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

Religion stats

Hi, can some of you please opine on this topic on the talk page here and the disruption? Thanks! 67.87.50.54 (talk) 01:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

History page vandalism?

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

---

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)

I am always civil. I was not "laughing" at you. If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, try asking a question rather than being rude to the people trying to help you. I was trying to help and this is what I get. Enigma^msg 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2851

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)

But that won't always be the case.... — Scott • talk 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Please Temp-Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions

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

---

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. [1]
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 [2] 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: [3]. 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:

• [4] (actually 2 in a row)
• [5]
• [6]
• [7] (actually 4 in a row)
• [8]

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 [9] 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 [10]. 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)

I agree it was not outing; it was also not me. The off-wiki link was posted up-thread by another editor, but nobody reacted there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 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)

I have recognized several of my errors. I have been adopted, learned (for example) that "like" cannot replace "such as," and am learning what I did not before. Duxwing (talk)

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)

This and this really does seem to be an overreaction by Duxwing, wholly against the tide of opinion. Regrettably this whole saga seems to smell of trolls.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I did overreact, and I apologized to Dick. I meant no trolling. 15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I posted there because I felt and feel that enough of my objections to Dick's behavior were ignored to necessitate external review of the AN/I discussion. Duxwing (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, that may not be a recommended practice, but I found it a very good example of the problem with Duxwing. He posted at that forum that his edits were being unfairly reverted at Wikipedia. When asked to provide an example or two, his response was, in essense: "Are you saying that I'm lying?" More than WP:COMPETENCE is involved here: I'd also recommend Duxwing understand & apply WP:Assume good faith in dealing with others, both on & off Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 15 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)

Analysis and proposal

I have carefully reviewed this thread and many of Duxwing's contributions linked in it, as well as some of his other contributions.

Duxwing appears to lack the skills necessary to add value as a copyeditor, at least of technical articles. Dicklyon is correct that Duxwing's copyedits introduce more errors and infelicities than they remove. The discussions at locations such as Talk:Waring's problem#Copy Editing and Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing speak for themselves. Duxwing is unfamiliar with basic usage of terms in mathematics and perhaps science, and his "copyediting" of articles in these areas is counterproductive. Duxwing's lashing out at the several editors who have pointed this out to him does not change the fact.

Duxwing has done some more acceptable copyediting on less technical articles, typically in situations where he has changed a particular verbose phrase to a less wordy one (e.g. "a large number of" to "many" as was noted above). My impression is that Duxwing's copyediting may be largely based on applying a series of simplifying rules to sentence structures—the sort of thing that the Wordrake software does for lawyers. But successful copyediting can't merely employ a "find and substitute" model; a good idiomatic ear is needed to test whether the revised, shortened version of a sentence or paragraph communicates the same information as the original and in at least as straightforward a way. Too often in the case of Duxwing's copyedits it does not.

With regard to Duxwing's raising the dispute off-wiki, it is permissible to discuss a Wikipedia-related dispute in another forum, and no one will be sanctioned merely for doing so. However, in his off-wiki post about Dicklyon, Duxwing asks members of another forum for advice on how to get another editor who is a "sociopathic engineer" "perma-site-banned for great justice and vengeance." If I see much more of this sort of thing I will certainly suspect intentional trolling.

I believe Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks who make good-faith criticisms of his edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As one of the editors who reverted the edit changing "a large number of" to "many", I am going to take issue with the assumption that this is an example of "acceptable copyediting on less technical articles". The context for this edit is human rights, a particularly somber subject, and one that I have edited in a number of times. While a better edit than simply reverting could probably be found after going through the source documents, the edit as done takes no account of syntax and register. At best, it is an unnecessary edit, but in my opinion, the changed wording has less gravitas than the language it replaced, which has the effect of downplaying the importance of the number of nations that have enacted legislation in this area.

I most emphatically do not agree that the purpose of editing is to decrease the number of words used in the text. Maybe on the simple English Wikipedia, but not on en.WP. While the text should be written in non-technical language, there is nothing to prevent prose that uses all the nuance and linguistic complexity available to the English language. This is not Orwell's 1984, and the goal of editing Wikipedia is not to render it in some sort of Newspeak. —Neotarf (talk) 04:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick refused to engage in BRD and then accused me of not engaging him. I have no complaints about the community's decisions, and I visited AN/I partly to seek one about my editing because I knew that AN/I reviews and passes binding judgments on everyone's behavior--hence the "settling" I mentioned in my first message to Dick, whose post was merely the straw that broke the camel's back of long-term confusion and pent-up frustration. Perhaps telling my story over the long term would help explain why I have acted how I have.

I joined Wikipedia about two years ago, noticing some bad grammar and correcting it. I eventually signed up and continued lonely copy-editing. Until about February I knew almost nothing about Wikipedia's back end, encountering only rare reversions. In February I noticed that many of my edits had been reverted and that many editors were complaining, and I had no idea of what to do about either. Ignorant, I did everything wrong: I let my ego get involved, assumed bad faith, and said a few uncivil things. I meanwhile felt very scared, insulted, and frustrated because I knew almost nothing of Wikipedia's conduct policy, and I per Wikipedian policy I told as few people as possible because I eventually became paranoid.

A few editors offered help, and I accepted. The help was brief or non-existent. I therefore was paranoid, frustrated, insulted, ignorant, lost, and alone. I figuratively bumbled around in the dark, trying to conclude this fiasco with what I learned was called "consensus" (see the eponymous heading in my Talk) about what my editing problems were and how to solve them. I received few, if any, replies. After visiting the IRC, I regained my courage and resumed editing, starting to enjoy it again with my collaboration of Sex Differences in Human Psychology; when editing alone, I made my best guess about what the editors wanted and tried to apply it.

Then came Dick with his harsh talk page message and rapid reversions. I could not stand this months' long uncertainty any longer: I went to AN/I to figure out what Dick was on about and get some closure on what was wrong with my posting, my peers, or my mind because this problem was keeping me up at night and making me shake. I was willing to take this extreme measure because I would feel lost without Wikipedia and wanted to improve it either by resolving the dispute or fixing my editing.

Figuring out exactly what I must do was foremost among my worries, which learning about and entering User Adoption has alleviated. It has the structure I need to objectively determine my knowledge and skill, and my adopter is kind and often-available. I hope never to encounter problems like this one in the future, and if I do, I hope not to need AN/I again.

With sincere apologies for my misconduct, which I am only beginning to understand Duxwing (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PS If I am to be restricted from copy-editing, then how will we know when I will be able to resume copy-editing? An indefinite block from editing articles unrelated to my adoption until my competence can be determined would seem more appropriate. Duxwing (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, can you explain what you mean by "he refused to engage in BRD"?? What BRD means is that if you make an edit, and someone reverts it, YOU the originator of the edit are required to then go to the article talkpage to start a discussion about the proposed edit in order to try and gain consensus for it. BRD isn't a policy - it's a guideline on prventing people from edit-warring. It does not mean that he's required to come to your talkpage to discuss it. It does not even mean that he is required to start a discussion about why he reverted - the onus is on the person who made the first edit ES&L 18:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "... instead of re-reverting, YOU the originator...". Correct? I was complaining that he was already unwilling to Discuss. Duxwing (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I said exactly what I meant. I know that you complained that he was unwilling to discuss - but you fail to show a single article takpage where you opened a discussion for all editors of that page to discuss and come to consensus about your proposed changes. All you said is "he was unwilling to discuss" ... but where did you try: his talkpage? Your talkpage? Someone else's talkpage? Some off-wiki Forum? The washroom where you work? The confessional in your basilica? (Hint: all of those are the wrong place) DP 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is me refusing to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, Dicklyon reverted his edits for no good reason, they were completely legit edits...... 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no ... consensus is quite the opposite. "Good faith", yes we think so, "legit", no. DP 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think I ever suggested that the edits were not "legit". Just that wikipedia was improved by reverting them. I don't even claim that I couldn't have done better than reverting them; I could have, but my patience was short already, after reading his reactions on his talk page up to that time. The point that needed to driven home, that he had been rejecting already from others, was that his edits, though legit and done in good faith, were making things worse, not better. Still nobody has disagreed with this assessment, and still Duxwing has not seemed to accept that this is what the community has been telling him, sincerely and with good reason, without doubting his good faith (until recently). Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Duxwing says he is now in an adoption program, at this point would it be appropriate to hear from the adopter? —Neotarf (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no particular need to prejudice his adopter by calling his attention to his mess if he hasn't already looked at it. If he has, maybe he'll advise Duxwing that an actual apology, not accompanied by excuses, but accompanied by an apology at the off-wiki forum as well, might go a long way to showing an intention to do better, and showing that he can take input. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologizing at the off-wiki forum is certainly not necessary here. Even it that were somehow needed (and I can't imagine why), Duxwing is still unwilling to understand that linking that forum here is not "outing" him to begin with. If you tell an editor to ask any admin on the site if what you're advising them is incorrect, and they not only don't bother to ask anyone else but insist they are right, you have issues with competency, IMHO.[11] Doc talk 07:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc, if, (and that is a big If) Duxwing has now understood how wrong his edits were, then he will also have realised how right Dicklyon and many others have been in their often patient comments. He should also conclude that the off-wiki post was totally wrong in so many ways that it would be endlessly boring to list them all. If the off-wiki posts were retracted and apologised for, then that would, at least, give some sense that the penny had dropped. I see no activity in this adoption process other than a single request and one edit, and edits contesting this very process are continuing, even earlier this morning here. This is all bluff and bluster but no commitment and no action. Good faith ? - sorry , for Duxwing it's blown out of the window and can only be regained by some real tangible evidence and not weasely apologies.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not even be possible for him to remove his posts from that external site even if he wanted to. He could post some apology over there, but what's the point? Extra humiliation? He thought he was in a "safe zone" where he could say what he wanted without fear of it getting back to him. He was wrong. The next move is his, and it will hopefully be a well-considered one. Doc talk 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And what would be the point of him leaving his vicious accusations hanging out there, instead of admitting he was in error? Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not much and it is wrong but you can't afford to worry too much about what somebody on the web says. If they don't change then they'll just continue as they are and be banned eventually after causing more trouble and that will be the end of them. If the process was a bit faster then less editors would get pissed off in the meantime. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's likely impossible for him to remove his comments there even if he wanted to. He'd basically have to delete the entire thread, since others commented. I very seriously doubt that the admins over there would allow that to happen, especially for personal attacks of Wikipedia editors. The comments are out there for eternity, I'm sorry to say. Apologizing here for the comments is a different story entirely. Doc talk 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, each party has its own "Problem." Duxwing has been asking for suggestions for punishment outside of Wikipedia, and Dicklyon has been uncivil, I think that we should take action on BOTH editors as both have different issues. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Where has Dicklyon been uncivil? Haven't seen that, or seen it proven. Now Dick, you know we cannot control what happens off-wiki. Someone with a sense of remorse might apologize and/or try to remove their posts - but they'd have to recognize that they had done wrong, and it's only a "might" - we cannot force it. Who wants a forced apology anyway. Ignore the off-wiki, ignore Dux until he's had some mentoring, and let's all waddle along! DP 23:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean closing the thread as no consensus? Because if that is what you mean, Im all for it! We can just close this and keep an eye on it. Problem solved...... 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody even accused me of being uncivil. And the consensus here is quite clear. Who is this new IP shill muddying the waters with nonsense? Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing as "no consensus" would have no basis in the reality of the discussion. DP 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for having caused a ruckus with my angry forum post. Duxwing (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@dicklyon, I am actually User:Happy Attack Dog on vacation. I am not trying to stir up trouble or murk the waters. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis and proposal (arbitrary break)

There are a number of troubling things here. A number of accusations have been made against Dicklyon. None of them turned out to be true. There has be no acknowledgment of that here or on the other site. Duxwing's reaction to reverting his edits, a normal occurrence on Wikipedia, was to seek "great justice and vengeance" on an external website. Some kind of restriction is in very much order here, and can be reevaluated after Duxwing completes the adoption program. —Neotarf (talk) 03:13, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. This section began with a proposal from Newyorkbrad: "Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time (from) further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks (on those) who make good-faith criticisms of his edits." I'd say that's a good starting point (although I'd prefer "copyediting" - period.), which could be reviewed as the adoption proceeds and Duxwing shows some willingness to go back and fix some of the errors he has introduced, with agreement, and building on his growing understanding during adoption. Begoon ^talk 04:55, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, are you saying that the restriction should exist because of the "troubling things"? Duxwing (talk) 19:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

More troubling things:

• The offsite forum has now moved on to apparent death threats against Dicklyon.
• Duxwing does not seem to understand the concerns that other editors have with his edits or his actions.
• The adoption process is off to a rocky start. Duxwing has copied the adoption program into his user space, but has gone on to edit the original in his adopter's space, not his own copy. He has also started the program in the middle, skipping the unit on the five pillars. It would be better for Duxwing to finish all the units of the program, and have each exam graded by his adopter.
• The edits with math and science are the ones that have introduced the most error, but there are problems with all the edits.

If no restrictions are imposed, Dicklyon has said he does not mind checking Duxwing's edits and reverting them. Whoever closes this can decide if that is a good use of Dicklyon's time. —Neotarf (talk) 00:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

WRT to the adoption program, it was originally created in the Article space, not the User space, and it had to be moved. The adoption start was rocky indeed. Ca2james (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Whoa: hold up. There is no death threat against Dicklyon from Duxwing on that thread. Things that others say there, especially after he seems to have abandoned the thread, have no bearing here. Anyone who has been to one of these forums should know that you are going to meet all sorts of characters there. Doc talk 02:34, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

So Duxwing makes false accusations against an editor, does not retract them, and the conversion then turns to "killing", complete with detail about weapon--and Duxwing bears no responsibility for that whatsoever? In fact, he now says it is "humor". Something tells me he has not yet absorbed WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, and that he should not have skipped over that part of the adoption program. —Neotarf (talk) 05:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing didn't threaten to kill anyone. Those forums are populated by a great many who hate everything about Wikipedia. Many of them use "dark humor" - repulsively dark. There's no death threat, especially from Duxwing. Death threats should be passed along to law enforcement agencies. If you want to report the other editor for what they said on that forum, you can. Doc talk 05:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to review Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Kiefer.Wolfowitz and Ironholds for what the ArbCom says about off-wiki threats of violence. Duxwing says it is "humor" that he "enjoys". I myself do not find that it contributes to a collegial editing environment. —Neotarf (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

For the last time: Duxwing did not threaten off-wiki violence. If he does, we go from there. As to specifics of a weapon, that troll was pretty unimaginative; things like breaking on the wheel are more typical.

It's quite an interesting idea to hold an editor responsible for comments they did not even make on off-wiki forums after they have left them. If some troll responds to the thread, I guess "guilt by association" applies to the thread starter? Doc talk 06:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not talking about Duxwing's off-wiki postings, I'm referring to this statement where he says the off-site comments are "humor" and that he "enjoys" them, in effect, using the Wikipedia to encourage the comments there. I myself find it difficult to tell the difference between a "humorous", "surreal" threat of violence and a *real* threat of violence. —Neotarf (talk) 07:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I hear ya. But these forums exist, there's no rule that says WP editors can't use them and discuss WP issues, and plenty of administrators even do it. There's no crime in understanding "dark" humor". Death threats are a very serious thing, and should be reported if you feel they are credible. If they aren't, they aren't. Doc talk 07:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@Neotarf To allay your worries

• Like Doc said, INTPf has "all sorts of characters," and most of us there enjoy black, surreal humor. Also, if everyone on the forum ignores it, then it will quickly be forgotten and ignored.
• I understand their concerns and have acknowledged them, having posted three apologies (one deleted) and joined adoption school to review my conduct and editing.
• I mistakenly thought I was editing my own copy. I did the Five Pillars Section (with many Civility-related Wiki-walks) which looks skipped only because it lacks a writing section; I can write something for you if you want. My adopter has said I otherwise am doing fine.
• Yes, hence my seeking adoption!
• Well, that seems nice of Dick. Duxwing (talk) 03:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Duxwing did not make the nastiest comments in that off-wiki site thread. While his initial post to that thread was juvenile and unimpressive, I don't think he could have anticipated that it would turn quite as bad as it did. However, I think Duxwing should promise that he will not post any more to that thread or start any similar one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Editing restrictions proposal

So, let's put the cards on the table, and use elements from NYB's commentary, which has been repeated more than once:

"User:Duxwing is prohibited from making copyedits to math and science articles for period of 6 months. They are further prohibited from making copyedits on all other Wikipedia pages for a period of 3 months, except where the edit has been reviewed and approved by their mentor. The latter restriction may be appealed at any time provided that the appeal has the full support of their mentor. Should the current mentoring relationship end prior to a successful completion, these timeframes will be reset, and a new mentor must be approved by the community via ANI discussion"

• Support as proposer ES&L 11:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support if mentor agrees (pinging mentor). A reminder about no personal attacks would make it easier to revisit this if there were problems in the future. And it's a pity this user freaked out about Dicklyon, who is one of the few editors with the patience to explain stuff. —Neotarf (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: And what about NYB's "They also need to refrain from personal attacks on editors who make good-faith criticisms of their edits." (Not sure if we're ready to assign a gender here yet.) It also seems to me a mentoring relationship is a voluntary relationship between two people and cannot be controlled by the community, but the community can consider a mentor's input to a situation. Are you going to ping the mentor? —Neotarf (talk) 11:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Conditional support - we certainly need to draw this to a close but it still concerns me that there is still no understanding of the 5 pillars of wisdom and in particular the need for civility. We have had no apologies to editors. Apologies for "things" such as "....apologies for the rukus I caused" but no apology to people at all.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   13:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• It's either this or direct Duxwing to stop "copyediting" altogether. Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I'd like to see something in there about civility and personal attacks too, but that can be enforced just with policy, I guess. And forced apologies are worthless. Begoon ^talk 14:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support – Duxwing's aptitude and attitude have consumed much valuable time from several editors and that cannot be allowed to continue. Deltahedron (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Questions I have two questions to help me understand the restriction's underlying principles, which might have other applications. How should understanding of the five pillars be demonstrated if this understanding be included in the restriction? Why not simply a site-wide block ended only on mentorial approval? I intend to argue neither point. Duxwing (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Answer - None of the proposed restrictions above prevent you from asking questions or seeking help; to the contrary, this is dependent on you receiving assistance from a mentor. The goal here isn't to hinder your ability to understand Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, but rather the opposite; to restrain you from making these disruptive mistakes until you develop that understanding. If you continue on the path you've been on and end up blocked then you lose that opportunity and Wikipedia loses the opportunity to benefit from your contributions. -- Atama頭 16:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Additional answer If your mentor says "I do not believe he has shown me any clear understanding of the 5 pillars", then they won't support loosening restrictions when the time comes. Starting a tutorial in the middle doesn't give one great hope - some things are foundations. You need to walk before you can run ... and in this case, you need to crawl before you walk. In terms of a block right now? Well...we still have hope. Blocks are preventative, and between your WP:CIR, WP:ABF, uncivil actions, and downright ridiculous off-wiki forum post, you're lucky that this isn't a block ES&L 17:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Question Ok, how do I show my clear understanding of the 5 pillars? (@Atama, I meant to ask you this question when I said "How should my understanding..." D'Oh! ) Duxwing (talk) 21:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It's part of your Mentoring program. You need to show your MENTOR that you not only can copy/paste the answers, but that you show understanding. Pay attention, the question was already answered DP 22:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• Additional questions Oops, we need to get the mentor more involved here. Duxwing, could you maybe have a chat with him? First, I don't see a test for the first chapter at the adoption program. Is that intentional? If you look at a similar adoption program, there is a test for every chapter. Another question is that the adoption program as written asks the adoptee to make an edit and then post a link for the mentor to check. The editors here are asking for Duxwing to check with the mentor BEFORE making any edit. Can the adoption course be tweaked for this? Or does the restriction proposal need to be reconsidered? @User:Newyorkadam, could you comment? —Neotarf (talk) 01:14, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Answer and A Question I will seek his answer about the first problem. I days ago e-mailed him about using e-mails to solve the latter problem, and he replied that he is OK with my e-mailing him the edits beforehand. If my mentor can show that I am sufficiently competent to copy-edit non-scientific, non-technological, and non-mathematical articles, then why can he not show that I am sufficiently competent to edit those articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs) 12:29, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Email doesn't seem transparent to me. When an appeal is made, others would need to see an audit trail of your progress. I think your proposed edits should be discussed on wiki, on your adoption page(s). You could then link the mentor's approval from the edit summary if/when you make an edit approved in this way - clear for everyone, easy to follow, no confusion. That's my opinion.
With regards to your other question, the distinction is because your edits were seen as more problematic on Science/Math articles, although they were problematic elsewhere too. The restriction doesn't say your "mentor can show that I am sufficiently competent to copy-edit non-scientific, non-technological, and non-mathematical articles". It says he would need to approve any appeal you made. The appeal would be heard at WP:AN I would assume, and discussed in the normal fashion. All in all, I think this is pretty lenient, given the disruption to date. Begoon ^talk 12:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@All: Does anyone else share Begoon's concerns about transparency? Transparency seems important. On the second question, oh, OK. I think I misread it. Thanks. Also, I meant no complaint; I really did just want to know why. Duxwing (talk) 16:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I am a strong believer in transparency of action. I don't think a private e-mail exchange is very helpful and at the end of the day I would like to be able to make my own evaluation of the progress made. I really would have liked to have seen a robust history of meaningful content contributions to articles (NOT copy-editing and NOT scientific or technical articles) with good sourcing and a history of engagement with other editors about content. That would have given me confidence. I shall not muddy the waters by changing the proposition being discussed here, but I do agree with Begoon's comment.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   16:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that emails are private. If Duxwing is asked to prove that he has not broken an editing restriction, and that his mentor approved an edit before he made it, he will not be able to show an email to demonstrate this. If there is some problem with any of Duxwing's edits, it would be much easier to simply be able examine the communications between them, and see what was actually said and done, than to have to wait for the mentor to become available to explain a questionable edit. —Neotarf (talk) 17:37, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. Do you want to see the entire correspondence or just the approvals? Duxwing (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, as far as I can tell, one of the big problems with your editing is that you fail to actually read and comprehend what an article is saying before editing it. Thus, not understanding the content, you damage the meaning when editing. Unless you can improve those comprehension skills, your editing won't improve.
Here, in this section, above, you ask questions that have already been answered, and questions that prove you have not carefully read and understood the proposed restriction.
Now, here, one person says "I think your proposed edits should be discussed on wiki, on your adoption page(s)", another replies "I don't think a private e-mail exchange is very helpful and at the end of the day I would like to be able to make my own evaluation of the progress made.", and a third opines "it would be much easier to simply be able to examine the communications between them, and see what was actually said and done".
Perhaps, when you read the responses carefully, you might see that the latest question from you is somewhat less than encouraging, when examining your ability to read and comprehend. Begoon ^talk 01:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The first one specified "proposed edits" whereas the latter two more generally asked for "communications"; the latter is more general than the former, leading me to wonder which one is wanted. Duxwing (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Facepalm. Ok. Good luck with that. Begoon ^talk 02:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This response indicates to me that Duxwing still does not seem to understand the restriction that has been proposed. Perhaps a simpler restriction, against all "copyediting", would be more appropriate. As for the mentor, it is one thing to coach someone through an adoption program, it is quite another to be willing to be responsible for all their edits in advance. This proposed restriction is perhaps not fair to the other editor, whether it is Dicklyon reverting the edits after they are made, or a mentor approving them in advance. —Neotarf (talk) 03:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support. This proposal seems to strike the right balance. Sławomir Biały (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support The responses at ANI alone show that something is needed. Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a good way to ensure that Duxwing's edits and behavior are thoroughly checked by an experienced editor. Ozob (talk) 01:24, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
• Snow close the thread before someone gets hurt, please. (I'd do it but NAC ban closes aren't valid). (Support, by the way). NE Ent 02:56, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Additional comments post changed proposal

Question about close: The closer, Hahc21, says "I took the liberty to tweak the last part, which forced a reset of the dates if the mentor ends the relationship", and indeed they did take that liberty. However, this clause of the restriction was not questioned by anyone commenting in the discussion. Therefore the imposed restriction was not the restriction discussed and !voted on. If everyone's fine with that, then I am too, it just seemed somewhat against my usual experience of how discussions are generally neutrally closed, and perhaps even veering towards "supervote" territory, with the closer being the only participant to comment on that aspect, then altering it according to their own view, while closing, ending discussion. Begoon ^talk 11:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I would say that the closing admin overstepped a little with that decision to amend, BRD!, it seems a little strange that "the counter" should be reset. If Duxwing has progressed to (for example) 4 months of trouble-free work, why would they then have to do another six months if the mentor drops out? The counter should not be reset under those circumstances IMHO, if there has been no progression, fine, reset. Chaosdruid (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You're probably right. But similarly, the mentor might end the relationship because he becomes frustrated by the mentee's behaviour, or believes the mentee is not progressing, and cannot progress. This could be the "fault" of either party, or neither. There are many other possibilities - I've done the "mentor" gig myself, and it's complex.
I just can't help but feel that discussion of such, here, outside the "hat", is now in the wrong place, and too late, due to the manner of the close. In Hahc21's position, with valid doubts about the restriction which had formed consensus, I think I would have joined the discussion, rather than closing it. Begoon ^talk 11:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be glad it's closed, unlike so many AN/I threads that just hang around to distract and disrupt for long times. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 19 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. [12] and [13] ) 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 [14] and [15] ).

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 [16].

[17]; [18]; [19]

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

[20]; [21]

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.

[22]

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.

[23]](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."

[24] April 12 4:01)

Other examples:

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

[26] (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 [27] (February 16 00:08) }

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart { Starting at line 514 in [28] (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).

My updated request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 has 440 words, not including links to the diffs or Talk pages. It is in line with requests below that were answered without discussions about their length.

Disruption and malicious editing – 502 words

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others – 490 words

Disruption and malicious editing – 401 words

User:Ohconfucius – 781 words

First 2 paragraphs, which only have 160 words, highlighted personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that support my position. That is not time consuming in order to focus on my request to block Coretheapple based on their attacks and comments.

Remainder of request addresses Coretheapple's violations of BRD, Edit warring, and Consensus that led to these attacks and denigrating comments, instead of focusing on content, as I requested. I suggested that Coretheapple's edits, which added between 41 to 55 words to the Fort Lee scandal article should be undone since there was no consensus and their revisions contradicted agreements and consensus in 3 past Talk discussions in which there were to be no words about these allegations, beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a review based on the facts that I have presented in my request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 that is within the length of other requests that were addressed. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin, I took a look not only at the section of the Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal indicated, but at a random selection of other edits on the article page, & exchanges on the talk page. I could find no explicitly stated "consensus" there. My opinion, however, is that Wondering55 does respond to comments by others with impenetrable slabs of text. Stating an obvious fact is not a personal attack; truth is always a defense against libel. I also would like to point out Coretheapple's last response to Wondering55 included the passage: "If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time." I interpret these sentences to mean Coretheapple is about to stop editing the article entirely. Seeing how that user made only 3 edits after that, I think I'm right about that.

And even if Coretheapple was rude, then gave up editing the article? What more does Wondering55 want done? I'm thinking the best solution here instead might focus on Wondering55. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple has not given up on editing the article.

I want to know if Coretheapple can be blocked for personal attacks and denigrating comments (like those quoted and shown in the diffs below) that are simply opinions, and not facts, in the one cited Fort Lee discussion. I continually asked Coretheapple to focus on content without this derogatory language, and yet Coretheapple persisted. Coretheapple even edited one of their saved responses, which already had derogatory language, just to add more derogatory language. If Coretheapple cannot be blocked, will this type of language and behavior be allowed, or are there other alternatives to prevent or address this situation? Wikipedia and professional environments frown on denigrating opinions among colleagues.

• "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" in their Talk History edit comments when responding to me.

• [29]] (April 12 diff with multiple revisions by Corethepaple with the most significant derogatory comments)

• [30] (My April 9 15:36 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

• [31] (My April 9 16:54 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

This situation occurred while I addressed content and suggested that a significant portion of Coretheapple's revisions could be included. I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple. When Coretheapple could not gain consensus for their entire proposal, Coretheapple started with their derogatory comments and repeatedly added details (with up to 55 extra words in various revisions, and ending up with 41 extra words in final revision) about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken issues to the Fort Lee article rather than just refer readers to Hoboken relief funds investigation, in contradiction to past agreements among editors (as shown below) for the Fort Lee article.

• Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality (February 16 diff)

• Starting at line 514 in Legal representation chart (April 7 diff) Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections. Wondering55 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Mudslinging galore! Too many Wall-o-Text accusations and Attacks... Lets tone this down please. Happy_Attack_Dog (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Reading through the links that he provides, I come away with the conclusion that A) Wondering55 does not understand how article forks work; B) He does not understand the meaning of consensus, C) He does not understand personal attacks, and D) He just doesn't get that "wall of text" is both accurate and apt in describing his tactics. I know Coretheapple from other articles, not this one, and have always found him to be civil, and he shows no evidence of being anything but in this instance. I agree with other editors that the issue here is Wondering55 and his aggressive, attacking, generally clueless and WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 13:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I simply pointed out denigrating comments made by Coretheapple based on the facts. There are no personal attacks by me. Coretheapple's personal attacks in the referenced talk discussion and in their response above are covered by Wikipedia:No personal attacks:

• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki. Criticisms of, or references to, personal behavior in an inappropriate context, like on a policy or article talk page, or in an edit summary, rather than on a user page or conflict resolution page. Remember: Comment on content, not on the contributor."

Consensus and agreements were clear in the cited Talk diffs above. Previous editors, except for Coretheapple who was told by more than one editor, knew that it was agreed that details about Zimmer allegations would be shown in Hoboken relief funds investigation.

Coretheapple was unable to get anyone to support their proposal to add details about Zimmer allegations into the Fort Lee article, so there was no consensus for their proposal. Yet, Corethapple went ahead and added these details in contradiction to Bold Revert and Discuss.

There is no evidence or facts in the cited Fort Lee discussion that I had the claimed wall-o-text based on Wikiepedia's wall-o-text.

There is no evidence or facts to support that there was any "agressive, attacking, or generally clueless WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior", which are clearly denigrating comments without any substance.

When I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple, it clearly contradicts those baseless charges.

Clearly, some people do not understand what it means to be civil, when shown comments about me and my responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply"

Whether Coretheapple was civil in any other Talk discussions, has absolutely no bearing on the presented facts for the cited Fort Lee talk discussion where they were not civil. Wondering55 (talk) 16:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Apparently you are not happy with the responses you have received here, and have commenced a discussion on the same issues at the Teahouse. You were warned not to forum-shop, which you deny doing. You were also advised to "take to heart the excellent advice that a wide range of experienced editors have offered you in recent days," to which you responded in the negative. Would you like to continue the discussion here, or would you like to pursue it there, or is it your intent to discuss your grievances simultaneously in this forum and at the Teahouse? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Figureofnine, you are being very kind to Wondering55. A less kind person -- like me -- would at this point make the following points: (1) speaking as an Admin, I'm not going to penalize Coretheapple for anything he posted so far in this case; (2) speaking as a third party, I seriously doubt any other Admin is about to penalize Coretheapple; & (3) speaking as both, if anyone is to be penalized here, I expect it will most likely be Wondering55. I strongly advise Wondering55 to accept the fact that not only he/she will not be getting any satisfaction here, but that he/she has dug himself into a very deep hole & should stop digging -- if nothing else. -- llywrch (talk) 21:59, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm struck by the absence of understanding. He just hasn't a clue. If you go to the archive of his talk page, where he appears to deposit old and new posts that don't make him look very good, he lectures an administrator who blocked him a week or so ago. [32] "Hopefully, you will find lessons learned here for your next administrator review." Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

So far I have seen too many clues from too many editors that seem to be engaged in unsubstantiated opinions and very misleading and complete distortions of my actions. They have not focused on my original request based on the facts, which I have presented that contradict their claims, and the issues of whether repeated denigrating comments made by another editor violate Wikipedia guidelines for civility, etiquette, and no personal attacks. Rather than address those facts and the very guidelines that tell users not to engage in that type of behavior, all of this is being ignored and additional inaccurate claims and denigrating comments are being made that contradict and ignore the facts.

I do not have the time to waste to respond to these further inaccurate claims and denigrating comments.

I seriously doubt if any editor on this topic was faced with repeated comments about them and their responses that included "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" (none of which are accurate based on the facts), as Coretheapple responded to me, that they would say that is acceptable language and behavior and do nothing about it.

I have been very civil in my editing and Talk discussions where I address content issues, including any contradictions with the facts from reliable sources, and not personalities. If needed, I point out actions and responses by editors that do not seem to comport with acceptable behavior and general etiquette, all of which are further supported by various Wikipedia guidelines. Wondering55 (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Would an experienced Wikipedian who has used Template: Welcomeg -- & related templates -- take a look at the edits Wondering55 has made to them in the last few days? I may be prejudiced here, but I doubt that his/her edits have improved the text in that template. -- llywrch (talk) 05:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I use {{Welcomeg}} all the time - and their edits turned it into a utterly useless piece of garbage, so I have reverted to an older version...and added it to my watchlist  the panda  ₯’ 09:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

add...which means I have had to undo some of their other major cockups related to welcome templates. I'll WP:AGF that they were trying to help, but those types of changes to core templates need far more that being WP:BOLD - they have evolved over years of reasoning  the panda  ₯’ 09:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty to revert {{Welcomeg}} a bit deeper ([33]). - DVdm (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. I consider myself an experienced Wikipedian, & I wouldn't have dared to have made some of the changes the OP made without getting a second opinion first. ::sigh:: So what is the proper method to handle a problem of competence while acknowledging that the individual is acting in good faith? -- llywrch (talk) 15:33, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please note:

• Wondering55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Daily.drink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Enforcer5151 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Daily.drink and Enforcer5151 are two new users (or are they?) whose userpages were redirected to their talk pages ([34] and [35]) by Wondering55, followed by requests on their talk pages ([36] and [37]) for comments about Wondering55's proposed and dismissed version of template {{welcomeg}}. Can someone have a look at this and comment whether this is appropriate? - DVdm (talk) 12:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs.

All of these content issues about the updated version of the Welcomeg template could easily have been raised during the 6 weeks of updates that I addressed in a Talk discussion on that page where there was absolutely no consensus or additional feedback to not allow these updates to be incorporated. I was entitled to be "bold" in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and assume there were no objections or second opinions about my proposed updates.

All of this outrage could have easily been prevented if all of these new responders had simply addressed their concerns in that Talk discussion for a greeting template that they should be watching.

I certainly would not have made any past updates for the greeting template if these content issues had been previously raised, or would consider making any future updates without further discussion, feedback, and consensus based on Wikipedia guidelines. I am a responsible Wikipedia user that knows how Wikipedia works and treats other users and their content updates, no matter how outrageous, with respect and a civil discourse.

Others using words and phrases like "utterly useless piece of garbage", " major cockups", and "ugh" are not conducive to a civil discourse about content and appear to contradict the facts of the content, Talk discussions, and Wikipedia guidelines about civil discourse.

Recent editors continue to spend an awful lot of time focusing on my actions, which were made in good faith for legitimate improvements, as if they were a nefarious means at worst or botched good faith efforts at best, rather than focus on the content issues. They then try to link unrelated past behavior to the specific content issues that I address. If every user, who had made a past faux pas, was called up on their past mistakes every time they wanted to address a new content issue, that would have a very chilling effect on needed legitimate Talk discussions.

Please stop making inaccurate allegations about my competence since they are not warranted. All of this negativity is very, very concerning to me and should be concerning to responsible Wikipedia administrators.

Focus on NPOV content issues without derisive and foul language, rather than unwarranted comments about my personal actions and there will be a vast improvement to the discourse and needed actions for Wikipeida article improvements. Hope to see all of you on Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where this discussion rightfully belongs. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This Talk discussion should be closed out by an administrator since it is no longer focusing on the original request I made about responses I was receiving to content issues about the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. Wondering55 (talk) 18:23, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it's showing that they community might just have to review all of your edits on this project. You seem to have a history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold when consensus is clearly against you, bizarre arguments, a wholly ineffective understanding of WP:CIVIL so that you twist it to try to be in your favour (which, by the way, has become a personal attack through making false statements). Our ability to assume good faith is now wholly stretched by a review of the mere surface of your edits. You've done a great job proving my very first statement in this thread to be true  the panda  ₯’ 18:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Re "It would have been helpful if this discussion about the Welcomeg greeting template was continued at Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template where it rightfully belongs": I don't think this is a discussion about the template. This is a discussion about user conduct. I haven't read the remainder of your reply per obvious wp:TL;DR, and probably building on the misconception in that first statement anyway. - DVdm (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda continues to make completely false and inaccurate statements. The facts clearly show that I have no history of falsifying consensus, being overly-bold by going against consensus, no bizarre arguments (there is that avoidable denigrating comment again), no twisting of facts in my favor, and no personal attacks through false statements. I was involved with a misunderstanding about content issues that I repeatedly tried to work out with editors and made a mistake in unnecessarily reverting them. I have a very good understanding of what it means to act or not act with civility, and not make any false statements or twist anything.

None of these accusations should ever have been raised since they are completely inaccurate. This is beginning to look like a twisted way and an inappropriate excuse to investigate me and further harass me rather than simply focus on content issues. The conduct of those making inaccurate and derisive statements certainly leaves a lot to be desired. I am not asking for an investigation of their behavior or comments by others about how they have behaved.

The facts can be twisted any way needed to make a completely inaccurate analysis. Rather than addressing the original request for this Talk discussion, editors are now using this Talk discussion as an excuse to simply pile on unnecessary and inaccurate derisive comments about me in a very intimidating manner.

I am satisfied that viewpoints from all needed parties to my original request about the Talk discussion in the Fort Lee lane closure scandal have been adequately expressed.

It is time to move on to other issues. All of the new issues about what I have done regarding Template talk:Welcomeg#Proposal for updating the template should be addressed in that Talk page, unless editors have ulterior motives.

Differences of opinions about content issues and the updates that I made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines can best be addressed on that page. Wondering55 (talk) 19:43, 19 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)
      • I'm not smart enough to create filters yet, although it is on my list of things to do. Can we at least name the filter #RU486? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

She seems to be a student who thinks she can talk directly to world leaders by posting on their article's talk pages. Wikimedia should make that happen, WikiSpeakTruthToPower or such like. She's probably using her real name so perhaps she'll stick with that. Maybe pointing her towards twitter.com/HassanRouhani and um...the place you go to talk to Obama might help (Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis?). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted a leftover contact attempt (February 2014) by the sockmaster at Talk:Hassan Khomeini. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The place you go to talk to Obama? http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

Related: http://www.reddit.com/r/ThanksObama/

I hope this helps... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I asked about the possibility of creating a filter a couple of days ago on AN and was poo-pooed in pretty much the same way Bishonen's post here has been. Anyone who gives this issue a teensy bit of thought would realize that sooner or later the editor is going to stick beans up their nose, which is why I thought a filter of some sort would be worthwhile. It's not a major issue but, as Somchai Sun says, it's annoying. BMK (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a pre-emptive filter would be wonderful. I will gently disagree that this is not a major issue...*anything* that takes our time away from actually writing and editing content and improving this encyclopedia is a major issue to me. Think of all the time conscientious editors have to spend to keep the tide of vandalism at bay...think of if at least *some* of that time could instead be spent creating and/or contributing useful content... Yeah. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

N16 just blocked. BMK (talk) 00:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protecting Talk:Hassan Rouhani for two weeks and possibly Talk:Barack Obama for one week might be enough to break the habit. Johnuniq (talk) 09:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

John, after checking the history of Talk:Hassan Rouhani, I think that might be OK, since the Naggy sockfarm is pretty much the only non-autoconfirmed contributor there. But, while I'm aware that most IP edits on Talk:Barack Obama are less than helpful, I still think it would be a bad thing to shut out non-autoconfirmed editors from even commenting on the article. They don't get to edit it, which is obviously right with such a high-risk BLP — but that's all the more reason to let them comment, and make edit requests, on talk. Personally, I wouldn't like to semi it even for a week. Er, and John, I'm sure you are smart enough to create filters. In your sleep, probably. Bishonen | talk 11:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

Yeah, it would be a bit crude to lock the Obama talk, but the other page appears to be the favorite and semiprotection might work on just that. Re the edit filter: this could be adapted by someone more familiar with the system than me. It's likely that blocking such comments for a month would be enough, although semiprotection of just the one page might be simpler and could be effective. پسر زیبا: I'm not smart enough to think of a rejoinder, so this will have to do. Johnuniq (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll send Darwinfish, he has nerdy pretensions. What good are your WP:Lua coding frenzies, then? I've semi'd Talk:Hassan Rouhani for two weeks, good idea. Bishonen | talk 13:46, 17 April 2014 (UTC).

You folks might want to semi File talk:Hassan Rouhani.jpg as well. BMK (talk) 19:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(More generally - why are en.wiki file talk pages for files hosted on Commons editable here anyway, seems like they should all be fully ptotected as a class, or automagically send you to the Commons file talk page, since the file talk page serves no real function here. BMK (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please block Special:Contributions/Naghmehetaati 17 and delete any of their contributions after this post. Johnuniq (talk) 11:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia user contacts press to discuss controversial move request.

After looking at the updated progress at WP:ANRFC (I mentioned a large backlog in a message above), I read through the contentious debate at Cannabis (drug). The user Msnicki is not satisfied with the outcome and she has begun a move review (is it any wonder that administrators are reluctant to close these requests?). After reading through the evidence, I placed my opinion on the page. I also noticed a link on Wikipedia to an online article, where Msnicki has contacted the press to give her opinions about the discussion. There is ominous language here, including threats to continue the discussion indefinitely. I have provided the link at WP:Move review/Log/2014 April and copied the relevant details. Since I am concerned about this matter, I thought it would be best to inform administrators here. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to make it clear that I am not requesting any kinds of sanctions. I am just concerned about the approach taken and felt, for reasons of openness and clarity, that it should be reported in case any actions are necessary. I have no personal involvement in the discussion other than the judgement I posted on the move request page and I do not have any strong opinions, other than general concerns, about what should be done. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

3 words: absolutely; fricking; unacceptable. WP:NOTHERE has now raised its ugly head ES&L 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, it does look like somebody whose sense of priorities is a bit off, but I don't really think it's any kind of sanctionable misbehaviour. It's not like she publicly denigrated any of her opponents or attempted to create real-life problems for them, or even just to canvass outside voters, nor does it seem as if it had any significant effect on the course of the further debate, did it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(ecx2) I appreciate your intention in bringing this here, but it's not that big of a deal. The worst fallout from that action would be for a number of anonymous editors or newly-created single-purpose accounts to try to sway the discussion. That hasn't happened, and even if it did, since such discussions aren't "votes" they would be unlikely to alter the course of the debate anyway. I don't see any direct canvassing going on and editors are free to do whatever they want outside of Wikipedia. I prefer to keep my on-wiki and off-wiki lives separate (and definitely don't like what I do here ending up in the press in any form) but other people aren't so inclined, and I don't fault people for it. -- Atama頭 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki agreed to the policies and processes of Wikipedia when she signed up. "Going to the press to bitch about it" is not one of those processes ES&L 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of a "don't go to the press" policy. Really, it's not uncommon for editors to discuss on-wiki issues with the press, sometimes with infamous results. It's not exactly canvassing either, I don't see anything in the article that encourages people to come to the discussion to intervene (nor did I see that the story even suggested that people could). Editors often discuss on-wiki things on their own blogs, is it any more harmful to do it through a journalist's blog? (That's what this was, this wasn't an actual newspaper story or anything, not that it would be much worse if it was.) I don't really see what is all that objectionable about it. Maybe it's a bit self-promotional, but so what? -- Atama頭 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont see a problem - would even be good if it had generated new interest in the topic and thus new editors (does not look like it has). Perhaps the results of the poll will help resolve any concerns Msnicki has about our process getting it wrong. -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "don't go to the press" is a given. Wikipedia is not the 'fairness encyclopedia'. Our policies are designed to attempt to gain neutrality and facts. Ironically, the modern mainstream media no longer works under the same principal and we rarely, if ever, receive fair coverage. They don't understand our policies and our goals and they arn't interested in understanding either. It's more important that we do what's fair or 'right'. Msnicki specifically choose a pot related column to express her angst at. According to WP:CANVASS, she choose her audience and that's called 'votestacking'. That's against guidelines.--v/r - TP 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree it was not the best course of action, but I dont see how we can expect our editors not to vent freely. There are whole sites dedicated to this fact (wikipediocracy). We will have to expect that frustrated editors will look for validation in other places. In this case it may even provided a third party prospective from the "pot" community of Seattle. I see no behaviour that would warrant any sanctions by the community - at most there is just a loss of confidence in the editors ability to have an amicable resolution and respect the community processes. -- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only canvassing if you're asking people to intervene. Any canvassing would have been indirect, I see nothing from Msnicki asking people to participate in the discussion (even in a neutral tone). It's also difficult to figure out how much of what's in the blog post was her idea, and how much was the blog author's idea. In any event, if Msnicki was attempting to get support for the discussion it backfired. No new support showed up and the poll in the blog was overwhelmingly against her. In any case, I don't see how our canvassing policy was violated, you need to show that it was "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" and that's probably impossible to prove here. -- Atama頭 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just remember that even if the user mentions their real name in the press in order to promote their POV, to then mention on Wikipedia the name the user has freely given in the press, is "oouting" and will get you desysopped and possibly banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, linking the user's real name to their Wikipedia name where they have not already done so in public would be outing. Doing it after they have already linked it in public and on Wikipedia is not outing. And everything in between is a grey area that we've never been able to develop a consensus on and Arbcom hasn't settled either so chill your silly threats. You continue to be one of the least policy-informed administrators I've ever met and I continue to laugh at you when you make black-and-white threats. We don't operate on a zero-tolerance policy on Wikipedia, we treat each case individually and based on it's own merits. And for what? No one here has linked to that article. What has your threat done at all here?--v/r - TP 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's definitely a grey area. Msnicki volunteered her real life identity, connected to her Wikipedia identity, as she freely admits: "I gave him my real name and contact information but did not identify which of the comments were mine. I heard nothing from him until 27 February, when he sent mail asking if he could interview me on the phone and if I would be willing to be identified." The reason why this is a grey area is because our harassment policy allows us to mention personal information volunteered on the project. But she has said on Wikipedia (as I just quoted) that she allowed herself to be identified there, so is that equivalent? I honestly don't know. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be the person to bravely step forward and test the theory, and I would advise against anyone else doing it; I think doing so could be controversial and would at the very least lead to some kind of drama-filled argument at the Village Pump or the Harassment Policy talk page or here at ANI or someplace. So I wouldn't be the person to do it. -- Atama頭 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, I read Guy's comment here as a bit tongue-in-cheek, an allusion to people overreacting on ANI (which is unfortunately all too common). An instant de-sysop and site ban for a borderline outing situation is unlikely at the least and I'm sure he knows that. :) -- Atama頭 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
      • My comment was a response to this thread on Jimbo's talk page. I mistakenly thought it was Guy I was arguing with there but it was actually Guy Macon. I was channeling anger meant for someone else. @JzG: I'm sorry, my comments were because I thought you were the same 'Guy' who argued with me about policy just a couple weeks ago. That wasn't meant for you and I regret my hostility.--v/r - TP 03:22, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

No problem. It is however not a hypothetical or hyperbolic thing: someone I always considered an awesome Wikipedian was summarily banned for mentioning a real-world identity that had been openly admitted by a Wikipedia user off-site - and indeed that user had made the link while using media contacts to try to further their on-wiki agenda. So my advice to anyone is not to name a real world identity unless it's openly admitted on Wikipedia itself, even where the user is blatantly using external websites and contacts to try to further an agenda antithetical to Wikipedia's policies. Now, I'm sure the case I have in mind was slightly more nuanced than it seems to an outsider, but that is how it appeared to me. If in doubt, email ArbCom and seek counsel from them. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend blocking of Msnicki. This is absolutely unacceptable. An admin wades into a severely backlogged area, makes a good-faith closure, and we have this editor verbally abusing them and threatening further disruption? This is the kind of thing that is responsible for the direct decline in editorship and active adminship, and should be nipped in the bud. [unsigned comment by User: Spike Wilbury at 12:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]

• Where did the editor verbally abuse the closing admin, or threaten further disruption? Stating that you still want to get an article moved is no more threatening further disruption than it would be to take an article to AfD after someone contested a proposed deletion. And asking to review an RfC closure isn't disruption in the first place, otherwise we wouldn't have that process. -- Atama頭 13:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Here and in the move review, Msnicki refers to the closing admin as "non-serious", impugns his motives, and suggests that he's taken admin actions without proper research. This is verbal abuse and bullying of a volunteer. In the blog she participated in she indicated her intention to keep dragging this through our processes since she doesn't like the results she's gotten. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Related to what Spike Wilbury has said, we have this problem at WP:ANRFC: there are huge delays on even less controversial discussions because administrators are reluctant to close them. I mentioned this above at WP:ANI#Large backlog at WP:ANRFC. The user who closed this discussion, TLSuda, responded there that it is not pleasant to close these discussions and another user also predicted the backlash we have seen from Msnicki here. The question is how we can get these discussions closed promptly. Three administrators volunteered readily to close the (extremely long) discussion at Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton, yet we now have Talk:Pablo Casals and Talk:British Isles waiting at WP:ANRFC for many weeks without any kind of assessment. The best I can think of is having a system like the feedback review service, where administrators volunteer to close discussions and these discussions are randomly assigned. The more controversial discussions could be assigned to multiple administrators to reduce the chances of move reviews. 81.135.61.62 (talk) 13:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Cup of tea time. Msnicki appears to have done nothing egregious, and a block would appear to be punitive as I doubt she will iterate any attacks, if they were attacks. Collect (talk) 13:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Have you been here long? Msnicki has publicly declared that she intends to continue this battle. She has attacked at least the last two administrators that dared closed something against her wishes. After Dpmuk closed a move review, she told him he phoned it in and that reversing his decision was the "only sensible choice". The next admin was TLSuda, who was told he didn't take it seriously and asked to step aside for, seemingly, a better admin. So she has an established pattern of disruption and personal attacks against people she disagrees with, and has stated the intention to continue. What exactly instills doubt in your case? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 13:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not unsympathetic to TLSuda, I defended him in the move review, and I know how rough it is to close RfCs (you almost always have someone who dislikes how you closed it no matter how you do it). I wouldn't mind some changes to the process that make it easier on admins, not to make decisions unimpeachable or to quash criticisms (because admins definitely screw them up sometimes) but we should be able to do something. They take a lot of time and effort and when it's done it can feel like nobody appreciates it. But having said all that, I see no personal attacks (questioning a person's actions isn't an attack, if you think otherwise, look at avoiding personal attacks where it states that comments "should be directed at content and actions rather than people"). As I said, administrator actions aren't above reproach (although I do defend the actions of both TLSuda and Dpmuk who I think did a commendable job). If we start blocking people for criticizing administrators without actually breaking policies, then Wikipedia really is as bad as the most rabid detractors claim it is. -- Atama頭 17:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know. It's not that fine of a line between constructive criticism and just calling into question the competency of every admin who performs an action you disagree with. If we accommodate this behavior and editors and admins start avoiding this editor, this topic area, or this project, what have we really won? The peanut gallery is silent, and everyone is cowed? --Spike Wilbury (talk) 17:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree that, in theory, if an editor questioned every single action made by administrators that would be tendentious, and could eventually lead to a block. But in my experience a person need to take it to the extreme, making a huge stink and turning it into a disruptive campaign, and then they aren't even blocked until a community ban is implemented at AN. I won't name names, but I've experienced it (I even implemented such a ban personally earlier this year, based on an overwhelming consensus at AN). I don't see that Msnicki has come close to that yet. She's being tenacious about this issue (not tendentious) but I think the proper response for now is to simply support how Dpmuk and TLSuda did the closures (which is what I see happening at the move review). If she escalates the issue, a note about keeping things civil and a request to not abuse equines might be warranted. But I'll note that Msnicki responded calmly to my opinion here, indicating that she's accepting of the result now. She did repeat that she was dissatisfied with TLSuda's language in the closure, but she's entitled to her opinion about that. Again, I do sympathize with the closers in this case and it guilts me a little into trying to help with the ANRFC backlog myself (though I've been stretched thin as it is, trying to help with the SPI backlog in addition to the other areas I normally handle). -- Atama頭 19:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Update: user attacks WP:ANI editors. The below is taken from User talk:Atama:

I appreciate your remarks in my defense at ANI, especially as I have no stomach for it. If you'd like to find people quick to personal attack because they confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person, look no further than ANI. It is as if they think they have some diplomatic immunity there to behave in exactly the ways they insist are simply intolerable and must be dealt with (severely!) at once. Any non-admin unlucky enough to be hauled to ANI for any reason whatsoever can always bet on having their motives impugned (for allegedly impugning others') on evidence best described as mind-reading and to face calls to ban the person rather than focus on the behavior, especially where the behavior is merely a different opinion they don't like. It's a place where there's endless concern that someone has wasted time by pursuing whatever they consider a frivolous issue but always lots of time to pick through someone's edit history to see if there's anything else to complain about. It's simply crawling with the most angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people to be found anywhere. Anyway, thank you for your comments, especially as I really had no interest in going there. [written by Msnicki at 21:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)]

Given this further behaviour, I suggest that a temporary block might be suitable for Msnicki to calm down and to come back with a calmer approach.81.135.61.62 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

LOL, Msnicki was making a general statement about the noticeboard, and I think you somewhat proved her point here. :) She said people "confuse attacks on behavior or arguments as attacks on the person", and you took that general statement as a personal attack. Am I the only one finding humor in this? (By the way, I'm not meaning this to be snide in any way, I'm honestly amused at the irony.) If we are to assume that she is accusing everyone who participates at ANI as being "angry, judgmental and thoroughly hypocritical people" then she would have meant me as well (I comment here regularly) which seems odd if she's also thanking me. Her opinions about ANI are fairly widely-held, and even I who don't hate this noticeboard (otherwise I'd never post here) see some truth in it (though I'm much less pessimistic, and I've also seen improvement over the years). -- Atama頭 22:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Msnicki in this thread, but that quotation is a pretty good description of what ANI is.--v/r - TP 23:18, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's see: thread's been almost a day, there are over 6,000 ANI watchers, maybe 3 - 4 folks had something negative to say about this non-issue and 2 were quite supportive of her... I'd say Msnicki has done fairly well here, all in all. NE Ent 04:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I had a beer and a good night's sleep and realized my response was utterly ridiculous. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 12:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I never knew that WP:ANI is held with such contempt. I have consequently striked through my above recommendation, although I still have concerns about Msnicki's conduct. Perhaps it might be best if we can move on, let the move review take its natural conclusion and, instead of fighting further for a decision against consensus, Msnicki could focus on working towards improving the Cannabis (drug) article.

On a related note, there has been decent progress at WP:ANRFC in the past few days, so thank you! The list has approximately halved in size. There are still large discussions at Talk:Pablo Casals (although there is apparently a 'broad consensus in that all but a very small number of users agree', the users involved think that a formal close is preferable), Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Trademarks and Talk:Battle of Berlin. Would anyone like to take these? 81.135.61.62 (talk) 13:35, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

User Bbbigben70

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

---

I stumbled across User talk:Bbbigben70 today, which contains a huge list of email addresses and seemingly promotional content. The editor has an edit history consisting of only three edits to this talk page. Not sure what to make of it, but it may be worthy of admin attention. Lambtron (talk) 15:33, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The page had the copyvio text of two articles taken from androidauthority.com and the list of email addresses. The email addresses fail CSD:U5 and the copyvios CSD:G12. I've deleted the page. The user has no other contributions, deleted or not, and hasn't been active in over a year - so I don't think there's anything left to be done. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 15:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

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

Personal attack

This user started personal attacks against me since yesterday. For example see this edit by him. A trollish activity on several pages (articles and talk pages). --Zyma (talk) 17:34, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• Looking around, particularly at the diffs when Yagmurlukorfez was at AN3, the attacks, warring, battleground, etc. appear to be all he does. Tiptoety gave him a final warning [38] for battleground behavior, and it looks like this is more of the same. He hasn't edited much, but it is starting to look like he is more interested in his own POV only, and WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 17:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I can't deal with him anymore. He doesn't attend to my comments and edit summaries. Even after started to talk on article talk page to solve issues (Andronovo culture), he just writes meaningless comments about me (I guess he uses Google Translator, poor skill of English language). Maybe my edits are incorrect (I reviewed his edits and they are unreliable), but why he doesn't act like a normal editor/contributor? Why he writes such comments and disruptive edit summaries? I started a WP:RSN topic and requested other editors' help, but I think it won't be helpful, because this user just does what he wants/likes. --Zyma (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

He's not here to contribute. See this ridiculous edit by him (Improper usage of tag/template). --Zyma (talk) 20:25, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this user should be blocked, perhaps indefinitely. Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Don't you stopped yet? Why are you always reporting me? Cause of my edits turn you mad? First of all, you attacked me and blamed an "older vandalist user." You're a clearly sided and I will not permission that. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 20:46, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• By the way the "google translate" issue it's not an argument and even not funny :) You're such a desperate seriously. Ps: Stop fallowing my edits obsessively. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:00, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I came here to mention the attack on Zyma that Zyma links above - he needs to drop the personal attacks but my main concern is competence in English and pov editing. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Poor English + POV edits + disruptive edit summaries + using Wikipedia like a forum. Am I wrong about this user? If I did wrong edits, please block me. I accept my faults and mistakes. As you see, he's here to stop me and make me mad (his above comment)! --Zyma (talk) 21:07, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'am an able to intermediate level of english. If this is a create big "problem" sorry for that but I'm sure Zyma, you're clearly understand me. So please... Don't be an ad hominem. Yagmurlukorfez (talk) 21:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Your edits (both articles and talk pages) are problematic and you don't attend to the others. Even your comments on this report are just personal attacks against me! You use Wikipedia like a forum. Obvious battleground behavior and WP:NOTHERE. --Zyma (talk) 21:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: I've blocked Yagmurlukorfez 24 hours for continuing to edit-war at Celts after being given a final warning by Tiptoety that the next act of edit-warring would result in a block. This block does not take into account any of the other problematic editing mentioned here, including the personal attacks, POV edits, and questions of competency (related to use of the English language). I'm hoping that this reinforces the admonition that conflicts like this should be settled in discussion (and Yagmurlukorfez did indeed post to Talk:Celts, but still reverted shortly after doing so). -- Atama頭 21:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

@Zyma: I was remiss in not saying this before... It takes at least two people to engage in an edit war. On Celts and Andronovo culture both you and Yagmurlukorfez were reverting each other. Unless the edits you're reverting fall under one or more of these criteria (and none of them did) you're just as culpable in the edit war. The only reason I blocked Yagmurlukorfez and not you is because Yagmurlukorfez continued to edit war after a final warning, and because I see them recently battling with an IP in addition to yourself. But your behavior is also not acceptable here; in the future if you run into conflict with someone in this way you should engage in discussion, otherwise you can be blocked and it obfuscates the misbehavior of the person you're conflicting with because your own actions have to also be taken into account. If you make sure to keep your own actions clean then it strengthens any case you have against the other person, otherwise people may dismiss your concerns as "two people bickering". -- Atama頭 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I always use detailed edit summaries and I discuss my edits, but I agree that I should choose a better and more clear approach in the future to avoid such conflicts. As I wrote in the above comments, Maybe I didn't choose a right way to deal with this user, but it's obvious that his edits are problematic. Even he did same behavior in this ANI report. If I behaved wrong and I didn't choose the right way, I'm sorry and I apologize. --Zyma (talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• No result?! --Zyma (talk) 08:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Zyma has some mistaken ideas. this edit of 20:25, 16 April 2014 by Zyma "Reverted 1 edit by Yagmurlukorfez (talk): Improper usage of tag/template. It's a fact by the experts of language studies" is part of the problem. What the paragraph in the article says is true, and it should be easy to find reliable sources for it. Yagmurlukorfez added a fact tag, because the paragraph was uncited. Zyma reverted him/her without providing a citation. That is not OK. It would improve the article if the paragraph had citations. It was right of Yagmurlukorfez to restore the tag saying "Sentence need to be source. Please add or don't unrevert again." Zyma's edit summary when he/she reverted was uncivil "Reverted 1 edit by Yagmurlukorfez (talk): Read the Celtic languages. Stop your nonesense activity on WP." This is not OK behaviour by Zyma.--Toddy1 (talk) 09:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The new problem is your revert on the Celts article. Just based on your personal analysis. See above comments by Atama. I agree my second edit summary (second revert) maybe harsh, but both edit summaries are clear enough for the editors who are familiar with language and ethnicity articles. We don't use citations for such texts or sentences. Why? Because the main article (for example, Celtic languages) explained everything. Yes, the editors can add sources, but tagging a sentence without reading the linked articles (main articles, Celtic languages and Indo-European languages) is a careless edit and improper usage of templates. This is the reason we use wikilinks. Don't you agree? Or you want to add citations for every bit/word/sentence of an article? And then don't you read the above comments by me and Atama? Why you ignored this reported user's activities? Admins should warn/block this user for his personal attacks, incivility, and non-WP actions. As you see, he doesn't accept his mistakes and he don't apologize me. And finally, I repeat again: If I did wrong things, I accept my faults and mistakes. Admins block me if they think the block is necessary for me. I decided to use 1RR + Discussing on talk pages + Better and more detailed edit summaries + Asking other editors' help to reach better and more clear results in the future edits. I accept Atama's reminder and notes. This is probably my last comment on this report, because I think everything is discussed and I'll wait for the final result (me and him). --Zyma (talk) 10:51, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Note. Another editor reverted Toddy1's edit and restored my edit. Just like what I wrote and discussed about Celts article and that improper template. --Zyma (talk) 11:05, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Problematic editing

Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk · contribs) joined Wikipedia a couple of weeks ago. Yesterday, he made a problematic edit by re-adding "Great Calamity" as a translation of the Armenian name of the Armenian Genocide[39] This issue has been discussed extensively in the talk page and there was a consensus that "Great Calamity" should not stay in the lead.

In the past few days, he has been WP:HOUNDing me and the articles I edit. He suddenly became interested in Etchmiadzin Cathedral (which is a Good Article) and has been reviewed by a couple of users (for DYK and GAN). He adds a ridiculous tag to article, claiming a statement directly supported by a highly reliable source (Oxford History of Christian Worship) is "dubious".[40][41]

He also makes major content alterations on POV grounds:

• removes twice a sourced! example of a church that has been influenced by Etchmidzin claiming it is "completely different"[42][43]
• adds "dubious" tag to a claim sourced by an encyclopedic article and adds a different church without providing any sources[44]
• adds the false transcription (ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn) of "ech-mee-uh-dzeen", which is supported by a reliable source [45]

--Երևանցի ^talk 18:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr Yerevantsi seems to be erroniously assuming that he owns the articles he has edited, and that any content or edits he has made are perfect and untouchable. If he has genuine issues about any particular edits I have made (rather than just ownership issues) he should raise those issues on the talk pages of the articles. But, as a general comment in response to his above comments, he has been using very general works like encyclopedias or travel literature to write an article about an extremely specialist subject (an early medieval Armenian church), I have been citing from books that are actually monographs about Armenian architecture written by academics specialising in that field. A specialist source always trumps a third-party non-specialist source. If he has an issue about the quality of sources, there are other notice boards to use, though again the talk page of the article is the proper initial starting point. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 18:49, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• @Yerevantsi: DYK is not the epitome of quality. Likewise, GAN does not mean an article is finished. FAN doesn't even mean an article is concrete and unchangeable. If Tiptoe has credible sources to enhance the article, by all means you two should be cooperating.--v/r - TP 19:06, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did I claim that? All I'm saying is this user is hard to work with as he doesn't understand the basic rules of Wikipedia. He dismisses reliable sources and prefers to push his POV. The Oxford source clearly states that Etchmiadzin was the first church in Armenia, while Tiptoe asks me "Are you actually saying that for the 200 or so years before the founding of this church there were no churches in Armenia?" This is ridiculous and irrational. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not "my pov" - they are the opinions of sources, from sources that are actually about the building, not just general works like an encyclopedia. And why else did you mention its DYN and Good Article status if not to imply that having that honour meant the article was now perfect and unalterable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:32, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

It is your personal opinion. The article is from an encyclopedia on Christianity and the statement is directly taken from an article about the city of Ani. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Then find a proper source, a specialist work on Armenian architecture that states something as specific as "Etchmiadzin was the first church built in Armenia". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:44, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've already given a WP:RS that says it. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

• I can't comment on any of the rest, but /ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn/ seems to me to be the correct representation of ech-mee-uh-dzeen in IPA. — lfdder 19:30, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

ədˈziːn = uh-dzeen ? --Երևանցի ^talk 19:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Syllables in English don't begin with /dz/, so /d/ would belong to the previous one. — lfdder 19:36, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

My assumption was the same as lfdder: that ɛtʃmi.ədˈziːn is just the IPA representation of ECH-mee-UH-dzeen, so that is why I put it back and why I don't know why Yerevantsi removed it. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Chaining "uh" (guy) to ə (police) is, at best, source falsification. --Երևանցի ^talk 19:43, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

'uh' usually stands for the schwa. Also, guy is a diphthong, /aj/, not the 'cup' vowel (which I assume is what you had in mind). — lfdder 19:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I had in mind. "usually stands for the schwa" source please? --Երևանցի ^talk 20:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not gonna go digging a source that it usually is the case 'cause, frankly, it doesn't matter. What does matter is that it's not 'at best, source falsification' -- 'uh' is used to represent the schwa in many keys. Here Groiler use 'uh' for what is definitely the schwa. — lfdder 20:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yerevantsi, I think you may be confusing orthography with phonology again. The distinction between the "cup" vowel (/ʌ/) and the police/butter/etc "schwa" vowel (/ə/) is pretty basic English phonology. It's kind of like confusing Beryllium and Boron: sure, they are pretty close to each other on the periodic table and the IPA charts, but...

[ɪf jɯː læk ðæt ˈbæɪsɨk ˈlevəl əv ˈnɔləd͡ʒ ɒɪ wəd əˈdvɒɪz jɯː tɯː rəˈfræɪn frəm ˈklæɪmɪŋ ðət ˈaːðə ˈpɪiplz əˈpɪnjəmz əˈbæʊt prəˌnasɪiˈæɪʃənz aː d͡ʒast əˈpɪnjənz æz əts klɪiə jɯː həv ˈverɪi ˈlɪtəl ɒɪˈdɪiə wɔt jɯː aː ˈtoːkɪŋ əˈbæʊt]

nb: people who can do proper phonemic transcriptions, that was my best shot at the speech of an Australian Mamil - WP:SOFIXIT etc, etc. --Shirt58 (talk) 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that ANI is not for content issues, the talk page is that for that. This is for behavioural stuff.Lihaas (talk) 18:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Elblanco123 and Lestock Adams

Hi there. I was creating the page Lestock Adams - a first class cricketer which passes the notability criteria at WP:CRIC and

tagged it for CSD as an attack page and dropped the relevant notice on my talk. Obviously this is a nonsensical action but the user has not replied to my talk page message requesting an explanation and has carried on editing using page curator, which suggests they may not respond to my message.

I'm happy to wait for them to reply to me, but in the mean time I would like to continue editing the article and I am obviously not permitted to remove the CSD tag myself. Can someone please review it for me so I can carry on? Regards, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

PS - I did accidentally remove the tag myself, but I've reinstated it for someone who did make the article to deal with! Sorry. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to decline the speedy earlier when I saw it in the attack page queue, but since you removed the tag, I went on with other tasks. Now I have gone ahead and declined it properly. I am also interested in seeing Elblanco123's response. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 21:03, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it is just a competency thing, new to using page curator. I see some messages on his talk that suggests users are pointing out that he is using tags inappropriately, like the comment about bare urls by the user before me. No harm done in the end. Thanks DoRD. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

The user has tagged two state legislator articles I created, in different states, as autobiographical. [46] & [47] . Dru of Id (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to leave a more attention grabbing message, seems a competency thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:21, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

If this continues, we may have to block per WP:CIR. It's one thing if an editor is new and trying to figure out the project, but if they're (A) being disruptive and (B) not communicating, they need to be stopped, regardless of their intentions. -- Atama頭 21:37, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Concur, it's not like the software makes it hard to see new messages. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I had a look and there are indeed quite a lot of inappropriate tags. I reverted one that claimed there were no secondary sources when in fact there was one (out of two - the other was a primary source). Dru has done a good job with some of the more recent edits. FWIW as an IP I agree that a block may be the way to go here. (Hanging around this page waiting for any action on my issue above). 124.180.170.151 (talk) 22:27, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking for applying Autopatrolled rights, after going through two recent technical vandalism by two unexperienced page curators. When Admins are not spared, I think Autopatrolled rights will not solve my problem. IMHO it will be good if only Autopatrolled users are given permission to use the page curator tool. also wrong-tagged one article I started, and not responding....--Mrutyunjaya Kar (talk) 03:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd treat the latest notice on his talk as a final warning. Next bad tagging gets an indef. until he responds and agrees to stop tagging improperly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just a note, this editor has nearly 70 edits in the two days that they've been active (the account was created on January 10, but the only edits or other actions made were on January 11 and April 16). In all of that time, they have not made any original communication. There have been no edit summaries that weren't auto-generated, and no talk page discussion beyond those left by templates. Even the one AfD they created, seen here, had no deletion rationale and only repeated the article name where the deletion argument would normally go. I suspect that this may be an editor that has some kind of social impairment that inhibits such interactions (I couldn't even begin to guess at the particular cause, but this essay gives at least one explanation). -- Atama頭 21:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Long argument unrelated to article on Talk:Soka Gakkai

Two weeks ago SafwanZabalawi (talk · contribs · count), who primarily makes edits to Talk:Soka Gakkai, proposed adding a section that would dub critics of the religious sect as, quote, "Japanese nationalists, WW II crimes deniers, opponents to humanism and global citizenship, Holocaust deniers, traditional priesthood, and so forth". Earlier last month (now archived) he used the talk page as a soapbox to accuse Soka Gakkai's critics of vandalizing a bunch of Anne Frank books in Tokyo. Last year, SafwanZabalawi messed up the article quite a bit, adding lots of unreliable citations to Soka Gakkai websites and writing in an unencyclopedic style, and a team of four of us repaired it -- it is looking pretty good right now, but Safwan has been continually threatening to revert it to what it looked like before. I have been looking on perplexed as Safwan continues to insult other editors from his talk page soapbox, inciting the wrath of one Catflap08 (talk · contribs · count). The two of them are now engaged in a lengthy argument about Soka Gakkai that is basically tangential to the article.

Safwan has been given far too many chances and I would like to consider some administrative action. I am involved, so I am biased here, but IMO he has never edited in a productive way and has shown himself incapable of having a civil discussion. Catflap should also be warned not to fall for stuff like this. Shii (tock) 21:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification:

This sudden accusation above (naming Safwan)occurred only after I, Safwan, posted yesterday on SGI Talk Page an input that "Religious sarcasm should be banned in Wikipedia", in which both editors who are now complaining (Shii and Catflap) were involved. Shii is aware of an action of religious insult to the Object of Worship in Nichiren Buddhism, an insult to millions of people around the world and which took place in Wikipedia's article on SGI last year. An aggressive and fanatic editor inverted the image of SGI Object of respect and devotion, the Gohonzon, upside-down to show deliberate insult. I did not wait one year - as the two collaborating editors here did - to demand on Talkpage Wikipedia editors intervention to disable such immature actions of religious insult and hatred. Now this attitude of using Wikipedia to voice an aggressive disrespect to the religious beliefs of millions of people is repeated by Catflap, sarcastically with Shii laughing about a Lotus Sutra's expression. This has been clearly explained on the Talkpage yesterday, offering the opportunity for Catflap to apologise, but he chose not to.

Now: what is the subject of Shii and Catflap's above complaint? If there was a complaint about what I wrote one year ago (as it is mentioned above) - then by any reasonable approach - that complaint should have dealt with - not now, but - one year ago. Waiting a whole year to complain, well: this in itself shows that Shii-Catflap have nothing substantial to state, no argument and no logic and just inventing a problem.

I'm not sure whether Shii is an Administrative editor or not, but his description of a book - an RS - (which criticized Japanese right wing media) as being a "FISHY" book, was an unprofessional and obviously biased categorization. This kind of emotive and uneducated description about a RS, introducing to Wikipedia a new "Fishy category" of reliable sources - this has something to do with his complaint above:

That Fishy Book according to Shii revealed the truth about the Japanese rightwing media's disrespect to the Holocaust and the denial of mass murder and mass rape (which occurred during the war led by the Japanese military)and which is still active, targeting now the SGI.

SGI advocates the concept of World Citizenship - the very opposite to Japanese nationalism - and hence hatred and aggression against SGI. This is related to Wikipedia article here because opponents to SGI vandalized a previously balanced and neutral article in which common activities with Human Rights Institutes were mentioned (Gandhi Smirti Institute, Martin Luther King Jr Moorehouse Chapel, Simon Weisentahl Center, The United Nations Commissioner on Refugees, and others valid and neutral sources were mentioned as part of Facts about SGI involvement.

Shii complains about my input that SGI cooperates with Simon Weisenthal Center (and has held an exhibition about the life of Anne Franks)-while the Japanese fascists in their antiemetic tendencies aggressively destroyed books on Anne Franks, which SGI deeply respect.

I suggest writing or asking Simon Weisenthal Centre on whether its cooperation with SGI can be mentioned in Wikipedia article. (In fact all of the other institutions which were removed from the article can be also asked about their approval to mention their name in SGI article).

Shii-Catflap complain to this Board that I "threaten" to share in editing the article (to make it neutral and balanced as was before):

"Safwan has been continually threatening to revert it to what it looked like before. I have been looking on perplexed".

Perplexed? for what? What is the cause of confusion? Is invitation to abide by Wikipedia rules of neutrality and scholastic honesty a "Threat"? Such a statement from Shii speaks for itself. What Shii-Catflap perceived as a "threat" to their bias is probably the intention to engage Universities and Human Rights Institutions in contributing (in the future) to the article - as well as referring the issues of their biased editing to Jimmy Wales, and his view of describing a RS as Fishy by Shii, his views on lack of scholastic honesty through fearing mention of Human Rights Institutions and the UN (in SGI contribution to Peace Culture and Education) - and his views on using the Wikipedia for religious sarcasm and insults to the beliefs of millions of people.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 01:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Safwan, you are reviving a long-dead content dispute. This is ANI and content disputes are not relevant here, and your opinions about Japanese society vs. life inside Soka Gakkai are not relevant to an encyclopedia at all. However, I will clear up a point of fact:

"I did not wait one year - as the two collaborating editors here did - to demand on Talkpage Wikipedia editors intervention to disable such immature actions of religious insult and hatred."

The file under discussion is File:SGI Gohonzon.jpg. As can be seen from the file history, I, not Safwan, fixed the error two weeks after it appeared. I then reported the vandalism on Commons. I'm not sure why Safwan considers this relevant to the current dispute. Shii (tock) 03:18, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the “dispute” has been going on for a while luckily not on the article itself, but too long I agree. BTW it wasn't me either who included an upside down picture in the text. During the time Safwan was actively editing the article he had a problem with critics of SGI or those with alternative views. By all means the way SGI sees itself should be part of the article – but also alternative views. Calling authors of those sources critical of SGI fascists goes to far. As a solution to the problem I would suggest that I do not respond to Sawafans posts full stop. What this dispute has shown however is that if Safwan will decide to edit the article, especially issues critical on SGI, one will know with what intention he will do so. So ignoring the named editor just might be the best solution. --Catflap08 (talk) 04:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Now with some more time at hand I would like to elaborate on a few things keeping in mind that the safwan-conflict went on far too long and it would have been best to ignore some of the posts full stop – being a German national with a bi-national family background (British-German with Czech and also Jewish ancestry) I do admit to react extremely sensitive to label sources ( may it be references, authors or editors) as fascists. I would however like to underline the fact that any attempts by a certain editor to portray SGI as anti-facist are to say the least absurd. True is that ist's early leaders did suffer from the former nationalistic regime in Japan, but that was due to religious grounds when being in conflict to the then ordered State Shinto not due to the fact that SG was in conflict with the Japanese expansion policy – that is just for the record. What SGI then stated after the war is in somewhat irrelevant as the chronological order of events should be kept in mind. While some may decide to beat a dead horse and label others in the named talk page as shallow, fascist, unable to understand and whatsoever and then in turn bring up some UN-engagement (which by the way some other Nichiren Buddhist groups have been practising for years without making a big fuss about it) or Medals that by fact neither SGI nor his chief have been honoured with are also irrelevant. I in spent a lot of time (also with the help of other editors) to research the ongoing debate why SGI and Nichiren Buddhism in general are always being mentioned in connection to Japanese nationalism which lead to the creation of articles such as Nichirenism, Nippon Kaigi and Kokuchūkai the later article does show some historic facts that in turn connect it to SG's founder Tsunesaburō Makiguchi . I am well aware that some do not like these issues being brought up. In the end of the day the article should by all means state what SGI sees itself like but there are many “buts” that by all means have to be mentioned as well in the article. I am sorry that I waffled on in so much detail. Yes I am an ex-member of the named organisation and I did in turn spent much time to research information that I was formerly not aware of. Given the language and cultural barriers some info is hard to find (yet again other editors helped in to fill that gap). Again I did what I could to bring in neutral and academic facts . The ongoing debate with Safwan has in the end resulted to intensify my research (which I do in my spare time just as any other editor) and bring in more information that was not present in Wikipedia before. For now though I will refrain from any debate with a certain editor – its much more useful to keep the big picture of the small issue on Nichiren Buddhism in a factual frame.--Catflap08 (talk) 19:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Shii; The reason for long arguments on SGI page is caused by the unreasonable attitude of distrtion of the truth and attacks and disrespect to Wikipedia policy on SGI page and talk: /1/ I mentioned last years' insult to SGI by deliberately inverting the image of Gohonzon by an immature fanatic - to show an example of troublemaking attitude against SGI and SGI teachings. Whoever did this insult to millions of sincere people - is beyond the issue. The attitude and motivation of that SGI opponent - is not welcome in an Encyclopedia. You said you corrected the problem (after i alerted on that editor's aggression) - but I am giving here this example of the "attitude of troublemaking - of some editors opponents to SGI. /2/ Another act of immaturity and trouble-causing is sarcasm from a phrase from the Lotus Sutra - and this is clear on Talkpage. /3/ As for violating Wikipedia policy; this was done by deleting a whole section which included facts about SGi cooperation with Human rights instutution and deforming the Introduction and other sections. Wikipedia is about neutrality and accepting facts and RS. This was violated and for this reason I am seriously suggesting contact with these Human Rights Institutions inviting them to edit from their own RS. Now SGI has held an international exhibition on the Life of Anne Franks (The Little Artist of Terezin" and such activities in which millions of members and guests shared - are part of the truth about SGI and should be included in the article, this is very relevant, and it is also relevant and true that some of SGI opponents are fascists, antisemitic, and this is also an undeniable fact. You find some misled individuals who are addicted to tabloids digested sensations, and who get emotional about SGI - but in the article in which a huge interest was on politics, facts pertaining to politics, race, nationalism, fascism, antisemitism - are equally important to mention.

Catflap; I did not enjoy your lecture about your POV in history, nor it is necessary here. You decided to refrain from facing the facts that I present, Ok, but I am open to discuss and debate and cooperate.SafwanZabalawi (talk) 02:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Protect of Zbečník stream

Please remove protect from this article and please revert nonconstructive edits by JamesBWatson.--Okurka v prdeli (talk) 22:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you edited under any other usernames, Okurka v prdeli? You mention in one of your three edits that you have an account that is blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:38, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes acounts are my.--Okurka v prdeli (talk) 22:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

This is obviously a sockpuppet of Polibte mi prdel who was blocked for having an offensive username (prdel translates to "farted" in Czech from what my machine translation says). The page was also edited by another sockpuppet, Naboural jsem s hownocucem which in Czech references to "hacking". The user page of Okurka v prdeli translates to "If you got to this page, it means that you moron". I'm blocking this editor as an admitted sockpuppet, and I'm pretty sure this is a sockpuppet of Toma646. -- Atama頭 22:58, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure that Polibte mi prdel is also a sockpuppet of Toma646; it doesn't take a genius, since Toma646's sockpuppet admitted it. -- Atama頭 23:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

And the editor called me a "douchebag" and said something about stuffing me in a meat-grinder on their user talk page (according to a machine translation) so they've lost talk page access too. (Not because I'm offended, I think it's pretty funny, but clearly they're abusing their talk page.) -- Atama頭 23:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least they spelled "douchebag" correctly, no? That's better than that one student of mine on an evaluation. Dobry! Drmies (talk) 04:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"Dr Mies is a doucebag"? That turns you from a shower to a softie, doesn't it? Hell, if people cannot even insult you correctly, that says lots about things ... maybe it was a Freudian Slip? ES&L 11:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

In one of his edits, Toma646 added an image of a gully emptier. "Your shit - our joy", you can read on the car.

"Polibte mi prdel" is "Kiss My Ass" in Czech, "Okurka v prdeli" means "Cucumber in Ass". This editor has made some good work on cs-wiki, however, here on en-wiki he wastes time of others, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Pszczolka Maja1/Archive for incomplete list of his previous accounts. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and "Naboural jsem s hownocucem" means "I crashed with a gully emptier", for those who are interested. Using profanity and fecal humor is a big fun for this editor. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 05:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deucebag would've added a whole new dimension to the phrase entirely... Kurtis ^(talk) 12:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please block Strfornawuks for disruptive edits

Dear Admins,

Please block User:Strfornawuks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for his disruptive edits in the International reactions to the 2014 Crimean crisis page. He began his disruptive edits by moving Israel to the "partially recognized states" category (along the likes of Abhkazia and South Ossetia). I reverted his edit, stating that Israel did not belong in that category. He promptly counter-reverted my edit, and then put a warning on my talk page to block me. Another user reverted his edit, and he did the same thing to that user. Once again, I undid Strfornawuks's revision, again stated why it was wrong (and that if he were to include Israel, then he technically should include North Korea as well, although neither should belong) and put a warning on his talk page (which he has since removed). Given that his edits are politically motivated and diverge from the common standards in Wikipedia, that he has made these revisions against multiple users without proper dialogue, and that he subsequently threatened them with blocks, this amounts to vandalism that should at least result in a block. CouchTomato (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I've warned Strfornawuks about the definition of vandalism for now. Since WP:ARBPIA probably covers how Israel is treated I'm not even going to touch it. I would also note that Strfornawuks removed a large chunk of text from the Albanian reaction; I have no clue if that removal is proper, however. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:47, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. However, he continues to threaten to block me on my user page and counter-reverting the Crimean article... CouchTomato (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

As I noted on his user talk, he's mislabling your edit as vandalism. However you need to tread very lightly. That article is under WP:ARBEURO, and I'm sure the topic of whether Israel is a recognized vs. partially recognized state is under WP:ARBPIA, therefore discretionary sanctions can apply. Do not edit war with Strfornawuks, it will not end well for either of you. To any administrator: could someone check into this and levy sanctions if necessary? They're not at 3RR yet, but they do have some 7 reverts each since 27 Mar. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I blocked Strfornawuks based on a report at WP:AN3. I did not do it as an ArbCom enforcement block, and I'm having trouble seeing these edits as subject to WP:ARBPIA. The connection with the Palestine seems tenuous to me. I'd like to hear others' views on that issue. In addition to the Albanian removal, Strfornawuks also removed the Nicaraguan reaction here. Neither the Albanian nor the Nicaraguan material has been restored.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
  • It struck me that the POV-pushery involved in describing Israel as being a status that it is not would inherently be related to Arab-Israeli conflicts, but I see the Arbitration remedies are worded as any article related to the conflicts rather than any edit. Even under ArbCom's traditionally broad construction of the scope of remedies, I doubt this article counts as related to the conflicts. So I think you may be right. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

For your information

You need to check out User:Bowsier and User:Xtrastress, revert all their edits and put them in the Daft SPI. In addition, J. Bentley (Sheffield cricketer), an entirely satisfactory article created by AA three months ago has been attacked no less than eleven times now. Semi-protection? 109.157.252.89 (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide some examples (diffs) of the behavior you are complaining about? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Just look at *any* of their edits - there are only five between them. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I've reverted all of Special:Contributions/Bowsier's edits and left a level 1 disruption template on both users' talk pages. Based on the similarities between their editing patterns (however limited they may be), it would seem that these two accounts are operated by the same individual. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:41, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nice try but it hasn't had the desired effect. You need to block both these accounts and add them to the Daft SPI. And the Bentley article has now been attacked twelve times. The perpetrator is subject to WP:BAN. If the admins will not take full WP:BMB action against this individual he will continue to disrupt the site. He is obsessed and the only solution is a concerted effort by admins in compliance with WP:BMB. I am only an IP so I can only advise. 109.157.252.89 (talk) 18:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the accounts have been added to the SPI so thanks for that. I've put the Bentley article into the page protection request process. 109.157.252.89 (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not an administrator, 109.xx. If I were, I would've blocked both accounts as fairly obvious sockpuppets of Daft. I was going to add them to the SPI page, but I was about ready for bed when I posted here. Kurtis ^(talk) 07:58, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Dispute between IP editors

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

---

I have come across some sort of dispute between editors; upon this edit I performed I was informed about policies against anti-Wikipedia rants or other similar posts against users in general. There has been a few posts on my talk page about this and I don't wish the discussion to continue on my page, so I have started this page to hopefully resolve the matter. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 13:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yesterday User:Epicgenius swore to stop harassing User:71.139.142.249. The very first thing he did today was to vandalize 71's (my) talk page using a sockpuppet IP. 'nuff said.71.139.148.192 (talk) 13:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

@71.139.148.192: I told you that it is a shared IP and these edits aren't mine. I also told you to stop mentioning my name, yet he still does it. You may want to read up on WP:AGF because apparently you have none, and read WP:Vandalism because you obviously do not know what that is. I agree that the material in the talk page is WP:POLEMIC. Epicgenius (talk) 13:27, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

71 has a dynamic IP, which, of course, is not a sockpuppet.71.139.148.192 (talk) 13:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, a shared IP is no less a sockpuppet than a dynamic IP is. This argument, on my part, will cease until such time as another user may join in. Epicgenius (talk) 13:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Not sure whether it is true, but looking at the talk page history, it's not the first time 67.220.154.178 was accused of being an Epicgenius sockpuppet. Maybe an SPI is appropriate to clear this up? I know that an IP can't be matched to a registered account but a behavioral analysis would be useful. If these editors are the same person, this seems like a blockworthy offense. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:58, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I used the IP up until November 2013, when I was blocked. Most edits afterward aren't mine, though some of the NYC Subway edits may have come from me due to accidentally not logging in. I will not be using this IP after this month, anyway, due to my change of location. Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I won't edit 71's talk page anymore, if it makes things better. 67.220.154.178 (talk) 14:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

(Multiple EC) A few comments. 1) The sort of polemic rant on the IP's user page is the sort of thing we seem to get on occassion. I think they are rarely helpful, but I don't see any reason to delete it when it's on a talk page of an editor who welcomes it, even if it's the talk page of an IP editor. Nor do I think such removals are justified by policy or normal practice, it's a bit polemic but not enough to justify all the hassle if the editor refuses to remove it. (And I definitely don't see anything that can be considered a personal attack, the editor is referring to a way too broad class of editors for it to count as a personal attack.) Rememeber we generally give as much discretion to IP editors as we give to accounts for managing their talk pages baring stuff needed to avoid confusion to others who may use the IP.

2) Unless 71 can present conclusive evidence (i.e. enough for a successful SPI which they open) Epicgenius is responsible for those comments they need to stop making such unsupported accusations. That's grounds for a block. I don't see anyway they can show Epicgenius made those edits since it appears to be a shared IP and there's no way a CU is going to link the IP to Epicgenius considering our privacy policy and how minor the issue is. In fact, if it's a uni computer, the user agents may be the same anyway.

3) Generally speaking, having asked Epicgenius to stay away from their talk page, the IP also needs to stop mentioning Epicgenius unless they have a very good reason.

4) Whoever is behind that 67 IP needs to stop fooling around. If their behaviour continues, it may be worth considering a softblock.

Nil Einne (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Nil, Epicgenius admits to having previously used this IP account (above) although he says he no longer does. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes I gathered that may be the case from the comments. That's why I suggested that only a CU looking at user agents etc has any chance of guessing if it's really Epicgenius but there are reasons why it may not work and in any case, there's no way a CU is going to do that. Nil Einne (talk) 16:08, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I already mentioned a very good reason: Yesterday User:Epicgenius swore to stop harassing User:71.139.142.249. The very first thing User:67.220.154.178 did today was to vandalize 71's (my) talk page.

• Reason #2: In the past, other editors have identified 67.220.154.178 as a sockpuppet of User:Epicgenius. See: [48], [49], [50], [51];
• Reason #3: 67.220.154.178 has even admitted as much: [52];
• Reason #4: Epicgenius was warned yesterday about his obsessive reverts and refactoring ([53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64]) to 71's talk page. Today 67.220.154.178 engaged in the very same behavior: [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76];
• Reason #5: Today Epicgenius asked two admins for an interaction ban on me because I was stalking him, yet today my edits were to my own talk page (yes, dynamic IP), and one edit to 67.220.154.178's talk page. How could that be stalking of Epicgenius unless 67.220.154.178 and Epicgenius were one and the same? WP:DUCK anyone? 71.139.148.192 (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are making a mountain out of a molehill here. First you prohibit me from your userpage for no reason, then claim that I am doing the disruption? All of your edits today, plus half of your edits yesterday, were spent on this fruitless matter.
• That was a shared IP, again, and if you keep pinging me against my wishes I'll request for an admin to block you. I've already said that twice.
• I needed to be separated from you because it is obvious that such a conflict would extend indefinitely. I know that you and 71.139.142.249 are the same editor because it's by your own admission, and since 71.139.142.249 is disturbing me from making constructive edits, I requested for an interaction ban—after your admission. Your admission here was at 13:23, and my request came at 13:36. There's more than one way that I can know of things.
• Finally, 67 was removing content from your page, while I was adding content. It's not the same content. If it were, you'd have a stronger argument, but it isn't.
• Something does not add up here. Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I read your comment the first time. If you think alone is a good reason, you have serious problems with WP:AGF etc. The fact that Epicgenius promised to stop messaging you doesn't in any way prove that the IP who showed up is Epicgenius, particularly since you clearly attracted a lot of attention with your behaviour. The fact that Epicgenius has used the IP in the past does make it fairly suspicious. However you both attracted a lot of attention and as an apparent uni IP, it's easily possible multiple people watching were using it. Whether the person is trolling you or Epicgenius or both or whatever they are doing, I don't much care. As I said, the IP needs to stop or expect to be blocked. But as I also said, I see little chance that a CU will look in to this, so you need to present behavioural evidence.

As for the rest of your evidence, I didn't look into it that well, but it doesn't see much better. I think we've all seen the other ANI thread, I don't see how repeating the stuff that's there in any way demonstrates that the IP is Epicgenius. We all know you two have had problems with each other in the past, no one disputes it. (Similarly from what I can tell, no one even Epicgenius disputes that they've used the IP in the past. In fact if I understand the above comments, Epicgenius uses this IP at the moment but usually while logged in.)

Ultimately what it comes down to as it always does in sock allegations cases, when the person you are claiming is a sock disputes it, particularly when you have problems with this editor, you need to put up or shut up. All your comments here are pretty pointless. Either make a SPI based on the evidence you have (even ask for a CU if you really think that's going to happen) or stop making the accusations. Emphasising what I hinted at before, until and unless there is a successful or at least marginal SPI, the accusations can be considered unsufficiently supported and so should not be repeated.

Nil Einne (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This will be my last reply since I don't want to get drawn more in to this than I already have but wanted to make a few more observations. One is that I mentioned above it was a uni IP. I think this may have been a mistake. The IP is called United States Princeton WBS Connect on the IP page and I one or more people mention it being a shared and a school IP several times so I mostly ignored everything except the Princeton and Connect bits and made the assumption it was a IP used by Princeton University and shared by many there and perhaps even used by library and other multi access computers.

But WHOIS and other details simply show it being assigned to WBS Connect who evidentally deal with stuff like internet connections for large organisations. And it seems the claim is always "school" so I guess it must be claimed to be a secondary or high school IP. But I don't know if this has ever been firmly established or simply what those editing from the IP such as Epicgenius say. In any case I apologise for any confusion

My second comment is that looking more at the history, it seems User:Beyond My Ken has frequently expressed concern about Epicgenius using that IP to evade scrutiny including fairly recently (11 April). This is actually a good example of what I said above. The coincidence of an IP (67 here) suddenly bugging 71 after the kerfuffle with Epicgenius is in itself fairly useless. If you apply the same standard, you could just as well say 71 is BMK. And to be clear I'm not saying that, simply emphasising the coincidence is too minor of itself to mean anything.

My third comment is that perhaps I was a bit too dismissive of there being any merit to an SPI as it does look like there has been repeated concerns of Epicgenius continuing to use the IP inappropriately and I'm not sure if it's shared by as many people as I originally thought. Also it seems Epicgenius was caught using other accounts inappropriately fairly recently. So perhaps it's worth looking further in to filing an SPI if anyone is sure there is enough evidence (I still believe it will have to be behavioural).

OTOH I still stick with my main point. Ultimately someone, be it BMK, 71, or whoever else is going to need to file an SPI. And in the absence of that SPI, continually accusing Epicgenius of editing from that IP inappropriately is simply not on. I would note BMK has, from what I saw, handled the situation much better than 71. They warned whoever is behind the IP that they should not use it inappropriately but they were generally careful to avoid specifically linking it to Epicgenius.

Alternatively, I wonder if it's worth just exploring a long term softblock of the IP more. Considering the coincidences here, I find it hard to believe the connection between the IP 67, Epicgenius and 71 happened by chance. So someone behind the IP is trolling Epicgenius or 71 or both. And it seems there have been problems with the IP in the recent past, leading to blocks. Regardless of who this person is or these people are, it sounds like at least one can't be trusted to edit using the IP and it's a long term problem.

Oh and one more thing. While I'm not recommending anyone rush out to delete it, deleting the comment which effectively started this thread in the future may have merit. The reason is because I just noticed the IP page is 71.139.142.249 and it seems the IP is now using 71.139.148.192 so I'm assuming they won't be back to 142.249. Clearing ot the talk page of an IP of stuff which is likely irrelevant to any future editors using that IP is AFAIK well accepted. Of course 71 would be able to repost it on any future talk page if they really feel it's necessary but they should also remember as they don't have a definite talk page, their ability to keep stuff on a talk page is naturally limited even more than normally implied by the fact the we aren't a webhost.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight. This IP has never ever been blocked, under the current IP or any other. Unless you can provide concrete evidence of your assertion, an apology is in order. 71.139.148.192 (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be most prudent if this thread was closed, because we're currently just running around in circles here. What is the point of this thread? It seems as though 71.139.148.192/71.139.142.249 is trying to WP:OWN their user talk page despite their own assertion that it is a dynamic IP. It would not matter what happened to their old talk page from yesterday, because it's not their talk page to keep; if anything, the "Please don't edit my talk page" and the "IP users get shafted" notes apply to the person, not the IP.

Oh, and one more thing, 71: If you want to post that stuff to your user talk page, it would be appreciated to move all that stuff to your new talk page every time you change IPs. It isn't "your" IP address because it's dynamic, so you can't claim ownership of that talk page, as you did yesterday and today. You should delete all the content on the old user talk page that you were using, out of courtesy.
By contrast, BMK is a long-term respected editor who permanently uses one talk page and one talk page only. He is allowed to remove anything he wants, anytime. from his userspace at his own discretion, because he uses a static account. These two situations cannot be compared. I apologize for what happened yesterday and today, but you can only use the WP:REMOVED/WP:NOBAN argument if the IP is static, or if you are going to remove all that stuff from your user talk page once you cease using that IP. Epicgenius (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arcavias (2nd nomination)

I'm a bit concerned about what's happening here. The article has four Keeps from

1. the creator of this version of the article Kekstod
2. the creator of the first version, deleted at the first AfD, Nsendetzky. Probably the same person as above, admins can compare the previously deleted version with the current, they are almost identical
3. a new account, Becom2k, for which this is their first edit
4. another new account, Huisku, for which is this also their first edit

I don't like the look of this but my comments at AfD mean I'm involved now. I think all the accounts should be blocked as socks. I'll notify them now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not a sock. Feel free to visit me if you won't believe me. Kekstod (talk) 15:52, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hang tight Jimfbleak, I'll take a look at this.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:04, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, those last two are fishy, but that's all... new accounts really can just come out of the woodwork because a reader sees the AfD banner as a call to action. Unless there's some other evidence of socking that I'm not seeing... —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

There's likely off-wiki canvassing involved resulting in some WP:MEAT-type votes; however Nsendetzky and Kekstod are particularly concerning as they are representing themselves as discrete editors yet have (at times) used the same IP contemporaneously to edit the same article and have subsequently !voted in its corresponding RfA. This would appear to be a violation of WP:SHARE.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and those two submitted near-identical versions of the article at its first and second creations. Thanks for checking this. Would an uninvolved admin (ie anyone but me) propose a way forward? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:40, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I closed the AfD as "delete", which most probably will put an end to any socking there may have been. Just keep an eye on it and we can revisit if it resumes. --Randykitty (talk) 10:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Unblock 188.67.0.0/16 for a few hours

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

---

Please allow account creation or unblock the range 188.67.0.0/16 for a few hours. --Pxos (talk) 15:14, 17 April 2014 (UTC) The reason is here. --Pxos (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

You could just allow account creation permanently from the range. --Pxos (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

That would render the block useless as it is intended to prevent a very disruptive serial sockpuppeteer from creating accounts. Please wait for the blocking admin to respond to your messages on his page. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:44, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Well the block is causing collateral damage to one particular user and possibly affects dozens of good users as all range blocks eventually do. If the block is not lifted, the user in question will be unable to create an account here for a whole month because the automatic creation of user accounts is blocked as well. I wonder what the blocking admin can do about this if the block stays the same. --Pxos (talk) 15:51, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Harassment

I figure that this is most likely my fault, as I quickly reported this user to WP:UAA in a brusque fashion, which may have initiated conflict. However, ArmijaDonetsk has been repeatedly uncivil, and has started making personal attacks against me and other editors that are not warranted. I'd merely like for these interactions to cease, as they are annoying and have no place on this project.

• See, for example, this diff.
• See this.
• See this.
• See this.

In the first instance, ArmijaDonetsk was contesting an AFD, that is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Odessa People's Republic. In the second instance, he was questioning my reversion of a different editor, but as one can see in the edit history, that was quickly resolved through editorial compromise. In the third instance, he commented on an already closed deletion discussion and accused me of furthering some kind of agenda, along with other editors who had voted for deletion. The fourth instance is an inappropriate aggressive edit summary. As this editor has shown no sign of ceasing this hostile behaviour, I thought that I'd start a discussion here. I am not seeking any particular sanctions, but I'd like for other editors to review his conduct, and perhaps explain to him to stop making personal attacks. RGloucester — ☎ 16:31, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Here's the advice many well-meaning admins and editors have given me: Quit complaining, just suck it up and get on with your life. ANI is not a psychiatrist's couch and can't be bothered with monitoring or moderating editors' behavior. Hope that helps.71.139.148.192 (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't disagree. However, disruptive editing isn't productive for anyone. RGloucester — ☎ 16:42, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

"disruptive editing isn't productive for anyone" - I agree entirely.71.139.148.192 (talk) 16:48, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

RGloucester, are you accusing people of having conflicts of interest? That's what those diffs seem to say. I also take note of this and this. Lip service to seeing both sides but in practice, slamming the Russian side much harder and without much in the way of diffs that I can see. RGloucester, I can't speak for my fellow admins, but my advice to you is to stop making veiled or unveiled accusations and then running "AN/I! He hit me!" If you are going to dish out that sort of accusation, you should be prepared to take heat. You might be better off reporting suspected whatevers to the appropriate noticeboard, with diffs. Or run for admin.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I am neither pro-Ukrainian or pro-Russian. I have no personal investment in the matter, nor any connection to Ukraine or Russia, other than an interest in Central and Eastern European history. And yes, I was concerned about ArmijaDonetsk having a conflict of interest, as his username means 'Donetsk Army', which is why I reported it to UAA. He also started an article Army of the South-East, seeming to harken to his username. He was cleared in that regard, and have no concern about that. If you'd like me to defend myself, I can do so. As I said, I have no interest in a prolonged conflict of any sort. I can take the heat. I merely figure that such behaviour is unwarranted. If it is warranted, then so be it. My apologies to all involved parties. RGloucester — ☎ 16:50, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I think both sides should tone it down, and I construe "sides" broadly. This is going to end at arbitration, and everyone may not get what they hoped. Find a way of getting along. It looks like from your talk page, that this has happened for brief intervals. Expand them. And for the love of Pete, would you say that someone in the US Army should be barred similarly? Focus on the content, not the contributor.—Wehwalt (talk) 16:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

We allow individual editors. We do not allow usernames that make one think that the username is representative of organisation editing, that is, that the organisation is editing rather than an individual. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

This is true. Going by Wehwalt's analogy above, if someone registered an account called "US Army" that would technically be a violation of WP:ORGNAME and WP:ISU. If the editing patterns further suggested that the person could represent that organization, it makes it even worse. The issue isn't a matter of conflicts of interest, in that a name like "US Army Fred" clearly represents someone named Fred and not the organization and is permissible even if it implies a COI. So the UAA report does not seem to be out of line at all, regardless of the result. -- Atama頭 21:16, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In the first instance, ArmijaDonetsk was contesting an AFD" - no, were I not. Can't you even properly read your own diffs?
• "In the second instance, he was questioning my reversion " - no I was not questioning the reversion, I wanted you to stop content removal. As explained to you here. That it had been "solved" does not mean your behavior has been solved. That is what needs fixing.
• "In the third instance" - "he commented on an already closed deletion discussion and accused me of furthering some kind of agenda" - well, all I see is that you seem to have an agenda of removing certain content and links. The first I noticed was removal of a wiki link, and I asked the user to obey WP process [77]
• "The fourth instance is an inappropriate aggressive edit summary." - It is not aggressive. You may perceive it as such. But stick to NPOV. You go around and ask "don't attack a user" but it is the very first think you did on my talk page. A person that does this is commonly called "hypocrite". So, naming you so, is not an attack at all, but a NPOV statement. I just wrote it in caps so you get the message clear. Just to reduce chance of mis-parsing on your side.

RGloucester is harassing users that want to fairly and in a NPOV-way contribute to Wikipedia, by removing/undoing their contributions out of process. "Red link to an anti-Yatsenyuk government item" removed. "Articles about secession declarations" (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lugansk_parliamentary_republic, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Odessa_People's_Republic) - voted for deletion. "content of copy of Odessa hoax" - removed.

"Neither pro-Russian, nor pro-Ukrainian." - Well, I myself am pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian and pro-European. And pro-Knowledge and pro-NPOV. ArmijaDonetsk (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Such language though tends to chill debate, which is why it is frowned on here. Everyone needs to cool it down, not only in words, but in terms of reverts and provoking others. Discuss instead. That's what the talk page is for. The world will not end if you discuss rather than revert.—Wehwalt (talk) 17:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

• If my editing is truly disruptive, and harmful to the project, then I request that I be blocked indefinitely for disruptive editing. I have no desire to harm the project, and no desire to push any point of view. If I am doing so, I deserve to be blocked. Therefore, please do as one sees fit. RGloucester — ☎ 19:12, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Very few people "deserve to be [indefinitely] blocked". Blocks are preventative. We believe you're sincerely trying to help, just please follow the policies/processes you agreed to when you arrived DP 19:49, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

:I am doing so. I believe that my editing has been found to be disruptive per the discussion above, and I do not wish to be disruptive. Hence, I am requesting to be blocked indefinitely. RGloucester — ☎ 19:55, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I suppose that is impossible, hence, I will self-block myself. I apologise for all disruption that has occurred, and will cease all editing forthwith. Farewell, and thank you for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 20:13, 17 April 2014 (UTC)—

• Disregard my previous statements. I was merely cannot handle the questioning of my integrity. Regardless, I will refrain from editing in contentious areas, as it clearly isn't to my benefit to do so. I do apologise for my previous behaviour, however, it really is very much to handle. The sheer amount of nonsense that has been piling up in the 'Ukraine crisis' quadrant of Wikipedia is astounding, and it can get to one's head if one doesn't keep a vigilant eye. RGloucester — ☎ 01:36, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• If you step into someone's backyard and get stung by bees, just get out of the yard, you don't need to leave the whole neighborhood. :) Article topics on Wikipedia tend to suffer from the same conflicts that the article subjects do in real life, and the more widespread and immediate the conflict is, the more widespread and immediate the editing conflicts tend to be. Anyone who doesn't have the stomach for that kind of thing shouldn't get involved in those topic areas at the moment. I've been intentionally limiting my involvement as well, so I don't judge you for wanting to stay away, I think it's wise. There are lots of other places on this project that need help. -- Atama頭 18:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Donetsk People's Republic

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

---

Please can the article on Donetsk People's Republic be given protection from non-autoconfirmed editors. Blocked editor Cmoibenlepro keeps editing it using sockpuppets - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Cmoibenlepro. He/she has access to multiple IPs, and when the current crop of IP socks that he/she is using get blocked, will no doubt reappear with other ones.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor unwilling/unable to follow copyright policies

Despite numerous posts of advice/warnings (her whole talk page), Meganknudsen seems unwilling or unable to follow our image copyright policies (latest upload tagged for CSD). I've tried to explain but it doesn't seem she's getting it. Can someone else give a final warning or block until she agrees to abide by our image use policies. Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) First, an apology that I unexpectedly had to step away while I was writing a personalized message to the uploader, to add to the standard notification template. I've added both now at User talk:Meganknudsen#Replaceable fair use File:Alex Pettyfer 2.jpg. Feel free to add warning or action as necessary, but please take into account what I just wrote. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Every single media file uploaded by this user, has been deleted, usually because of copyright issues. I suggest a ban from media uploads for at least six months. Guy (Help!) 22:03, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Vassula Ryden : Multiple violations of WP:ASF, promoting views of a particular critic and ignoring WP:NPOV

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

---

I would like to report user Binksternet (talk · contribs) for several WP:ASF violations, duplication of negative content, promoting the views of a particular critic and otherwise for taking a very one sided approach to editing the Vassula Ryden article.

WP:ASF Violations

Example 1:

1. Binksternet originally created a paragraph speaking about Dermine that disregarded WP:ASF back in 2012. see diff
2. Administrator LFaroene made an attempt to bring the aforementioned paragraph more inline with WP:ASF beginning 2013. see diff
3. Binksternet immediately reverted the above edit calling it the "consensus version". There was no such consensus. see diff
4. A few days ago, I re-modified it to a more encyclopedic tone citing WP:ASF in my edit. see diff
5. A couple of hours later Binksternet subtly re-inserted his original version of the of text citing other changes made in the edit. Note that he omitted making any mention of reverting his paragraph to his original WP:ASF version. see diff after line 56

Example 2:

In the same edit as mentioned above (see diff Line 32) Binksternet inserted a sentence claiming that "Ryden has never published the first ten months' worth of received messages, explaining that she burned them because there were too many". The entire sentence, be it that she burned the messages, that they were too many or that she even made such an explanation in the first place is a claim made by Dermine, who strongly opposes Ryden and has no credible publishing track record to speak of. Theologians who have a much greater track record have provided a completely different account regarding the missing messages. However Dermine's text is being presented as "a matter of fact" with "Ryden claiming that the reason behind it was etc". Also the text "Father Rene Laurentin contradicted Ryden" is also a claim made by Dermine. That too however, is being presented as a matter of fact. This seems to be another breach of WP:ASF.

Other possible WP:NPOV issues

1. Insertion of Holy See text (see diff) which already appears twice in the article in two other sections, both in the lead and the "Reception". He extended it to the "writings" section as well (see Line 38). The Holy See notification now appears 3 times in the article, in 3 different sections, the lead, the "Reception" section and now the "Writings" section. See Vassula Ryden article and search for "Holy See".
2. WP:GAMING of wikipedia rulebook in removal of Ryden receiving Peace Gold Medal verifiable not least by photograph (see diff). In his edit comment he referred to it as 'non-notable' even though Venerable Suddhananda, the issuer of the medal is the top ranking Buddhist monk of Bangladesh and the Prime Minister of Bangladesh was present (in photograph). Its true that this was uncited (newspapers from Bangladesh can be a bit difficult to acquire) but was deleting this content really necessary when Ryden receiving of this medal is verifiable by photograph and not debated even by Ryden's fiercest opponents? To view the photograph that was removed, see previous subsection version of article here.
3. In his edit comment for this edit (see diff), Binksternet made the comment "The quote is from the back cover, page 142, not from the author." This book, written by theologian and Mariologist Rene Laurentin, an author with an extensive publishing record, contains a lot of informative and supportive material regarding Ryden. Being that Rene Laurentin's written track record is far greater than that of Dermine, and that Binksternet had the book in in his possession, why did he not attribute any material from that book by adding it into the article? Why only insert text attributed to Dermine, who has a much smaller track record and is also a staunch opposer to Ryden? Isn't it the goal of wikipedia to promote multiple views from multiple sources in a balanced manner? It seems in this case, that he has made it a point to acquire Rene Laurentin's book for no other purpose than to scrutinize the references attributed to it.
4. In this edit (see diff) Binksternet added a link to a self published website dedicated to criticizing Vassula Ryden (http://www.pseudomystica.info) within the article itself. This website is hosted by François-Marie Dermine, who is also the author of the book that Binksternet was quoting in his WP:ASF violations (see previous section example 1). This edit, in my view seems to be indicative of an attempt at promoting the website by inserting it directly within the article. Further to this, the edit is also attributed to a WP:SPS (http://www.pseudomystica.info).

Questionable Statements

In a conversation titled "reception section needs work" (see discussion) at comment dated 16:16, 15 April 2014, he posted a misleading statement on how the CDF dialogue was carried about stating it was by email only, despite being well versed in its details, which included a private audience between Ryden and Ratzinger verifiable not least by photograph in an article he was aware of. I am certain of his knowledge of this article because of his extensive participation in a talk page discussion discussing Grechs article (see discussion). This discussion mentioned Grechs article multiple times and also preceded the "reception section needs work" discussion in which he made the misleading statement. In the Grechs article discussion Binksternet made the following statements:

• "No. Simply no. There is no way to game this book review to make the Ryden story a positive one." 18:36, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment speaks for itself. (see diff)
• "There is no hopeful note to this story". 5:48, 16 March 2014 (UTC). This comment pretty much brings it home. (see diff)

Neither of the two aforementioned statements strike me as someone who has taken an WP:NPOV approach to this article. I would recommend reading the above discussion in its entirety to acquire context of it. I have been involved in multiple other talk discussion's, RFC's, DRN's where Binksternet downplayed / made misleading statements with regard to positive developments in Ryden's church relations. For the sake of brevity I will exclude them from this post.

In closing

Considering how Binksternet (talk · contribs) inserted and consolidated material attributed to François-Marie Dermine's book in violation to WP:ASF in multiple locations, asserting Dermine's views from the book in the article as fact, did everything to consolidate said edits, and that he inserted a reference to http://www.pseudomystica.info, a website hosted by Dermine directly into the article itself, attributing said insertion to the website itself (WP:SPS), it seems that Binksternet has taken it upon himself to promote Dermine's views in the article. While this is speculative, given his approach to editing the article and his tone in the talk pages, I would not be surprised if Binksternet had a connection with Dermine which would constitute a WP:COI. I do realize however, that this cannot be proven with the information presented here alone.

Upon reviewing Binksternet's edit history one can take note how this editor has taken a very one sided approach to the article. His edit history starts mid 2012. Upon reviewing my edit history you will note that my contributions to the Vassula Ryden article have also been relatively one sided. The differences between me and Binksternet is:

• I respect and follow wikipedia guidelines when they are presented to me, particularly WP:RS and WP:ASF.
• I do not try edit text claimed by authors and present them as facts.
• I do not attempt to trim or remove content that I do not agree with even when the sources attributed to said content are often non notetable.
• I am not a high caliber edtitor like Binksternet, thus I expect much more knowledge / adherence to WP rules than what I have witnessed from his part.

A full explanation of why I have mainly edited the Vassula Ryden article (technically making me an SPA) can be viewed | here. (see TLIG section).

I would appreciate some input as to the approach taken by editor Binksternet (talk · contribs) based on what I have reported above. I feel this issue could really use some administrative intervention. Thanks. Arkatakor (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• WP:ASF is neither a policy, nor even a guideline - it's one of a list of best practices from an FAQ about WP:NPOV - and as such, you cannot "violate it". What you're showing above is for the most part a content dispute, which admins cannot decide on. You are attempting to prove behavioural issues, but that specific type of behaviour is not the remit of requiring immediate administrative attention to prevent damage - you're trying to prove something that belongs in an WP:RFC/U. Do remember that we have WP:CONSENSUS and dispute resolution for a reason DP 09:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Noted and thanks. I would like to point out though that I have already been through DRN's and RFC's with regard to this user to no avail. I will go ahead and post in WP:RFC/U as per your suggestion. I do hope that his WP:ASF edits cant be take note of - having text like "more damning than that" or "Ryden explained away the problem" directly as narrative content in the article is simply not encyclopedic. Arkatakor (talk) 10:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• The first edit you cite does not show any cause for concern; adding a critical viewpoint regarding an individual's body of work is not a violation of any policy, so long as it comes from a credible person or organization, has reliable third-party sources backing it up, and is written in a neutral tone. The only question raised was whether or not Dermine himself is notable enough as a publicist for his dissertation to be included in the article. I disagree with Binksternet's decision to revert LFaraone based on a supposed consensus, which I could not find anywhere in the talk page archives. That being said, he did invite discussion about making changes to the text, so it's not as if his actions were entirely tendentious. Keep in mind that Dermine was not making "claims", but assertions. Using phrases such as "claimed" in place of terms that demonstrate the conviction of the author serves to undermine their credibility, which ironically can be seen as a violation of both UNDUE and even BLP when held in a certain light.

  Your second piece of evidence has more veracity than the first, given that I cannot find any additional third-party source to verify that Ryden has indeed burned all of her messages from the first ten months. I'm not sure whether Dermine's assertion is fully credible, as he appears to give little in the way of a source in which Ryden explicitly states that she destroyed her earliest messages. In my opinion, this segment should probably be checked for its accuracy, and if no other sources can be found, then it ought to be altered. This is actually the first of only two statements you've made in the entirety of this ANI post where I find myself in agreement with what you say. I also think the fact that Ryden earned a Peace Gold Medal warrants mentioning in the article, even if it isn't the most significant award a person can get. To be fair, Binksternet's removal was not based on factual accuracy, but notability. I disagree with him there, but to each their own.

  Maintaining a neutral point of view does not mean that we give minority opinions the same weight as the general consensus. Laurentin's book could perhaps be used to verify the positions of Ryden's supporters, but its widespread usage is compromised by the fact that it represents a minority viewpoint. Nothing in this edit calls into question its viability as a source; all it did was fix a misattributed quotation. While we're on the topic of citing reputable sources, it is extremely important that the Vatican's stance be given significant weight. In the Christian community, the Holy See is considered the most authoritative source on anything pertaining to the religion. Reiterating their rejection of Ryden's claims throughout the article using the same reference upholds the mainstream consensus: that her prophetic connection with God is bullshit.

  Your point about Binksternet's addition of a link to a critical website takes his edit entirely out of context. That section of the article focuses on a lawsuit filed against outspoken True Life in God critic Maria Laura Pio and her webpage, which she ultimately shut down in response to the litigation. A Catholic research group was subsequently given her express permission to repost the contents of the original site under a new domain name. The fact that it has resurfaced is an important footnote.

  At the moment, I'm not inclined to review this whole "CDF dialogue" situation in its entirety. The talk page consensus is against using the citations you've provided because they ostensibly do not come from an unbiased source. And as Binksternet says, it's an inconsequential point to make anyways — the Vatican's stance has not changed.

  I'm not sure what you're expecting to accomplish by bringing this here. Most people who attempt to review your complaint will be put off by the wall of text they see in front of them, and those who do bring themselves to go through everything will see that it is nothing more than a content dispute blown way out of proportion by one or two participants who cannot let a horse carcass rot in peace. You speak of "respecting and following Wikipedia's guidelines" as presented to you; I'm sure you're familiar with consensus and tendentious editing. This is a community project, which means that things aren't always going to go your way. Kurtis ^(talk) 11:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Kurtis, for your careful evaluation of the evidence. Anyone can see that ASF was not violated by the first example diff, where I attribute Dermine repeatedly for his highly critical views. Regarding Ryden's missing messages, I would be happy to attribute Dermine to the notion that Ryden burned them, just as I did Laurentin to their not being destroyed. It might be useful to break those few sentences out into their own sub-section, taking attributed comments from each source. The missing messages are a sore point for Ryden supporters, so getting it right is important. Binksternet (talk) 15:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User Alexbrn

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

---

User:Alexbrn removed a link I inserted into Mindfulness meditation (diff). We disagreed on our interpretation of WP:EL, and had a civil exchange, until he turned nasty (see discussion). Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 09:50, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please provide the diff made by Alexbrn where he "turned nasty". -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 10:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, here you go Finlay McWalter. - Thanks; LeoRomero (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There's nothing "nasty" about that reply. Do you have any evidence that actually supports your claim? -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 11:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

There is no nastiness from Alexbrn, rather inexperience from LeoRomero. This is a premature and petty appeal for assistance as discussion has only just begun. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 10:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not a very nice thing to say Roxy the dog. LeoRomero (talk) 10:54, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you being serious or just trolling? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 11:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Assume good faith, Roxy the dog. Your condescending remarks on the Talk page (diff), also unhelpful and unWikipedian. I'm actually having fun, seeing how this goes; never filed a complaint vs fellow contributors before. Let's just leave this to cool heads like Finlay McWalter okay? LeoRomero (talk) 11:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

This section should be closed, I read the talk page at Mindfulness meditation I see nothing even close to the discussion having turned nasty. If anything patience is required on the part of LeoRomero VViking_TalkEdits 10:45, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you describe these words from Alexbrn then: "(Add: oh, I see you've just reverted your preferred content back in - which is rather extraordinary behaviour. Editors don't sit in front of their keyboards 24/7!)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by LeoRomero (talk • contribs)

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

Spam account

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

---

User_talk:Wbct appears to be a spam only account. Having created an new article titled We Buy cars Today. LordFixit (talk) 13:56, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. --Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

forbes and WP:NOTNEWS

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

---

on the Vladimir Putin one user disrputed the article by removing the forbes articles about the worlds most powerfull person, that list is used on many world leaders articles so there is no reason the putin article should not mention it, secondly the same user also added this: "In 2014 Russia was excluded from the G8 group as a result of international consensus on the illegality of Putin's invasion and annexation of Crimea" which is news and does not belong in the intro per WP:NOTNEWS. Am asking you to help me remove all of that unconstructive editing because am unable to do it myself also It is obviously not a content dispute, its a blatant violation of wikipedia policy! 115.187.78.204 (talk) 15:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this issue with the editor in question, either on their user talk page or on the article's talk page? —Psychonaut (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

again this is not a edit dispute but a reqest to remove 2 cases of unconstructive editing, and even if i were to discuss the matter with that user it would not lead to anything, i cannot convice him and he could not convince me and that kind of discussion would probably not make other users give any conclusion which will make any super long discussion pointless and AGAIN what the user done to the article is obviosly not constructive and very clearly goes against wikipedia policy of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NPOV 115.187.78.250 (talk) 18:19, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you be so sure that he's not willing to discuss with you if you won't do it? You must be bold and talk to him, and whining about what he did without first talking with him will just simply lead to you shooting yourself in the foot. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 20:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

you actually shot yourself in the foot by using words like "whining" (WP:CIVIL) and not reading what i actually wrote, also i have talked with him in other issues several times so i know how it works 27.96.33.235 (talk) 22:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh? Then provide a diff of the discussion then, and then action might be taken. You can't just accuse people without providing evidence. ZappaOMati 23:01, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

1) You haven't even told us the editor you're in a dispute with, just the article. I don't understand what you want anyone to do if we don't even know what you're talking about.

2) You should provide diffs which demonstrate the edits that you've considered to be unconstructive (the top of this board says as much).

3) When asked whether you've discussed the issue with the editor (which is also at the top of this board), you say it would be of no use. That is an unacceptable answer.

4) What you've described so far sounds like a content dispute, which should be resolved as suggested at the dispute resolution guideline, nothing that requires administrative intervention.

5) You've changed IPs once already, if that keeps happening it's really going to be hard for us to either contact you or keep track of what you've done on Wikipedia to help see what you're talking about. -- Atama頭 23:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

"Whining" is not a violation of WP:CIVIL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:07, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

user:Presidentbalut - personal attacks

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

---

My apologies if I do this incorrectly, or am in the wrong area, I have not been here before. user:Presidentbalut has been repeatedly using personal attacks. Beginning here [78], which was handled with grace [79] and then here [80]. I asked them to refrain from personal attacks [81], to which they replied with more personal attacks [82]. They have been asked to stop elsewhere, [83], [84], but the personal attacks continue [85], [86], [87]. This is not entirely new behavior [88]. Thanks! 78.26 (I'm no IP, talk to me!) 16:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I blocked User:Delloman75 as an obvious sock. Presidentbalut's main role here appears to be adding WP:OR ethnic claims and attacking anyone who disagrees with him. DMacks (talk) 17:00, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've indeffed the user for the many, many personal attacks (makes my head spin there are so many), and WP:NOTHERE. Of the total 205 edits, only 18 have been to article space. The vast majority are to article talk where many of the personal attacks occur. Plus, the editor is (Personal attack removed). They claim here that letters with accents, like the e in René Auberjonois, are illegal under New York state law. It's a "foreign letter". Here they claim it's illegal under American federal law. Here, in the same discussion, when another user tries (don't ask me why) to engage in a rational conversation, they accuse the other user of being "the worst troll and stalker of wikipedia".--Bbb23 (talk) 17:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, I think Presidentbalut was referring to naming law, such as California's controversial (particularly among Filipino immigrants) ban on the use of diacriticals in certain legal documents, like birth certificates. Such state naming laws of course do not generalize to other media, such as Wikipedia. So Presidentbalut isn't so crazy, though I agree an indef block was long overdue since he could not restrain himself from personal attacks. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Spam account

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

---

Special:Contributions/ICSI-wiki2 appears to be a spam account, having made only one contribution - creating Institute for Clinical Systems Improvement LordFixit (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean a COI account - do their edits appear to violate specific policies or guidelines? "Spam" has an appreciably different connotation. Collect (talk) 19:23, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Only writing a promotional article, which is a standard newbie error of course. It doesn't become a spam account until it tries it on rather more than that IMO. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Odd threat received on talk page

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

---

I'm not sure if this editor thinks any of this warning/threat I received is believable, but I would like to bring attention to this message I received on my talk page: [89]. This user has added WP:POV and WP:UNDUE content to the Sam Yagan, which I removed, and I have been hesitant to even start a discussion on its talk page since a constructive response is unlikely. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I was going to block the user for making legal threats, but Dpmuk beat me to it. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as legal threats go that's pretty clear. I've also revdel'd the relevant edits to Sam Yagan (and one edit summary) as violations of our WP:BLP policy but as that's not an area I normally work in I will have no problems if someone thinks I've over stepped the marks and undoes the revdel. Dpmuk (talk) 21:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

The revdel due to BLP issues looks perfectly sensible to me. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 21:20, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I was surprisingly not aware of that legal policy. Reywas92^Talk 21:41, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to edit here, but others are not allowed to issue legal threats at you in an attempt to change how you edit here. (On a very minor point, this is a policy about legal threats, not a legal policy.) I'm going to issue a barnstar to Dpmuk, and I think we are done here.

(I, too, have surfeits of "righteous anger" at times :) )--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Award issued at User:Demiurge1000/Chilling Effects Award --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:21, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Obvious SP and public humiliation

This IP is an obvious sock puppet of this recently blocked user. He is humiliating me personally. Enough is enough. Étienne Dolet (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please take this to WP:AIV in the future. The IP has not edited in 3 hours, so I am considering this tentatively resolved. Please post to AIV if the IP resumes. Nakon 05:57, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Nakon The same IP with the same range keeps on edit-warring. If there are brief stops of edit-warring, that's only because someone hasn't reverted him yet. Étienne Dolet (talk) 08:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Skookum1 again

I despise getting into this sort of thing (and in fact, I believe this is the first time I've ever actually filed an ANI report that wasn't a ban request for a sockpuppeteer, but...), but the behavior of Skookum1 (talk · contribs) has not moderated since the last ANI, in fact if anything, it's become worse. His previous assumptions of entitlement on the basis of being an expert on subjects are continuing, and he is flat-out telling other editors to "[keep] your nose out of categories you know nothing about the subject matter thereof", and he continues to assume any opposition to him is an attack on him personally. However what spurred this report is that he and BrownHairedGirl (talk · contribs) have been...engaged in discussion...at this CfD (where the above behavior is ongoing), and my attempt to provide a caution and a suggestion for calming the waters was met with this response. This is wholly unacceptable behavior for any Wikipedian, and I would appreciate somebody to please make this clear, since it's obvious Skookum1 has decided that I am the enemy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:17, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Reply "The Witchunt Part II" huh? What is needed is not a ban to get me out of Wikipedia, but as noted/"hinted" by RadioKAOS what is really needed here is an interaction ban against BHG and now you for harassment and obstructionist behaviour. The CfD was launched moments after I created the category and is without guidelines to back it, or anything but IDONTLIKEIT and is entirely AGF in tone; BHG demands evidence and examples, I provide them, she says they're " 95%...irrelevant" and presumes to tell me to "cool down" and calls my detailed explanations "diatribes". "Walls of text" I'm avoiding by bulleting and paragraphing but failing that complaint, she engages in denial and obfuscation and more "bring me a shrubbery" gambits despite lots of shrubbery already being provided.
  • • The CfD has consumed three (two? - seems like longer) days of what would otherwise be productive time for this contributing editor; as with the regional district hyphen-endash RMs and last year's native endonyms RM, which were similarly stonewalled by demands for irrelevant picayune information, what underlies the categories being challenged is both consensus and very findable citations; but you can put reality in front of someone, they will still go IWANTMORE as BHG is doing; failing that the tactic being mounted here is to get me banned. Given that BHG has targeted whole hierarchies of categories she doesn't even understand where or what they are about is a case in point of people who don't have a clue what they're talking about not being useful in such discussions; and who have no business nominating them unless they'er clearly against guidelines; which these categories are not, as the 'oppose' votes have pointed out.
    • Calling for a ban against me is draconian and destructive. I wanted to stay away from procedural discussions after the painful round of insults and NPAs and pat-judgments that typified the "burn him, burn him!" "votes" in the last ANI, which was closed "no consensus for a ban or block", but in the wake of which (maybe within minutes, I haven't looked at the date/timestamps) I was blocked by BHG anyway, and then she went and conducted hostile closures on RMs where she ignored consensus, view stats, googles, guidelines and the prevailing and emergent consensus which closed/moves 90%+ of similar RMs.
    • And though I went at trying to work on articles and get away from the witchhunt mentality that prevails in this oh-so-negative "discussion board", I created some river articles arising from creating Tsetsaut and created a category for the many rivers in the region in question and was immediately faced by a CfD from an admin who had blocked me without consensus. The CfD should be tossed out on those grounds alone, never mind that she has yet to provide a valid argument for deleting/merging the categories she's assailing, and has expanded her challenge to my work by going after whole hierarchies of categories which, in various phases and on various talkpages, do have consensus as necessary.
    • This is a nuisance ANI, just like the CfD is a nuisance CfD, and though you claim you're not my enemy, your WP:DUCK action here says otherwise. "A subject who is truly loyal to the Chief Magistrate will not advise nor submit to arbitrary measures" (Junius) comes to mind. Arbitrary and high-handed abuse from a certain cadre of admins is now far too common in Wikipedia, and is entirely destructive and anti-contributing-editor in tone/intent time and again; this deleted/censored comment of the now-banned Kumioto is one of many of this kind.
    • Actions like yours here and your obstructive presence on a CfD you yourself say you don't care about the outcome of are what is disruptive and anti-Wikipedian....not somebody who stands up to pointless criticism and denials of evidence/example; making me the target instead of addressing the evidence provided is your hallmark; as is deluging discussions with personal-related criticism instead of actually useful, thoughtful comments on the issues and the topic.
    • And yes, if someone knows nothing about geography of a certain region, or about the category system on such topics, then it is not their business to intrude and create more procedure just to stonewall and make specious demands which are then ignored or derided.......I'm having computer problems probably from the 100 degree plus heat here in Ko Samui (sleep mode happening repeatedly without being asked) so won't be able to respond to the inevitable dogpile of condemnations and hypocrisy like surfaced last time around.
    • the previous anti-consensus block by the person who launched the CfD calls into question her motives; her anti-AGF behaviour about citations and explanations provided is just sheer obstinacy and is disruptive and tendentious. I was contemplating an ANI or RfA or RfC or some other measure to discipline her, but I dislike procedure, as most contributing editors do, and want to write articles, not be hauled in front of kangaroo courts where attacking contributing editors is a past-time. The CfD is a waste of time and groundless and purely personal in motivation, and amounts to wiki-stalking by someone who has already taken actions in defiance of a 'no consensus' closure that said not to; how ironic she would claim that long-standing region titles should need "consensus"....they have it; but like evidence that 95% of which I'm sure she didn't read, "consensus" is really not what she wants, other than to use the CfD to overturn it. But why?. "Because it's Skookum1 who started that category so let's pretend there's something wrong with it"......and now, hell, let's just go after every category and title he's ever written huh?
    • Banning me would be a dangerous loss for Wikipedia, but you seem insistent on it for purely personal reasons and here as on the CfD and in previous discussions you indulge in WP:BAITing and what amounts to purely destructive behaviour. I just want to write and improve articles, but my time is being taken up defending myself against baiting and groundless anti-AGF criticism and harassment. Maybe one day "ordinary" (contributing) Wikipedians will be free from the tyranny of the vocal minority who infest discussion boards, be it here or on RMs or CfDs or in guideline discussions; but as long as public crucifixions and stonings of people who do constructive work continue, that day is a long ways off yet.
    • What is needed here, again, is not a ban to rid Wikipedia of me, but an interaction ban against those who have persistently harassed me and who refuse to read or acknowledge evidence and who have no logic or guideline citations to speak of; just IDONTLIKEIT and that's it. I have a great deal yet to contribute to Wikipedia, but the last few months have seen procedural attacks that are totally counterproductive and timewasting......so rather than goading me so you can condemn me, why don't you just stay out of my way and not jump on every discussion you see me in?? Skookum1 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Let's can the drama. Shut this thread. Give the guy some space. Carrite (talk) 04:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
• speedy close ani is just fuel on the fire. Close this, close the cfd, and leave him alone for a while. I can't see anything else working.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you Carrite and Obiwan for your sanity. Days of article-writing time have been consumed by the demands made in the CfD, and this ANI is just more harassment of someone who is acknowledged as a highly productive and prolific editor who "knows his shit". I submit again as I did above that an interaction ban is maybe needed; but less formal would be WP:DISENGAGE on BHG's and Bushranger's part; the RMs that were harmed by their biases against me should also all be revisited because of the prevailing and mounting consensus that would have seen them passed/moved. The COI passage on closures says nothing directly about personal vendettas, but that's all that CfD really is, and what this ANI is.Skookum1 (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • I did not "engage" you. I offered a caution and calming advice, in the hopes of avoiding your getting blocked, and I got a blistering tirade of personal attacks for my trouble. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • "calming advice"??? you're either flattering yourself or just not clued in; you engaged me repeatedly before, always condemning and criticizing while claiming you are "giving advice", but your actions cluttered a CfD to the point where even when I produced citations from TITLE you accused me of continuing to BLUDGEON; the bludgeoning is yours, you painting yourself as innocent and even friendly is just..... there are a host of adjectives available...... given your track record with me saying you did not "engage" me by chiming in with a "support" and very AGF vote on a very AGF and pointless CfD puts the lie to the saintliness you are painting yourself as here.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• What is being requested here? I don't get the point of this thread. Is a block being requested, or a ban? No? This needs to be at something like RfC/U and not here. Doc talk 07:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd aver that a plain ol' RfC be held on BHG's launch of the CfD and her bad closes on sundry RMs, and her unilateral unsanctioned block of last week. I'm trying to be be a productive editor but finding my time tied up, and my presence here threatened, every time I turn around. The CfD, despite disclaimers that it's not anti-AGF, is very much so and in the context of recent events and words is highly COI in origin. The "Squamish matter" and the against-consensus/precedents closures of Haida people, Bella Bella, British Columbia and others need to be all redone because of the personal bias against me but the closer and their context within the recent ANI discussion/period. As Obiwan and Carrite have observed, I just want to be let alone so I can focus on article writing instead of having horseshoes thrown at me by people who have really nothing constructive to offer; I tried to "stay out of the way", but found myself stalked and pounced on and a whole host of categories challenged by someone who's never even heard of them before. As I said in the last ANI, I'm not the problem here; bad attitudes are, and the prevailing negativity of kibbitzers who nitpick on titles and topics without even knowing what they're about.....Skookum1 (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Raking me over the coals in an RfC/U would just be more procedure and no doubt an even more hostile and prejudicial environment than ANI is. And to what end? To alienate yet another long-time contributing editor and either drive or ban him from Wikipedia forever? The amount I could have gotten done in the last few weeks/months is obviously considerable; instead I have been regularly attacked and vilified and finally subjected to a public stoning and then a peremptory, unsanctioned-by-ANI ban by the person who now is asking non sequiturs and ignoring evidence provided as asked, and sticking her tongue in her cheek pretending innocence while castigating my information as irrelevant and wikilawyering in extremis. I was accused in the ANI of being a "time sink", but I'm not the time sink; procedure of the sake of the sport of it IS. How much of my last year or two has been taken up by time-consuming procedure of all kinds? Way too much. How many articles could I have improved and created in the meantime?? Subjecting me to an RfC/U to please those who have nothing better to do than criticize others is just gonna be more of the same....Skookum1 (talk) 07:55, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
  • What is being requested here is that somebody give Skookum1 a plain-English warning that personal attacks like the one linked in the OP are simply not on, since it would be improper for me to do so both on account of being involved overall (and the target of said attack) and since it would be taken as just more proof of being persecuted. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:58, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Damn right it is; you're the one doing the persecuting while claiming to be "not my enemy".....WP:DUCK says it all. You had nothing constructive to add at the CfD and here you are being destructive and calling for draconian measures to silence me forever. Give me a break, pal, I'm trying to get work done and loathe being hauled before mindless, picayune procedure that has no real productive value at all. Are you improving Wikipedia today? How? By launching an ANI against someone who just wants to be left alone so he can get some work done? Wow, very constructive....the CfD should be and I hope does get tossed out, and this ANI should be shut down for being the vendetta and witch hunt that it so clearly is.Skookum1 (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
      • "Are you improving Wikipedia today"? Well let's see, I wrote an article from scratch and spent four hours building a table in another article. It was indeed a productive day. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Evasion and misdirection is staple fare it seems; you calling for a ban on me for my getting impatient with obstinance and obfuscation in t he CfD is definitely draconian......as is coming to this ANI at all, considering the threats of "escalating blocks" that were not consensus-agreed-to, but done anyway; Drop the hammer and go write some articles if that's really what else you do.... Skookum1 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
          • And this little edit comment of yours sums up the cynicism and hostility underlying you bringing me before "the court" today; and imputes that I need "fixing", which is just more NPA and AGF while you wrap yourself in saint's robes. Go fix yourself, pal, I'm not the problem around here, people like you ARE.Skookum1 (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Bushranger: "...you're right, this is pointless. Somebody feel free to close this, so that nothing can be done and eventually he'll will be blocked, banned, or "driven away", because nobody cared to try to fix things while they might be fixable)"
              • I am not calling for a ban, or even for a block, here. The purpose of this ANI was to ask for a warning. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed most of the Cfd -- well, actually I skimmed the last part because it just went on and on.... Skookum1's unwillingness to stay on topic and repeatedly personalize the discussion there is inappropriate. Comment on content, not contributors I find myself surprised this is coming from a 50K mainspace 9 year editor -- it's not a viable long term approach to collaborating on Wikipedia. NE Ent 10:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

A quick visit to my talkpage this morning shows just how badly Skookum personalizes things. The short version is this: Skookum made an edit to this page earlier - they must have got an edit-conflict, but clicked "save" anyway. It erased someone else's post, so I reverted with an appropriate edit-summary. Skookum then happily dropped by my talkpage to make accusations, and even when they restored their post, the edit-summary accused my of something nefarious. Gigantic time sink.  the panda  ₯’ 10:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

There's some bug in the software -- that type of edit, where an addition to one section removes content from another -- happens here sporadically. It's worse when there are lots of threads present. NE Ent 11:24, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment from BHG

On the narrow issue of this CFD, the situation is simply that after I had blocked Skookum1, I noticed that on his return he was posting complaints about me in various locations on my watchlist (e.g. [90]). So I looked at his contributions to see where else this was going, and saw a newly-created Category:Rivers of the Boundary Ranges which didn't fit into any other category of rivers. I looked for similar categorisation schemes, didn't see any, and nominated for discussion at CFD with the rationale: The categorisation of rivers by which mountain range they originate in doesn't appear to have any parallel in Category:Rivers, tho pls correct me if I have missed anything.

There is nothing unusual about any of this. Topics can be categorised in many different ways, and CFD regularly discusses whether new types of category schemes are appropriate. Skookum1's response was ballistic. Non-neutral notifications to no-less than 5 WikiProjects .([91], [92], [93], [94], [95]) and to User:Obiwankenobi[96].

As Obi pointed out, this scheme could create thousands of more categories so before pursuing it further I'd get broader consensus at the geography page.

Unfortunately, the CFD page is filled with long rants from Skookum1. His reply to the Bushranger was merely one of many diatribes on that page alone.

Skookum1 is clearly a very enthusiastic editor, keen to expand coverage of the topics which interest him. But he has great difficulty with collaboration, and with consensus-forming processes. Instead of Bold, revert, discuss, the Skookum1 version seems to be bold, revert, diatribe. In more discussions than I can count, editors who disagree with him have been denounced at length, often to the detriment of the discussion; countless editors have been accused by him of personal vendettas, and of failing to respect his expertise. I first encountered Skookum1 when I closed a CFD which had been open for over a month. Not hard to see why was unclosed: Skookum1's comments were far too long to read in any reasonable length of time.

I subsequently encountered a lot more of his battleground conduct while closing some of the RM backlog; one of those discussions was what prompted me to block him, because although the thread was a bit stale, the disruption was still ongoing elsewhere. Skookum1 alleges that I have been making "hostile closures on RMs" and that I "ignored consensus". If he genuinely believes that, then rather than repeating attacks on me in countless pages, why not just take the closures to Move review? If he's right, the closures will be overturned.

The personal attack which prompted this thread was in response to a warning from The Bushranger, who is merely one of a long series of editors to plead with Skookum1 to calm down. Others include:

A warning here seems justified, but I doubt it would change anything. Skookum1 appears to have pre-emptively dismissed it as persecution, and to have categorised User:The Bushranger as one of his legion of persecutors.

It seems to me that the question is how can Skookum1 be helped to work collaboratively? Sometimes our contributions to Wikipedia are challenged, and discussing those disagreements civilly and concisely (see WP:TPYES) is fundamental to editing Wikipedia works. Sometimes the result is decisions we like, and sometimes we disagree with the result, but that's how it works here.

Skookum1 hasn't cracked how to work within that framework. Would a mentor help? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:16, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Editor removing entire, well-sourced section from article Christopher Monckton without adequate justification

Editor User:Viriditas has claimed that a section on Christopher Monckton's political view pertaining to climate change are "promotional", Undue, Coattrack, etc - whatever seems to spring to mind. The section is very well sourced, and the majority of it is quite certainly the opposite of promotional. Monckton - within the limited realm of his influence - is fairly well known for his views on climate science. The article is a BLP, and the material discusses Monckton and his views. Editor Viriditas is simply removing the entire section by fiat. The only discussion that has taken place - over a matter of hours - has been with me. No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided. I've reverted his blanket removal twice, but he/she persists. This is not acceptable - Editor Viriditas has not provided *specific* examples to back up his claims - only blanket statements that - because Monckton is not an expert on climate science, the material should not be in the article - ignoring that the article isn't claiming that he's an expert, it is presenting information relevant to Monckton. A casual scan of the net clearly shows that Monckton is controversial, and fairly widely known for being contrarian on climate change. Anastrophe (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words about Monckton's fringe climate change denial views into his biography.[97] I've said on the talk page that this enormous weight is undue and is tantamount to coatrackery and promotion. I then brought the 769 words down to a manageable 163.[98] Instead of receiving thanks and admiration for helping to improve Wikipedia, I've been dragged here instead. Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer. When he's told that he has the burden to justify adding this material, he responds with "I didn't write it", but that doesn't stop him from adding it back in again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Viriditas (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"The user keeps adding an unbelievable and unprecedented 769 words". False on so many levels. First, the material has been in the article for quite some time, I don't know exactly how long, but at least a year or more. I didn't add any of this material to the article. Instead, editor Viriditas is removing this material by fiat - with vague claims of policy violations, but without a single specific. Furthermore, a claim that 769 words is "unprecedented" requires proof - otherwise, it's just noises made to sound important. Monckton's views on climate science are relevant and notable to Christopher Monckton - the article is not about climate science, it is about Monckton, but editor Viriditas insists that this material about Monckton cannot be included in an article about Monckton. "Anastrophe has been asked several times why he thinks this material is important but he refuses to answer.". Another complete, total falsehood. Editor Viriditas has not asked a single question in the discussion thus far. I have not 'refused' to answer anything - I have explained why I believe that editor Viriditas has not appropriately provided a valid justification for removal of this material. Generic, vague claims of policy violations are certainly any editor's prerogative - removing well-sourced material by fiat based on those generic claims is not acceptable in a collaborative medium. The tone of editor Viriditas's commentary is disturbing - I've explained my rationale, he's explained his, but no other editors have had an opportunity to discuss the matter. I am accused of 'refusing' to answer questions that have never been tendered. The burden is upon editor Viriditas to provide specifics, not generalities, as justifications for removing well-sourced material that is pertinent to this BLP. I'll thank and extend my admiration to editor Viriditas when he/she collaborates on the article, rather than removing material by fiat. Anastrophe (talk) 04:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

First, the length of time anything has been in an article is not a valid argument for keeping it in the article. I often remove vandalism that's been in place for years. According to your argument, we shouldn't remove it because it's been there for a long time. Do you see a problem with your reasoning? Second, I've explained on the talk page why I removed it, but you refuse to explain why you've added it back in. Instead, you keep refusing to take responsibility. The way Wikipedia works is like this: 1) an editor (in this case myself) finds a problem. There is no time limit on the problem, it may be new or old. 2) The editor uses the talk page to explain the problem, citing policies or guidelines if necessary. 3) The editor attempts to leave the problem for others to handle based on their talk page message, or tries to fix the problem themselves. 4) Other editors may come along to agree or disagree, or there will be silence. So what happened? I left a message on the talk page explaining the problem and then I fixed the problem. You showed up and reverted saying "why did you remove the material"? Well, that's been explained to you many times now, but you keep on adding the material back in while avoiding the burden of proof. If you can't defend adding the material back in, then stop adding it. It doesn't matter how long the problem occurred or how long the content was in the article. Viriditas (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The number of dissembling claims here is astonishing. NO, my argument is not that it shouldn't be removed because it's been there a long time - I have not said that, you have said it, putting words in my mouth in order to attack me for them. Yes, you explained on the talk page your rationale. However, it is utter crap to suggest that I 'refuse' to explain anything - I've provided (perhaps overly voluminously) my rationale for inclusion, but editor Viriditas keeps saying that I'm refusing to explain myself. Utter crap. "refusing to take responsibility". Again, crap. I've stated my rationale for the material to remain, very clearly. I understand how wikipedia works, the dripping condescension is not necessary; while I have not been here quite as long as you, I have been here a very long time, I have plenty of edits under my belt, and I know an effort to scrub material because another editor doesn't like it, when I see it.

You've warped the record again - you stated your rationale for removal, I replied why I felt your rationale was not adequate - then you removed the material by fiat, ignoring the barely started discussion, and not providing any opportunity for other editors to participate. Not even six hours had passed before you removed the material, even though an objection (clearly detailed) had been provided. I did not "show up and revert", nor did i ever ask "why did you remove the material?" - I provided a direct rebuttal to your claims, then you removed the material by fiat anyway. How is such prevarication even tolerable, for chrissakes? I ask admin to review the discussion, and the timing of the discussion against Viriditas's hasty removal of the material before more than just a single editor had had an opportunity to participate. The material in question pertains specifically and directly to Monckton, the subject of the BLP. It does not violate BLP policies, nor is it given undue weight in consideration of Monckton's (minor) notoriety as a climate change skeptic/denialist/contrarian. Anastrophe (talk) 04:59, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

You must be looking into a mirror, because the "dissembling claims" appear to be emanating from your own keyboard. To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions or explain why you've added the material back into the article because you didn't add it. You obviously meant to say that you didn't write it, because you've now added it into the article twice. When asked to explain yourself again, you say "it's been there all along". When it is explained to you that "I didn't write it" and "it's been there for a long time" are not adequate nor sufficient arguments to justify your reverts and additions, you respond with "you're putting words in my mouth". Again, wash, rinse, repeat. You have the burden to explain why you keep adding the material. I've already explained why I removed it. Responding with "I didn't write it" and "It's been there a long time" are arguments to avoid. Those who add material have to explain why, regardless of who wrote it originally and irrespective of how long its been in the article. Your responses show a pattern of moving the goalposts, avoiding the burden, and deflecting solving the problem. You've been asked repeatedly why you added the material back into the article. You'll need to use the talk page to explain your rationale. I do not have to explain your reasoning, you do. I hope that's clear. And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now. Either defend your additions or if you can't, stop adding them. It's really that simple. Viriditas (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

"And please, stop appealing to editors-from-the-future who haven't yet commented or edited but will be coming to the talk page real soon now." Please show some respect for the fact that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, rather than dismissing their existence, and their contributions, and forging ahead as if this is your encyclopedia. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have defended my rationale clearly and in detail on the talk page. The record is available on the talk page, where other editors will see that not a single one of your claims above is true - it's merely a wall of 'you said this' where I said nothing of the sort. I'm reminded of a character on the show 'The Good Wife' - a politician who had the most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity. Have a good life, Viriditas, I'll let the record speak for itself, and trust that other editors will see right through these ploys. Anastrophe (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Comment- the section about Monckton's climate science denial does seem to me to be too long. Reyk _YO! 05:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. 'Too long' rather depends on the relevance to the subject of the BLP, wouldn't you say? Monckton is decidedly not well-known. However, he is known, and he is notable in one regard for his positions on climate change. His notoriety in that regard has been recent, and controversial. The claim that has been made is that the section is "promotional" (it is patently not, a significant proportion is damning). Another claim is that it gives undue weight to a fringe theory - the problem is, it's not giving article space to a fringe theory, it is describing a number of incidents/conflicts that the subject of the article has been involved in, pursuant to the subject's notoriety for his controversial views on that very subject. The material makes no claim at all that Monckton is an expert on the subject, nor that he is influential, nor that his views are correct - if it did, then the material would most certainly be inappropriate. I agree that the section could use some appropriate editing and cleanup. I disagree that the majority of it - all of which is cited to reliable sources - should just be excised by fiat, and I emphatically disagree that the material violates the policies that editor Viriditas claims - and my detailed rebuttals are on the article talk page if anyone chooses to review the record. Anastrophe (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, the section being disagreed about is very long — 30 lines on my good big screen. That certainly looks like undue weight. The proof of the pudding as to how people have behaved is on the talkpage, especially since Anastrophe has claimed that "No opportunity for other editors to participate has been provided". That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material. (Per the BRD principle, he could have first removed it, and then discussed when he was reverted, so the indignation about removal "by fiat" isn't appropriate.) I don't know what would stop other interested people from chiming in, unless perhaps that the article isn't widely watched. One way of getting round that might be to open an RfC (though if people don't care, they don't care). As for what has happened on talk so far, I'm quite unimpressed by Anastrophe's negative defense of the section. I.e. they take issue at length with Viriditas' reasons for removal, in some pretty lawyerly ways too, with much talk of "policy violations" ("you have the burden to show, specifically which materials are violations of policy - a blanket 'too many words, it's undue!' is not a valid argument", "None of your claims rise to the level of violations", "Please show me that there are no other articles on wikipedia with more than 769 words about someone who is not an expert", "The onus is on the editor who wishes to remove reliably sourced material", and in bold "I did not add any of this material to this article") But the only specific positive provided by Anastrophe for why this section needs to be so much longer than its sibling sections "Social and economic policy", "Views on AIDS", etc, is that Monckton is mainly known as a climate denialist (I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long). I don't think that's good enough, even if it's true (=sourced); can you source it? And in this context it doesn't matter who originally added the section; if you restore it, Anastrophe, you take responsibility for it, and you do need to show it's not undue nor the coatrack it looks like at first sight. It's no good claiming that Viriditas has to list particular bits in the section that are violations of particular policies, because no, he really doesn't. Viriditas' shortened version here looks good to me. Bishonen | talk 06:02, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

"very long -- 30 lines" - 30 lines is very long and undue weight? I'm very confused by this statement. "That seems to be wrong, as Viriditas opened a section on talk even before he removed the material." My issue is that very little time passed between Viriditas's statement that he was going to remove the material, and when it was removed. Only two editors, Viriditas and myself, had weighed in. There are quite a few more editors on wikipedia than the two of us, and it's considered reasonable to allow more than a single editor to weigh in as dispositive of consensus. "I think; I may have missed something, as the posts are pretty long". Is it really fair to represent what I've written, when derived from an incomplete reading of it? Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• (Adding.) Also, Anastrophe, do you think you can get away with talking about Viriditas' "infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity" by wrapping it in a cloak of being reminded of a fictional character who had that ability..? You really can't. Please refrain from personal attacks on this board, they don't help your cause. Bishonen | talk 06:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC).

Yes, my words were intemperate; however, they were in response to editor Viridatis's wholesale distortion of my words, with a string of "you saids" where I clearly did not say the words he/she puts in my mouth - for example, "To recap, you've said that you don't have to justify your actions" - pure, unadulterated fiction, never said it. "When asked to explain yourself again" - pure, unadulterated fiction - editor Viriditas never once actually asked me a single question in the discussion on the talk page, to that point in it. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

This is, of course, a content dispute and not an admin issue, but the problem with Viriditas' version is that it doesn't make the rather obvious point that despite his popularity on the climate denial talk circuit, Monckton has absolutely no qualifications whatsoever in climate science and his participation in the debate has led to widespread condemnation and even mockery. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, I disagree. The version I linked to above does do just that, by removing any semblance of his faux scientific opinion and by simply stating that he went on his own personal climate change tour (indicating a personal, not a professional interest), followed by his invitation by Republicans (who jumped the shark on climate change 20 years ago) followed by his coverage in a documentary (criticized by none other than Delingpole himself) concluding with his impersonation of the state of Burma at the climate conference and his subsequent ejection from the event. If that doesn't show he has no qualifications and his participation has led to condemnation and mockery, then I don't know what does. And it only required 163 words to illustrate it, not 769. Bishonen's link differs in that it leaves in his opinion on the science, an opinion I had removed in the diff above. In any event, even if you still disagree, do you believe another 600 words is required? The picture I painted, of a man being thrown out of the UN climate conference for basically crashing the event speaks more to his lack of qualifications and mockery than any long-winded quote ever could. Viriditas (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• A lot of the drama seems to stem from the aggressive approach which seems to have been adopted. As far as edits/comments on this noticeboard, edit summaries like "The appeal to editors from the future is a nice touch, but it's used by POV pushers from time immemorial" only inflame the situation, as do the responsive comments like "most infuriating ability to spew a string of utter fabrications with the greatest of sincerity". Similarly, the edit warring tends to create a spectacle, though fortunately there was no 3RR vio. Other than for each user to be advised to avoid editing disruptively, I don't see how further administrative intervention will help (or is otherwise necessary) here. If input is being sought on the content issues (which is what most of this thread seems to be about), wouldn't an article RfC be a more appropriate place to discuss and resolve the underlying issue? Or is the difficulty that each editor expects the other to open the RfC? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  While I have been an editor since 2006, I have not been an editor who has resorted to wikipedia's backend machinations to deal with editing I felt was disruptive. This is the first time in those eight years that I've started a formal complaint. Perhaps ANI was not the appropriate venue, sorry. Anastrophe (talk) 17:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

  It's quite OK. In light of the issues raised with the editor you are complaining about within the last year, one cannot easily discount the editing (or editing style) as not being disruptive. That said, unless that is preventing the content issue from being determined, it's probably less taxing to focus on having the underlying content issue determined. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Request that user EllenCT be banned for repeated, false, harassing personal attacks

The linked comments are allegations of using unreliable sources, rather than allegations against the editor who added those sources. This is a content dispute, which doesn't require admin intervention. There may be wider conduct issues involved, but if they are to be problematised, it should not be on the basis of a mistaken complaint. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

---

EllenCT has repeatedly falsely accused me of being a "paid" editor in an attempt to discredit my contributions ([99], [100], [101] bottom). I've warned her against this twice before ([102], [103]). I haven't warned her on her user page yet, but since she disregarded the previous two warnings I'm not sure what good that would do. Of course, being false, she's presented no evidence for her assertion, but it leaves me in the position of having to deny the charge every time she makes it lest some observers start to think it's credible (such is human nature).

This is the first Noticeboard report I've filed. Requesting admin intervention isn't my style, but she's showing no sign of stopping, so I'm not sure what else to do at this point. While this is my most acute grievance, it's worth noting that EllenCT has consistently been disruptive on multiple articles and talk pages. She's a serial POV pusher whose tendentious and dishonest style has alienated editors from across the political spectrum. For example, here she recently blew up an arbitration on an Austrian economics articles dispute by lodging complaints about several editors (including me) who had never even been involved in said articles because she had an ax to grind with them over various unrelated content disputes ([104]), taking up space, distracting from the issue, and drawing in said editors to defend themselves ([105], [106], [107]). Her claims were so off topic that the ultimate decision totally ignored them. Recently on this noticeboard she asked that five different editors be widely topic banned (near the bottom; [108]) without providing a shred of evidence justifying her absurd request. A few months ago she filed a report here against editors that boomeranged on her ([109]). Here she misrepresented an edit in her summary, pretending she was just reverting some recently added inappropriate material on white supremacists while covertly slipping in a massive edit on various contentious tax/economic segments ([110] scroll down to see all her changes), [111]) that were already in the process of being discussed and rejected with wide editor participation for, among other things, POV skew ([112]). She has a long history of making false claims about me and others (e.g. [113]), though the recent ones are more egregious as they aren't even content related and are just blatant character assassination.

This section is already long, but more linked evidence by various posters can be found on the pages I linked to. It's unclear how it's possible to assume good faith under these circumstances. I've never seen her demonstrate that she's capable of rational, collaborative discussion. Maybe something short of a ban could work, but it's clear some action is required to at least correct the recent unacceptable behavior. VictorD7 (talk) 08:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

While a total ban may be warranted, I'd recommend starting with a topic ban for articles related to economics. As further evidence of tendentious editing, here's where EllenCT reinserted a contentious graph in one article [114] a month after it was extensively discussed and discarded via RFC in the progressive tax article (with her participation) here.Mattnad (talk) 11:13, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I am quite concerned about allegations of "paid advocacy" where no evidence is provided. IIRC, ArbCom has stated that any such allegations about other editors are actionable ab initio. Collect (talk) 11:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

In those diffs I see EllenCT saying Mattnad is trying to insert a viewpoint paid for by the Peterson foundation, which I took to mean (e.g.) a viewpoint published by some think tank that the foundation funded. I don't see a clear allegation that Mattnad himself/herself is being paid. Maybe EllenCT could clarify. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 12:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

IP's comment is correct to a certain extent. Ellen does not directly say that either Mattnad or Victor are paid to insert the material. BUT Ellen does imply this. (Jez, everyone who writes for a living is a paid advocate to greater or lesser extent, so why tar & feather the authors of the pieces with a "paid advocate" label?) Also, I've seen her use various loaded questions in her discussion comments which do not help in improving article content. And she complains that editors are not using material she wants, without meeting the WP:BURDEN of justifying the content. Various well experienced editors have pleaded with her to get with the program – to no avail. Overall, and sadly, her efforts are insidious to the Project. – S. Rich (talk) 15:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

While that claim would also be inaccurate (as far as I know, the PF doesn't fund the Tax Policy Center or anything else she could conceivably have meant), if that is what she meant she had multiple opportunities to correct the record as my linked warnings show, to no avail. Another editor had the same interpretation I did, that she was accusing me of being a paid advocate, so that's certainly how it's coming off: ([115]). VictorD7 (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Capitalismojo did read it as an accusation. (But the fact that such observations are being posted on the article talk pages shows that the remarks are becoming very personal.) The problem is more than just the accusations (explicit or not) of paid editing. Contributors and administrators are asked to look at these 6 postings on her talk page: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 in order to see what sort of concerns are being raised. – S. Rich (talk) 18:44, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The links you present in your first sentence do not show Ellenct stating that you are a paid editor/advocate. They state that the content is from sources which were paid for by an advocate of a certain position. This is a statement about the sources, not about you, and however unclearly the point may have been stated, it doesn't appear to be a personal attack or accusation of paid editing. SPECIFICO talk 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

---

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

Sockpuppet?

I am concerned that Special:Contributions/223.99.253.66 (blocked for 48 hours) may be a sock puppet of User:Lokalkosmopolit who is currently blocked indefinitely for WP:TE and WP:BATTLE. This mainly involves his constant anti-Islamic rants and attacks on other editors as 'communists' and 'Islamists'. He has been involved in a row with User:Roscelese. Special:Contributions/223.99.253.66 is currently engaged in a similar pattern of behaviour with removing Roscelese's contributions to talk pages and describing them as trolling, and calling him a 'anti-semite' and 'Islam apologist' in edit summaries. Could any admin with more experience than me take a look at this matter? LordFixit (talk) 10:28, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yeah, this IP repeated the edits of a different IP user that I'd been wondering if it was Lokalkosmopolit; it had been in operation before Lokalkosmopolit was blocked, but it did share the same Islamophobic views and insistence that Jews couldn't be Swedish, Czech, etc. but only Jewish. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:18, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Publicity/promotional account

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

---

User talk:HomeTeamPestDefense appears to be a promotional/publicity account only. LordFixit (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really the right forum (WP:AIV or WP:UAA would have been more appropriate), but I've blocked the account per {{spamusernameblock}}. Favonian (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Outrageous edit-warring, ownership and censorship by editor Director on the article "Jews and Communism"

I realise it is only a few days since Jews and Communism was last the subject of a discussion here but things nave not improved there,quite the contrary. User Director repeatedly reverts anything that does not meet his approval, often leaving edit summaries along the lines of "achieve consensus" or "discuss on talk page" but there is little point in doing that since the only result will be that he will say something along the lines of "I am opposed" so therefore there is no consensus as far as he is concerned and he will put the article back to his version. Here are his reverts of this last week - Lots of arguments going on about whether to call Karl Marx Jewish, Director insists that his version is the only acceptable one and it must include a statement about his being descended from rabbis - he reverts Pharos -[116] - reverts me with an edit summary "I'm sorry, but I don't see it." [117], reverts user Galassi [118], reverts Galassi again [119], reverts Izak [120], reverts Soman [121], not exactly a revert but re -inserts material removed by Soman [122], reverts Galassi [123], reverts me [124]. The last straw for me, and why I reluctantly come to this massive waste of time board, is that editor Pharos went to a lot of trouble to revise some highly disputed content, listening to what other editors had said, expanded the material and moved it to an appropriate place and Director removed it all, every word.[125] On the talk page he said "I oppose"it, which he obviously believes is a good enough reason why it should not be in the article.[126] Director stated earlier today on the talk page that he believes himself to be facing Americans who have a different understanding of communism than the rest of the world and that he is engaged in a struggle for WP articles to "liberate (themselves) from the shadow of the circus that is American politics."[127] Director has advised editor Galassi to "go away"[128] and to me has suggested that I "take (my) political POV elsewhere"[129]. He has his supporters on the article, he is not the only one reverting others, I have done it myself, there are definitely two very entrenched "sides" on this highly contentious article, but Director refuses to move towards any consensus or compromise. There are some editors such as Pharos and Soman who are "in the middle" of the two sides, one might say, and try to accommodate all views, but Director will censor them too. I believe Director should be prohibited from editing this article, his approach is directly opposite to WP ideas of consensus. I ask that at least he should receive a warning.Smeat75 (talk) 17:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Having looked at the article's revision history, it looks at though the difficult POV-pusher is Smeat75 (though he/she is not alone).

This seems to be a typical edit by Smeat75 and his/her allies.[130] It seeks to erase Karl Marx's Jewishness! The edit summary is "revise to neutral version"!

After Galassi reinserted it, Iryna Harpy reverted it again, saying "Reverted 1 edit by Galassi (talk): Rv Not only are the refs contentious, but have turned the lead into a non-lead WP:POV travesty. See talk page."

Maybe Smeat75 should be given a topic ban.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. I see a tendency by a tag-team of Direktor and Producer to insinuate that Communism is a Jewish invention. Both of them refuse to seek consensus, and cherrypick quotes to push a POV, disregarding the errors in citations which would normally disqualify these citations as RS.--Galassi (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Galassi disagrees? Well, Galassi, seeing as how you're the resident edit-warring proxy for Smeat75, with virtually no involvement on the talkpage, pardon me if I don't collapse out of shock.

Galassi's involvement on the article cann be summed up entirely as "revert Director whenever you see him editing". -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply to Toddy1 above - that was cited to a RS that said Karl Marx was a baptized Lutheran and I am far from the only one saying that on the talk page. I kept saying that sentence about Marx should not be in the lead because it was not discussed in the article, against WP:LEAD. Anyway that doesn't matter as Pharos did a lot of work and expanded the Marx information to a neutral and accurate version which I would certainly not have quarreled with, moved it out of the lead and into the body of the article and Director reverted every word, that is why I am here.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 has no regard whatsoever for discussion or consensus, he just thinks those who revert his content blanking should be banned from annoying him. I mean, if he posts enough sections on ANI demanding his opponents be removed from his presence, someone's bound to sanction them, right? I imagine after this, it'll be the turn of Pluto2012, Iryna Harpy, Producer, and all the rest who are opposed to his (frankly nonsensical) edits. Really though, this is basically Smeat75 "dealing" with his inability to push his edits into the article. Neither discussion nor edit-warring helped, how about another "Ban Director!" section? -- Director (talk) 18:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason why I brought this here is because you removed painstaking, highly excellent sourced content added by Pharos, not me.[131]. You already tried, and failed, to get USChick, Galassi, Izak and others removed from editing the article, you will not even allow compromises to be made by editors like Pharos who are "in the middle". Smeat75 (talk) 19:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The edit that was removed was introduced without consensus, amid active opposition on the talkpage. The posting editor didn't seem to read the discussion and/or didn't care that elaborating on that topic is opposed on grounds of being miles outside the scope.

I'm sure Pharos was merely doing what he thought was best for resolving the matter, i.e. "resolve the issue by elaborating on it in enough detail". Unfortunately, elaborating on the issue in detail takes us outside the scope. The best thing to do is to leave it out. -- Director (talk) 19:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Note for an admin- I got an edit conflict which I tried to fix and think I inadvertently removed a couple of other comments. I don't know how to try to fix that without possibly messing things up more, can someone look into that. ThanksSmeat75 (talk) 19:48, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Request topic ban for chronic POV pushing editor on Electronic cigarette

User in question is user:FergusM1970. User has been repeatedly editing this article towards a Pro - ecig view. I do not believe they are capable of editing the article neutrally because they have strong opinions about the topic and seem to have chronically failed to get the point about sourcing guidelines for medical content, NPOV, OR, edit warring, etc. Every single one of the edits have been in favor of e-cigs, or original research alteration/deletion of content was against e-cigs. I do not believe they are here to write an encyclopedia but rather twist the article into their own designs. Lesion 18:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Please point to an example of OR or an unsourced edit that I have made to that article.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:30, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say unsourced content. The sources you are using are not MEDRS. I have already pointed out on the talk page where the OR from today was. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll also point out that there are numerous examples of POV in the article that you don't seem to be complaining about. For example an interview with the head of the CDC can apparently be cited, but an article published in the journal of the Royal College of Physicians apparently isn't an RS. A statement by the WHO that the efficacy of e-cigs for smoking cessation has not been demonstrated is more prominent than a study showing that they're AT LEAST as effective as the nicotine patches the WHO say we should use instead. Claims that e-cigs could lead to tobacco use are highlighted despite all the evidence, including the CDC's own research, showing exactly the opposite. Stuffing an article with hysterical scaremongering is not NPOV.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 18:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As already raised months ago on the talk page, Sources like the CDC and WHO are not wrong simply because you disagree with them. You cannot take primary sources and other unreliable sources and oppose such sources. This was clearly pointed out to you by several editors on the talk page at the time. Lesion 19:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

As is clearly stated in WP:MEDRS a position statement from the CDC or WHO claiming, for example, that e-cigs are a gateway to smoking is less authoritative than actual medical evidence showing that they're not.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:45, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. This appears to be a routine content dispute between two editors, and the 'POV pushing' as OP called has a relevant talk page discussion (which hasn't been utilized it appears). There hasn't been any personal attacks as of yet, only a single editor disagreeing with another single editor. I'm not seeing the original research, as the claims are cited with a reliable source. Also, OP see WP:BOOMERANG OP, you've been editwarring as well. Tutelary (talk) 18:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not been edit warring. First please look up what edit warring is defined as, and then please redact that statement. Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Admins, please review the version history of the article. User is only making one-sided edits to this article, using unreliable sources. Against consensus, check how many editors oppose this behavior in the history of the talk page. Regards, Lesion 19:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh, that's easy. Two editors oppose my edits on the talk page; one supports them. That makes two and two, so I'm hardly editing against consensus. You, on the other hand, don't seem to like talk page discussions much. You don't even have a talk page. Now, please explain why Smoking in England - an NHS-funded tobacco control group - is an "unreliable source" when the subject is, erm, smoking in England.--FergusM1970^{Let's play Freckles} 19:42, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

The history of the talk page. There is clear consensus against your editing. Lesion 19:52, 19 April 2014 (UTC)