disruptive, particularly of late, and has included edit-warring (here is the 5th revert [152], this occurred despite clearly knowing all about 3RR previously[153]). This was immediately followed by false accusations of vandalism [154], there's a general failure to understand Wikipedia policies not to mention what appears to be deliberate misinterpretation of people's advice [155]. I previously warned the editor against making false accusations, yet opening Wikipedia today to find one concerning NPA on my own talk page.[156].

Most significantly, I've also noticed the editor added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles to their userpage upon joining Wikipedia[157], these deny the very possibility of the existence sexism against men because of their gender or the gender of the perpetrator[158], not to mention the supposed impossibility of racism against groups of people simply because of their race[159]. These have now been removed but the comments that accompanied them appeared to condone the material and the editor has made equally extreme remarks in discussions. The real concern is not simply these links, but also the editing pattern that has accompanied them. From their very first edit DIL has sought to delete material concerning sexism against men from Wikipedia: [160][161][162][163][164][165][166][167][168][169][170], this is something that continues to this day. It may well be the case that views they endorse not to mention their statements such as "There is no discrimination against men and this non-issue distracts from real issues" [171] make it impossible for Drowninginlimbo to edit certain articles from a NPOV. I'd also remind people that men's rights topics (broadly construed) are under probation[172], therefore making much of the above even more serious than it might be otherwise. As the probation notes state: "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". Anyway it would be useful to hear some input from others. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• A rather obvious sockpuppet, Gorgi88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has arrived. Sock blocked indef, sockmaster for a week. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Why would he/she be edit warring with themselves? http://i.imgur.com/hgwCY44.png Ging287 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know about sockpuppeting, but what exactly was, quote, "very extreme and highly offensive" about the linked articles? WTF? That's just an obvious, dishonest, attempt at poisoning the well by User:Shakehandsman. If he genuinely believes these to be offensive, well, then he's the one with the problem. If he doesn't, that doesn't reflect well either. I have seen no problem with Drowninginlimbo's edits from a POV point of view, indeed, their edits have tried to introduce a measure of neutrality into a topic area which it seems (I just stumbled into it recently) is dominated by dedicated and tendentious POV pushers, who have serious WP:OWN issues.

Actually, yes, let me comment on the sock puppet allegation. It could be true. I don't know. What gives me pause is that Drowninginlimbo was reverting his own supposed sock puppet: [173]. Why would the sock master revert his own sock? I guess, it could be some kind of misdirection ruse or something, but at least as far as the WP:DUCK goes, it implies that it doesn't apply. Has a checkuser been run or something? Or is this just some arbitrary decision? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - edit conflict. I'm making the same point as Ging287 above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To think that Gorgi88 is a sockpuppet of Drowninginlimbo is ridiculous. Apart from the fact that they edit-warred with one another across a number of articles, Drowninginlimbo can write a grammatical sentence whereas Gorgi88 cannot. Their editing styles are completely different. I won't believe the one's the sock of the other without CU evidence. It's absolutely implausible. I agree that Drowninginlimbo has edited intemperately at a number of articles, but he listens to reason and reverted himself at my suggestion when he'd violated 3RR. He's learning how to edit calmly and will probably end up being a valuable contributor. I'm not familiar with current activity at the article that the OP is concerned about, so I won't comment on anything to do with Drowninginlimbo's behavior there, but I think it's absolutely unreasonable to conclude that Gorgi88 is a sockpuppet of Drowninginlimbo. I think it'd be best to drop that idea entirely and unblock Drowninginlimbo so that he can participate in this discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't' see any sock puppetry here either. A block appears to be justified for Drowninginlimbo, but it needs to be issued for the correct reasons, otherwise they won't learn much from it. And no one seems concerned about the main problem here, which is that a totally innocent party, User:Gorgi88 has been caught up in all this and blocked indefinitely for absolutely no reason--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Obviously Gorgi88 should be unblocked too and if Drowninginlimbo's to be blocked, it should not be for sockpuppetry. Calling Gorgi88 totally innocent, though, is a little much. Not guilty would be closer to the truth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment I haven't looked into the sock issue closely but I agree on the surface it doesn't make sense at all, diff editing patterns and conflicting reverts. I had suggested to Drowning in the past that they avoid the topic of "Violence against men" since a number of their edits demonstrated a strong bias against the category and topic even existing. Drowning seems to have a strong interest in gendered issues, which is fine, and Alf seems to have taken them under their wing, so I think with mentorship and some guidance from other experienced editors Drowning can become a strong contributor here, they just need to check their POV at the door and edit in a neutral fashion - as we all do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Shakehandsman, I'm sorry, but I'm unable to understand one thing you say. It may well be the case that views they endorse not to mention their statements such as "There is no discrimination against men and this non-issue distracts from real issues" make it impossible for Drowninginlimbo to edit certain articles from a NPOV. I've re-read this sentence several times and can't parse it. <It may well be the case that> <views they endorse not to mention their statements> <such as "There is no...issues"> <make it impossible...NPOV>. What do you mean by "views they endorse not to mention their statements"? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments aren't clear, I think Obiwankenobi sums thing up pretty well. Essentially, the point is as follows: Any user with with views so extreme that they think a genuine topic cannot even exist, should not be going around Wikipedia attempting to delete swathes of material pertaining to that topic, and it is unlikely that they should be editing in that area at all. Their behaviour constitutes blatant activist editing, and their use of such an extreme and clearly nonsensical argument as grounds for removing material means it is likely to be impossible for them to edit neutrally. If an editor has shown such this incredible bias by stating that a topic cannot possibly even exist, then their concern is not in improving Wikipedia coverage the topic in question, but simply eliminating as much material as possible in order to back up their fringe belief system.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I assure you, my editing is not activist editing. I am just trying to improve articles that I see faults with. That specific quote is something that I said in my first days editing and I probably phrased it badly. I'm going to explain what I meant in that quotation. What I was trying to say, and this is still a personal belief of mine, is that men do not face sexism as women face sexism, just as white people don't face racism as persons of colour face racism (something that you also seem to be offended by judging by your mention of my mistake of seeing a "supposed impossibility of racism against groups of people simply because of their race" aka white people) This certainly isn't a fringe belief, but I appreciate that it wasn't helpful for me to have used it as an edit summary when editing that particular article as it is independent to the sources. Do you plan to push white rights articles after the men's rights ones? There is little academic backing for the men's rights movement, which is possibly due to the SPLC report equating many faculties of the movement to a hate group, so I'm afraid your articles or categories will probably be under a little more scrutiny than feminist ones. This is the result centuries of academic writing and activism for women's rights that has resulted in a huge body of work that we can use for sourcing. However, if there is basis for these articles categorisation, then they will stand up to Wikipedia standards despite any activist editing. There is nothing wrong with me editing certain articles, and my view on the category itself, which I believe is your issue, has mostly changed since these edits a month ago as I learned more about how Wikipedia functions. Furthermore, my editing has actually improved the sources on some of these articles that I supposedly am biased against, as it brought them to the attention of other editors and brought other sources to them. I have not deleted any articles and at worst have removed a category or two from some. I struggle to believe that this is grounds for banning --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is not one single aspect of your contributions, but the pattern of edits and events taken together as a whole. Linking to those abhorrent articles isn't completely wrong in itself, and discussing and documenting such sexist and racist views can be ok too. The problem comes when editors endorse such views, and when their editing seeks to validate such positions, (and the content of some of those articles is rather more extreme than what you talk about above). I realise you are learning, but the fact is that your editing here is still far too combative, we do not define articles and topics as "yours" (or "mine") as you still continue to do above, such statements still suggest a battleground mentality on your part (and therefore possibly further activist editing), and in my opinion this mentality and your strong views cause of many of your problems here, such as making false allegations, giving inappropriate warnings and edit warring.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have sexist or racist views and certainly articles don't document any, saying such is a clear clear personal attack. I don't define articles as "yours" or "mine" either, stop making claims based on absolutely nothing. If anybody has made false allegations here it is you and this whole ridiculous thing. If you would really prefer it, I will remove the allegation from your page. I still think it stands though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess I imagined you just writing this "so I'm afraid your articles or categories will probably be under a little more scrutiny"--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Shakehandsman himself seems to be controversial as an editor, and not really one who should accuse anybody of having a bias --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI that RFC was closed years ago with absolutely nothing coming of it, most significantly some of the key parties behind it now banned from Wikipedia for life for harassment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that it is dated in 2012, I was just noting that you have been accused of bias in a similar fashion to this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And just yesterday I was "accused" of breaching NPA by an editor of a similar mindset to those in the RFC. This accusation concerned comments I made some two years before they had even joined Wikipedia (presumably the theory being that I had used a time machine!)--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, I found the dispute on your talk page just. I am trying to state that you have previously been accused of exactly what you are accusing me of. No time machine needed Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked both and apologised for my error: this is not a sock, as others have pointed out. The two were engaged in an edit war, that hasn't changed obviously. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, first of all I just wanted to say a huge thank you to all of the editors that argued in defense of me not sockpuppeting. Many of you are names that I have edited with across various articles, and it is encouraging to see that even users that I have disagreed with in the past lent their voice to this discussion.

I indeed am not the user Gorgi88.

In concern to the post above, most of the edits you list are from my first days on the encyclopedia. I received advice from the community, specifically the user Obiwankenobi, concerning those, and have changed my editing style somewhat since then. I think you will notice I have not tried to delete any more categories either.

Although I think it is arguable that the links are not offensive, I agree do not belong on Wikipedia, mostly as they are blog articles, and if you are interested you can see that they are not currently on my User page. In fact, I removed them very shortly after adding them in case they offended other users, and did so on my first day on the encyclopedia.

Concerning the 3RR and edit warring violation, an admin has already looked at that, and they posted the following on the page. You can read the results here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radical_feminism#Locked

Otherwise, I don’t think I have to say anything else in my defense. I personally believe that the user Shakehandsman put this admin notice forward, rather than discussing it with me directly, because he does not personally like my edits, and that’s okay, but it doesn’t mean it is worth the admins time --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Tag team on homeopathy

cjwilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been topic banned, so topic banned user george1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped back up on talk:Homeopathy. The two comments there are an egregious violation of the topic ban, but as an involved admin I will not enact the inevitable block. I don't suppose it's worth CheckUser, there are enough homeopathists collaborating off-wiki that meat puppetry is far more likely. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for blatant topic ban violation. I haven't looked into a link between the accounts. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning the block and (cards on the table) I supported the original topic ban during the straw poll at ANI. But I am concerned that an editor has been blocked for responding to post-ban comments in a thread he started (pre-ban) that specifically referenced points he had made. Ideally, that thread should have been hatted once the ban was enacted to ensure no suggestion that the editor in question was "baited" into responding there. I don't think that was the case and the continued discussion seems entirely good-faith, but we need to look at this from his perspective. He started a thread, got topic-banned and others continued having a (now one-sided) argument to which he couldn't reply. He finally snapped, responded and got blocked. Again, I don't think that was the intention of those who continued the conversation, but it was the result. The SPI suggestions need to be dealt with but I think everyone would benefit from that discussion being closed so that topic-banned editors can't be "tempted" to defend themselves. I'm going to go ahead and do that (as a relatively uninvolved non-admin) but I think the context could do with some more discussion here. Stalwart111 05:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree. If it was a problem for him to see the discussion continuing without him, he could have posted a single message there along the lines of "due to a topic ban in place I am unable to comment here. I would appreciate it if editors would not reference me or my arguments as I cannot respond", and I'm sure no one would have thrown the book at him. Continuing the debate on the talk page of an article clearly covered by a topic ban is not ok. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also why wait this long? The comment to which he replied was made a week ago, and was not in any case aimed at or discussing him specifically. If he wanted to demonstrate that he's unable to drop the stick, then mission accomplished, otherwise it's hard to see why he chose this time to reply to this comment. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk's suggestion is a good one, and it is that sort of thinking that prompted me to post here in the first place. The text of the banned editor's only real contribution to the talk page since his ban (the other was a minor copy-edit of his own comment) read:

Isn't kind of dishonest to keep arguing against "banned" editors? If they are not allowed to answer to your "arguments" - (If you ban everybody who disagrees with you it is really easy to achieve consensus. I will say no more.)

Sorry, but I just can't see how that's "continuing the debate". He didn't re-argue his point - he simply wanted to point out that he thought it was unfair that the discussion continue in his absence. His version might not be as eloquent as Basalisk's but I think the purpose was fairly clear - "I can't participate here any more; it's unfair that this discussion continue if I can't respond". Should he have posted it? No, probably not. I would have thought the better option would be to close it so that he wasn't even prompted to respond in the manner suggested by Basalisk above. But it wasn't and he did. But are we really at the point where we're handing out week-long blocks for asking process questions that aren't actually related to the topic of a topic-ban? Stalwart111 09:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, with no obvious excuse since the comment he replied to was a week old and not aimed at him anyway. In the case of a productive editor with multiple areas of interest, we can forgive a little exploration of the terms of a topic ban, but George1935 is a WP:SPA and has not edited anything at all since the topic ban other than to add two links to a potential copyright violation. This is a user who has only one focus of interest, and shows no interest in moving on. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:79.97.64.240

To put it simple, User talk:79.97.64.240 needs a good hard block. I have tried to reach them via dialogue, tried to be civil as of late in the face of snide, taunting abuse, but now I give up entirely. They have repeatedly inserted a comment on the Talk:British Isles article which violates the WP:FORUM rule in a blatant way. They have repeatedly made offensive comments against British people, they have acted in a WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT manner etc etc etc. I'm bored of this. Done. FYI it's a shame because this user can make good comments such as the one they left on Talk:Greencastle, County Tyrone. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be instructive if anybody looking at this also looked at the abuse and threats instigated by the above editor and left on my page history. The extremity of her language and persistent harassment of me is disturbing, to put it mildly. I refuse to engage with her because of that. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing the victim, because you aren't. I'm following Wikipedia procedure. I am not stalking you, the British Isles article is on my watch list. You have absolutely no defense. Abuse? Threats? Rubbish. I lost my temper last month and got told off for it and stopped it. And I am a he and make that perfectly clear, please use correct gender pronouns. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a semi-protect, we get this pattern of editing from IPs on a mission from time to time ----Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with the article as the history shows. It's the talk page where the IP is active. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is clearly not here to help. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

On articles related to the British isles? No he isn't. He is however clearly capable of making constructive edits on various other pages. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Problems With Mrm7171

@Atama:@Mrm7171: I complained here about Mrm7171’s behavior toward me[174], and I’m back because the problem persists. Here’s what Atama told them after he almost banned them.

"But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"

Since then Mrm7171 has not been leaving me alone, but has been going to articles that I have been heavily editing and they have not, such as Musculoskeletal disorder and Organizational Behavior, arguing, challenging on talk pages, and undoing my edits.

MSD article. I removed I/O psychology from see also list because it is not relevant and there is no information about MSDs in the I/O article. [175] Mrm7171 restored it without explanation of why it is relevant. [176] Mrm7171 deleted another of my edits on 4/2/14, and challenged on talk page with long discussion. [177] [178] Then continued on Atama’s talk page [179] (see end of this section).

Organizational Behavior. They add discussion of I/O psychology (using a synonym of organizational psychology to the lede [180] I moved it to the history section because the sentence is about history [181] and they put it back in the lede [182]. I tried again because now there’s redundancy, [183] and they put it back in [184], and then add even more [185], then add a reference where they misquote the source [186]. They argue on the talk page, and now are accusing me of being hostile (see also my explanation of what Jex & Britt actually said). [187]. When I made my original complaint I pointed out examples of Mrm7171 relying on personal opinion, primary research, and misquoting of sources, so this is not an isolated instance of that sort of thing.

The Organizational behavior article contains a journal list [188] that I have actively edited but did not create. Here it is before I arrived [189] I worked on a similar list in the Human resource management article taking it from [190] to [191]. I last worked on the list on April 12, and the next day they are here challenging the legitimacy of the list. [192] [193] The merits of Mrm7171’s points about the lists or these other issues are not why I am here. The issue is that they agreed to leave me alone, and here they are coming to articles I am very actively editing and editing my edits, and then challenging me on the talk page, and making accusations of bias and hostility. Here they accuse me of systemic bias[194].

I believe that much of the problem arises because Mrm7171 seems to be going out of their way to promote Industrial/Organizational Psychology by putting mention into article after article, often in articles where there is little or no connection, and then getting into conflicts when other editors try to modify, move, or remove mentions. Here’s a sample [195][196][197] [198][199][200][201][202][203][204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212][213][214][215]Psyc12 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seriously had enough of this baseless reporting by psyc12 here on the admin noticeboard and now consider it a personal attack, rather than psyc12 trying to engage in consensus building, as we all should try and do. I resent these titles "problems with mrm7171 in an attempt to discredit me! I find this completely offensive and psyc12 using Wikipedia's resources in this way. I gather psyc12 is also a professional in the field and there are a few major articles we obviously share common interest in. For the record, I have edited a lot of articles and take time out of my own professional life as many editors do, to contribute to the project. Please see my entire edit history over the past 14 days for instance in all articles I have edited. I have made very positive contributions to Wikipedia and continue to do so. I completely stand by that. I also have not harassed psyc12 in any way. There are a number of articles they have edited, and I have no history on. Most of the articles they talk about I had an original edit history on. I am sick to death of having to defend myself here quite frankly. Psyc12 is trying to scare me away from these major articles so they can edit solely how they like. Reporting me here again, for no reason is another example of this. I therefore counter this report with my own report of being personally attacked by psyc12 posting this here on ANI and not engaging in civil, cooperative consensus building! I resent the disrespect and lack of civility by reporting me here! and resent psyc12 dragging up the past and throwing it in my face here on the public noticeboard!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can the whole Naghmehetaati family be preemptively blocked?

User:Naghmehetaati was indeffed for doing nothing but posting long irrelevant screeds in Persian on some high-traffic talkpages. Since then, guess what, Naghmehetaati 1, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have been blocked in turn, for doing the exact same thing. (No, I don't know what happened to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Maybe they're sleepers.) Anyway. It seems likely that the individual will realize some time that it would be smarter to invent a whole new name, but since they haven't so far, could coming siblings be pre-emptively blocked by name alone? I believe there are clever filters, but the information about them isn't written in my language, I tend to stop reading when I come to words like "regex". (No, please don't explain it do me, it's been tried.) Bishonen | talk 12:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

• Wanting to nuke the whole family? Once they have edited once, in Persian, then "sock" is obvious. You might get a CU in the loop if you think this has spread beyond the one "family". Otherwise, if the name is an obvious continuation by simply incrementing to the next number (and not a different type of use of the name), then it would seem sockblocking is appropriate before they edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'd like to abort them. To block (filter?) them before they're even born. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
    • I too would like to comment on this issue: IT'S ANNOYING! So I wouldn't say no to your plan Bishonen. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)