Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

User:Volunteer Marek inserting POV-slanted original research in ukraine topics

Volunteer Marek has been going around the articles relating to the Ukrainian crisis inserting original research and completely made up things supporting his POV while reverting any efforts to change the statements to actually represent what the sources say, while deceptively claiming in his edit summaries that he is removing "misrepresentations" and "original research".

One example is the Euromaidan article where i had removed the claim that "some of the snipers were not allowed to shoot" for not being supported, nor even mentioned, in any of the sources.[1] Besides being original research, the statement made it seem as if only those who were not allowed to shoot were surprised by those who were (ie implying that Janukovich snipers were allowed to shoot and were the ones doing it, something completely unsupported by the sources). However, since such a wording, and made-up stuff, fits his POV he immediately reinserted that claim.[2]

Another example is from 2014 Crimean Crisis where i had removed a whole bunch of claims unsupported by the source [3] [4]. As anyone can see the source [5] does not say anything about any "ukrainian officials", "Refat Chubarov", it being "undemocratic", "hastily prepared", "falsified" or "not reflecting the real will of the Crimeans". However, since the claims made it appear as if there is a widespread belief that only 40% participated and that the referendum was falsified, rather than just one man's speculations about how many participants there could have been given turnouts in earlier elections, which perfectly fits Marek's POV, he promptly reinserted the original research.[6]B01010100 (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This is sour grapes over the fact that I filed a report on User:B01010100 for edit warring ([7] - s/he got blocked then block was reduced after B01010100 promised to behave, which appears to have been an empty promise) and had the temerity to point out that it's a sketchy-as-hell single purpose account who's arrived recently (?) on Wikipedia for the sole purpose of engagin in some good ol' fashioned WP:BATTLEGROUND.Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:39, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

No, this is over the fact that i'm constantly working to fact-check sources and rewriting the articles to more accurately present the sources but you constantly reverting and reinserting OR for no other reason than that it fits your POV. Besides, even if it were sour grapes, i'll just refer you to Ad Hominem.B01010100 (talk) 22:58, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how Marek's contributions are in any way controversial, and am going to have to side with them in this regard. If you guys have a dispute, work it out at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but I am not seeing anything here that is concerning, especially when one looks at B01010100's talk page. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. B01010100 needs to stop focusing on Volunteer Marek, and start concentrating on ensuring his own contributions are not becoming problematic. Coming here each time he perceives an issue is not going to go down well. If there is in fact a dispute, a conflict or some grievance about Volunteer Marek which needs to be addressed, the appropriate thing to do is utilise dispute resolution. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I find Volunteer Marek's edits so much POV that it's very difficult to keep assuming good faith. I don't want to look non-neutral, but, frankly saying, I am beginning to think his aim is to add as many anti-Russian stuff as possible and to remove as many pro-Russian stuff as possible. (I'm not trying to deliberately attack him, but I just want to say what I am actually beginning to think after seeing his edits on the Ukraine crisis-related stuff.) IMO his edits can seriously upset any editor who tries to be neutral. And he keeps pushing them in, keeps reverting people who try to stop him. I seriously hope some admin takes a closer look at Volunter Marek's editing patterns. Just look at his edits and think, "1. Did he add something against Euromaidan or something good about Yanukovich or Russia just once. Did he? 2. Why does he like to call people who are against Euromaidan nazis: [8], [9], [10], [11]? (It's, like, the first thing he does in any article.)" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

• It is difficult to take seriously allegations of POV pushing from an editor whose username is "Moscow Connection". BMK (talk) 16:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

You mean that's beyond your ken? See how easy it is to do stuff like that, so how about focusing on content rather than usernames?B01010100 (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Admins will see this Volunteer Marek's edit: [12]. Admins, please, just think, "What does the editor actually do on Wikipedia? Are all of his edits look somehow the same? Is it someone who actually expands Wikipedia, who writes good articles, who actually wants to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia?" --Moscow Connection (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is pretty clear that you guys are warring over the Euromaiden/Ukraine issue and are dragging the drama here. Neither side is in the right here in terms of attacks, but the dispute resolution page is probably the best bet for this discussion, as both sides have rather strong opinions here. Moscow Connection, I think you are going in the right direction, but this isn't the place to do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:54, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

It is somewhat hard not to focus on someone who keeps following you around reverting your edits while simply refusing to even read the sources (User:Lvivske goes so far as explicitly defending his practice of not reading the sources before reverting[13]), or the talk pages. There were existing talk page discussions regarding exactly those changes, but does he follow the consensus there or even read them? No. If there is nothing controversial about making edits going against the talk page discussions, then why do we have talk pages in the first place? You say to take it to dispute resolution, but WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE says to go here, which is why i went here. Where exactly should this be taken then? The issue isn't any particular instance of his edits, but the entire underlying pattern of behaviour, which seems like a conduct dispute to me and hence why i took it here. At this time there is simply no point in making any contributions since if they don't fit his POV they'll just get reverted again irrespective of what the sources may or may not say.B01010100 (talk) 15:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please don't put words in my mouth. In what you quoted I specifically talked about fact checking, just that its safe to assume if a portion of your sources are junk then the rest likely are too, especially if it's an IP or SP account --Львівське (говорити) 18:31, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

When an editor deliberately introduces text complete with citations and the citations do not support the text, the citations are fake. If an editor has the habit of using fake citations, then it is not very surprising if people check-by-sampling, and revert all the untrustworthy edits as vandalism.--Toddy1 (talk) 18:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Except that's not what has been going on. The editor who first removed the text did not introduce any text, and hence did not introduce fake citations, he removed them.[14] This was only his second edit, so he couldn't have had a habit of such things (his first edit was adding a source to a quotation to comply with WP:BLP). Volunteer Marek then reintroduced the fake citations, even though it should be BRD rather than BRR, giving as reason in his edit summary "restore sourced text" even though he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he was introducing.[15] The only thing going against the edit he reverted was that it was made by an IP-user who happened to be based in Russia. Rather than reverting again i rewrote the text to remove the parts that were not in the source and more accurately represent the source [16] (and subsequent edits), as well as using the talk page to discuss those changes. [17] Volunteer Marek then simply introduced the fake citations again[18], completely ignoring both the talk page discussion and the call to read the source first. It seems, to me, that if anyone is making a habit of using fake citations it would be Volunteer Marek. And it's not like this is an isolated incident, it's a general pattern.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if i have misinterpreted your linked comment, but in the context of the discussion where you made that comment it was Volunteer Marek who kept introducing text not supported by the source by reverting the editor who, rightfully, removed it - thereby showing that he obviously didn't even read the source for the text he kept introducing. It was for that i called him out on blanket reverting others without even reading the sources, which you responded to as sometimes being appropriate. I realize now that i have misinterpreted your comment to some degree, but i presume you can understand the misunderstanding given the context.B01010100 (talk) 21:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like to draw attention at these edits, which introduce Reductio ad Hitlerum-linked car analogy, in violation of WP:SEEALSO (which demands that "The links in the "See also" section should be relevant"). Nazi/Soviet events of 1938 and 1940 aren't related to modern Crimean events. Seryo93 (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

"Those who fail to remember history are condemned to repeat it." BMK (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

We may add those parallels as attributed (such as in Reactions section), I won't oppose that. But not in See also. And BTW, quote above can be likewise applied to NATO expansion towards RF borders. "Those who fail to remember history...", so I suggest to avoid WP:SOAPBOXing (which, I admitt that, coming from both sides of 2014 crisis) Seryo93 (talk). 06:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Updated 08:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

NATO? NATO hasn't expanded since 2009, and Ukraine disavowed any intent to join in 2010. I believe the current brouhaha originated over Ukraine wanting closer ties to the EU, a non-military association. And in any case, if the Santayana quote draws attention to parallels between Germany's actions prior to WWII and Russia's current actions, what is the parallel you're drawing between Ukraine's associations with NATO and the EU and the situation back then? I see none.

Putin seems stuck in the age-old Russian desire to keep a buffer between itself and Europe, either by the conquests which created the Russian Empire, or Stalin's creation of puppet states after WWII. This need for "security" at the expense of the independence of other countries appears to be a long-established part of hard-line Russian thinking. Failing to point out those obvious facts (through citations from reliable sources, of course) would do a disservice to our readers. BMK (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-military? Please get your facts straight. The parallel would be the expansion of a hostile military bloc eastwards in violation of the relevant agreement with Russia on that, just like another hostile military bloc's eastwards expansion in WWII. That's the issue with inventing Nazi analogies in wikipedia articles, all you do is open a can of worms.B01010100 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not (and in fact never, you can see this from my post before!) objected to carefully attributed parallels (look at 2014 Crimean crisis#Commentary for examples). About NATO: I've meant expansion since fall of USSR, which Russia - country, that dissolved its own NATO - views as a hostile encirclement (see also Cordon sanitaire). Either way, parallels can be found for anything. Seryo93 (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Upd: 17:49, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the contents of a comment after it's been responded to. IN this case it makes my response look provocative, instead of responsive to yours. BMK (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. Seryo93 (talk) 06:21, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

The Warsaw Pact dissolved itself, and the Soviet Union really didn't have any choice in the matter, so there's no reason to give them props for that And what of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation that succeeded it? That Russia is now less powerful than the old Soviet Union was is a fact of life, and certainly fuels the Russian paranoia and loss of self-respect that appear to be part of Putin's motivations - but, here again, the rebuilding of Germany's self-regard was one of the factors that entered into the provocation of WWII, and, again, the Santayana quote is pertinent. No one is saying, I don't think, that the situations are exactly the same, but one rarely comes across two world-historical circumstances that are so closely paralleled as these two are. BMK (talk) 18:18, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

See here (remark about Gorby claims - but this is logical consequence of "unwritten promise"). Anyway, I'm not opposed to statement that "Many compared X to Y...[refs]", as in 2014 Crisis commentary section. Seryo93 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Sharing a POV is not an excuse to have it included where it obviously doesn't belong.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

B01010100, Seryo93, Petr Matas: I suggest you look into this: [19].
(I'm not sure, but it looks like the person (under a different account name) has already been banned from the Eastern European topics for participation in a coordinated anti-Russian campain on Wikipedia. As I understand, the edit I linked suggests going to WP:AE to enforce the decision. --Moscow Connection (talk) 14:32, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

The original case can be found here [20] (the old user name is Radeksz). The topic ban was for a year [21] but has been rescinded by motion [22], and even if it wasn't rescinded it would've passed now anyway. So there isn't anything to enforce at this time, however point 4 of the motion should be relevant.B01010100 (talk) 14:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@B01010100: Where is this point 4? Could you provide a link? (By the way, I probably won't be able to do anything myself, but I want to help other editors who might want to do something about the problem.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moscow Connection (talk • contribs) 11:54, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I believe that he meant the 4th supporting vote of this motion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It is very easy to get caught in edit warring with VM, it happened to me as well. You have to be very careful. It is also useful to focus on one thing at a time in the discussion. — Petr Matas 16:37, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

That's hardly suprising, edit warring is after all one of his proclaimed methods to keep the content the way he likes it.[23].B01010100 (talk) 20:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

This still going on? Guys, as flattered as I am to be the subject of your discussion, you do realize that you are basically talking to yourselves? The uninvolved editors, Ktr101 , Ncmvocalist, BMK and a few others, commented above and I think that's pretty much all there is to say. So how about closing this and the few of you that have axes to grind behave yourself in the future? Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for both of you. Are you overlapping in the areas that you edit or does it look like one is following the other? I suggest that one or the other has a go at editing a topic that the other would seemingly never touch, if the other party starts editing the same area then a problem is clear cut there. If I had a dispute problem that's what i'd take a look at doing. MM (I did the who in the whatnow?) ^{(I did this! Me!)} 21:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek works hard to fix NPOV problems on topics which are besieged by pov-pushers and single-purpose accounts. AN/I threads like this aren't a sign of actual misdeeds, they're a sign that VM's work is effective. bobrayner (talk) 09:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I have edited with Volunteer Marek on quite a few articles and their edits have been exclusively from a WP:NPOV standpoint. Furthermore, I have seen them frequently confront editors who are trying to push their POV into articles. I highly doubt they are inserting "POV-slanted original research" to the article, at least, looking at the evidence provided, I don't see any question of it happening here, and I suggest that this ANI is closed --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 22:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

So, for instance, inventing "Ukrainian officials said..." even when the source doesn't mention anything of the sort isn't original research? Would it then be OK for me to add, for instance, "UN and EU officials said..."?B01010100 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Just doing a search on his most recent 50 contributions, we find: removing from an article's talk page a complaint by another editor that the article lacks neutrality[24], two personal attacks against other editors in edit summaries (even after having been warned about that behaviour on his talk page, not that this makes any difference) accusing them of sock-puppetry[25] and being a "newly created SPA"[26] (interesting how he can know that an editor who has only had a single edit will turn out to be a SPA, but then why refrain from biting the newcomers when you can), removing the Donetsk and Luhansk referenda from the article listing independence referenda[27] claiming WP:UNDUE contrary to general consensus (the article even includes internet polls), removing a statement showing the disputed status of the Crimean peninsula between Ukraine and Russia to show only Ukraine[28] contrary to general consensus (the article on the Crimean peninsula shows it as claimed by both Russia and Ukraine favouring neither). But since this AN/I is about POV-pushing, let's see how many POV violations that subsequently had to be reverted by other editors there are in those latest 50 edits. We have removing the infobox on the Donetsk referendum[29] because he doesn't like how having an infobox makes it look legitimate(??) even though adding an infobox is standard (there even is one for that internet poll referendum in Venetia), putting scare quotes around "referendum" and adding some slanted phrasing[30], removing a paragraph of well-sourced information on Blackwater mercenaries operating in Ukraine[31] because of a single word (it said "regime" rather than "government", what happened to rewording something rather than deleting entire sections for having one wrong word?). Perhaps not the strongest evidence, but then it's just from taking a quick look at the latest edits, but good enough to show that "editing from an exclusively NPOV standpoint" is hardly accurate.B01010100 (talk) 16:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that we should switch to the RfC/U process. Please help me compose an RfC/U at User:Petr Matas/Volunteer Marek. Petr Matas 01:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ummm... you just spammed the fact that you're composing this RfC/U, and "asked for help" to like every contentious talk page [32], [33], [34], [35] [36] related to the topic. And this after your repeated WP:FORUMSHOPPING attempts to somehow get me into trouble, here, as well as at Help desk and on the talk page of Crimean status referendum [37] where you insist on discussing "my conduct" (i.e. the fact that I reverted some of your POV edits) rather than the subject matter (which is what the talk page of an article is for).

Look. Your spamming of these "notices", and your forum shopping across several pages, is just a pretty transparent attempt to alert anyone that I have disagreed with to come and join your little witch hunt. It's sort of starting to piss me off, as it's becoming a bit of an obsession on your part and is crossing... jumping ... over the line between "dispute resolution" and "stalking and harassment". I'm sure there'll be some tendentious editors who come to help you out, and I'm certain that there'll be quite a number of newly created, single purpose accounts who'll pile on. But you see, while we edit articles collaboratively, we don't harass editors collaboratively on Wikipedia.

I'd appreciate it if you undid your spamming of those notices from the relevant talk pages. I'd also like it if you just gave up your crusade and junked the RfC but that part, hey, that's your prerogative. The spam notices though - if you don't remove them, and soon - I will.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think that you should understand, that I am not trying to get you into trouble anymore. Now I am trying to find out objectively, whether your behavior is harmful and let all of us understand, what needs to be changed to move forward. Yes, I linked the RfC/U from 6 talk pages referenced from this ANI to draw attention of other involved editors, both agreeing and disagreeing with you. There is nothing to loose except some time, but someone is surely going to understand that he is wrong, maybe even all of us. Petr Matas 01:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You really have some chutzpah putting the phrase "I am not trying to get you into trouble anymore" right next to the phrase "I am trying to find out objectively, whether your behavior is harmful". My behavior is fine. Don't try to get sneaky and insinuate otherwise. Cuz that's your behavior being harmful.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ugh. Have Wikipedia:DIGWUREN#Discretionary_sanctions warnings been issued? Through I agree that at least one related account look like a SPA returnee who probably knows them well already... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Petr Matas: While i understand the frustration, i have to agree that asking people at several different locations to compose an RfC/U can seem a bit off, even though i realize that it's with good intentions. But if you want my input, it seems that now, with more editors collaborating on those pages, that the most egregious of his edits get quickly reverted and the main problem is slowly solving itself. That it's still far from an ideal collaborative environment is true, and getting him to engage in any sort of good faith consensus-seeking process will be a long uphill battle, so i can see where you're coming from - and that's why, frankly, this constant [insert expletive] isn't worth my time anymore. However, what does bug me is his incessant personal attacks against new editors, even after having been warned about it as well as multiple people complaining about it on his talk page. That sort of stuff is highly damaging to the wikipedia project as a whole, not just something temporarily annoying about a couple of articles. Just think for a minute about how many new editors have been put off from further contributing to wikipedia because the response to their very first edits was being accused of all sorts of stuff by Volunteer Marek, usually sock-puppetry but now he seems to prefer "newly created SPA" (while apparently not even realizing how ridiculous such a statement is, given that being a SPA is a function of a certain editing pattern, something a new editor with maybe 1 or 2 edits obviously doesn't have yet). So it seems, to me, that if you're going to apply a RfC/U and you want it to help remove harmful behaviour from wikipedia that you're better to include that stuff rather than (or in addition to) the refusal to follow BRD and general consensus-seeking, as the latter will slowly solve itself as the contentious nature of the articles tones down and more editors start collaborating on it while the former is simply unacceptable under any circumstances.B01010100 (talk) 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, if it is you, who says that I am not going the right way, I will have to accept it – I have removed the last remaining notice myself. But I don't think that I will be able to formulate the complaints on incivility; somebody else will have to do it. Petr Matas 04:02, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron

Hiya, earlier this month, User:JohnValeron promised to check all of my edits; he stated: As far as I am concerned, you have zero credibility as a Wikipedia editor, and I shall henceforth independently confirm and where appropriate challenge whatever you contribute to this article. This comment was made due to a soon-to-be-explained misunderstanding, as well as his lack of knowledge about what is contained in RS regarding the subject matter.

My edits are followed so closely that yesterday I was unable to fix my edits as I developed a new section, running into 3 edit conflicts as he somewhat frantically made changes to the work seconds after I hit "save page". I asked him to give me some space, due to the edit conflicts, to which he replied Truthfully, Petrarchan47, as an editor you are a butcher. If you'd do a half-decent job I wouldn't have to correct so much...In my experience at Wikipedia, your ineptitude is singular.

In my experience at WP, small technical errors like those he pointed out are fixed quietly by others, or discovered quickly by the offending editor. Usually when I add new content, it takes a few edits to get all the glitches out. I've never been faulted for this before, let alone called inept. Regarding the drama and various issues he brought to the Snowden talk page yesterday, today he does not seem keen to explain himself, saying he "doesn't respond well to badgering". He does not engage on his talk page, either.

He has also made a comment about "our Hong Kong editor" but will not explain who he is speaking of, how he knows this editor's location nor why he is bringing this information to the talk page.

(Quick history: the Snowden page has been quite a hotbed of edit warring since December. John Valeron came in about half-way through and we don't actually have much history between us, so I am not sure where this level of hostility is coming from.) petrarchan47tc 04:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC) (*edited at 5:17)

• Another questionable comment was added today in the "quid pro quo" section below: [Petrarchan47 is] the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. This outrageous claim was apparently based on the fact that I thought the date was May 2cd rather than the 4th. petrarchan47tc 07:56, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

It is 100% unacceptable to refer to someone as "a butcher" or "your ineptitude" - no matter the quality of your edits (which, by the way, you need to use the "Show Preview" button a little more in order to avoid issues because they are somewhat poor). There is also a fine line between validly using the "show contributions" of another editor, and wikistalking - and John appears to be on the wrong side of that line the panda ₯’ 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. Because this will be likely used against me in the future, would you consider amending your comment to reflect whether you checked a selection of my edits, or as I assume, is your comment ("somewhat poor") referring only to this one section/incident? I accept that it may have been an off-day, and there were more glitches than usual, however, one could interpret your comment as a general statement about my editing, so I just wanted to clarify this. petrarchan47tc 22:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

DangerousPanda, I appreciate your input, but please let me provide some background. Although Petrarchan47's preceding post describes the page Edward Snowden as "a hotbed of edit warring since December," she has lately attempted to sanitize her own central role in these hostilities by portraying herself as having "sought peace over all else for the last few months."[38] However, as I replied to her post three days ago, "The notion that you are a peacemaker at the Edward Snowden article or its Talk page is preposterous. You are resolutely proprietary and consistently combative."[39] An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out. Day in and day out, Petrarchan47 makes war, not peace.

Petrarchan47 acknowledges that she and I "don't actually have much history between us," which is true. But the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions, eventually sucked me in. In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling her a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

But, DangerousPanda, you are totally wrong in endorsing Petrarchan47's unfounded and offensive accusation against me for Wikihounding. The facts are these:

• 5 June 2013 – Snowden/NSA story explodes in worldwide news media.

• 00:38, 10 June 2013 – just five days later, I post my first edit to Wikipedia's Snowden page.[40]

• 14 April 2014 – The Washington Post and The Guardian are jointly awarded the 2014 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the Snowden/NSA scandal.

• 17:10, 20 April 2014 – six days later, having noticed comments in online social media mistakenly asserting that Glenn Greenwald won this prize—which is awarded to news organizations, not to individual journalists—I became curious as to whether or not Wikipedia's editors had recognized that distinction. Visiting the Greenwald page, I discovered otherwise, and posted appropriate edits to clarify the matter.[41]

• 17:14, 20 April 2014 – after finishing my Greenwald edits, I proceeded immediately to the Wikipedia page for Laura Poitras, Greenwald's closest collaborator in the Snowden saga, where I executed similar edits to clarify that Poitras, like Greenwald, did not personally win the Pulitzer prize.[42]

• 20:36, 21 April 2014 – I likewise edited the Wikipedia page for Ewen MacAskill, a British journalist who also collaborated with Greenwald & Poitras on the early Snowden reporting.[43]

My editing of the respective Wikipedia page for each of three journalists closely associated with covering the Snowden scandal was a natural outgrowth of my longstanding interest in Snowden, dating back to 10 June 2013.

Yet Petrarchan47 now smears me with a spurious charge of Wikihounding for doing something innocuous and purely coincidental to her own contributions to two of those three pages. (She has never edited the MacAskill page.)

This, DangerousPanda, is 100% unacceptable. I am not guilty of Wikihounding, and you are wrong to say so. JohnValeron (talk) 17:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You say you're not guilty of wikihounding, but right here, in this very thread, you accuse Petrarchan of "making war, not peace" and referring casually to "the sinkhole of her edit warring, evidenced by frequently and peremptorily reverting particular editors' contributions" for which you provide no evidence. An apology is nice, but you undermine the presumption in your good faith by making such statements. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, please advise: what evidence would you accept of Petrarchan47's edit warring since June 9, 2013, when she first graced Wikipedia's Edward Snowden page? As I wrote above, "An unbiased review of the Snowden edit history will bear me out." Did you bother to familiarize yourself with that history before pronouncing me guilty of Wikihounding? Given the quickness of your response here, and considering the large volume of edits to that page over the past eleven months, I seriously doubt it. JohnValeron (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that people commenting on ANI threads have the burden of proving the allegations made in them, whereas the people who make those allegations don't? They can just make accusations without a shred of evidence (such as a history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one)? That's a new one. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, as a first stab at submitting the evidence you demand, I found three pertinent comments by user DrFleischman, posted earlier this year at User talk:Petrarchan47, relating specifically to Petrarchan47's unfounded accusations of POV pushing at the Edward Snowden page (emphasis added):

• I believe that Petrarchan truly does feel "batted around" but that is not a reason for him/her to accuse me of "high school girl behavior" and being here to "play games" rather than to "write articles." And this is just the tip of the iceberg. If you follow Petrarchan's history with me and others you'll see we're way, way, way beyond AAGF territory.

00:46, 6 February 2014

• [replying to user Gandydancer] We're talking about Petrarchan's conduct here, not mine. WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF are universal policies/guidelines that apply regardless of whom you're dealing with. I think I'm on safe ground saying that you've been spared from Petrarchan's wrath because he/she sees you as having a similar POV.

04:50, 6 February 2014

• [addressing Petrarchan47] Sure, I'll give one example, the one that led to your insistence on me answering this question. In your response to some of Brian Dell's (apparently good faith) arguments you failed to address most of his arguments beyond, "Please stop POV pushing," and in the same comment you wrote, " [I am officially 100% EXHAUSTED by Bdell555.]". I found your conduct unacceptable, and I believe many or most other Wikipedians would as well. Your near constant sighs and groans (literally) about being too tired to deal with your critics and your near constant accusations of POV-pushing seem never-ending despite my repeated requests that you stop. You clearly have a tin ear. I'll say it one last time, and then, as you request, I won't edit your user talk again (except for mandatory notices).

21:47, 6 February 2014

Coretheapple, as I continue gathering evidence of Petrarchan47's edit warring and often toxic relations with her fellow Wikipedians, I'd appreciate it if you refrained from putting words in my mouth, as you did in your preceding comment by stating my "position" in the least accurate way possible so as to ridicule me. JohnValeron (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Those are just accusations against this editor. Doesn't prove a thing. I've been accused of everything up to and including kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Do you feel I should be extradited to New Jersey? Coretheapple (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

"Doesn't prove a thing." This from one of Wikipedia's most notorious inquisitors when comes to COI allegations. You may be sympathetic to Petrarchan's POV, thinking her McCarthyite anti-COI campaign is consistent with yours but are you aware that she goes a step further with her beware infiltrating government agents line? This after Mastcell had already tried to get her to back away when she was trying to finger Wikipedian Dr. Fleischman as a federal agent? Maybe that's too much bad faith assuming even for you, @Coretheapple? In any case on April 8 Petrarchan went 6RR in less than two and a half hours on the Edward Snowden article edit warring with JohnValeron and I and John and I let it go rather than take Petrarchan to an admin noticeboard thinking she'd be more likely to change her edit warring ways if shown mercy. Petrarchan then turns around and takes John to this noticeboard! It's right out of the Parable of the unforgiving servant. We obviously should have gotten Petrarchan blocked at the time since editors like you are making an issue out of "...history of edit warring blocks, which Petrarchan doesn't have, not even one." We apparently need to change our tactics with edit warriors like Petrarchan and get them blocked as soon as they violate 3RR given what editors like you make out of "clean" block histories.--Brian Dell (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple, since you asked, I'll answer for the record: I wouldn't consign anyone—not even Petrarchan47—to New Jersey. JohnValeron (talk) 21:56, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, as we wend our merry way through this delightful WP:ANI adjudicating my alleged QUESTIONABLE COMMENTS, cherish this Pearl of Wisdom from Petrarchan47: "The thing is, you can't edit articles around here for very long without coming into contact with hardcore POV pushers and pure, unadulterated jerks." 20:13, 18 February 2014 Submitted here for entertainment purposes only. JohnValeron (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And a comment of extraordinary accuracy. Coretheapple (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You certainly have chutzpah, @Coretheapple. You declare in this thread that Petrarchan's got a clean edit warring record when you've participated in edit warring noticeboard complaints involving her trying to get her off. I note one gem of a comment in particular: " Coretheapple and I are two wiki-friends of Petrarchan47 that are concerned for HER health. Being brought in front of the Admin Noticeboard can be stressfull." So stressful! Yet Petrarchan bring someone else "in front of the Admin Noticeboard", well, that just's business!--Brian Dell (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Well actually I'm monitoring this board because I'm following another thread, so I dropped in on this one and another and boy! am I being yelled at. Talk about stress. It's terrible. Coretheapple (talk) 23:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

You could relieve yourself from the stress by declining to nod along when Petrarchan complains of "hardcore POV pushers" given that when IRWolfie noted that Petrarchan was, yet again, trying to battle what she thinks is a "large conspiracy" by "fighting the good fight against US Corporations" and "insert[ing] highly polemic statements" at that time you were all about not worrying about whether there was any POV pushing and just focusing on whether your "wiki-friend" could beat an edit warring charge on technicalities. I'll also note that while you trumpet Petrarchan's flawless block record (and try to justify all her COI attacks), when SpectraValor took her editing to the edit warring noticeboard she got off because the complaint was apparently a few hours stale. Yet another editor started a case on the 3RR noticeboard and Petarchan was found guilty of a 3RR violation but was again let off. There's nothing to be seen here, according to you.--Brian Dell (talk) 00:08, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm seeing a lot of mud-slinging directed at her, doing a good deal to prove her original point. Coretheapple (talk) 00:54, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You demanded "evidence" Petrarchan is an edit warrior and I pointed out that just within the last three weeks she went 6RR in less than 3 hours and subsequent to avoiding a block there got taken to the edit warring noticeboard by another editor where an admin found that "Petrarchan47 violated WP:3RR". This thread could have been shorter had you let us know earlier that you would be dismissing the evidence you ask for as "mud-slinging" since we would have known your request for evidence was not to be taken seriously.--Brian Dell (talk) 01:25, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

This thread would have been even shorter if you hadn't tried to divert attention from the real issues with mud-slinging and character assassination. Coretheapple (talk) 12:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

The issue here is Valeron's behaviour at the Snowden talk page, and the disruptive hostility. If bringing up anything Fleischman once said is supposed to justify comments made yesterday about my ineptitude as an editor, or the wiki-hounding, I fail to see the connection.

It should be noted that Dr Fleischman, shortly before leaving Wikipedia last month, admitted that Brian Dell's position - the kernel of the 3 month edit war - is untenable. Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell; he came up against the exact same difficulties I had been complaining about. Dr F took BDell555's side immediately in the edit war, and regretted it later. In the end though, the POV warriors, not RS, won the day. The Lede to Edward Snowden now contains a SYNTH account of Snowden's passport/Russia saga rather than the simple account given by countless RS (that Snowden was stranded due to the US' revocation of his passport) because Brian Dell exhausted me completely. petrarchan47tc 22:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc is an ally of yours, is he? That's why he asked Mastcell to do something about you? "Dr F essentially admitted that I was, in fact, right to have been exasperated by Dell" Is that so? Yet after you claimed to be "officially 100% EXHAUSTED" (elsewhere saying my comments were simply too extensive for you to bother reading) Doc's reply was that "This "you are exhausting" talk is destructive, non constructive, and is contrary to the spirit of the project" and Doc specifically addressed you.--Brian Dell (talk) 22:46, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

And MastCell responded by saying that he didn't want to touch the case. The diffs I left show that after more information, Dr F progressed from blindly aligning himself with you, to becoming completely exacerbated as well and leaving WP. Before he did, he told Gandydancer: Btw, you and Petrarchan are probably in stitches over my recent interactions with Brian Dell at Talk:Edward Snowden, ad you have a right to be. Now that Brian's putting me through the ringer I certainly understand your frustration and "exhaustion." Then again while you may have been fully justified in feeling the way you did, IMO that didn't justify you expressing it to Brian, which was inflammatory and uncivil, even if honest. In any case, my reason for bringing this up isn't to justify my involvement; rather, just the opposite. If I had been actively participating in that discussion (rather than passively observing) I would have better appreciated what you and Petrarchan had been dealing with and I probably would have kept my mouth shut. So, in hindsight, I'm sorry for that indiscretion. Fleischman (talk) 05:03, 10 March 2014 petrarchan47tc 23:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 may now claim to be fast friends with DrFleischman, but it wasn't always so. A mere six weeks ago she posted this to Doc's user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…."

Sound familiar? Yep, it's Petrarchan47's standard charge of Wikihounding. In March, DrFleischman was "following" Petrarchan47 around Wikipedia due to his "obsession" with her. Now it's April, Doc has made no edits for 30 days, and so it's my turn to stand accused. After all, Petrarchan47 has got to have someone Wikihounding her. If not the obsessed Doctor, then I guess yours truly will do in a pinch. "This is harassment!" Maybe so. But who, pray tell, is harassing whom here? JohnValeron (talk) 23:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps we can close out this thread by quoting from said fast friend: "Petrarchan47, it is time to drop this cowardly and disruptive witch hunt once and for all."--Brian Dell (talk) 23:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I've mostly been a interested bystander on the Snowden talk page. I'll just comment that this noticeboard is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators. Generally that means you need to ask for something specific, like a block, and give evidence that the requested action is required, for example three warnings on the user's talk page concerning a blockable offense, backed up by links to the offending edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced

I generally consider myself to be an editor who tries to avoid all sorts of drama as far as possible. However, ever since I've started editing the Edward Snowden page, it has become very clear to me that this is one of those articles any sane editor would want to avoid at all costs. In fact, I've practically given up trying to make it look more like a biography than a battleground. I don't know what motivates some people to keep pushing a particular POV for so many months and I have to admit I do admire your determination to achieve whatever aims you have here, but I'm fully amazed that you don't even try to hide your POV.

Can we at least agree that labelling a living person as "narcissistic" on his biography, even quoting someone who did so, is extremely unconstructive? But at least this is better than turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm.

Although I think JV is a highly motivated editor, his lack of adherence to WP:BLP and his conduct towards other editors, and more importantly, his general attitude towards the subject of this biography is a serious cause for concern. -A1candidate (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect to what you say is "most important," just what sort of "general attitude" towards Mr Snowden would you like to see? I take it that it would not be Hillary Clinton's--Brian Dell (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, please clarify your second paragraph, in which you link to the same diff for both "labelling a living person as narcissistic" and "turning the entire article into an NSA quote farm." I honestly don't understand how you can construe a single comment by former NSA Director McConnell, reliably sourced to New York magazine, as constituting an NSA quote farm. JohnValeron (talk) 01:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, A1candidate, if my behavior is such "a serious cause for concern," why have you waited until now to bring that to my attention—and in this highly adversarial context? I reckon you just like a good ambush. JohnValeron (talk) 01:49, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

@Bdell555 - An attitude that is in line with building a biography instead of fighting a battle would be more than welcome. For starters, how about not trying to remove reliably sourced information from Snowden while replacing his quotes with goveernment issued-statements? @JohnValeron - The fact that you use words like "ambush" is very telling of your attitude. Both of you obviously have a POV (you don't even try to hide it), this is something that I've long felt needed to be addressed. I always avoid drama, so this is going to be my last reply. -A1candidate (talk) 02:40, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

A1candidate, the fact that you stage an ambush only to turn tail and run is very telling of your attitude. JohnValeron (talk) 02:45, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on edits and ideas, not on editors'. Your comment above verges on a personal attack. Dial it down, please. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

What really matters is making sure Edward Snowden Hagiography is enforced

Note: I'm not indenting because my response applies to both the overall section Questionable comments by User:JohnValeron and its subsection What really matters is making sure WP:BLP is enforced. Also, thanks to admin Dennis Brown and user Beyond My Ken for pointing out that my subtitle (obviously a parody of A1candidate's subtitle) should not be formatted so as to appear in the TOC.

As the foregoing discussion demonstrates, at the heart of this post by Petrarchan47 to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents is what user A1candidate identifies as my "attitude" towards Edward Snowden. In her edit warring over the past 10 months, Petrarchan47 has exemplified the politically correct attitude of blind partisanship in favor of Snowden. Moreover, she has acted as bully and enforcer, peremptorily exercising innumerable reverts to disrupt the attempts of other editors to provide balance. Shamelessly seeking to go beyond that and punish editors who have taken issue with her, last month she targeted DrFleischman, posting to his user talk page: "Why are you following me to articles completely unrelated to anything besides, I have to assume, your obsession with me? This is harassment…." Now, having disposed of DrFleischman (who has made no edits at Wikipedia for over 30 days), Petrarchan47 turns her sights on me, taking to this page to foster the impression that I have been Wikihounding. Her success in this smear is evidenced by the very first reply to her initial post, from DangerousPanda, who applied the term "wikistalking" to me.

No doubt the pro-Snowden partisans have the numbers to block and even ban me. But until then, I will not be intimidated. I shall continue to resist all attempts by A1candidate and Petrarchan47 to enforce their hagiography of Edward Snowden. I shall rely instead on Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy, which states in pertinent part, "Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight." JohnValeron (talk) 17:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have glossed over the part about due weight. One person calling Snowden narcissistic does not merit including the term in the article. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:51, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

HandThatFeeds, as explained in Wikipedia's due weight policy, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." In determining which viewpoint is significant in each instance, a Wikipedia editor must consider overall context, not just the particular report. For example, if an otherwise reliable but left-leaning, pro-Snowden publication runs a piece that includes 1,000 words of direct quotations from professional partisans such as Snowden lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, offset by 100 words from Hillary Clinton criticizing Snowden, Wikipedia is not required to reflect these opposing viewpoints in proportion to their numerical value. Rather, editors mush exercise judgment. The mere fact that a former U.S. Secretary of State, U.S. Senator and First Lady publicly disputes Snowden makes her words more significant than the utterly predictable, canned retorts of longtime Snowden shills, whose unchanging views are already amply represented in Wikipedia's Snowden article.

As for the specific example to which you allude, in the Motivations subsection, we quote former NSA director and current Booz Allen Hamilton vice chairman Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic," reliably sourced to New York magazine. What you conveniently overlook, HandThatFeeds, is its placement near the end of a 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus our paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. In a subsection devoted to his motivations, that focus is entirely appropriate. However, in this context, it is equally appropriate to quote a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations.

Due weight does not require excluding significant minority viewpoints. JohnValeron (talk) 15:29, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Significance is the key here. Show that Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint, and you'd have a point. As it is, you really don't, and WP:WEIGHT is against you. Hagiography is definitely to be avoided, but so are unsupported POV opinions expressed only by a small number of people. BMK (talk) 17:47, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, Snowden being narcissistic is a significant viewpoint not because a large number of people have expressed it, but because of the prominence of who did express it: a former NSA director and current vice chairman of the firm for which Snowden worked as a contractor and where he sought employment expressly for the purpose of stealing more secret US Government documents to leak. "My position with Booz Allen Hamilton granted me access to lists of machines all over the world the NSA hacked," Snowden told the South China Morning Post on June 12, 2013. "That is why I accepted that position about three months ago." JohnValeron (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Editors could choose to quote McConnell because he's a prominent person; on the other hand the nature of his prominence in this case makes him a particularly unreliable source. Specifically, his crude characterization of the psychological motivations of a whistleblower are made in an unavoidably political context: they're certainly not reliable, and arguably unhelpful. We're not required to quote a famous person every time they open their mouths. -Darouet (talk) 18:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Placing McConnell's statement in the "reaction" section would be more reasonable, as it wouldn't purport to give readers special insight on Snowden's motivations. -Darouet (talk) 18:38, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Darouet, McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is properly contextualized in the Motivations subsection. The reliable source in this instance is New York magazine, not McConnell. He is quoted here not because he's famous, but because he's a former NSA director and current vice chairman at Booz Allen Hamilton. In both those capacities, he brings an insider's knowledge and expertise to bear on Edward Snowden. To exclude McConnell's viewpoint merely because you personally disagree with it is unsupported by Wikipedia policy. JohnValeron (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and as a former NSA director he's about as neutral about Snowden as an ex-grunt is about the Marine Corps. It's irrelevant that he's quoted by a reliable source, what's relevant is whether his view of Snowden is shared by others without a connection to and history with the Agency. BMK (talk) 19:39, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish. If Wikipedia required editors to quote ONLY neutral sources, we'd have to eliminate every quotation attributed to Snowden's lawyers Jesselyn Radack and Ben Wizner or journalistic enablers such as Glenn Greenwald and Laura Poitras, to mention just four of many such pro-Snowden speakers. The article would be reduced to 20% of its existing length. JohnValeron (talk) 19:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

I do believe that McConnell's statement may be notable: as a reader I could benefit from knowing what the man said even if I disagree. However, McConnell is an overtly hostile party and not a reliable when describing Snowden's motivations, which is why I think his comments fit better in "Reactions". -Darouet (talk) 22:33, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Drama and POV pushing

This drama pushes good editors away from the Snowden page. It is aimed at anyone wanting to add RS that implicates the US government in Snowden's 'choice' for asylum in Russia, and essentially anyone who disagrees with the edits of Valeron or Dell.

For instance, John Valerion had these comments about editors today:

• "At 20:40, 30 April 2014‎, User:A1candidate attempted to hijack the editorial process" *
• "Another Edit Warrior Parachutes In - Beyond My Ken thus attempts to backdoor his way into control of the Snowden article without posting a single comment at the Snowden Talk Page...This arrogant, willful behavior even ignores BMK's own admonishments to editors of other articles, whose work he has undone with a warning to Discuss on talk page, Do not revert without a consensus to do so. Clearly, Beyond My Ken is one of those Do As I Say, Not As I Do edit warriors." *

I addressed the now 5-month edit war here, for some context. Brian Dell's friend User:DrFleischman said it well: "There is consensus that "stranded" is reliably sourced and appropriate for the lead." and "When you're disputing an account made by dozens and dozens o[f] reputable news sources, you've got to start asking yourself, are you trying to build an encyclopedia or are you trying to promote a fringe conspiracy theory instead?" More on that is here: Retelling of the passport story.

The Snowden page has been taken over by POV pushers. Here is a discussion for more insight. A1Candidate to Dell: "you seem to be more interested in pushing a particular POV instead of improving the article as a whole. A large portion of your edits appear to be related to Russia, Russia, and more Russia. We don't know for sure whether the Kremlin is behind Snowden's flight, as you have been claiming all along. While I do think it's a plausible theory, it's nothing more than mere speculation." Please see this Snowden Talk section for more.

Today, Dell and Valeron are using Business Insider and their report on a Wikileaks tweet to support their contention that Snowden chose to go to Russia, as opposed to what RS states over and over, very clearly: Snowden was stuck in Russia due to the US' revocation of his passport (RS listed here).

Last week, Snowden's entire accolades section was reduced by John Valeron to this. Here is the talk page discussion where I explain that to cut only his awards, squishing them to two unreadable paragraphs without condensing any other sections, is POV. Valeron says that Snowden's awards "all seem equally unmeritorious". Valeron notes that he does not find the article to need condensing, so his only reasons for this editing are POV, it would seem.

He also removed a quotation cited to Snowden, though his edit summary was: "reword so as to not imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". Again, the edit serves the US government, but not Wikipedia.

He states: "I am participating here in good faith with the object of providing much-needed balance to th[e Snowden] article, which is overly sympathetic to its controversial subject." When asked to specifically point out how the Snowden article is biased, Valeron never responds. Instead Brian Dell pops in with another long OR rant.

Valeron has become very hostile, and besides admittedly following my edits at Snowden by seconds, looking for any mistake, he also followed me to Laura Poitras supposedly fueled by the need to set things straight: the Pulitzer was not given to her, but to WaPo and Guardian. However both Glenn Greenwald and Barton Gellman's articles contained the same information and were, until I pointed this out to John, left untouched. Valeron is now {cn} tagging Poitras instead of finding the citations. He tagged "1971"'s release at Tribecca, whilst a simple search finds very good, recent articles about its release.

Brian Dell:

• As recently as April 14, Brian Dell was continuing his edit war, calling cited information OR dreamed up by User:Binksternet and inserting "allegedly" in the Lede.
• Dell continues to push this theme, with the edit summary: ""allegedly" stranded. Legal experts say there is no legal distinction between the airport and the rest of Russia. And no independent journalist verified that he was in the airport transit zone"
• Dell adds "reportedly" to cited information, arguing "supposedly he was stranded. The story does not hold up under scrutiny"
• Earlier Dell declares a Fox news article "demonstrably false" and changes the Lede in this same edit war.
• This is where Dell first appeared with his theory.
• Here is where Dell followed me on this same day to Jimbo's talk page to make some remarks.
• Here is where he followed me to an NSA awareness WikiProject I was working on.
• In this comment at the WikiProject, he justifies making this POV change to the Russ Tice article saying it was done "to more fully inform the reader about the reliability of this "whistleblower." He also states "Over at Talk:Edward_Snowden#Passport I've pointed out the problems with the line that it is the U.S. that has marooned Snowden in Russia, as opposed to Snowden or the Kremlin's own choice. These matters are all concerned with getting the facts right. If you've worked in media you'd know that there is huge popular demand for conspiracy theories." About NSA spying revelations, he states, "The truth is that this charge against the US government has been grossly exaggerated in the media."
• When news broke that there were statements made by some US officials about wanting Snowden dead, Dell had this (predictable) response.

Besides the obvious POV pushing by both of these editors, the hostility aimed at me and others who may oppose or question them needs to be addressed. No WP editor should repeatedly come into contact with this type of behaviour - the aggression is over the top, and better suited for YouTube comment sections. Brian Dell should be topic banned (an IBAN is also a consideration), and an IBAN against Valeron would be very much appreciated. I guarantee the Snowden article and Wikipedia would be better off for it, and would not be damaged in any way by these bans. But I am no expert, the response that would reinstate a sane, peaceful environment at Snowden (read: pre-Dell, pre-Valeron, circa Sep-Nov '13) is likely better determined by administrators. petrarchan47tc 22:44, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Petrarchan47 has now outdone herself in sheer, malicious perfidy, posting comments that I myself reconsidered and deleted within minutes. Clearly, Petrarchan47 will stop at nothing in her toxic efforts to poison the editorial atmosphere surrounding the Edward Snowden article. JohnValeron (talk) 23:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

It's pretty fucking ballsy of JohnValeron to accuse me of trying to "control" the Edward Snowden article, when he's made over 100 edits to it in the last week alone (over 300 in the last year), and I've made three edits in total. And to say that I edited without discussion is equally ludicrous, considering that the discussion took place right here on this thread, with his involvement. I suggest that if anyone's trying to "own" the Snowden article, or push a POV into it, it sure as hell isn't me. I also suggest that an admin might like to try to machete their way through the jungle of rapid-fire edits over there to see if some level of protection isn't called for to get things to stop so that reasoned discussion can take place. BMK (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No reasoned discussion about the Edward Snowden article can take place here, on an adversarial ANI where I stand falsely accused and where my accuser is calling for Brian Dell and me to be banned. Any "consensus" about editing Edward Snowden arrived at within this ANI is illegitimate. The regular editors of the Snowden article do not follow ANI. We follow Talk:Edward Snowden, which is where all editorial discussions rightly belong. JohnValeron (talk) 00:57, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Bullshit, consensus is consensus, and it remains so even when it goes against you, and no matter where it takes place. Usually the article talk page is the best place for consensus discussions to take place, but when someone tries to dominate the discussion there it may have to take place in other venues. Besides, you've misread my comment above - if an admin were to fully protect the article - which I think would be fully justified by the volume and speed of the editing there, which indicates knee-jerk responses rather than well-considered action - then the reasoned discussion I was speaking about should take place there and not here.

At this point, however, editors have clearly despaired of getting any balance there while you and others continue to duke it out, and have come here for relief. Having felt the (temporary) sting of your displeasure, I understand precisely what they're talking about - you're trying to browbeat people into submission because you disagree with their POV (or what you perceive as their POV, which may well be mistaken), and that makes your editing as bad as theirs is, if they are also pushing a POV, as you claim. I still think temporary full protection would help, as would your thinking before you act. 04:14, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, full protection and Admin oversight for a while is a worthwhile consideration. petrarchan47tc 18:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• User:Jehochman once filled this role at the Snowden page. We also spoke in January about bringing the article to GA status. It might be worth checking into these options as a way to cool the current edit warring and hostility. petrarchan47tc 23:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. I personally don't edit the Snowden article because, to be frank, my feelings about him are fairly negative. I think that's the best course of action in dealing with a BLP in which one holds a negative POV - stay away. JohnValeron might want to consider doing that too. Coretheapple (talk) 10:54, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:

Wikipedia aims to describe disputes, but not engage in them. Editors, while naturally having their own points of view, should strive in good faith to provide complete information, and not to promote one particular point of view over another. As such, the neutral point of view does not mean exclusion of certain points of view, but including all verifiable points of view which have sufficient due weight.

Wikipedia's due weight policy explains, "Neutrality requires that each article fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources." As I pointed out above, former NSA director Mike McConnell's reference to Snowden as "narcissistic" is reliably sourced to New York magazine. McConnell served as U.S. Director of National Intelligence during the period when Snowden was employed by the CIA, which reports to the DNI. After leaving that post, McConnell rejoined Booz Allen Hamilton to lead the firm's intelligence business, and was vice chairman throughout Snowden's brief (less than three months) tenure as a BAH employee. These high-level positions give McConnell's perspective on Snowden significant weight. Moreover, our now-deleted quotation of McConnell provided the only balance to an otherwise self-serving 1,074-word subsection that includes 566 of Snowden's own words (53% of the total), plus paraphrasing of his views not directly quoted and statements by his enabler Laura Poitras. By excluding a single sentence—all of 23 words—spoken by a prominent critic of Snowden's motivations, you are totally suppressing a verifiable point of view that has sufficient due weight. In violation of policy, you are promoting Wikipedia's unbalanced cheerleading on behalf of Edward Snowden. JohnValeron (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

McConnell can hold any opinion about Snowden he wants, and can express them to anyone he wants to, but he's not qualified to discuss Snowden's psychological makeup in our article because he has no training or expertise in that area. He can say that Snowden is a traitor or that he's damaged his country or that he ought to be clapped in irons or that he's selfish or immature or whatever, because these are things anyone can say about anybody, but when he says that Snowden is a "narcissist", he's making a psychological evaluation, and he is not qualified to do that, and he can't be in our article expressing that opinion except, perhaps, as an example of people's reactions to Snowden's actions. BMK (talk) 16:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Dictionary.com provides two definitions of narcissist:

1. a person who is overly self-involved, and often vain and selfish.

2. Psychoanalysis. a person who suffers from narcissism, deriving erotic gratification from admiration of his or her own physical or mental attributes.

Neither Wikipedia's biography of Mike McConnell nor the sentence you seek to suppress in Edward Snowden identifies McConnell as a psychologist or psychiatrist. His opinion of Snowden as a "narcissist" is not a clinical evaluation, and only pro-Snowden editors such as yourself would so willfully and disingenuously misconstrue it. McConnell is using the term in its popular, not medical, sense. Note that Wikipedia quotes Yogi Berra as saying about baseball, "90% of the game is half mental." Are you going to suppress that, too, because Mr. Berra is not a credentialed mental health professional? JohnValeron (talk) 17:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality is showing - I am not "Pro-Snowden". In point of fact I have decidedly mixed feelings about what he did, including my belief that anyone who thinks that their government isn't in some way "spying" on them is a fool, and that such monitoring is, to some degree both necessary and harmless. But you don't know that, because you are, clearly and by your own admission, "anti-Snowden", and because I reverted one of your edits that must make me "pro-Snowden", thus throwing WP:AGF out the window.

I reverted your edit because the guy doesn't have the chops to make that kind of statement and have it appear in a Wikipedia article as a factual reason for Snowden's actions. You want to put in a "responses" section, that's different, the guy is notable and his allowed to have an opinion - he's just not allowed to express that opinion as fact on Wikipedia. You get it? It's the diference between "I think he's a narcissit" and "He did it because he's a narcissist." If you can't see the essential different between those two statements, and the need for the person saying the second one to have the right credentials, then you probably shouldn't be editing here.BMK (talk) 20:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Quid pro quo

Never let it be said that Petrarchan47 does not reward those gallant souls who spring to her defense here at ANI. Vote early and vote often, Wikipedians, for "must-read" commenter Coretheapple as Crony of the Week. JohnValeron (talk) 00:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Admin attention requested: Can I get an admin to give JV an WP:NPA warning? If nothing else, his serious lack of AGF is worrying. BMK (talk) 02:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with your broad argument on the McConnell quote, here, but the last time this came up at AN/I (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive835#User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding), I got more or less the same impression John has, although I would have expressed it more delicately. That said: John, knock it off. Wholesale snarkiness will only succeed in getting people to blow you off; there's plenty in Petrarchan's editing history, plainly and dispassionately expressed, to build a case against her. Choess (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Choess, I appreciate your advice, but I am not the least bit interested in building a case against Petrarchan47. As you imply, and as demonstrated by her shameless use of an Editor of the Week nomination to reward Coretheapple for supporting her in this meretricious ANI, Petrarchan47 is her own worst enemy. JohnValeron (talk) 15:12, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, now, isn't this enlightening? Following the link provided by Choess, I just read User:Petrarchan47 Serial COI Accusations as Battlegrounding posted to ANI less than a month ago by User:Geogene. It broadens one's perspective on Petrarchan47's generally antagonistic behavior and her contemptuous hostility in particular to editors who do not submit to her supposed authority. And guess who rushed to her support on that occasion? Why, our presumptive Editor of the Week, of course: Coretheapple. What a magnificent team they make! A true credit to Wikipedia. JohnValeron (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone is interested, Petrachan47 and I started to discuss nominating Coretheapple for Editor of the Week back in January February. It was at my persistence that Petra proceeded to nominate him. His nomination is deserved and has nothing to do with this ANI. ```Buster Seven Talk 15:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Fleischman, before leaving WP last month, tried very hard to build a case against me. He went to people angry at me from the BP (Geogene) and March Against Monsanto (SecondQuanitzation/IRWolfie) articles and found willing participants to help find diffs for an eventual ANI. He asked MastCell and Drmies for help, both said no. MastCell has repeatedly said he has respect for me as an editor, and as for my complaints about Geogene (who eventually took me to ANI), he said: "Back in the day, I used to feel like there was a core of clueful editors who would support each other in these kinds of situations, but most of that core has been run off the site or decided they have better things to do than argue interminably with cranks and agenda accounts."

Geogene was canvassed by Dr F, who still has a list of my wrongdoings compiled, and who appeared to be helping Geogene with diffs for her unsuccessful ANI. Geogene came to the BP oil spill articles (where I met Coretheapple, and whom btw, I had been planning to nominate for months) and began making POV changes. Her biggest grievance was with the tremendously well-cited study mentioned in the Lede of Corexit (in this version). To end the edit war there, I slashed the Lede and removed mention of studies. Geogene, who purportedly wanted to help the Project, and improve the Corexit article specifically, has not been seen since. As was obvious from the start, her efforts seemed focused on removing content harmful to BP. Once that was done, there was no interest in actually working on the article, or WP for that matter. I noted that her appearance and frantic editing coincided with the announcement of BP's Clean Water Act trail. I was asked by other editors not to make such connections unless I have proof of COI, so I have agreed to stay silent in the future.

I do not see how that ANI plays into this one, however. Valeron's behaviour should not be tolerated, and there is no case to be made that it is justified by anything I have done, or by anything that has been said about me. The NPOV requirement for editors is not being met in his case, and I think a topic ban should be considered. Just today he was reverted at James R. Clapper and Edward Snowden for non-neutral editing. * * *

Whether my edits to Snowden have been POV has not been proven, nor has a case been made that the Snowden article is biased. I have put in a lot of time and work on that article, and the atmosphere there has driven away everyone else but the anti-Snowden editors. That has been pretty stressful, and is why I have opened this, my first ANI to see whether something can be done to stop this. petrarchan47tc 18:33, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual, Petrarchan47 is lying to promote her punitive crusade to get me banned. The diffs she cites as evidence that "just today" I was reverted, actually date from May 2, 2014. Petrarchan47, who will do anything to get her way, is the most unethical editor I have ever encountered. JohnValeron (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

As usual I don't know what day it is. I am the most unethical editor EVER. John's ever-balanced, non-hyperbolic views will save the Pedia one way or another. Thank goodness we've got editors like this around. petrarchan47tc 18:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

• Seriously, John, this is the type of "lie" that matters around here. Wouldn't you consider this unethical? petrarchan47tc 00:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to say that the accusations pointed at me (again) by user:petrarchan47 have been going on all over Wikipedia for months now and are harassment. They're also lies. We've discussed this on noticeboards and Petra still doesn't understand what that study is about. Even though I haven't been on here for more than a week, she is continuing to provoke me (with the above). I sincerely believe that there are some serious psychological issues with her involving paranoia and a sense of being persecuted by pretty well anyone that disagrees with her, and we cannot fix those problems here, and which make her unsuitable for Wikipedia. I have no doubt that this will eventually get her banned. That's my say. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

IBAN for JohnValeron

I have seen too many disruptive actions taken against Petrarchan47 by JohnValeron. This behavior should be addressed by IBAN.
JohnValeron was working on the Chelsea Manning biography and the court case United States v. Manning in the summer and autumn of 2013. In late December 2013, he encountered Petrarchan47 at the Edward Snowden biography, at the Sibel Edmonds biography, and at the article about Global surveillance disclosures (2013–present). Talk page relations were civil at first but by February 2014 the tone was strained, then icy with disdain and hurtful irony: "Wikipedia should permanently lock out all editors except Petrarchan47, whose sole proprietorship would be beyond reproach." By March, JohnValeron was engaged in WP:BATTLEGROUND confrontation, trying to get a rise out of Petrarchan47 by referring back to the "sole proprietorship" comment: "I earnestly hope this meets with approval and does not offend particular editors with an aggravated sense of sole proprietorship over this article." Also: baiting Petrrarchan47 with this comment: "...rest assured that the ever-vigilant Petrarchan47 has undone my revisions in toto." At the end of March JohnValeron was accusing Petrarchan47 of having "paranoid fantasies", and insulting her with the term "schoolmarm"—a sexist putdown intended to stifle discussion. The April 8 comment "petrarchan47 has zero credibility" was a gross attack, a poisoning of the well to remove Petrarchan47 from effective discussion. I suggest that JohnValeron should be given an interaction ban with regard to Petrarchan47. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

IMO, given the admission of POV towards the topic, a TBAN could also be considered. petrarchan47tc 08:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose As wondrously premature, and use of a draconian solution, which rarely actually works. A POV is not a "disqualification" but simply an indication that the person must assiduously work towards compromise and accept that others have differing POVs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Support If we can get rid of this problem, I will Die happy, This user has committed Personal Attacks against a single target, just remove contact with that target. Boom, done - Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I would like nothing better than to stop interacting with Petrarchan47. If you could craft an IBAN that did not in effect amount to a topic ban against my editing Edward Snowden, I'd be the first to endorse it. But as a practical matter, it is impossible to avoid this proprietary, pro-Snowden partisan intent upon, as she wrote above, "implicating" the United States Government. Petrarchan47 has singlehandedly made 19% of all 6,106 edits to said article. She has racked up as many edits as the next three most active users combined. She is inescapable and intransigent. Moreover, her domination of Wikipedia's Edward Snowden has long since passed from good-faith stewardship into exclusive ownership, enforced first with haughty reverts and ultimately, as seen here, with vindictive demands that editors who dare to trespass on her turf be banned—under whatever pretext she and her supporters can contrive. Is this any way to run an encyclopedia? JohnValeron (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, Perhaps you would like a TBAN to be kept away from editors who you commit Personal Attacks on? Maybe we could Implement Both and Get 2 birds with one stone? Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 14:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban on editing Edward Snowden per Binksternet. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strong oppose I see no basis for an IBAN or a TBAN on JohnValeron. Certainly he has made some uncivil comments, and for those he should be sternly admonished. But that is no basis for a permanent sanction; an admonishment by an administrator should be more than sufficient, and if John ends up re-offending then the issue can be re-examined. I've also seen no evidence that John has had any trouble interacting with those outside of Petrarchan47 and those defending her, and that alone means a TBAN is inappropriate. At the same time, I also feel strongly that this thread should boomerang against Petrarchan47, who seems incapable of working collaboratively with anyone with whom she disagrees on any topic. Plenty of evidence of that, and she has even been warned by an admin on ANI. (If there's sufficient interest in posting evidence against Petrarchan here, please put a note on my user talk, as my wiki bandwidth is extremely low these days.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

NOTE, PLEASE READ: I am deeply disturbed that a large number of my views and comments have been discussed, interpreted, and fought over in this ANI thread by several editors without anyone haven giving me any notice whatsoever. Believe it or not, I still exist despite my current wikibreak. Worse, several of my past contributions and comments have been grossly mischaracterized. I don't want to get into a pissing match about comments made over a week ago so I'll just say, folks, please don't do that again. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This IBAN does not solve the numerous issues with Petrarchan47's conduct. She mentioned that I recently "disappeared". Yeah--because I can't stand dealing with her horrible personality any longer. She makes editing Wikipedia intolerable. She ought to be site banned forever!! Geogene (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Since this thread has now surpassed 9,000 words—far more, in my opinion, than the issue warrants—please let me reiterate something I wrote in my first post here, seven long days and 8,400 contentious words ago.

• In the heat of anger, I lashed out, calling [Petrarchan47] a butcher and castigating her ineptitude. For that I am sorry. I apologize to Petrarchan47 and to the entire Wikipedia editorial community. I will henceforth strive to keep my temper in check.

I trust the admin who resolves this ANI will not overlook those 42 words, and will forgive my lapse in civility. JohnValeron (talk) 18:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for Admin: I'd like to take this opportunity here to ask an admin to administer a short-term block on Petrarchan47 for her COI accusation against me in this thread [44] which is part of a much larger pattern of serial COI accusations against me (see, e.g., User:MastCell's talk page), and in which she actually says that she has been asked by other editors to stop this behavior (but apparently is unable to stop). She continues to break the rules while admitting that she knows she is breaking the rules, I find this absurd. Geogene (talk) 22:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• Obvious canvassing is obvious Apparently we should all find it a coincidence that two editors, User:Geogene and User:DrFleischman, both suddenly came back to editing after weeks of absence to come to JoshValeron's defense on the same day. Looking at their contribs, Geogene hasn't edited since 23 April (2 weeks 1 day ago) and DrFleischman hasn't edited since 27 March (6 weeks ago). And yet, like Wiki-magic, here they are within an hour of each other. Methinks someone canvassed via email.--v/r - TP 17:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Obvious canvassing is obvious Well, you're wrong. Of course, you'd have no way of knowing that. Geogene (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
    • Of course I'm wrong, because if I'm right then you three are now in violation of WP:MEAT for abusive off-wiki coordination. I couldn't possibly expect you to admit such a thing. But the edits speak for themselves.--v/r - TP 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
      • Oh, well, I suppose when I logged in and saw that I could have noticed how recently Fleischman's reply was, anticipated your suspicion, and waited a few hours so that you wouldn't jump to conclusions. But that would be guile, now wouldn't it? Besides, even if I had been responding to an email canvass, my arrival time would have been determined by how often I check my email, which is sometimes not that often. My "canvassed" arrival might have happened at any time after I got your hypothetical email, so your "canvassing" theory doesn't eliminate this coincidence so your logic doesn't lead anywhere. Geogene (talk) 18:12, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

User:TParis, if you're alleging that I canvassed DrFleischman, Geogene or anyone else by email, that is an outrageous lie, which I emphatically deny. This is a low blow even for you, TParis—the Wikipedia Administrator who famously doesn't give a fuck. JohnValeron (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very much alleging it. And if you think me not giving a fuck is a novel idea that will outrage or shock anyone, you're seriously mistaken. Feel free to share it with everyone. No one...cares.--v/r - TP 18:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I care. JohnValeron (talk) 18:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah. So Tparis may not really be ignorant, only involved in a dispute with JohnValeron. I feel so much better now. Geogene (talk) 19:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been angry for as long as these accusations have gone for months without even an admin admonishment, but this really takes all. A basic understanding of logic should be required before anyone gets the Tools. But for his education, before he decides to solve more "mysteries" I suggest he read Littlewood's Law [45] and the Post-hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy [46]. Geogene (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

In a discussion on TParis' talk page, I have demanded that he either conduct a SPI or retract his meatpuppet accusation. I don't want him to slink off from his disruptive accusations like he didn't make them. Geogene (talk) 20:44, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

TP, I don't know what you have against me, but your accusation is completely unsubstantiated and false. You and I have no history so I don't know what your beef with me would be. The fact that an experienced admin would throw out such complete horseshit reflects very poorly on this community and its governance. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

All I have against you are weeks of inactivity and then you suddenly showing up miraculously and within an hour of someone else who has been inactive with the claim that it was a cosmic miracle that you both show up to defend John on the same day. Other than that, I hold no ill-will toward you or anyone.--v/r - TP 01:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I guess it was a cosmic miracle then. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Admin attention requested -- I have repeatedly asked User:DrFleischman (here and here) to adhere to WP:POLEMIC by either putting to use or removing his laundry list of my diffs that he is accumulating in his sandbox. He said he was working on a RfU about me, and had low bandwidth suddenly, but would get to it soon. That was six weeks ago. Now he is back, but still refuses to respond to this request. petrarchan47tc 17:30, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly support IBAN for Editor JohnValeron. When viewed as a whole the above AN/I speaks for itself. No editor should have to put up with such vile attacking. In 5 years of reading many,many article talk pages, I have never witnessed such demeaning and bullying utterances about another editor. ```Buster Seven Talk 00:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and another completely impartial editor registers his unbiased support for Petrarchan47—User:Buster7, who just happens to have been awarded A Barnstar for you! & new WikiLove message from…you guessed it: Petrarchan47. Ain't Wikipedia grand? JohnValeron (talk) 00:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support iban and/or tban. None of us can build Wikipedia alone so all the sources, facts and prose are worthless if we can't collaborate in a collegiate fashion. An unwillingness to cooperate that borders on belligerence is not offset by other contributions. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. Reliable sources, documented facts and polished prose are never worthless. Collegiality that results in The Triumph of Mediocrity? Now, that's worthless. JohnValeron (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BLUDGEON is worth a read. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I am responding in good faith to the accusations and insinuations against me on this unjustly open-ended and interminable ANI posting. If you are now adding WP:BLUDGEON to the grab-bag of allegations, I deny it and request that an uninvolved administrator render an opinion on this particular point. JohnValeron (talk) 14:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Trolling

When Dr Fleischman, Brian Dell and John Valeron were simultaneously active on the Snowden talk page (Valeron re-entered the Snowden talk page just weeks before Fleischman went silent), User:Jusdafax had this to say:

• I have not edited this article, but have it watchlisted. Petrarchan47 is correct, in my view, when he notes that the article's longstanding stability is being disrupted by parties who appear to have an agenda. I suggest other eyes may be required to get a fair consensus here. I also support investigating further the motives of those parties given the high target value the article's subject has. My hat is off to Petrarchan for standing up to the bullying tactics this page now clearly documents. 1 March 2014

On the Today Show this morning, Glenn Greenwald was asked about Snowden and his asylum in Russia. This information is the subject of most of our talk page activity at Snowden since mid January, and of the edit war to which JusDaFax refers. A quick glance through the last few archives and current page will show this. It will show that I have brought heaps of RS to say exactly what Greenwald did today, and that edit warring and original research by irate and overly passionate editors have won the content dispute by exhausting rational editors. This means the present coverage in the Lede of the simple story is very unclear. In Greenwald's words 3:46:

"He didn't choose to be in Russia, Matt. He was trying to get through Russia to get to Latin America to seek asylum. The US government revoked his passport and pressured other countries and so forced him to be there."

This is supported by the body of the article, but no iteration of this telling (like this version in late January) has been allowed to remain in the Lede.

Much like with the Geogene/Corexit scenerio, I am being fully trolled for nothing other than trying to keep reliably sourced material, clearly worked, in the encyclopedia. Geogene was enraged that I had quoted RS at the Corexit article (re: last sentence in Lede) and after two RS noticeboards, and an ANI about me, left the scene the moment this well-cited study was removed from the Lede. When told that major controversies (like this study) need to be mentioned in the Lede per WP:RS, her final comment at Corexit:talk was to say that we don't need to adhere to all the rules (here).

Dr Fleischman found Geogene and Brian Dell and asked both of them (* *) to help him take me to a noticeboard or RfU, while engaging in a lot of gossip about me on their talk pages. Although this ANI was to address very specific behaviour from Valeron at Snowden, this trolling, canvassing and meat-puppetry needs to be addressed too, or is this tolerated and accepted as the price one pays for editing WP? petrarchan47tc 22:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

By being allowed to fester unresolved since April 27, 2014—more than two weeks now—this multi-section ANI posting by Petrarchan47 has become a catch-all for every grievance that she imagines has been done to her at Wikipedia. Her latest accusation is "trolling." Yet again I find myself having to deny a spurious charge for which there is no evidence. How much longer will the admins (assuming there are any left who have not already taken sides) allow this neurotic, open-ended inquisition to go on? JohnValeron (talk) 22:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

JohnValeron's timestamp above is darned inconvenient, but I'm not going to wait to defend myself to make sure everyone's placated. First, I find it odd that my disappearance from Corexit is mentioned as if it's somehow sinister. I'm glad we accomplished some things like not misrepresenting the Rico-Martinez study, but I just got fed up with the environment there and left. It's disingenuous of Petrarchan47 to complain about going to the RS NB the second time because she asked me to start a thread there, ostensibly because I could not be trusted (Diffs: [47], [48]). I did as she requested. Note how the discussion played out there, and how it degenerated into her WP:SOAPBOXING her conspiracy theories about the EPA [49]. But I hope that we can move past this and I don't have to interact with her any more, to include her not slandering me here. Geogene (talk) 23:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Add by edit: Oh, I'd prefer you use the third person pronoun "he" when referencing me. It's really not a big deal, but it makes these threads easier for me to follow. Geogene (talk) 23:39, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Pan-Turkist (Pan-Turanist) users invaded several articles with fringe and unreliable content

They bring unreliable changes and false content to many articles. Their edits are against wikipedia policies. List of these users:

• Hirabutor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Su4kin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Kleropides (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Radosfrester (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

They infected many articles. User:Hirabutor is a disruptive user. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Since the user did not notify any of the editors, I have put ANI notices on all of the users talk pages. TheMesquito^buzz 22:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

User Hirabutor may be disruptive in the IP's mind due to his pro-Turkish edits, but it looks like this user makes use of reliable sources. And as long as he can provide reliable sources without using them purposefully, it is consistent with the behaviour guidelines. If you want to check sources concerning their credibility you can also make use of Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. User Kleropides looks almost unbiased, about user Su4kin I have no idea, except that he is more concentrated in genetic/anthropological articles. But, just wait a moment... why putting my name here? At all, I see no signs of a forthcoming Turkish invasion. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 11:26, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Because they're sock puppets (you - the puppet master - and them). Mods must check your ips. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 05:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any reasons for this cherry picked assumption, except your prejudice on a certain group of people? Give us some clues so that we can follow your way of thought. If I should be a sock master, can you explain me then why user Hirabutor is active since 21 October 2013, whereas I am active since 30 November 2013? In addition, there are only 4 edits (out of 70) I have in common with your supposed sock users: 1, 2, 3. 4. In case 1 there are 4-6 months between user Hirabutor and me. In case 2 there are nearly 5 months between user Su4kin and me. In case 3 there are 4 months between user Su4kin and me. And finally, the fourth case, its the only one where my edits overlapped with those of user Hirabutor in a short time distance. At last, I suggest that your discomfort results from this article: Turanid race. So, my advice to you is to solve your problem by confronting other users (-by using your account-) with reliable content backing your position instead of suspecting other people. If you are not able to do it, and I say it again with all explicitness, you are completely wrong here. And here you can get help: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Resource_Exchange/Resource_Request. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 11:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

@ Anonymous IP: Can you tell me how I can become a member of this "Pan-Turanist" invasion? This sounds very interesting to me. --Kleropides (talk) 20:41, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

You're the banned User:Tirgil34. All of you claim that you're Germans from Germany. Germans who are interested in Pan-Turkism/Pan-Turanism and Turkification of wikipedia articles! Your behaviors and your edit patterns are exactly similar to Tirgil34 and his puppets: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tirgil34. --46.143.214.22 (talk) 03:38, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP, I am not German and I am not seeing the connection between me and the banned user. But it looks like you have a personal uneasiness with central Asian-related issues. Your Iranian IP-adress perhaps confirms this suspicion. Additionally, it looks like you are interested in a de-Turkification of wikipedia articles. I am sure there are quite more IP's you are currently using for this motive. I would also advise you to refrain from such false reports. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 12:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll submit my proofs. It needs a complete subsection. An example is your edits (you and your puppets) on Nart saga. Why you and User:Hirabutor, User:Tirgil34 (his ips, his socks) are too similar to each other, and your are interested to remove same content from Nart saga and insert same content? Your edits on Nart saga is exactly similar to banned User:Tirgil34's edits. Hirabutor is a disruptive editor who inserts Turkish nationalist content in articles. User:Ergative rlt and User:Dougweller found some of his unreliable additions. User:Su4kin's edits on Sarmatians are pro-Turk and not reliable. He did falsification on some other articles too. These are just example of your disruptive edits. Mods must check all of your ips and accounts, because you are related to each other. You and your puppets infected many articles. You play with different accounts, and all of those accounts edit same topics. Don't you agree User:Tirgil34? --114.179.18.35 (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

The only point where I can agree with you, dear IP, is that User:Su4kin made unreliable additions at Sarmatians. None of the sources are anywhere near the quality of source required for a section on genetics. The only possibility to include it, is to find a peer-reviewed paper -> Wikipedia:SYNTH. It is apparent that both of you guys act with nationalistic arguments (pro-Turk/Iran doesn't matter) and none of them are in accordance with Wikipedia:TE or Wikipedia:DE (-> Wikipedia:COI). I urgently hope my edit in Nart saga is not your only evidence. And if there is any falsification on some other articles you are cordially invoked to indicate them here. Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 13:18, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

No. You and User:Hirabutor caused many problems too. Have I submit more proofs? You use systematic POV-pushing. You think that you are very clever? You use multiple accounts for your tactics and goals. Do you think you can escape? You're an example of Good cop/bad cop and Divide and Conquer, but you're not smart enough to do them perfectly. Dear Turk, why you try to Turkify anything you find in wikipedia? Will those "false history" make you GREAT people?! You don't provide anything to defend yourself. Also, why those other 3 users are not here to respond? You and your team (your puppets) have similar targets on wiki. Same articles, same Turkish propaganda. --183.109.68.154 (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Dear IP, let us conclude:

1. I see you are obsessed with Turk-related issues and you have not any hint of evidences for your confusing claims.
2. You have just admitted you are manipulating Wikipedia because you seem to be familiar with so called "tactics", and it is pretty clear that you will make use of them hereafter.
3. I am still not seeing any reason to justify myself in any point you are bringing forward.
4. You are a hardcore ethno-POV'ist and your aim is to ban any Turkic-related object contradicting your own worldview.

Summarizing: from my point of view it is not worth to pay any further attention to this discussion, so, I am done with you. With every single message you are revealing your real purposes. So keep your eyes peeled I will have an eye on you! Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 15:56 9 May 2014 (UTC)

my reaction when I saw this mayhem. --Hirabutor (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Nice puppet game by a banned puppeteer! last edit [50] and activated his account after this report [51]. Same here [52] and then this [53]. Good job! --114.160.71.148 (talk) 04:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

You are such a genius! [54], [55], [56], [57] --> [58]. Do you have some more "puppet game proofs"? Radosfrester ^{talk to me} 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

What about me? Did I activated something, too? You forgot me, ain't you?--Kleropides (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon

Mallexikon was blocked on the 29th for edit warring at Traditional Chinese medicine. He had repeatedly tried to insert the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine was a protoscience into the article. Since returning he has found a new source and has resumed trying to incert the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine is a protoscience into the article by writing that Traditional Chinese medicine is a “pre-science” and piping it to protoscience. The source that he has used to do this does not support the claim that Traditional Chinese medicine is a protoscience and Mallexikon was informed of this, but apparently doesn’t care. He has also tried to insert the “protoscience” claim into the Acupuncture article.

However, the larger problem is Mallexikon’s decision to engage in race baiting on Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine. [[59]] And his subsequent decision to engage in taunting when Dominus Vobisdu objected to his remarks about race. [[60]] Mallexikon has apparently decided that “white males” or those he suspects of being white males are not allowed to call Traditional Chinese medicine a pseudoscience.

Editors with racial agendas are notoriously difficult to deal with and Mallexikon’s refusal to get a consensus before reinserting disputed material makes him even more disruptive. I ask that a topic ban be considered. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 17:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is correct to call Mallexikon's comments "race-baiting". For example, his first comment on this included this remark:

• "Why use a source for this at all, since we have so many smart people on WP agreeing on it? And within no time, WP will look exactly like all of us white male tech/science-friendly geeks like it."

So, he is characterizing the majority of Wikipedia editors (including himself) as white, male, tech/science-friendly geeks. And then he says his "Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it?" And he said this on April 29th, the day he was blocked. Nothing since.

First, I'm not sure that this is a mischaracterization of the demographics of Wikipedia editors. And second, he was including himself in his observation. I'm not sure who he is "baiting". Third, aside from these two remarks, I don't see any further comments about whiteness on this talk page (but I haven't looked at his edits to other pages). I think if more incidents of this occur, it is might be worth looking into. But I'm not sure if observing that most editors of Wikipedia are white males really qualifies as having a "racial agenda". Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:09, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Liz, Mallexikon was blocked for edit warring. His inappropriate comments to Dominus Vobisdu have not yet been addressed. Also, he has continued to edit problematically after returning from his block.

Mallexikon’s comment to Dominus Vobisdu was an attempt to control another editor through appeal to racial sentiment. Such tactics have no place on Wikipedia as they are an attempt to shut down civil discussion.

I also cannot understand how any reasonable person could deny that “Wow, the white/male/tech-friendly assumption really hit a nerve in you, did it?” is obvious taunting. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

I cannot understand how any reasonable person could deny that this is a pathetic attempt at censorship.Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon’s previous comment in December last year was Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. The edit summary was white / male / tech-friendly WP raising its ugly head. He seems to have a battleground mentality at the Acupuncture related articles when you look at the contributions. QuackGuru (talk) 20:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

After being blocked, Mallexikon is continuing to edit war. After the source was deleted by User:JzG and there was no consensus Mallexikon ignored there was no consensus to restore the source. He repeatably restored the source against CON.[61][62][63][64][65] According to this comment any editor can issue an alert to Mallexikon, with {{Ds/alert}}. QuackGuru (talk) 18:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. Consensus had never been achieved.Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon is one of the few reasonable editors at acupuncture, and by reasonable I mean respectful of sources as well as mindful of NPOV. In my opinion Quack Guru is the most guilty of edit warring at TCM and acupuncture. While Mallexikon has proposed seeking compromise wording, QG and Dominus have refused to take that offer in good faith and instead have focused on him. Its ridiculous. If anyone considers banning Mallexikon I recommend reading a larger sample of talk page discussions.Herbxue (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You also tried to delete the text against CON.[66][67]

Sorry, but consensus had not been achieved, and my attempts at compromise wording were reverted by you without discussion. Mallexikon also attempted compromise wording, but you refused to AGF and only pushed your version of the edit with NO attempt at achieving a consensus. Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to delete well sourced text from the lede at TCM did not work for Mallexikon. So what is the next step. Rewriting the text at the various articles to bring doubt to the term pseudoscience. When the idea is to undermine what the reliable source says by whitewashing the term pseudoscience when you or another editor can't delete it from the lede, that is not a content dispute. That is a battle ground mentality. There is no point to having quotes in the lede or adding "has been described as". The text largely pseudoscience was correct before. The same kind of thing happened to the lede at TCM. He is moving text around that does not follow the same order as the body. QuackGuru (talk) 01:24, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

76.107.171.90, QuackGuru and Dominus Vobisdu are some of a group of hawkish editors desperate to include the assertion "TCM is pseudoscience" to the lede of the Chinese medicine article, trying to use an inadequate source, and rigidly resisting any compromise (the current compromise is "TCM has been described as largely pseudoscience", which I happily supported). Please find my more detailed view on this dispute here at the DR/N. The DR/N thread was started by me.

Yes, I have been blocked 24 hrs for edit warring over this (first time ever for me), and I'm sorry - I got caught up in the heat. I'd like to point out though, that the admin who blocked me simultaneously warned QuackGuru for edit warring as well [68]. The race baiting charge, however, is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on this.

Parallely to the DR/N thread, tentative consensus regarding this dispute has been found at Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience, please take a look. This AN/I here is a pretty obvious attempt eliminate a perceived opponent (and/or to sabotage the consensus found at the talk page and/or the DR process) in a content dispute. I think that WP:BOOMERANG should apply, and would ask for a topic ban of 76.107.171.90. It also like to ask whether it is possible to check whether 76.107.171.90 is a sock puppet of any of the editors involved in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Traditional Chinese medicine. --Mallexikon (talk) 03:49, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon, saying “The race baiting charge, however, is so ridiculous I'm not even going to comment on this” is a classic Argumentum ad lapidem. You know that your racial comments are totally indefensible, so you are trying to shift the focus away from your obvious misbehavior and onto content issues. Let me be clear; if you had not taunted Dominus Vobisdu then we would not be here right now. Your decision to taunt Dominus Vobisdu after he took offense at your racial comments is obvious bullying.

If any administrator is tempted to think that this is a content issue then they can consider whether Mallexikon’s racial comments alone are sufficiently inappropriate to warrant sanction. The primary reason that I brought up Mallexikon’s problematic editing of Traditional Chinese Medicine is to show that Mallexikon’s racial bias affects his editing of articles and not just his talk page behavior.

Mallexikon, abusively and falsely accusing another editor of being a sock in an attempt to discredit them is a personal attack. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 06:22, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

The only personal attack I see is this weak attempt to discredit Mallexikon while diverting attention from the important content issue which Mallexikon is seeking compromise wording for. The racial accusation is disingenuous bullshit and you know it. Stick to the content. Herbxue (talk) 07:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Herbxue, simply shouting “This is about content!”, “This is about content!” over and over again is not going to convince anyone. We are talking about the way that Mallexikon evoked race to try to get his way on Traditional Chinese Medicine, and the way that he taunted Dominus Vobisdu when Dominus Vobisdu objected to his comments. And we are also discussing whether Mallexikon’s bias prevents him from editing constructively within Traditional Chinese Medicine. Increasingly desperate attempts to divert attention away from a serious behavioral issue are not appropriate. 76.107.171.90 (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

You know what's not appropriate? You are doing this because you disagree with his edits, not because you are actually offended by him making an off-hand comment about white nerds. I'm a white nerd and I am not offended. I highly doubt DV actually felt threatened or insulted. This IS about content (you even referenced his "bias" above, which as far as I can tell he is skeptical of the value of TCM but is unwilling to violate WP policy and common sense to prove it, unlike the other editors here).Herbxue (talk) 13:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Mallexikon is continuing to violate WP:ASSERT by adding weasel words not found in the source. QuackGuru (talk) 10:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

For what its worth, 76.107.171.90 has been blocked for two weeks for personal attacks and harassment of a different editor he has had conflict with in the pseudoscience area. It involved a talk page discussion where he was brainstorming about ways to get this user blocked. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 11:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with Mallexicon on TCM, but more generally, we do have a problem with systemic bias; our content follows the interests of anglophone white male technophiles. I am uncomfortable with the idea that editors could be sanctioned for highlighting one of en.wikipedia's most widespread problems. bobrayner (talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

If that was the problem, I'd agree. Actually the problem is tendentious and disruptive editing. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Is this a problem or is it okay to delete the text that is part of a summary of the body? If the he thinks the text is unsourced he could of reworded it. He previously claimed the text was also unsourced at the TCM article. QuackGuru (talk) 08:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

No it is not OK, it is tendentious and moreover it is edit warring as numerous editors have restored that well sourced text. That is exactly what I mean. Mallexikon appears to be a True Believer; the input of believers helps us to clarify content and keep it honest but they cannot be allowed to wave away the fact that most alternatives-to-medicine are based on refuted notions and sustained by pseudoscience, used to give the impression of legitimacy. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally agree with you about refuted notions and sustained pseudoscience, and I'm not trying to wave away anything here. But QG's edits are not correct, and do not live up to WP standards.

You calling me a "True Believer" constitutes a personal attack. Obviously you don't believe that the motive for my edits is to create a good article, and doubt my integrity as an editor. In spite of a lot of evidence to the contrary (check my edits), insults like this have been hurled at me a lot lately. Interestingly, mainly since QG started editing on the TCM, GERAC and acupuncture pages. And to tell you the truth, yes, being called "True Believer" or "acu-proponent" or being accused of making my money with TCM does hurt. Congratulations. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Do you agree it was a mistake to add vague in-text attribution to the lede of the acupuncture article? Do you think it would be better to avoid WP:WEASEL words, which is a vague attribution of a claim to unknown voices ("has been described as"), especially since the source is straight-out assertive. The point the source is making is that it is only within the context of "a disciplined scientific approach" that pseudoscience has come to be.

Do you agree rather than deleting the text you could of reworded it with the c/e at the acupuncture article?

You have a history of deleting text from the TCM article.[69][70] You can't explain it all away as just a content dispute.

Do you agree you made a mistake to delete the text when it is sourced using an independent source?

Do you agree you made a mistake when you added an ASSERT violation when there is no serious disagreement among reliable sources? QuackGuru (talk) 08:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

1.) No, I certainly don't agree. The text I added was consensus at the Traditional Chinese medicine article, originally proposed and then edited by Richard Keatinge [71]. You had the nerve to copy and include your disputed edit into the acupuncture article, even though consensus building about this edit was still ongoing at the TCM article. All I did was to adopt the same consensus at the acupuncture article.

2.) This edit of mine was justified. The source talks about Chinese herbology, not acupuncture. I had tried to implement the consensus reached at the TCM article, but you reverted this [72].

3.) These 2 edits from 2013 you mentioned were justified as well; I wrote a lengthy edit summary for both of them.

4.) Definitely not. That edit of yours was controversial since it violated WP:ASSERT: the source's statement is ambiguous. We have a WP:DRN thread about it and consensus at the TCM talk page changed your sentence in the end. I already explained this under 1.)

5.) Definitely not. If only one of these two sources would state a clear assertion, I'd be happy to include it. But one is speculating, and one is so nebulous it's not even quite clear what it means. We've discussed this at length at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#break. --Mallexikon (talk) 11:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"So if traditional Chinese medicine is so great, why hasn't the qualitative study of its outcomes opened the door to a flood of cures? The most obvious answer is that it actually has little to offer: it is largely just pseudoscience, with no rational mechanism of action for most of its therapies. Advocates respond by claiming that researchers are missing aspects of the art, notably the interactions between different ingredients in traditional therapies."[73]

Anyone reading the source knows the text is supported by the source and you continue to claim you are justified for deleting the text when you could of rewrote it. You violated ASSERT when there is no serious dispute. You don't have any legitimate explanation for your edit. Is this about the source or is it you who think TCM is not pseudoscience because there is ongoing research? Ongoing research is not relevant to this situation. It seems you personally think the source is speculating when it is you who is disagreeing with reliable sources. QuackGuru (talk) 17:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. 76.107.171.90 brought a complaint against Mallexikon for "race-baiting". There was no support for this charge and 76.107.171.90 was blocked for two weeks for similar efforts of using whatever tools might be on hand to get a different editor blocked. So, now, the OP is blocked, the original complaint is dropped and this has turned into a dispute over Mallexikon's edits to Traditional Chinese medicine which is currently the subject of a dispute resolution. Let's let that process run its course before starting to impose restrictions or topic bans on any editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I think a 1RR restriction is in order for Mallexikon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and if not already alerted, a {{ds/alert}}. Hipocrite did this on 7 May. Guy (Help!) 12:12, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would support some kind of revert restriction. bobrayner (talk) 14:41, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support Additionally there was a fair bit of support for some form of limitations back in Feb [74] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• Interesting that there's already some talk on a penalty... But could you maybe tell me for what exactly? I originally was accused of "race baiting" here (which is groundless) and for including the statement that TCM is considered a protoscience (which is not even disputed). Now suddenly Guy is accusing me of edit warring and tendentious and disruptive editing... Without any evidence at all! This edit that QuackGuru just complained about was a revert of his desperate attempt to include the term "pseudoscience" into the acupuncture article without an adequate source. The source he uses [75], is not about acupuncture - it's about TCM herbal treatment. Our own rules as in WP:FRINGE state that "ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources." And just because I reverted this attempt to distort a source (BTW, this is not the first time QG's done something like this), I'm a "True Believer"?? Which actually is an insult, and not a small one. It is also a failure to WP:AGF. I think you've been in the trenches too long. If you see a True Believer in me, you're obviously too eager to see this in other editors. --Mallexikon (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid your inability to understand the problem doesn't bode well. Our job as admins is to try to minimise disruption of the project. I happen to think that restricting your reversion of content will help to remind you to debate rather than edit-war, this is probably a better outcome for you than the alternatives, which are more topic ban shaped. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

No, obviously you don't understand the problem, since you're biased. Me not agreeing with QG's controversial edits doesn't make a "True Believer". It also doesn't mean that I'm guilty of tendentious editing. I definetely have never engaged in disruptive editing. But every editor with an overzealous skeptic heart happily sees a quack proponent in me, just because I object to QG's disgusting editing style... And concerning edit warring: it was me who started WP:DR for the latest big dispute at Traditional Chinese medicine (a dispute in which you are an involved), and I'm always more than happy to productively engage in any kind of consensus-building. Concerning the latest dispute, just cf. Talk:Traditional Chinese medicine#Labels: pseudoscience, protoscience. If you want to minimize disruption of the project, topic-ban QG. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Everybody is biased. Some, like you, perceive their bias ans neutrality. My bias is at least in line with Wikipedia policies: I am very much of the view that where a subject is a matter of legitimate scientific inquiry, the scientific point of view is the neutral point of view. That's nto the issue, the issue is the way you in particular exhibit your bias. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You and me do not disagree regarding the scientific point of view being the neutral point of view. What do you mean with "the way you in particular exhibit your bias"? And would you have any diffs? --Mallexikon (talk) 09:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You still have not given a justifiable reason to delete well sourced text. You recently added a claim about protoscience using a source written over 30 years ago. QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Herbxue

Recent background information on Herbxue:

• Herbxue deleted TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was No consensus - disputed statement, not a summary of body, under discussion at TCM talk page.

• Herbxue deleted again TCM is largely pseudoscience, with no valid mechanism of action for the majority of its treatments. The edit summary was Undid revision 606451839 by Barney the barney barney (talk) Only not disputed if you are too lazy to follow discussion to build consensus.

• Herbxue restored unsourced text that was not found in the citation.

• Herbxue has been notified of the sanctions.

• Herbxue is a WP:SPA editing a very narrow scope of articles related only to acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine. Herbxue has a history of reverting experienced good faith editors such a User:Alexbrn, User:Barney the barney barney, User:Roxy the dog, and User:QTxVi4bEMRbrNqOorWBV.

Mallexikon added a 30+ years old source about TCM being protoscience written by a teacher on the history of Chinese medicine but we have newer sources on the topic and WP:FRINGE asks us for independent sources on the topic for controversial claims. After the source was deleted it was restored by Herbxue. User:JzG, is this a problem or is it okay for User:Herbxue to reinstate a non-independent source written over 3 decades ago? QuackGuru (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks

I have an on-going problem with Scalhotrod personally attacking me.

• 20:01, 27 April 2014, [76] Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 20:11, 27 April 2014, [77] Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 14:12, 5 May 2014, [78] Serious accusation (ownership, without evidence)
• 15:04, 5 May 2014, [79] Criticism in an inappropriate context (article talk page)
• 20:58, 9 May 2014 [80] Serious accusation ("history of activity of stacking Users in her favor and bringing in other Users to support her causes" - without evidence)

That last one especially bothers me. He asked the editor he posted that reply to to check my edit history.

As I said just yesterday to the Gun control arbitrators [81], I'd prefer that Scalhotrod start something specifically about me if he has a beef with me and my edits in general. Otherwise, as I've asked him repeatedly, I'd like him to keep it on content and take personal remarks to MY talk page, or at the very least notify me when he talks about me on other talk pages. Lightbreather (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, this is not at drama board level at this point. The OP has a huge plurality of edits on the article in question. Of the last 200 edits, including bot edits, the OP accounts for 156 edits. And if we remove the bots, the OP is well over 85% of the total edits on that page. No one else comes within a mile. The best way to avoid any possible aspersions about ownership is not to totally dominate any topic. Verb. sap. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:19, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

FWIW Collect has behaved, in fewer edits, even worse in my opinion then Scalhotrod. For example, without any discussion he tried to involve an arbitrator by making the same accusations as Scalhotrod, but without first discussing the issue at Lightbreather's talk page nor informing LB of the conversation. Collect removed a few of my edits (claiming I interpolated my opinion into the source}, but when I asked for clarification his response do not discuss my edits, or he doesn't respond.

I have taken a different approach with Scalhotrod, which is discussing very very thoroughly one edit I wanted to make to the article. It has been going on for several days, and in several more we might reach some agreement on the edit. Given how long this as taken I do not blame LB for taking a more direct approach, otherwise not much might get done. Thenub314 (talk) 02:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The examples you give show me acting in an entirely proper manner, and I am unsure why you make unfounded accusations here. here. My post here was made to defuse the situation, and not to inflame it. The post to NYB was a "heads up" about an ArbCom case - as I find opening an RfC and then closing it with one's own position to be irregular. The concept of an RfC is that they are generally closed by uninvolved third parties. That this is heinous is beyond me.

The edit I made [82] with the edit summary "desire" is clear argumentation and violative of policy -- and if you cite an opinion - use quotation marks please - this is about the limit for this source was proper, yet was mischaracterized by the editor at hand as Reverted to revision 607787468 by Cwobeel (talk): There are quotation marks in there. And I intend to add more content about this aspect sourced to other books which was odd in my opinion. And having someone repeatedly ask to have someone repeat what has already been posted on the article talk page is not a gainful use of an article talk page at all.

The reply See what discussion, What are you talking about? This is the 2002 source you took out. Yes there is a separate section on a different source. Could you try again. Please comment about why you took what I wrote out? What did I add, that caused you to remove this because the source did not support it?

Is pure drama seeking-- the discussion was on the same page, and readily quite viewable.

@Guy it is precisely because I saw the same behaviour that led to the ArbCom case that I posted to NYB, and I trust you will note my temperate demeanor even when others seek drama. Cheers.Collect (talk) 10:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

A "heads up" would be something neutral, not signaling out a particular editor. Your comments were "We have a new owner...". We can agree to disagree but I think this is as much of an accusation of ownership as the posts above. And as much claim otherwise you never addressed on the talk page why you reverted my edit, which started Cwobeel trying to put something similar in using a different source. But you've never addressed why you reverted my edit and started the mess, and it is not discussed on the talk page (if it is, please link the diff). I am not asking you to repeat, simply justify your revert. Thenub314 (talk) 14:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Collect, I don't appreciate your calling this a "drama board." I only came here after numerous attempts to get Scal (and you, too, for that matter, as has been pointed out) to stop making personal comments and to just keep it on content. (As an aside, for anyone like me who doesn't know Latin, "Verb. sap." apparently means a word is enough to the wise. I don't know why Collect included it, but there you go.) Lightbreather (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I believe these articles are under discretionary sanctions? Are the parties aware? Guy (Help!) 09:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Both Scalhotrod and I were reminded on 6 May 2014. It was/is a little scary for me coming here. I simply want the personal stuff in inappropriate places to stop. (I've asked him to bring personal stuff to my talk page, or at least notify me when he brings it up elsewhere.) When he said that he wasn't "really interested in wasting time putting together the difs and evidence to report it [ownership],"[83] I then replied by asking him to keep his comments on content. Lightbreather (talk) 17:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I think that some editors are behaving very BATTLEGROUNDy at the article under dispute. However, I don't think any of the editors' behavior is really actionable as far as administrator intervention goes. (I don't know how this changes in the light of ArbCom discretionary sanctions.) As far as I can tell, most of the drama seems to center around the use of various sources in that article. This is a content dispute, and so not something that ANI can deal with. Presumably what is needed is for someone otherwise uninvolved to check the sources under discussion. That would suggest that mediation is a viable approach, at least with an experienced editor. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the comments cited above amount to personal attacks versus the attempt at communication and the sharing of viewpoints, then I've been "attacked" by more Editors and Admins than I care to remember. Lightbreather is a fairly new User and seems to be going through a "Wikipedia indoctrination process" of sorts that many others have gone through where active Editors are learning how to interact with this community and understand its processes. That said, her edit history and contributions speak for themselves. In my opinion, LB has a personal bias that affects her editing of gun related articles that she has alluded to here and here. Furthermore, I was not the first, nor the only Editor to bring up the issue of ownership activity with LB. The first instance I know of it was here. My impression of this Editor is that WP policy or procedure is relevant only when it suits her needs or objectives. Such as the recent RfC here regarding the article name of the Assault weapons legislation article and then a switch to a Move Request. I remember going through this stage and evolving past it, I hope that LB does the same.

I have a quote on my Talk page that states one of my viewpoints towards editing, "Here on Wikipedia, it's OK to be an idiot or do something stupid as long as you are willing to take responsibility and own up to it when you are called on it. - Source Unknown". I have "mea culpa'd" more times than I can remember and then I've thanked the person for explaining what I did wrong. I have even thanked them for the time it took to go through the process of explaining it. It is unfair of me to expect a similar attitude from Lightbreather, but I am entitled to expect her to be Civil and adhere to policy which includes not gaming the WP system or running roughshod over any editors that do not agree with her exact stance, exact wording of content, or use of a particular source. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 14:00, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Above is virtually the same as you posted two days ago (8 May 2014) on the GPUS talk page yesterday:

So you're admitting to POV editing like you alluded to here and here? --Scalhotrod ... 17:32, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[84]

So I'll say here what I said there: What the heck are you talking about? All that I've "alluded to" is WP:STEWARDSHIP, and Don't shoot the messenger. Translating that to "LB has a personal bias that affects her editing" is your work - not mine. (ALL editors have biases that (potentially) affect their editing. But what you discuss with colleagues in the day-to-day editing environment are the individual edits, not their biases.) I am asking again: If you have a problem with me, take it to my talk page, or, if you take it elsewhere, notify me so that I may defend myself. And either way, provide diffs, please. Lightbreather (talk) 17:30, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• As far as editing practice, I am a little bit concerned by the lack of clarity in relation to this this edit by Collect (which Thenub314 has specifically raised in this discussion). Simply restating the edit summary on the talk page isn't especially helpful when a request for clarification is raised on the talk page, and the cited source is quoted alongside or juxtaposed against the article text (which appears to have happened here). Collect, even if the query was expressed in a fashion which seemed dramatic, I am sure it would not be that difficult to clearly establish why or how the source is not being followed or which part of the article text amounted to editorial opinion being interpolated in the article. So could you please assist, with a view of resolving the concern raised by Thenub314 and so that this ANI does not become a matter about multiple users? In particular, in this section of the article talk page, can you clearly specify which part(s) of the article text you removed here was editor opinion? Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:26, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This was begun as a discussion of personal attacks by Scalhotrod. The attacks were largely "serious accusations" of ownership. When the data shows that an editor has made over 85% of the last 200 edits on an article it is a reasonable expectation that other editors will see ownership issues. To recognize that one editor is the dominant force on a page is not a personal attack. The case that this accusation was a personal attack is not made. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. First, there were two accusations. One is canvassing, the other, repeated at least three times, is ownership - and neither with evidence. Nowhere in WP:OWNERSHIP does it say that how many edits an editor makes, or a certain percentage of total edits to an article, is an example of ownership behavior. Nowhere. It does say to "Always avoid accusations, attacks, and speculations concerning the motivation of any editor," and that "Accusing other editors of owning the article may appear aggressive, and could be perceived as a personal attack." Further, WP:STEWARDSHIP says, "Unless an editor exhibits behavior associated with ownership, it's best to assume good faith on their part."

I am saying that unless someone has evidence against me that they want to cite with DIFFS, I'd like the accusations, attacks, and speculations to stop right now. Let's keep it on content. --Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

This is a reasonable request. At some point, it becomes disruptive to continually make the same accusation without any intention of filing a report. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

NinjaRobotPirate it is a reasonable request if taken at face value, but there lies the crux of the problem. When we (myself and other editors) try to discuss edits with her, she makes statements that usually include something like (or to the effect of) "I believe...", "I feel...", "The source I'm using says...". In other words, she seems to take personally the edits that she makes. So then whenever anyone makes a comment about her edit style, she interprets it as a personal attack (hence this ANI) versus just an observation or comment on her pattern or style of editing. She then requests that "anyone with a problem" with her take it to her Talk page which makes no sense because we're trying to discuss content and WP content policy. Its this endless cycle that has become frustrating to several other editors who don't share her exact views. We would all like to be reasonable with LB if she would afford us the same courtesy. That includes backing down or just waiting long enough for others to have their views expressed so consensus can be reached. Patience is virtue that is sadly lacking on WP... --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:10, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod, I ask you to stop making personal comments - or if you're going to, to provide diffs - and you answer with more personal comments and still no diffs? From WP:ETIQ: Argue facts, not personalities. And from WP:TALKNO: When describing other people's contributions or edits, use diffs. Scal, please stop this now.

Is there an admin here who can help me with this? I just want the inappropriate personal comments to stop. Lightbreather (talk) 20:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather when are you going to figure out that talking "about" you is not a personal attack at least as WP defines it? You seem to interpret everything said about you as an attack. It's not and the sooner you realize this, the better off we will all be. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

"You seem to interpret everything said about you as an attack"? Untrue. I gave specific examples - with diffs - at the top of this discussion showing you accusing me of ownership and canvassing. Those are attacks. The talking about me without accusations are not attacks, but they are poor practice per WP etiquette. Stop it... Argue facts, not personalities. Keep it on content, not character. Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

@Scalhotrod, I think you and I have been getting along better the past day or two, so in a friendly way I am going to level with you. While you may have meant it as a fair warning... Comments like "Do you know the WP:OWN case your building against yourself" (mobile edit so that's a paraphrase) just don't come across that way. LB does have a point. We are all heated, but I suspect if we all try to keep that in mind when we are making posts we can improve these articles without any of us needing formal sanctions. Thenub314 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'm going to try a different approach on LB's Talk page. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 03:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to report, it looks like we're going to give peace a chance. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 04:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment I've checked a couple of threads on the Talk page of the "Gun politics in the US", and have noted that Scalhotrod seems to assume an authoritative tone with respect to content policies in one thread repeatedly making erroneous and false claims about WP:NOTABLE.

More specifically, in this thread Talk:Gun_politics_in_the_United_States#.22Speculative_nature.22, for example, it took three editors, Thenub314 [85], ArtifexMayhem[86] and AndytheGrump[87][88] to refute his baseless assertions on that policy.

I would say that there is a WP:BATTLE mentality evident in the comments by Scalhotrod"WP policy is frustrating, isn't it?"[89] in that thread. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

U, nothing like taking something out of context to spoil the mood, but everyone is entitled to their opinion... Thank you for looking into this, but we're working to get past the pettiness you're highlighting on our own. Regards, --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Nothing has been 'taken out of context' - Scalhotrod claimed that sources weren't valid because they didn't meet notability guidelines. It should be noted that Scalhotrod has been contributing to Wikipedia since 2007, and has over 3500 main-space edits. [90] I would find it astonishing that anyone with that much experience could be so fundamentally misinformed about elementary policy. Instead, I have to suggest that he clearly knows full well what policy is, but prefers to invent new ones on the fly when it suits his agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I do admit that I am not as "eloquent" nor as sharp tongued as Andy. Nor am I as inhibited by the guidelines of the site. But I know how creative you are when it comes to seeing varying perspectives on an issue or comment. I understand the policy and was just making my point badly. Nub and I continued out conversation to our mutual satisfaction on his Talk page, but you probably forgot to "check first" again. There was no intent to "invent" anything.... :) Thank you for your input Andy. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't need to trawl through your edits elsewhere to see that you misrepresented policy in an attempt to justify removing content you didn't like. AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course Andy, there are lots of things you "don't need to" do, but you do anyway. Its why we all love you you warm, fuzzy curmudgeon...! Happy Monday! :) --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 13:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Incidentally, it seems Collect has not adhered to my request above, so I have repeated it on the user talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the onus is on Collect, but the content is being discussed and addressed on the Talk page of "Gun Politics" and some has already been added to the main NRA article. Unless you have some burning desire to keep "pointing fingers" does this need to continue anywhere? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:13, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• I have no desire to point fingers, and merely gave Collect the benefit of the doubt. The idea is to find ways to resolve issues rather than let them fester, and its worth recording if/when he is prepared to follow that through. That said, I have just now noticed that matter has been raised as evidence in the currently open arbitration case so it does not need further follow up over here. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:59, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Deaths in 2013

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

---

• Special:Contributions/Deaths in 2013

This account is going over 500 times a posting continuous, Unintelligible edit. and Ignoring warning for long time. Please block of a short period of time.--Disputed (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I poked around a little bit, and they surely like to do a lot of small edits, but I didn't see any unintelligible edits in my sampling. Lots of tinkering around with formatting and such, but that isn't really against policy. Can you provide diffs of problematic edits? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:09, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

His editing is, Playful editing[91], wrong edit, incorrect information[92], and Unintelligible edit[93][94][95] too many. his posting continuous and Ignoring warning deserves block.--Disputed (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Um, Disputed, I think you may need to reconsider this post. First diff is him adding a column (but not populating it), second is fixing a ref (supports the text), third, fourth, and fifth are constructive edits changing the date into the article subjects native format, changing the column title to reflect the living status of the person, and them blanking their talk page. None of these are invalid edits. Calling for someones block for valid constructive edits is a bit quick on the trigger, don't you think? 96.35.92.18 (talk) 15:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm with 96.35.92.18 on this. Sometimes editing at the same time as someone who does quick fire edits like this can be inconvenient, but from what I'm seeing, every edit he does, he is doing something that is arguably constructive, even if you disagree with the content. His editing style is a little unusual, but there is no policy violation that I can see. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

However, he is not to stop the abnormal posting continuous and continue to Ignore Warnings in the talk page. his editing has not been improved yet. I think Requires warning or block.--Disputed (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Since you didn't get the hint, I'll be more blunt: Warning for what? Block for what? What policy has he violated? What is "abnormal posting"? Posting that YOU don't like? What policy prohibits this? None. What is problematic is you giving him warnings when he hasn't violated policy. It is a policy violation for you to warn him for vandalising when he clearly hasn't vandalised. The only person I see violating policy is you. You need to read WP:VANDAL. Anything that doesn't fit that narrow definition shouldn't be called vandalism, and is actionable if it is. I recommend you stop templating him improperly, or it will be you that gets blocked. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, he hasn't stopped with the inappropriate warnings ("if reject dialogue, you blocked from editing" and such) and has now started leaving hidden messages to User:Deaths in 2013 in List of Japanese supercentenarians.--Atlan (talk) 12:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there a language barrier issue here? Deaths' editing is fine, Disputed's questioning and warning has been, well, disputed, but they still don't seem to understand what everyone is trying to say. 206.117.89.5 (talk) 16:39, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I removed the warnings at Deaths in 2013's talk page as they were completely over the top as well as against policy. I also linked them here as I could not see any previous link. AIRcorn (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
• The boomerang comes around. I've issued a final warning on Disputed's talk page. If they continue to issue unwarranted warnings, either myself or another admin will block them for disruptive editing. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Possibly compromised account

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

---

I can't recall ever having run across User:Wer900 before, but after glancing through the editor's past contributions, this vandalistic edit, the associated edit summary, and the editing of that particular article seem to be rather uncharacteristic for the account. Is this something that should be looked into? Deor (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• I would want more opinions, but I will just say that it does indeed look odd, and bringing it here was the right move, just in case. I went ahead and left a notice on their talk page regarding this discussion. I understand your hesitation but I felt it still needed to be done. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

• It could be a compromised account. But maybe not. See this conversation which shows that Wer900 is dissatisfied with Wikipedia in general. Now, criticizing Wikipedia does not automatically make him a disruptive editor (everyone is entitled to their opinions, and Jimbo's talk page is a frequent place to express frustration with the project from even our most productive editors) but it could be a sign that he is experiencing burnout of some kind. Especially when you consider that Wer900 has contributed only sporadically since those criticisms. Perhaps we're not seeing an account that was compromised, but someone who is fed up with this place? -- Atama頭 23:31, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't buy that explanation at all. This appears to be the second incident since March 31. The first was made by someone editing from the 207.163.116.23 (talk · contribs) account who seems to have taken over the registered account sometime after March 31.[96] It's hard to say what is happening here, but I really don't think Wer900 would do this. However, when you look at the vandalism of Wer900's talk page by 207.163.116.23 (using the link above), you can see that it is the same person currently in control of his account. When you look at the identifying information involved, one can hypothesize that Wer900 left himself logged in on a shared computer, and judging by the "Druve muley" comment left by the IP, we may have a bit of a lovers quarrel on our hands. I hope she didn't change his password... But just in case I wasn't clear, I do think the account should be temporarily blocked as it doesn't look like the real Wer900 has edited since April. Viriditas (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Viriditas: Good point, with the talk page vandalism (supposedly by himself) that does make it more likely that this is a compromised account. -- Atama頭 15:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• It certainly gives every impression of a compromised account: (1) lone edit after long inactivity (2) sneaky-but-not-too-sneaky vandalism (3) on a high-traffic article where it's sure to be noticed (4) sarcastically self-insulting edit summary (5) new edit uses Visual Editor, previous edits don't. I guess it's technically possible that one might fake a compromise of one's own account, but there's really no benefit to doing so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:32, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• After looking this over, and looking at the edits in question, I concur that this is a case of the account being compromised. Accordingly, I've indef'd the account. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:44, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Pattern of reverting edits made on other user's talk pages

User:Katieh5584 has a pattern of repeated reversion in other people's user talk pages, where the edit was OK and not vandalism or a violation of BLP, such as at:

• User talk:Luxinstant [97]
• User talk:Jim1138 [98][99][100]
• User talk:This lousy T-shirt 18 reverts
• User talk:Globalautousa history
• User talk:Castingmind history
• User talk:Laratadelaciudad history
• User talk:2602:30A:2CA3:8290:7D66:9872:96A1:1776 history

This user also reverted my edits to her user talk page, when I warned her what she was doing was wrong. A lot of the edits mentioned above are actually reversions of people removing warnings from their talk page, which is discouraged but allowed on Wikipedia. Also, when I warned her [101] what she was doing is wrong, she continued to edit war [102] on User talk:A_delicious_pot_pie. She was warned by me and FreeRangeFrog 3 times in total, and continued to edit war at A delicious pot pie's talk page. She was, in fact, given a final warning by Barek, and this continuing pattern of talk page reverts against newcomers should be considered under Wikipedia:BITE. Pretty much all of her reversions affect people who are new users, and I think that we need to deal with this continuous use of vandalism rollbacks (using twinkle) on other peoples talk pages, as this may be an abuse on Wikipedia tools. There are many more examples, which I will post if you ask. 123chess456 (talk) 00:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

One thing I don't understand is why @FreeRangeFrog: idef semi-protected her talk page for user request within own userspace, as I thought that admins where not allowed to protect talk pages for that as it prevents newcomers for asking questions, and only protect if consistent attacks are happening to the user. Also, yes I think that Katieh should be notified about reverting talk pages unless the edit is a Attack or BLP violation. TheMesquito^buzz 00:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Keep in mind she's autistic, so I think it's a lack of not knowing better, rather than stubbornness. I'd hate to see her lose the rollback because she has made a lot of reversions of genuine vandalism. Perhaps we can explain this rule another way and help her learn?

People were being downright nasty on her talk page/user page. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Meteor Sandwich, she should not lose rollback because of this, rather an explanation of the rules and then if it continues after that, then it should be discussed if she should lose rollback, but i don't see that is needed ATM. TheMesquito^buzz 01:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've seen Katie do some fine work in anti-vandalism. She shouldn't have rollback revoked this time, even if she's revert-happy. As much as I understand how Autism can make it difficult for someone to know what is appropriate and what is not in certain situations, it doesn't affect her overall intelligence and shouldn't be used as an excuse for things. In addition to an explanation of the rules, I think what would help most is someone working with her to improve communication skills, which she has indicated she struggles with. I am more than willing to assist/mentor her despite not being an admin or anything. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 01:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm autistic too, but on the "high" end of the "spectrum"; i.e., I can understand people a little better. I can take some time to try to help Katie, but I'm not sure what she needs help with.

I provided diffs or pertinent links, interested in understanding exactly what Katie doesn't get. Take a look at this diff. The person says: "Cmon, he my friend Irl and i'm just trying to troll him xD #SwagCorp.©" That's kind of a borderline case, I'm not really even sure what it means: not vandalism, not cursing, not exactly threatening, but strange and sounds like it might be threateneing: "I'm just trying to troll him" in particular (I'm guessing).

In nearly all the other cases, a failure to understand Wikipedia:BLANKING. It's policy that even blocked vandals can remove all warnings or notices as long as it doesn't interfere with communication. Most notices are for the user, not the admin: the admin can search through the history.

To specify exactly what should be reverted:

Revert these:

1. attacks that only try to hurt the other person (insults, name-calling, profanity)
2. inappropriate images [103][104]
3. blanking or trying to mess up someone's page
4. deletion notices (speedy deletions, MfD, PROD, etc.) for the page the deletion notice is on. The deletion notice is for the user, and they can remove it. So restoring the notice of Luxinstant's userpage deletion was not a good idea, but reverting someone who removed a speedy tag from their user page is an example of an okay revert.

Don't revert these:

1. nonsense, rudeness, or arguments
2. removal of warnings, block notices or bans, claims of sockpuppetry

Did that clear anything up? Feel free to revert me if I'm not being helpful. I find more information easier to work with, because I have to guess what people mean a lot less. Meteor_sandwich_yum (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Katieh5584 ask if you have any further questions. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 03:25, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I wanted to chime in and add that Katieh5584 has been very helpful at both SPI and COIN in reporting problematic editors. So I support the efforts to give Katie guidance rather than sanctions. -- Atama頭 00:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I second that. Even though Katie isn't new, she may find the Teahouse or other places helpful. We should be gentle rather than hostile, even if editors aren't new. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

comment Note that Katieh5584 has been advised of WP:BLANKING at least once before in 2011 [105], just before she retired for three years over this exact same problematic reverting behaviour. I also think it's bad practice for such a prolific revert button-masher to have a semi'd talk page so she can avoid communication with new editors/IP's. 94.195.46.49 (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

It would help a lot if Katieh5584 came to this page and responded to the questions people have. In fact, it seems essential. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Either that, or we bring the discussion to her page. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 07:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that's the answer, XXSNUGGUMSXX. What I can conclude by reading this complaint is that there are problems with some of Katieh5584's edits but that she is a valuable contributor. If she can address these issues on her talk page (and she will participate in the discussion), it can be moved there. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 12:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The user hasn't edited since May 10. Wait a little until she gets back to editing. Epicgenius (talk) 18:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User Bobynash beginning to vandalize again

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

---

Sorry to have to bother you with this again, but it appears that a certain user who has been trolling the golf pages is up to it again. Here is their contribution page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Bobynash Please see if you can get through to them. Thank you. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:02, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've reported the user to WP:AIV TheMesquito^buzz 15:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked them indefinitely as a vandalism-only account. It's obvious from their earlier edits and their response to previous attempts to communicate that they are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia. -- The Anome (talk) 15:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you -- by the way, in the last few minutes, user Bobynash left a derogatory message on my page, seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJohnsmith2116&diff=608064690&oldid=607068556 Johnsmith2116 (talk) 15:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Mike Rosoft has now reverted it. If you get any more problems from "Boby", under any account name, please bring it here, or WP:AIV, and it should be dealt with rapidly. -- The Anome (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Although, if that particular person was to do it again under another name, I wouldn't know for certain it is them, it would only be a guess. Hopefully it's all finished though and won't happen again. Johnsmith2116 (talk) 18:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Request to effectuate move ban for two editors

Two users Kwamikagami (talk · contribs) and Skookum1 (talk · contribs) have been disrupting articles anout Native American languages and ethnic groups over the past few months movewarring and filing dozens of long move discussions. The issue includes the question of when to prefer native names for languages and ethnic groups and whether the ethnic groups should automatically the primary topic FOo and the language of the groups should be at the disambiguated title at Foo language, or whether both ethnic groups and languages should be disambiguated to Foo language and Foo people. I think the moving around of articles on my watchlist is getting fairly disruptive and I think it would make sense to prohibit both of them from using the move function. There is an ongoing discussion here User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 22:33, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

• Administrative point We need diffs illustrating the problem. I respect Maunus, but I don't know what I'm supposed to respond to. I've made *one* edit-warring move in the past month, and I don't think I've filed any of the move discussions he's objecting to. — kwami (talk) 18:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Comment As with the recent ANI filed by Kwami for 3RR when there was no such thing committed, this is a nuisance ANI filed by someone who has very vocally voiced his NPA/AGF about me at Talk:Chaouacha:
  • he accuses me of being a "spiteful jerk" for simply moving something with a "people" dab onto a redlink that had none; impugns my motives for that very simple move
  • says "not going to waste more time on your crap".
  • falsely claims there "a valid norm having articles about ethnic group located at X people" as if it was the norm, which it isn't, nor ever was, though aficionados of NCL have made that claim as if NCL were policy
  • says "there is no requirement for articles to be located at the shortest possible title" which is not what TITLE or PRIMARYTOPIC say at all.
  • Another mis-statement is this " failed to get consensus for your opinion over most articles where you have suggested this" is wildly wrong; 90% of the RMs filed on this were moved and the disambiguation (often added by Kwami) removed;
  • then further distorts reality and impugning my motives by concluding that sentence with "now picking the low han[g]ing fruit by moving the articles for which there are no articles about languages yet". And "you are just choosing to make it look like that out of spite and a weird preference for ambiguous titles". Actually that "weird preference" is in TITLE under CONCISENESS and PRECISION, and can also be found in PRIMARYTOPIC, DAB, and WP:NCET.
  • Accusing me of "spite", "weird preference for ambiguous titles", "spiteful jerk" and such belie the claim that this ANI is only about his irritation about seeing things on his watchlist "moved around". It's not like he's coming at this as someone neutral
  • "The moving around of articles on my watchlist" here is a distortion, as the mass of the articles in question were, as noted above re his rank comments on Talk:Chaouacha, were moved by RM.
  • In the case in question, Halkomelem, the move was in accordance with policy, namely TITLE/CONCISENESS/PRECISION and also with NCDAB and more. The only thing that's made it controversial and a "move war" is Kwami maintaining that a "Halkomelem people" exist and are a competing PRIMARYTOPIC for Halkomelem, the language, which is spoken by a good two dozen separate groups; Kwami in his reversion of the move, which was done by @Anthony Appleyard: after I requested is a technical move, said I had provided no refs; neither had he for his claim that such a people as the Halkomelem people exist (Halkomelem-speaking peoples do);
    • in GoogleBooks there are 63 google refs for "Halkomelem people", mostly older or low-quality and to do with the language, vs 506 for "Halkomelem language".
    • There is no "Halkomelem First Nation", no ethnic group called Halkomelem, the name itself means the language. As for the ongoing discussion at WP:NCL, Maunus's version is a distortion:
      • "the primary topic FOo and the language of the groups should be at the disambiguated title at Foo language, or whether both ethnic groups and languages should be disambiguated to Foo language and Foo people"
    • It is a distortion because the widely-accepted primary topic of FOO in these cases is the peoples, not the language, and the issue of whether or not disambiguation must be added to people titles is is what is being not debated exactly, but filibustered against by Kwami, who wrote the passage of NCL that applied that claimed-to-be-policy across hundreds of titles and who is edit warring over changes to NCL that the emergent consensus in the aforesaid RMs and which is very evident in discussion posts by Cuchullain, JHunterJ, Uyvsdi, CambridgeBayWeather and myself, who wish that NCL be brought into line with TITLE and DAB and PRIMARYTOPIC, which since Kwami's Feb 2011 change to it
    • Kwami has been edit-warring NCL, making reversions of any changes to his preferred/self-authored version which try to bring its flawed text into line with TITLE/DAB etc. He is fighting against and blocking consensus by non sequiturs and mis-stating what other people have said, and fielding POV forks as if others had said them, and also engaged in a heavily editorialized CANVASS entitled "Drastic change in article naming, potentially moving thousands of articles" to try to recruit support for his position at WP:WikiProject Languages, which is out of order according to rules for discussions and still has not been removed and replaced by a neutral announcement of the NCL discussion; that same issue was levelled at me re the Boundary Ranges CfD, as some here may remember, and I complied and changed the announcements.
  • Maunus' paraphrase of the NCL debate is actually is redundant if you read it carefully; both his phrases say that the primarytopic/people should be disambiguated alongside that of the language; that is not the case at all; the issue has to do with the use of a language naming convention to force a "people" disambiguation on ethnic group articles even when it is not needed, or is even inaccurate (many should be plural, for one thing, if that is used at all);
  • Those seeking to bring NCL into line with policy and other guidelines (namely everyone but Kwami, at least insofar as current participants go) also hold that if a language-name needs no disambiguation and is the primarytopic of its name, then it should not have disambiguation, which is the case with "Halkomelem", which is well-known in my part of the world and in use as a standalone term for the name of the language of the Sto:lo peoples, Musqueam, Kwantlen, Cowichan and many others; it needs no disambiguation nor does it occur commonly in English with such disambiguation.
  • As with Kwami's recent ANI filed against me despite his own very questionable and erratic behaviour at NCL and beyond (including the Halkomelem reversions), this ANI is a nuisance and ANI and fielded by someone whose own behaviour and attitude, as detailed above re Talk:Chaouacha, is highly questionable. His "get a life" shot at me from last fall I'm too busy to bother looking it up; his NPAs against me at Talk:Chaouacha are what needed an ANI, I've been too busy working on articles to bother.Skookum1 (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support move ban for Kwamikagami and Skookum1, to be reviewed later when some sanity is restored to the "discussions" (which currently resemble the usual MOS ego wars). Move logs: Kwamikagami and Skookum1. Johnuniq (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Maunus:, can you clarify is the move ban for all articles or just for languages and people. I noticed that Skookum1, I didn't look to see if Kwamikagami was moving anything else, has moved some other articles which are not so contentious, Cluculz Lake. Those are inline with Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Canada-related articles and similar to the moves I've been making. The link to the discussion you gave, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Drastic change in article naming, potentially moving thousands of articles, (notice how the call to arms is phrased and compare it with the first notice he made Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Languages#Changes to naming guideline under discussion) is just part of it. The main discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Twodabs. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 02:55, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I think for Kwami the ban should probably cover all articles since he has a long history of controversial moves without sufficient discussions, for Skookum1 it is probably enough to restrict the ban to articles about North American native peoples and languages.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Maunus hasn't complained to me about anything I've done, yet now he wants to ban me? That's not how it's done. He says I've been "filing dozens of long move discussions". I'd like to see some examples: I've complained about Skookum filing dozens (actually about a hundred) move discussions, but I haven't been doing this. As for move warring, reverting an undiscussed move is perfectly acceptable, per e.g. at BOLD. The last two times were Halkomelem language, which Skookum moved to "Halkomelem" with the edit summary that there is no Halkomelem people, so it's unnecessary to append "language". If that were true, I'd agree with him, but a GBook search returned multiple RS references to the Halkomelem people, so I reverted the move for having an apparently spurious rationale. I could be wrong, but that's what the discussion page is for. The time before that was when someone moved Kaurareg people to "Ngarigo" with Skookum's reason that "This is a unique name and has no need of disambiguation". However, nothing like the name "Ngarigo" appears in the article, so that move would also appear to be unjustified. It's odd to have an article titled "Ngarigo" that only discusses the "Kaurareg", so I reverted that as well. This is all in line with BOLD etc. Most of the entries in my move log aren't page moves, but redirect creation: I move rd's to other alt names as an easy way to create additional rd's. If I've done anything inappropriate, I'd like someone to explain what it was. — kwami (talk) 07:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have had many talks with you about your moves, and I have many times asked you to make use of the discussion and consensus generation process for moves instead of unilaterally moving language pages around. You have a lot to contribute to articles about lesser known languages, probably more than any other editor, I really dont know why moving them around to create some sort of system is more important to you than writing the actual content of the articles. I know you have both the sources and the knowledge required for building content instead of moving it around.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Any talks were years ago. Again, what have I done recently that would cause you to propose this ban? Provide some diffs. Name some articles. Something. — kwami (talk) 01:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support in order to reduce the drama quotient around these two. Guy (Help!) 07:54, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, what have I done wrong that warrants a ban? Can you provide diffs? — kwami (talk) 07:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I appreciate the link to the WikiProject Languages talk page discussion but it would be even better to present some examples of the conduct being objected to and if Snookum1 and Kwami's actions are similar or not. I realize that Skookum1 has had several appearances on AN/I recently but is this complaint about a continuation of the same behavior or something completely different? It would be nice to see some relationship made between this complaint and earlier ones. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:08, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now. Get a discussion started to resolve the article naming dispute. Both editors should agree to participate in such discussion and cease engaging in pagemoves in either direction until such discussion is resolved. If they continue pagemoves that the community considers disruptive while such a discussion is underway, then there would be much better grounds to consider imposing editing restrictions. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I already linked to the ongoing discussion Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages)#Twodabs about the naming dispute. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Good, now both should agree to a moratorium on pagemoves that would be affected by the outcome of that discussion until, indeed, the discussion has concluded. If they break that moratorium then editing restrictions could be considered. I am reluctant to impose editing restrictions in part because of the stigma (wither real or imagined) that it would have on these two experienced, knowledgeable contributors. Furthermore, even if editing restrictions should be considered necessary, I am opposed to any without a provision for automatic expiration, whether tied to a specific time or the conclusion of a specific discussion. Let's not hamstring prolific contributors. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I consider it the exact opposite of hamstringing, a ban would allow them to refocus their energies from a highly energy consuming pattern of interaction and editing to focus on building the encyclopedia by writing articles, instead of moving articles around and writing pages and pages on talkpages about why they move them around.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Kwami can be abrupt but knows his stuff, and is prepared to research when he doesn't. Unless there is a reason that these editors cannot work together - which I am not seeing, there is no reason to block. Per Mendaliv if they need encouraging to talk to each other pro-actively, they may consider themselves so encouraged. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC).
  

Yes Kwami usually knows his stuff, but he is notoriously poor at filing move requests for possible contentious moves and has a long history of ani threads, gripe and controversies surrounding his moves. I am not requesting a block, just an imposed temporary restriction on moving pages around. They could be allowed to use the move request process as long as an admin carries out the actual moves.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think that a block is being asked for just a ban on page moves for languages and people. Take a look at the links I gave above and it's obvious that they are talking to each other but can't get along. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:33, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. Kwami used to unilaterally move any ethnic group article that didn't fit the "Foo people" format to "Foo people" without any prior discussion (or fixing redirects, or other house cleaning activities) (e.g. [106]), but thankfully he has stopped doing that towards the end of 2013. Skookum1, on the other hand, opposes the use of "Foo people" even when it's helpful (e.g. [107]). Both users are wedded to different one-size-fits-all formulae, and neither seems concerned about what is most efficient for Wikipedia users trying to find articles. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Languages has been a ongoing repetition of entrenched, unchanging viewpoints. If you think "they need encouraging to talk to each other pro-actively," then you haven't read that lengthy discussion or the many other discussions spanning years now. -Uyvsdi (talk) 18:06, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Yes, I stopped doing that when I got enough complaints, and yes, I don't know if talking with Skookum would help. We actually did used to work together, but it only lasted as long as I agreed with him. This is a pattern others have noted, and tried mentoring him on; if people with much more patience than me have thrown up their hands, I doubt I'll be able to do any better. But regardless, unless I'm doing something wrong here re. moving these pages, I don't get what purpose a ban serves. — kwami (talk) 19:00, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty good point. The purpose of an editing restriction, such as a ban, is to protect the encyclopedia from disruption. If there isn't currently disruption, and the editor against whom the complaint is directed has actual notice that there is a problem with prior behavior, then unless there is further disruption, editing restrictions serve no purpose. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:05, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Here are the move logs again (they were linked above by User:Johnuniq): Kwamikagami and Skookum1. There obviously is a real problem going on with move warring and undiscussed moves. EDIT: Kwami has been working redirects and Skookum1 has been moving articles sans discussion/census because apparently disambiguation is a bad thing. -Uyvsdi (talk) 03:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Neither kwami nor skookum have done a pagemove within the ambit of the discussion since this ANI thread was started. I think that's fine. I see nothing wrong with following the alphabet and doing WP:DR before WP:EDR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:14, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

People do have to sleep some time, but you are correct, there is a whole 12 hour and 6 minute hiatus in moves before this ANI. What happens to all the unilateral, undiscussed moves that took place during Skookum1's ongoing move frenzy? -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Re. me, which moves? Can you give any examples other than the two I mentioned above? — kwami (talk) 21:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Leave 'em stand until the discussion ends, as would happen with any edit war or 3RR violation. In a more confined instance, temporary move protection might have been warranted. There is no deadline, and temporary stability in this case is preferable to getting it correct right now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:50, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Prior to this discussion, I already reverted some of Skookum1's undiscussed, unilateral moves of ethnic groups of "Foo people" to "Foo" because those unilateral moves with zero housekeeping *do* create problems and needless ambiguity; however, am happy to let other editors clean up the mess later on, if people here so desire it. -Uyvsdi (talk) 00:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)Uyvsdi

• Support a temporary abstention of both editors from the language/ethnicity naming guideline debate and any related move proposals, for let's say a month, enforced if necessary. The debate at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (languages) shows that the situation has become drowned in the personal disagreement between these two, to the point where it is no longer easily penetrable to outside observers, so it has become a detriment to any prospects of having a sane solution worked out through fresh outside input. Unfortunately, this kind of situation seems only all too common when it comes to style and naming issues. These are the kinds of situations where otherwise reasonable and well-respected editors sometimes have to be told politely that they have become too personally entrenched over an issue and should please step aside to let other people take over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:29, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support restriction for a duration not exceeding 1 month on the basis and terms proposed by Fut.Perf. which summarises my position well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support a voluntary self "ban" by both editors for 1 month - As Fut.Pef., but with no record of a formal ANI decision since Maunus has presented no diffs. There are some middle voices in the Languages and ethnicity projects, let them rise to the top for a month. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Unresponsive and uncooperative fringe editor takes to sockpuppetry

I'm bringing this here as a continuation of this report, even though it does involve some sockpuppetry.

• GreatTruth123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Illuminavissem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Zakapedia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• EsotericScience (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Hidden Hand Order (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After receiving a block for refusing to cooperate or even acknowledge that anyone else on this site exists, GreatTruth123 created all of the above accounts. Although no single account by itself has done anything worthy admin intervention, the only thing like an improvement that user has made is posting on the talk page. Still, the only times he has come close to acknowledging anyone else are saying "they" (as in his accounts) should get rid of me and giving one of his other accounts a barnstar as quite possibly the worst non-trolling shell game I've ever seen. That and the sockpuppetry amounts to one step forward, two leaps back.

• Accounts obsessed with portraying May 1 as some sort of pagan fertility holiday in connection to Adam Weishaupt: GreatTruth123, Illuminavissem
• Accounts insistent on treating the Bavarian Illuminati as more than Bavarian: GreatTruth123, Illuminavissem (alternate), Zakapedia (alternate)
• Accounts that even removing "the" from "the Illuminati": GreatTruth123, Zakapedia
• Accounts insistent on the words "conspiracy" or "conspiratorial": GreatTruth123, Illuminavissem
• Accounts attempting to swap the links for Bavaria and Electorate of Bavaria: Zakapedia, Hidden Hand Order
• Accounts overenthusiastically give sycophantic praise in sections calling for (at most) vague (often non-descript) improvements: GreatTruth123, Illuminavissem, Zakapedia (also includes "Illuminati" without "Bavarian" or even "the"), EsotericeScience
• Accounts making nonsense posts relating to The Hidden Hand: Zakapedia, Hidden Hand Order
• Same writing voice: GreatTruth123, Zakapedia (alternate with overuse of E, just like in this edit summary), EsotericScience (overuse of E again) -- If these were papers from students, I'd demand to know which one of them wrote all of them.

Also, you'll notice that with the exception of Zakapedia, most of the account names follow a theme of some sort of occult veracity (watch that be his next username), as if he's "going undercover" or something (as if the Illuminati, as if they were still around, would be too stupid to keep a roster of what accounts belong to what members). All of them are mobile edits, I'm guessing from the same phone company and area since I doubt this guy could understand what a burner phone is (I mean, he seems to think that, if the Illuminati were real, they wouldn't be in control of this site and again, wouldn't have a roster of member accounts).

To date, all his edits have either been reverted or served no purpose. He is here only to engage in some delusional fantasy of fighting "the hidden hand" of the Illuminati. We do not need any of those accounts, and even if we're going to give GreatTruth123 another chance (for some reason), he doesn't need the rest of those. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ian.thomson: Please file this as a sockpuppet investigation. I do think you're on to something here, but this isn't really the ideal venue for it. Thanks. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 15:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Done, though I came here because sockpuppetry aside, the user (ignoring distinctions between accounts) is continuing in the same behavior that got him blocked last time. I'd rather not see his main account be left alone except a warning to not sock, ignoring hsi other behavior. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I have left the user an actual message rather than a template, explaining BRD. Fingers crossed that it helps. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

The SPI has revealed a few accounts I hadn't found (mainly due to editing pages I don't watch). I think this screed and edits such as this reveals that he's WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia, but deal with Illuminati control of this site. He appears to have just plagiarized it from the blog linked to in there (since he's otherwise not that literate), but I still have to invoke WP:CIR on a user who doesn't get that all dates are "100% MOON DATES" when you're using a lunar calendar (as if it's not easier to figure out than a solar calendar). Ian.thomson (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

I did a search for other (unreverted) changes to the Bavaria link, (11,000+ articles) and some other trademarks and came up with nothing. I would not assume, just from fringe beliefs, that they believe Illuminati control everything, though it would not surprise me either. No happy outcome is likely. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

I blocked all of the identified sockpuppets from SPI. I also blocked GreatTruth123 indefinitely. In addition to the socking (which was pretty persistent) which evaded the block, this editor seems to be using Wikipedia as a game, or even possibly in a sincere effort to fight "The Illuminati". In any case, as Ian.thomson suggested they aren't here to improve the project, so should not be allowed to edit. -- Atama頭 22:52, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack removed with RPA template reverted by Omnedon

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

---

I removed a personal attack made against me by User:In ictu oculi on a policy talk page[108] by replacing it with a reference to the RPA template (which I just discovered). The yellow-highlighted personal attack is what I replaced:

I find everyone on this page's comments helpful with the sole exception of B2C, whom others have already counseled to think seriously about his behavior and the advice given at his recently expired topic ban.

But that edit was subsequently reverted by User:Omnedon[109]. Sadly, I have a contentious relationship with both of these editors, and this type of unprovoked attack from them is unfortunately typical of our interaction stemming from our fundamental disagreement about WP title decision making.

WP:NPA is quite clear:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia. Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to blocks.

The gratuitous derogatory remark about me that I replaced with the RPA template was totally unnecessary, unproductive and clearly a violation of NPA for the following reasons:

• It was a comment about a specific contributor (me), not about content.
• It did not help make a point about developing consensus about anything productive.
• It only hurts the community.
• It deters other users.
• It's derogatory.

Such niggling comments are typical of the kind of treatment, which serves no purpose except to disparage me, to which I am routinely subjected by these two, and I don't think they should continue to believe the community thinks there is nothing wrong with it.

I don't want to dredge up dozens of similar examples at this time to make some huge case against them, but I do seek to establish whether I can defend myself against individual attacks like this with the RPA template, to hopefully nip these situations in the bud.

Thanks, --В²C ☎ 18:45, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

That isn't remotely a personal attack. He made a factual statement, people have counselled you in that manor. I think you need to look up what derogatory means. In this case you shouldn't have been editing other peoples comments. -DJSasso (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Not a personal attack. Not even close. An editor is allowed to disagree with how another editor conducts himself, and even to express that another editor's behavior is either inappropriate or unhelpful. The ever-present reminder to "Comment on content, not on the contributor" does not mean that editors may not discuss a contributor's conduct. I understand that there may be some long-standing dispute going on here, but you aren't going to resolve it by coming to ANI with a situation like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Such niggling removals of critical commentary don't help the atmosphere on talkpages, B2C, or on the project. So, you just discovered the RPA template, but did you read WP:RPA, where the template is mentioned? "There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate. Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases where it is obvious the text is a true personal attack. The {{RPA}} template can be used for this purpose." You see? Especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited to clear-cut cases. Removing personal attacks is contentious, even when they are clear-cut personal attacks, which yours definitely wasn't.

Using the RPA template as a bludgeon won't "nip these situations in the bud", on the contrary, it's likely to inflame them. Sorry, but considering this example, you might be better off forgetting you ever found it. Bishonen | talk 18:58, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

DJSasso, Mendaliv and Bishonen , thank you. Please help me understand. A factual statement can still be a clear-cut attack, can it not? In my case I was effectively "on probation" for a year during which time not a single complaint was filed. Why bring that up at all, except to attack me and raise questions about my reputation and me (comment about contributor rather than content), especially in a part of a discussion in which I had no part?

There can be no debate about whether this was a comment about a contributor or about content. It was about contributor. Also, it was not complementary. It's factual, but without context, can be easily misconstrued. How is this not a clear-cut attack?

In any case, it sure looks and definitely feels like a personal attack to me. Doesn't that count for anything? --В²C ☎ 19:17, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes, that you subjectively perceive something as a personal attack is important, but it's not enough to make something a personal attack, let alone a clear-cut personal attack. Anyway, I recommend this ANI thread be closed because it is clear that no administrative action lies in this instance. This is not the place to argue about whether In ictu oculi's comment was unhelpful or wasn't particularly nice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:23, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

B2C, many complaints have been filed about your behavior on Wikipedia -- before, during and after the period to which you refer. Other editors have indeed counseled you to think seriously about your behavior. Have you read the comments left on your talk page and on the review at Wikipedia:Editor review/Born2cycle? Omnedon (talk) 19:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course I have read all that and I'm not disputing any of that here, User:Omnedon. I'm trying to understand how derogatory references to that stuff about me personally on a talk page about policy is not a clear-cut personal attack in violation of WP:NPA and subject to "Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by anyone". --В²C ☎ 19:43, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry it felt like that, B2C — I guess it's part of the rough and tumble of the Internet. There's some good advice on WP:NPA about what to do if you feel attacked: Often the best way to respond to an isolated personal attack is to simply ignore it. … If you feel that a response is necessary and desirable, you can leave a polite message on the other user's talk page. Avoid responding on a talk page of an article, as this tends to escalate matters. The trouble with using the template is that it is a response on the talkpage, and it's likely to escalate matters. It will most likely be received as confrontational. I'd advise you to take the "polite message on the other user's talk page" path next time. Be the bigger user, you know? Bishonen | talk 19:59, 12 May 2014 (UTC).

I think we've all seen some blistering insults, laced with profanity, where the editor has, at most, received a warning. This may not be pleasant to read but there is no name-calling or calling you incompetent or ethnic slurs. You have a right to your feelings but people are telling you that this level of comment will not receive sanctions. I suggest what I've been told by others...develop a thicker skin. And, above all, don't retaliate (fight fire with fire). Let your editing speak for your competency and comments like this will lessen, I'm sure. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:04, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Bishonen, as noted above, it's not an isolated case. I'm pretty sure I've requested both of these editors to not make comments about me personally on article and policy talk pages in the past, but I'll do it again.

I have strong opinions with which others disagree. My behavior problems aside, it's my opinion that the project can be greatly improved by recognizing that ultimately titles are not all that important (i.e., which title is chosen between two usually being considered will not significantly affect reader experience), bringing stability to article titles by reducing ambiguity in the title-deciding policies and guidelines, and bringing titles into better compliance with those rules, is the cause of much of the animosity expressed about me, by people who believe titles are more important than I do, and that the project can be improved with more descriptive titles and more flexibility in deciding titles. So they besmirch me when possible. I suppose they're trying to get me to leave the project.

Liz, I see that what WP:NPA says about intolerance for commenting about contributors rather than content is not what the community enforces. That's disappointing, to say the least. Community tolerance for these kinds of unprovoked derogatory comments about fellow contributors does untold damage to the project, I'm sure. --В²C ☎ 20:25, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

B2C - it is not a personal attack. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:47, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

GearsOfWar65

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

---

During my new page patrol today, I came across Science_fiction_disaster_film and nominated it for AFD. The creator commented, (while talking about speedy deletion criteria) and later PRODed one of my old articles Doorbot I think to make a point/revenge. [110]. Without noticing that it was the user I had interacted with prior, I declined the prod saying I thought it passed GNG and they could nominate for AFD if they disagree. [111] and then the user replaced it contrary to PROD policy [112] Somewhat at the same time as those latter actions, the Gears removed the AFD notice from their article [113] which I replaced [114] for which I warned them [115] (I actually noticed them removing the AFD before I noticed them replacing the PROD).

They have now copied the AFD removal warning to my talk page [116] though I have not removed any such templates.

I think this may be a new user WP:CIR issue, where the user just doesn't understand our various deletion processes, but I don't want to get involved with an edit war over these templates. If someone could take a look and put the articles into the correct state, and give the user some guidance, that would be great. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:15, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

And now their userpage has been updated with an implied threat to me. [117] Gaijin42 (talk) 20:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Dealt with. 48 hours block, edits reverted.--v/r - TP 20:48, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

The implication is sufficiently overt that, per Wikipedia:VIOLENCE's "Treat all claims seriously", I've informed WMF. -- Finlay McWalterᚠTalk 21:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

"I will make hell" isn't a physical threat. Sounds more like the general "I'll play the soldier card with the media" threat which is why I didn't issue an indefinite block. WMF involvement was not necessary - in my opinion.--v/r - TP 21:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks like hes been indefed as a sock in any case by Ponyo that I just noticed for other coincidental reasons above. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)As I'm not an admin and can't see the revdel'd threat in context, I won't comment on whether WMF notification was or was not actually merited, a promise to "make hell" is pretty strongly indicative of a WP:NOTHERE situation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

They claimed to be "a Soldier for the United States Army having done 3 rounds in Afghanistan and 2 tours in Iraq". Turns out the sockmaster's user page says they're from Sweden... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attack by User:Paeancrime

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

---

Paeancrime is making personal attacks against me and Kndimov. They have called me a sockpuppet of a banned user multiple times[118][119][120]. They have called Kndimov a vandal for fixing citations on an article and restoreing sources.[121] They have also said they were going to take care of me.[122] would someone look into this? GB fan 02:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you so much, I was about to do this myself! -- Kndimov (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Please see my talk page, section "Edits concerning Edward Guiliano". I am called a vandal, my constructive edits are called "shit" and I am told to "shut up and stay shut". -- Kndimov (talk) 02:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

GB Fan and Kndimov are sockpuppets of a banned editor, who is hellbent on keeping the highly NON-NOTABLE Edward Guiliano on Wikipedia. Note that this article has been deleted twice, with its talk page. GB Fan and several other of his socks are editwarring with me--Paeancrime (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I was asking GB to check on sockpuppetry of someone involved, given the history of article creation and user name.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore on the page history of Edward Guiliano, Paeancrime says: "Kndimov agreed with me that GB Fan is a banned sockpuppet" and "kndimov agreed to take back his edits, see his talk page". Dear Admin, I encourage you to Please check my talk page like he says: I never agreed to anything. He is putting words in my mouth and attacking me. -- Kndimov (talk) 02:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I 'll find an admin who will delete the article and its talkpage third time! no worries.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This smells of WP:BLP... - The Bushranger One ping only 09:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The guy is mad and not notable--that is why no reference. He's president of a third class college. Must be deleted--Paeancrime (talk) 01:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be a notable claim while it is able to be deleted for other reasons this isn't one of them Dudel250 (talk) 02:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That also suggests the Editor has a COI with The person the page describes and is editing with the assumption he just wants the page gone Dudel250 (talk) 02:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The page and its talkpage has been deleted twice, and will get deleted again very soon. As I said, I will find an admin who will do so very soon. You wait and see.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My Offer: Any admin who deletes the article and its talk page third time gets $300! Not joking. Talk to admins who previously did so! Just put your contact info on your User-page or contact me through email.--Paeancrime (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a competence issue... 206.117.89.5 (talk) 02:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC) (Former User:Ansh666)

Very much WP:NOTHERE, at any rate. Paeancrime, I don't know if we have a policy on bribery, but we do expect users to play by the rules. If your speedy delete and PROD were declined - and that's what happened, the article was not actually "deleted twice"; you tried twice and failed - you should have nominated the article for deletion at AFD. This will make editors less likely to take your word that the president of a major educational institution is non-notable; you sound like you have some kind of grudge. --NellieBly (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article has been deleted twice as a WP:G5. I found it tagged as a WP:A7 and WP:A1 and declined those. Then tried to fix the article. After others edited the article then someone brought up the previous deletions, but so far no one has raised the issue of the creator of this article being a sockpuppet at WP:SPI. GB fan 02:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I created a sockpuppeteer SPI since I have no way of knowing who created the first two articles. The CU might be able to move it to the proper user should they match.--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 02:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Loriendrew, this is becoming fun!--Paeancrime (talk) 03:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Note'''Next Time you Attack a Editor You will be reported and likley blocked, Scarcasm Counts as a insult @Paeancrime:Dudel250 (talk) 03:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

it was created by Sony Chiba1 and Roweltenon GB fan 03:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone just block Paeancrime already. This is just silly. Someone's trolling. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't threaten me--Paeancrime (talk) 02:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I succeeded twice and will succeed again! https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Edward+Guiliano --Paeancrime (talk) 02:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Administrator note A report was also made at ANEW reporting Paeancrime (t c) for edit warring at the article in question. I am closing that report as forum shopping redundant without comment on the validity of either thread. —Darkwind (talk) 04:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I overlooked the fact that each thread was opened by a different user. Not forum shopping, but still redundant. —Darkwind (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The article in question is a new stub about the president of a university with nearly 5,000 students in the U.S. and 14,000 worldwide. This is a school that competes in NCAA Division 1. It is not Harvard or Yale, but it is also not a diploma mill. I think that it is highly likely that this person meets WP:ACADEMIC but the proper place to make that determination is WP:AFD not here. Paeancrime has not yet nominated the article for deletion, and instead is resorting to belligerent and combative behavior. I hope that this editor will be advised through this process by others to "cool it" as I have just done, and I hope the message gets through. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked, which does not mean I think this is ready for closing. Sorry, Darkwind, I disagree about closing the AN3 thread, and I've blocked Paeancrime for 31 hours for 7RR. The edit warring report clearly had substance, and nothing much seems to be happening here. Possibly everybody's stunned by the $300 offer. (I'll take it.) If somebody wishes to add more offtime for the personal attacks and other issues here and elsewhere, be my guest. Bishonen | talk 09:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

:::Correction: NYIT has nearly 8000 (4796 undergraduates) students in the USA (EXCLUDING ONLINE STUDENTS) per USNEWS [123] and a bit over 13000 worldwide.--OppanBambiStyle (talk) 13:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious, and blocked (although if you go by "oldest account is the master" it's Paencrime who's the sockpuppet...) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:37, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually...looking into this further: OppanBambiStyle was created 00:55, 13 May 2014, and three minutes later created Edward Guiliano; Paeancrime was created 01:02, 13 May 2014 and started attacking the article - but as we can see above they're loudly quacking...so {{Checkuser needed}} - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

 Completed - Paeancrime is Mangoeater1000. OppanBambiStyle is  Technically indistinguishable from Paeancrime. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

New sock. Maybe semi-protect? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

That one is absolutely a sock, and blocked. Given the socking Paeancrime extended to indef. Need a check to see if OppanBambiStyle is genuinely another, as I'm off to bed... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 13:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Pangaman is also Mangoeater1000. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:17, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Semi-protected one week while the AFD (which isn't protected) plays out. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure what he's up to here - good hand/bad hand socking? - but all three of these accounts appear to be Mangoeater1000. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

So, let me get this straight. A new user creates an article. And then creates a sock account to try to get this article deleted and criticize editors who try to improve that article? Some people have way too much time on their hands. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I think this behavior is a form of WP:BLP violation, pitched to take place at a meta-level outside the official rules. Choor monster (talk) 15:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Not a new user, Liz. Mangoeater1000 is long term PITA. Wikipedia:Long-term_abuse/Mangoeater1000. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the This is becoming fun! comment and the $300 offer to delete the article were signs that this was a prank. PITA is right. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Is there an easy way to undo mass page moves?

Omar Choudhry (talk · contribs) has moved a number of Islamic related pages to new names saying "Maybe it might be a more accurate transliteration maybe)" and no discussion. The first move I found (and reversed) had virtually no English language sources for the new title and many for the old. He's been asked not to do this before. Dougweller (talk) 09:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Sadly I don't think so, but if anyone can offer a positive answer, it would be good to know about. Number 57 15:09, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I have code to do this somewhere. I would imagine that you would get help from WP:BOTREQ if anywhere, but there is severe shortage of willing, experienced, civil bot masters. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC).

User:FONTYBITS

FONTYBITS (talk · contribs) is disrupting the article Kingdom Hall, persistently adding material sourced from a web forum, along with the editor's own poorly worded commentary about a change in funding for Kingdom Halls. The editor is also claiming in the text of the article and in edit summaries that editors reverting him/her 'must be' either members of the religion associated with the article's subject or "apostate Christians".[124][125][126] The user's edits have been reverted 10 times by 6 different editors, and it has been explained to the editor that forums are not suitable sources, but the user has refused to discuss. The editor has made no edits to any other articles.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for edit warring. In the future, simple edit warring violations like this can be handled at WP:ANEW. Other sources of conflict can be handled at WP:DRN. --Jayron32 12:47, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll try to keep that in mind. Too many abbreviations rattling around in my head. :) --Jeffro77 (talk) 13:10, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Werieth runs unapproved bot

User:Werieth runs an unapproved bot which works 24/7 and inserts invalid links to archives at mass scale. It also secures its commits by removing at least one archive.is link in each transaction thus making undo impossible. See Special:Contributions/Werieth and WP:Bots/Requests_for_approval/Archivedotisbot#WeriethBot 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I dont work 24/7 and I am not a bot. Im sorry if you like archive.is spam but it needs removed per the RfC. Werieth (talk) 15:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

You must at least separate removing archive.is links and other actions and not doing it in single commit. Also, inserting links at mass scale requires bot approval and test run. A lot of links that you have inserted are invalid.

I am not talking about the links you remove, I am talking about the thousands of links you inserted in the commits you commented as "remove archive.is". On each archive.is link you removed, you inserted 10 other links. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Im just replacing/adding links to the most current archived copy of a source. archive.org already has over half a million uses I didnt know I needed to get approval for something that is already in the guideline and is suggested practice. No Im not going to make a dozen small edits to an article, to separate every little thing I do. When I edit an article Im going to do as much as I can at the same time to make it easier for me. Werieth (talk) 15:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Inserting archive.org links and its caveats has been discussed many times. It is not so easy and many approved bots had been blocked because they choose wrong snapshots. Peeking "the most current archived copy" is usually a bad choice. There have been bots which parsed article's history and peeked archive.org snapshot most close to the date the link appeared in the article. Even they had many false positives and was finally stopped. That is why you have to apply your bot for approval. The bot approval team mostly consists of the authors of the bots I mentioned, they know a lot about archive.org and about the algorithms which snapshot to peek and how to check for "soft 404" and other invalid snapshots, that you did insert a lot. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Its not a bot, but given that the AN thread was pretty clear that a new RFC is needed and that multiple users have clearly petitioned mass removal - this is pretty much spitting in the face of the users. If this was done six months ago it would be "following the RFC", but no part of the RFC was actually followed until the opposition mounted. This is action is WP:POINTY in the least - many links CANNOT be replaced by Archive.org or Webcite and time and time again, the removal results in purposely creating more Linkrot. I find it shameful that bad faith and unsupported allegations of blatant fear-mongering were used to condemn an entire website because the actions on a single sockpuppeteer. Even the allegation that Archive.is website is "spam" is gross mis-characterization of the facts. Archive.is has thousands of valid and working links that are irreplaceable at this moment and they have no ads or malware - it does not even begin to meet the definition of "spam". ChrisGualtieri (talk) 15:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it is not a bot. But based on the amount of links she/he inserted, I would say that she/he spent only a small fraction of a second to evaluate the quality of a archived snapshot. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 15:57, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Archive.is is/was not spam. Archive.is was spamming. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I agree it doesn't look like a bot, but I'd say it's generally a bad idea to do anything on a mass scale that requires human review and judgement. Inserting the current archived copy of a source is, more often than not, going to make verification much more difficult to users following those citations. Care was taken to present the snapshot containing the relevant information from a specific time period, which likely changed since then. @Werieth:, I think removing the archive.is links is supported by the RFC (for now), but I urge you to stop doing archive updating unless you are reviewing each instance. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 16:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Take a look at the latest commit by User:Werieth. You see, archive.org link was added next to the link to alexa.com in the website infobox. What is the purpose to add link to 2009 archive of alexa.org rating of the website? The link to alexa.com is just a reference showing where OKBot takes the rating of the site once in a month. Moreover, the archived snapshot is broken. What was a purpose of this commit? Why it is commented as "replace/remove archive.is"? Could it be done by a (responsible) human? It looks like either a bug in an unsupervised bot or an act of vandalism. I tend to think the former. If she/he is not a bot then she/he is a vandal. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually you are a harassing troll, and I wont feed you any more so drop it and never post to my talk page again. Werieth (talk) 17:34, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If the change of 43 Things has been made by a human and you claim that you are that human, you should be able to explain why did you do this change (and many other like this), shouldn't you? So far, the unapproved unsupervised bot is the most realistic explanation. And note that it has nothing to do with the buzz around archive.is RCF. I am talking about other your changes. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 17:54, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed. This edit is careless if not script/bot done. Werieth's edit added an invalid archive snapshot to a working page, the second was a current archive to one that is inaccurate and the third change removed the Archive.is one and left a useless link that doesn't even resolve properly which WOULD work if he bothered to correct the link.[127] Sorry, but this is detrimental editing and needs to be stopped now - the changes are actually harming Wikipedia and are being done without care. The method doesn't matter anymore, the entire edit was bad and careless - Werieth is not doing this with a minimal amount of caution and care. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 18:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  ChrisGualtieri with the cnet link, I have seen that same format quite a bit where archive.is spam just prefixed archive.is and a date/time to the URL. I thought from the dozen or so I checked, returned the link target back to where it should have been pointing, I guess that schema isnt 100% accurate like I thought. Werieth (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Werieth: My apologies, I misunderstood/misread what you are actually doing. I thought you were replacing archive links of a specific time period with the most current archive link, but I see you're just adding archive links. I struck the relevant sections of my comment. 90.163.54.9, I think you should disengage at this point. You can participate in any future RFCs about the topic to get your opinion in. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Spike Wilbury: yeah I was only adding archive urls to citations that lacked them. Any existing url, or archive url wasnt touched (except for archive.is links) Werieth (talk) 18:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
• @Spike Wilbury: Automated inserting of archive.org links was discussed too many times in the past, and all such activities has been blocked by community decisions for malfunction or being not accurate enough. No one of those bots is active at the moment. Is there any need to open a "future RFC" and collect the opinions again? There is bot approval procedure and test run to check if User:Werieth can offer a superior technology. But now she/he runs her/his bot under her/his user account and abuses the archive.is filter to make the changes irreversible. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think this qualifies as automated. I meant that there might be another RFC about removing archive.is links. Please cease the accusations that he is running a bot, and that he is abusing his editing privileges. Editors certainly aren't required to separate their edits to make it more convenient for people to revert them. Werieth seems to be responsive to reasonable questions and comments, so I'm not seeing an issue here that requires admin action. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:46, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• She/he already asserted that she/he runs an automated tool by saying "the dozen [links] or so I checked", although he inserted more than thousand links. Also, the accuracy of his peeking of archive.org snapshots (even if they were made by a human) is lower that accuracy of H33lBot and other defunct bots. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I cease the accusations but I insist that her/his activity to be approved by the WP:Bot Approval Group as mass inserting of archive.org and webcitation.org links is definitively within their scope. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 18:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) No I didnt, What I said was that I had checked the schema of archive.is links using the prefixed format (similar to the case with CNET above) using a 10-20 samples and all of them resolved when I converted the archive.is/<date>/http://<real URL> to just http://<real URL>. After checking repeatedly I made an assumption that all links in that format followed the same pattern. Please stop placing words in my mouth and harassing me. Ive gotten 10+ "Thanks" and a barnstar for this work. BAG has zero jurisdiction on human editing, Now shove off. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• You made this assumption and... what? and then run the script which used the found pattern as a template, right? BAG has jurisdiction on mass scale actions, and also its member has a lot of experience in working with archive.org. You repeat the mistakes they made years ago. Also there is an option in the bot approval request, a bot can be either Automatic, Supervised, or Manual. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 19:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is the last Im going to post here, if anyone else has questions feel free to raise them directly with me, but this troll is getting on my nerves. No Its a matter of when I saw that particular type of archive.is link I just removed the associated archive.is/<date> junk and restored the original url. Now its time to remember WP:DFTT. Werieth (talk) 19:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thats not quite true. WP:MEATBOT applies I think. Obviously that only matters if the edits you are making are considered disruptive. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• @Spike Wilbury: Bot approval request for remove archive.is links is already filed by User:Kww. What User:Werieth does is something different, albeit he tries to camouflage her/his activity as "following Archive.is RFC" and "removing archive.is links". On each edit, she/he removes 1 archive.is link and insert many unchecked links to archive.org and webcitation.org. Not instead of archive.is links, but in other places of the articles. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 19:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I find it hard to believe given some of the timestamps on those edits that it isnt a bot. Multiple unrelated articles in the space of two minutes with edits of 600-1500+? Technically its possible if you had the edits prepared in advance and were just cutting and pasting or find/replace. But its unlikely. Could someone with more bot-experience do an analysis of the timeframes & edit counts please? Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I pinged some BAG members to join the discussion. 90.163.54.9 (talk) 20:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Bot or not Werieth's actions are disruptive. I have highlighted the damage he has caused to the articles he has targeted, leaving many references now dead and without archives, he has made changes to user inserted archive.is links, putting articles back several steps in terms of quality and making no effort to rectify them even when I have taken the time to point out each and every reference he has damaged or outright killed. He is content to edit war and call anyone against him a troll and quite frankly he needs either blocking temporarily or to be banned from making these sweeping changes, as he does not have the intention to carry them out properly or deal with the consequences. DWB / Are you a bad enough dude to GA Review The Joker? 22:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

  Im going to be frank here, you are being a WP:DICK. You came to my talk page, accusing me of vandalism, disruptive editing, and you where using profanity. At that point I decided to ignore your rants and abusive behavior, in a few days after you had a chance to cool down and see that your abusive behavior gets you zero results I was going to go ahead and see what more could be done about the archive.is links that I couldnt previously replace. Had you come to my talk page and behaved appropriately, like Prhartcom (talk · contribs) did, you would have gotten the same outcome, almost 100% replacement. In the case of Batman: Arkham Origins I was able to get all but 1 URL additional archives (27 other links I created archives for). Once you decide to behave like an adult, not make threats, or use profanity we can work collaboratively. Until then good bye. Werieth (talk) 23:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Humor: WP:Please be a giant dick, so we can ban you —Prhartcom (talk) 02:50, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat at Adam Farley

Silvershamrock123 has removed content from Adam Farley with the comment "Farley was later found to be not guilty of this offence and does not want it on his page! He will take this to court if the-edited! Thanks"[128] on the second occasion. The editor's account was AFarley12 before requesting a name change[129] and the editor has claimed to be the article's subject.[130] I'll notify them of this post now. NebY (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Given that the source cited (via a non-working URL - it can be seen here [131]) doesn't state that Farley was 'charged' with anything ('charged' implying a legal process, rather than FA disciplinary action), the removal looks legitimate to me, regardless of any COI. I would suggest that rather than citing WP:NLT, it might be better to look into this further, per WP:DOLT. If the disciplinary action was indeed later revoked, the article should certainly say so. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

"Charged" is a common term in disciplinary procedures in general and the Football Association's procedures in particular. UK editors may well be familiar with press reports of this manager or that being "charged with bringing the game into disrepute" and the FA's disciplinary procedures, listed here use it repeatedly. In their Disciplinary Regulations Section 3 is titled The Charge and uses the term often.

I completely agree with WP:DOLT, but the instructions at WP:NLT are clear and explicit: Legal threats should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents or an administrator. After doing that, I have spent some time searching for further events in the case or any mention of an appeal, but have failed. NebY (talk) 18:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Well we should keep in mind that, along similar lines as WP:MTAU, we should be careful about using a jargon meaning of terms where the same term is commonly understood to mean or imply other things. So even if "charged" is used in the literature of football, we may wish to use different language to keep from imparting a misunderstanding to our readers who are not familiar with such usage.

At any rate, I don't think a NLT block is needed here, though a stern warning that legal threats are inappropriate on Wikipedia, and perhaps an instruction to publicly disavow any intent of pursuing legal action in connection with this incident on this article. If Shamrock responds in a manner that indicates legal action is still being actively contemplated, a block should be put in place. We've done our due diligence re WP:DOLT at this point, so it lies to Shamrock to retract his general legal threat. I would also suggest that removing the edit summary would be appropriate (once Shamrock retracts his legal threat), though I'm not sure doing so falls within the current revdel/oversight policy. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:21, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

fake accounts from selected IPs

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

---

Please research. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faraone Lk (talk • contribs) 16:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Odd goings-on

This account and another have created and blanked User:The Bushedranger. I note Faraone lk is impersonating User:LFaraone. KonveyorBelt 16:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Ron Howard editing his own article, or a friend of his, or someone impersonating

At Special:Contributions/64.60.14.2, he claims to know Ron Howard or his interests. Since we don't know if he is or not, he should be blocked immediately and told to contact OTRS for assistance. KonveyorBelt 17:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• LOUISAVELIS is probably a sockpuppet of 64.60.14.2, based on this edit summary, which matches this summary. They don't need to be blocked immediately, anyway, as it looks like these two edits were the user's only edits for today (their last edits were on May 1). I suggest recommending that they use the article talk page. Epicgenius (talk) 17:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a simple conflict of interest situation—and in these cases, the best approach is for the involved editor to discuss requested edits on the talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Louisa Velis is a producer who worked on a lot of Ron Howard's film projects. So yes, a COI situation for sure. -- Atama頭 19:26, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• Appears to be both a sock and a COI (a problem as to which he was already "spoken to" two weeks ago, with the COI template), and we should handle it as we handle both those problems. A block, for a short period, seems appropriate. Epeefleche (talk) 19:56, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Since the username matches the name of a publically-known figure (the producer), uw-ublock-famous seems to be the way to go here. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not socking whether or not LOUISAVELIS previously edited as the IP. I welcomed her and dropped her a note informing her she had been mentioned here, there has been discussion at Talk:Ron Howard about how to accommodate the concern, and I've now edited the article myself - however she continues to edit war and discuss only in edit summaries. Perhaps one of our more silver-tongued people like Dennis Brown can save the situation. Or perhaps she'll read what I had just left on her talk page as a follow-up and start to get it. Otherwise it doesn't look good, I agree. Yngvadottir (talk) 22:48, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but you give me too much credit. The problem here is that she isn't going to the talk page and seeing the notices, neither the IP or the account. All the sweet words in the world are worthless if they don't see them. It may take a block to get her attention and force her to the talk page. There are already a lot of words on that page as it is, however. I'm also short on time :/ Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:05, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

From the edit summaries & page history, it seems as though LOUISAVELIS is WIkipedia:edit warring, and if she makes another edit to that article without discussion (she's already at 3 reverts), she can definitely be blocked for a short time edit warring. Epicgenius (talk) 15:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Russell Targ needs to be blocked, or at least topic-banned

Russell Targ has an account as Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and his IP appears to be 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

• All of his edits focus on his article. He is a single purpose account.
• He has tried mass censorship of the article.
• He was blocked for edit warring, only to resume edit warring a day after the block ended.
• He socks on his IP address to continue to edit war
• He has accused the site of libel, and said that he is "prepared to take all necessary measures public, Internet or private to discover a path to redressing this libel." He claims that this is not a legal threat, but how is it not?
• Per @Goblin Face: (see), Targ has been doing off-site recruiting for meatpuppets.

Targ is not here to build an encyclopedia, but promote his work and whitewash mainstream science's views on his work. If he was a nobody, I don't believe we'd put up with this. He needs to be blocked unless he agrees to a topic ban on articles relating to him or his work. If there's an appearance of further meatpuppetry, off-site collusion, or backscratching between him and Josephson, I'd say an indef would be in order. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

The thread this is attached to is dead. You won't get any visibility here. Copy it to the bottom as a new section. I only saw it because you mentioned it at ANEW and I knew what to look for.--v/r - TP 19:44, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ok, moved it. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:49, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

If I see this right, I have to add that there are apparent copyright issues at Russell Targ as well as at Sensory leakage, Remote viewing and Harold E. Puthoff vs. [132] if I can find that much trouble in a single Google search [133], and the first one I tried, ... there's probably more. Sadly, I am out for the day, and don't have time to dissect, investigate or report the breadth of this. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:02, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:Wikiblame indicates that it wasn't him, and it'd be against his MO. He's trying to white-wash the parts about his work being pseudoscience. That part does need to be more paraphrased, though. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ on his account Torgownik (talk · contribs) has a history of removing reliable references from his article [134], inserting personal commentary into his article and telling people to not edit his article [135], attacking editors as "biased" against ESP [136], repeatedly removing any mention of "pseudoscience" from his article, which he has admitted to [137], ranted on various Wikipedia boards with threats [138] [139] and another rant here telling Wikipedia to remove pseudoscience from his article whilst promoting nonsensical psychic claims [140]. He refuses to listen to what anyone has said. Considering Targ is now on blogs and forums asking people to come edit his article, this is a case of meat puppetry. I think a topic ban would be suitable here from editing his own article or related parapsychological articles.

Targ has also been causing trouble on his IP address deliberately 108.68.105.17 (talk · contribs) i.e. section blanking references he doesn't like from his article [141] and spamming the same rant he posted on his account [142]. The meat puppetry is also an issue because we now have another IP 70.164.250.214 (talk · contribs) copying Targ's rant onto the article itself and deleting references, example [143].

Targ is also a friend with Brian Josephson (talk · contribs) who has also been copying Targ's rant on the talk-page of the article[144]. Josephson had no interest in Targ's article until Targ posted about it on his face book account, this is another case of meat puppetry. Also note Josephson has been edit-warring on the article and removing the claim remote viewing is pseudoscience, example [145]. Josephson may be a separate issue but I could easily list many diffs, he has caused trouble on a number of parapsychological articles I.e. by trying to delete certain references or arguing with people on talk-pages because he psychic beliefs are not supported on the article. I think a way to resolve this would to ban both Josephson and Targ from editing parapsychology articles because they have shown they are not here to build an encyclopedia but just cause disruption. Goblin Face (talk) 20:25, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

JUST A NOTE: There is a discussion at the COI noticeboard about this issue, at this section. -- Atama頭 20:29, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Joe Decker, you were correct there was half a line copied from a book word for word. I have removed it. Goblin Face (talk) 20:42, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Goblin Face: Cool, thanks. I assume you caught that fragment in all four articles I listed? And Ian--thanks for reminding me of WikiBlame, and pointing out that the issue wasn't from this user. I apologize for that being a distraction to the main questions here. Best, --Joe Decker (alt) (talk) 21:01, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked a number of accounts and IPs involved in this, warned Brian, and semiprotected the Targ talk page to act as some layer of defense against additional meatpuppetry. Best, Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kevin Gorman:: Thank you.

Otherwise, could we just assume that the next block will be an indef? Particularly in the absence of other improvements and prior serious problems? Ian.thomson (talk) 21:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I hate to say that anyone's next block is going to be an indef, because I prefer to use the least punitive measures possible that successfully protects the encyclopedia. In some cases, and this certainly might be one of them, that next step is in fact an indef. Kevin Gorman (talk) 21:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Indef-blocking or indef-self-topic-banning subjects of WP articles because they say we're biased is a really aggressive thing to do. Try to think how something like that is going to sound outside the echo chamber of our own little cult here. At least limit yourself to doing one week, two week, three week, four, but not one to infinity! I know there are people on WP who have literally been blocked more than 20 times and still edit. I think it would be more productive to suggest a positive rather than a negative solution - urge these people to try doing a significant amount of editing about some topics they don't have much personal familiarity with, in order to get a feel for how WP editing is supposed to work. Wnt (talk) 03:12, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Like What Wnt said. Let's get a desirable outcome out of this.--v/r - TP 04:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"urge these people to try doing a significant amount of editing about some topics they don't have much personal familiarity with"? Yeah, right. Targ is going to be really keen on editing Wikipedia to take his mind off things, isn't he...

Ridiculous. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for input

The user in question has been adding articles on players who do not meet the American football notability standards (See: Zach Thompson, Anthony Grady, Patrick Scales and a host of others). This user has been warned multiple times in the past by others such as Mr. Stradivarius and Yankees10.

At one point Mr. Stadivarius and myself had several conversations (Can be view here, here, and here) to try and peacefully resolve the matter and, at the time, it seemed to be effective however, recent articles such as the aforementioned Thompson and Grady articles as well as others seem to suggest otherwise. The frustrating part is that this user has proven they are capable of creating well-written and notable articles such as Jeff Heath but follow-up with these articles for players that might not even make it out of a team's training camp never mind play in a game.

As an aside, I've included a link to PrivateMasterHD. Both users have displayed similar editing habits with the former being banned indefinitely after making legal threats. Whether or not these two are related remains to be seen but given the similar user names, it warrants some attention.

To the point, I'd like the community's input as to how to go about addressing the issue since this is now the second time we are having a problem with the user. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 00:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is there a reason to not just send these to AfD? Hobit (talk) 02:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
• From what I read above at the links you provided, it seems as if this editor is working in good faith and is not incompetent, but doesn't quite understand the importance our community places on notability policies and guidelines, especially for living persons. He also doesn't seem to have fully considered the repercussions of the mere existence of an article about a private individual on Wikipedia. I don't think any admin help is needed: he just needs some advice. --NellieBly (talk) 03:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

  I think that depends on whether Pmaster12 is willing to listen to the advice or not. Creating a few non-notable articles is not such a big deal, as they can just be taken to AfD. Creating many non-notable articles is more problematic, but doesn't require any administrative action if the user in question recognises that this isn't how Wikipedia works, and is willing to change their ways. That's quite a common learning experience for newer editors. However, if a user creates many non-notable articles and continues to do so despite being aware of our notability guidelines, that becomes disruptive. It creates cleanup work for other editors, clogs up AfD, and wastes time for everyone involved. In such situations, a topic ban or a block is appropriate, in my opinion. So, there are two main questions to be asked here. First, are a significant number of the articles that Pmaster12 is creating non-notable? And second, does Pmaster12 properly understand the notability guidelines? I would be interested to hear from Pmaster12 for their opinion on all of this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:19, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems like a lot of people arguing deletions remain willfully unaware that all the guidelines like "WP:ATHLETE" allow for basic notability criteria, i.e. WP:GNG. A person cannot "violate" WP:ATHLETE without also violating WP:GNG -- that's how the policy is written. Moreover, "violating" WP:GNG depends on a person knowing in advance that multiple secondary sources about the person could never be found, which would be a very hard thing to prove. Even the best Wikipedia authors ought to be able to start an article now and then that craps out when it turns out there's less to be found by research than you'd think. So yeah, leave this to AfD -- getting articles deleted is frustrating enough. (N.B. I'd support in any case simply moving them to Draft: namespace at worst, since they are sourced and they are valid attempts to write encyclopedia articles, and new references to make them notable could come out at any time) Wnt (talk) 04:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

• Going through the history of the articles The Writer 2.0 linked to, I noticed an error. Pmaster12 created Zach Thompson and Anthony Grady, but he has not actually edited Patrick Scales (American football). There are a couple of other articles he has written in the last few days, though: Eric Pinkins and Brandon Dixon. All these articles are of players that have been selected by teams in the NFL, but (seemingly) haven't yet played in a game for them, and therefore fail point 1 of WP:NGRIDIRON. Some of these may pass the general notability guideline, but at the moment the sourcing in the articles is too thin to prove this conclusively. The best-sourced article is Anthony Grady's, which contains a reference with some background about his career. My verdict: none of these pages are obvious candidates for deletion, but some of them would probably be deleted at AfD, and none of them conclusively demonstrate notability. Whether this amounts to a problem needing administrative action depends (in my opinion) on whether this is a long-term pattern of behaviour, and how responsive Pmaster12 is to advice he receives in this thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat by anonymous user.

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

---

This ought to be a quick one. See this diff, posted by User:2601:7:5380:724:5538:4f9a:ba07:ed9e. WP:NLT violation, anyone? I have since removed the edit from the page. Red Phoenix ^{let's talk...} 00:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, at least it looks far more like a tantrum from a child than an actual legal threat... Sergecross73 msg me 01:00, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Probably, but if we pretend it's serious then we won't have to waste our time dealing with tantrums in article. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:04, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

At most, an educational warning is deserved. Use {{uw-nlt}} if you wish. I don't think a block is necessary, considering it is an anonymous user who has made one edit. Frankly, I personally don't think any action is necessary. WP:DENY the trolls recognition and move on. We can discuss actions if the user continues to be disruptive. Mz7 (talk) 01:24, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

While I agree that this isn't a credible legal threat, a temporary block per WP:NOTHERE may be merited. One certainly should be issued if further disruption occurs. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Done.--v/r - TP 02:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Denial (IDHT) regarding denialism and Denial

User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has "strongly objected" to my restoring links to Climate change_denial, HIV/AIDS denialism and Holocaust denial to the "See also" section of the article Denial diff. Stating, "The desire to include these links here seems to be little more than a cheesy wish to pathologize points of view one editor disagrees". Another editor has expressed his disagreement with the objection diff twice diff and explained, "I do not think I have ever heard anybody in academia use the term "Freudian" when referencing denial."

I provided references which clearly support denialism as related to denial with very closely aligned quotes from the Denial article and reference diff, a book Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life and a study on "psychology of denial concerning climate mitigation measures" diff, a book with an entire chapter discussing psychological denial and the holocaust and article on "on the psychological and social function of remembering the holocaust" diff. The response was, "That's not nearly good enough...doesn't mention Freudian ideas...an article mainly about Freudian notions" diff. The article denial states the theory was "postulated by Freud" but discusses the modern psychological concept. Repeated sourced explanations have been made by another editor at Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism#Add an AIDS Denialists who have died section, diff, diff, diff (by another editor specifically objecting to the removal of the links), diff and diff.

FKC's repeated insistence that refs don't mention Freud is IDHT to the point of being disruptive.

Statements like "I invite MrBill3 to stop using vague accusations of "denial" as a cheap way of attacking theories or points of view he disagrees with" and "little more than a cheesy wish to pathologize points of view one editor disagrees" are inappropriately directed at an editor. As are such statements as, "a blathering irrelevance", "you and other editors want to play the stupid and childish game"

I used Twinkle to notify FKC I felt he was being unconstructive diff (I should have edited the wording of the template for clarity.) To which the response was that I had falsely accused FKC of vandalism diff. I responded to clarify, explaining that I found his behavior on talk pages tendentious and that I made no accusation of vandalism diff. FKC responded that unconstructive editing is another term for vandalism (that's not what I read on WP:Disruptive editing).

Note also the disruptive behavior in the section Talk:HIV/AIDS denialism#Lead, described as condescending diff.

I feel User:FreeKnowledgeCreator has engaged in a pattern of disruptive (and rude) behavior on talk pages. I think implementation of discretionary sanctions is called for. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:28, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

While I partially party to these exchanges, I can't really comment further as MrBill3 has managed to summerize the relevant exchanges quite well above. However, I can certainly echo the sentiments as far as my experience. As a new editor, It was most unpleasant to have my first exchange on the site with another editor as brazen as was apparent withUser:FreeKnowledgeCreator. Being immediately confrontational, dismissive, and rude for anyone did that not share his viewpoint seemed, at the very least, not in good faith of WP:CIVIL Also reverting articles, when it became obvious they were for ideological and not evidentiary reasons was clearly not called for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Supaflyrobby (talk • contribs) 16:48, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with MrBill3. User:FreeKnowledgeCreator is disruptive and not open to discussion. I think a topic ban would be helpful. Bhny (talk) 17:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

User:NLZ06 - not quite clear what they're up to

NLZ06 joined Wikipedia 6 days ago, but shows a remarkable enthusiasm for constructing new pages, some surprisingly complete (like Kelly Hayes-Raitt).

Thus far they've managed NavTech Security Pty Ltd (A7), Visionborne (G11, previously A7ed and G11ed, and I wonder if the G11ed content was from a previously deleted version), Austin Hollins (created as copyvio of [146], AFDed, edited by other editors), Visionbooks (G11), Dyacon (A7, G11), Dyacon Weather Instruments (A7), W3 kids (G11), Kool Living Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center (A7, G12). Not yet deleted are Rezvani BEAST, Rezvani (both hagiographic in tone, and really, two articles?), a company logo (mislabelled as under CC license, I'll bet), Kelly Hayes-Raitt (well formed article, but massive puff piece about how marvellous she is, and it does seem _slightly_ remarkable that a new editor would come up with that lot), removal of an OR tag without any edits to fix issues, an edit rather favourable to the subject of the article, and a page blanking and subsequent reasonless AFD at Banc de Binary, a page with a history of COI editors (in sockfarms, sometimes; indeed, originally stemming from a morning277 sock).

I don't know what's going on here - WP:COMPETENCE, a misguided PR person, or what - but I don't think this user is really acting in the best interests of Wikipedia. Pinkbeast (talk) 10:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Judging from the range of topics, I'd say it's a paid editor, although not an awfully competent one. For one thing, they haven't quite figured out how turn bare urls into proper references. Per this conversation, the editor says he/she helps "friends" who supply the text and he/she adds references and puts it onto Wikipedia. If so, NLZ06 has quite a variety of friends. I suspect the Kelly Hayes-Raitt article is full of spurious references, almost none of which are independent of her, e.g. this one (scroll down) to "verify" that she "is a popular lecturer at colleges and other venues". Many of the others are to blogs. All the references in that article need checking. Voceditenore (talk) 11:33, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Same person as the blocked User:Newzealand123. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:59, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted the article creations that haven't been significantly edited by others. Only Austin Hollins remains and it is at AfD.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:15, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Jpgordon, did you block on the basis of checkuser? If not, I'm mighty suspicious of the fact that NLZ06 uploaded this image to Commons today and, lo and behold, an article about that person sprang fully formed an hour earlier complete with infobox and by an entirely new user with their first edit, who then added the image an hour later. See Robert Lyn Nelson. The initial version was the worst piece of promotional drivel I've seen for a long time. I've since taken my red pencil to it. Voceditenore (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)