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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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:Torgownik at Russell Targ

Torgownik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) self-identifies as the subject of the article Russell Targ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Despite several warnings and patient explanations, he continues to make contentious and inappropriate edits to the article (e.g. [1], [2], [3]), rather than requesting changes on the Talk page or from one of the supportive editors who are active both there and on his user talk page.

I don't want to see him banned, not least because that would feed https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=10152195637913218&id=295503008217&comment_id=10152195729103218&offset=0&total_comments=1 his conspiracy theories about Wikipedia], but it's hard to know what do do when he refuses to accept that continuing to make these changes is inappropriate, not least for his own reputation. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what you are talking about. I have not added anything controversial to my bio page for several days. I have been peacefully and very extensively answering questions for a wiki editor (Wnt), on the Warning page. I changed my start date at Lockheed from 1986, to the correct date 1985. But that doesn't sick. The editors strongly prefer the incorrect date. I will let it go. I added Helena Blavatsky to my father's publishing. People seem to think that's OK. I do not know what this current fuss is about. I have surrendered to overwhelming force, since you are obviously free to write anything you wish. Torgownik (talk) 23:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell Torgownik (talk) 23:36, 20 May 2014 (UTC)Russell

• Targ is not the aggressor here. Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Russell_Targ#Targ.27s_personal_commentary_being_cited_in_the_lead in which Goblin Face announces that "I am not too sure about Targ's comment on his website about Wikipedia being put in the lead [24]. The reason I say this, is because most of what he has written is completely wrong about Wikipedia but it also contains a deliberate lie." The "comment" is simply that he disagrees with being called a pseudoscientist. Apparently Wikipedia rules not merely insist that he be branded a pseudoscience, not only rule out citation of any source disputing that point of view, but rule out even mention that he himself could possibly object to this self-evident enlightened point of view. And we still don't have that in, right now, because it's been repeatedly reverted. Wnt (talk) 01:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's my response to this. These are all Targ's comments, you can judge if what he has been saying is ok or not:

• "Bobby Fisher and "laser pioneer" had been in my bio for at least a year before the Wiki trolls got interested me and my bio. It is indisputable that you are all snipping away at my life because you can't stand that there is world-wide interest in remote viewing. Within a decade modern physics will figure out how it works, and then you will all go away, back into your mother's basement." [4]

• "It looks to me as though you are very good at reading the skeptical literature, but not so interested in the scientific papers you are trashing. I had to wait until my ninth book to say we had "A physicist's proof for psychic abilities" because now the data are overwhelming. If you can't see that, it's because you haven't looked at the data. It's more fun to throw rocks and break windows." [5]

• "If you Wikipedia editors have any tiny spark of integrity, you should include the following... I will be looking for some part of this to appear on the bio page. If not, I will just addume that you have no interest at all in presenting the truth." [6]

• The Wikipedia trolls who are trashing my bio site have only 100% negative things to say about the very existence of remote viewing. I think that is pretty crazy. What alternate universe are they living in? [7]

It is my opinion that Targ is abusive and just on Wikipedia to cause trouble, he's been temporarily blocked twice already for edit-warring, deleting references from his article, (sock puppeting on an IP), meat puppetry etc. Off Wikipedia he is writing falsehoods about it [8], [9]. I don't see why Targ is still on Wikipedia. I'm not editing his article for a while, I have taken a break from it. So whatever. This really doesn't interest me. Got other stuff to do. Goblin Face (talk) 02:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

#1: The critics had somehow convinced themselves that his wife being the sister of Bobby Fischer was unacceptable trivia that should be taken out. I managed to get them to accept it by citing a news story in which he helped Fischer, but they still are of the opinion that it is necessary to include that his father published "Chariots of the Gods", but not that he published "The Godfather", even though the latter was Putnam's big blockbuster.

#3: The article cited a single report by American Institutes of Research, which encompassed a blue ribbon panel, one pro and one anti remote viewing, overseen by three other reviewers. The line on the article was that the anti in the report was a reliable source to cite, but the pro- in the same report was a fringe source that couldn't be quoted. I tried to deal with this by citing major conclusions from the combined group that pretty much said what they both have said. However, even so... it's a 1995 report about an organization Targ left in 1982 that is felt to be a judgment on Targ's work and can't be delegated to Remote viewing.

Now to be sure, Targ has been moderately irate at points with how Wikipedia has dealt with him, but by no means excessively so given the situation. Wikipedia has a very strong BLP policy for celebrities who want their histories in porn movies to go away and so forth. I don't agree when people do that, but I believe in just being plain fair and letting people hear what Targ thinks, hear what the people doing paranormal research think, setting down all the opinions side by side and letting the best man win. But when the skeptics get organized and aggressive, biography articles turn into a gauntlet of insults with no room for neutral description. Wnt (talk) 04:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

He has also consistently assumed bad faith, in relentless violation of Hanlon's Razor if nothing else. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

The way to let people hear what Targ thinks, as for the subject of any bio, is not by letting him edit his own article. Perhaps a case can be made for the insertion of the WSJ quote, but he is not the one to insert it. Personally, I think it belongs in the article, but as a claim, not as the statement of fact inserted at this edit [10]. I see this as an example of when a subject of an article has a reasonable complaint that material should be added, but still should not be adding it themselves because of the POV of the addition. BTW, I am rather doubtful of using the fact that his father published books on the occult, unless his father was particularly known for doing so, or that his father's bookstore had these works, again, unless it was exclusively or predominantly devoted to it. Every general bookstore has such works. and most general publishers have published them from time to time. DGG ( talk ) 04:33, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, this is absolutely right. So how do we stop him doing this, ideally without blocking him. Guy (Help!) 10:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

It's reasonable to ask article subjects not to edit an article to preserve a neutral article, though they can still intervene to deal with vandalism. However, if an article reads like a hatchet job and neutrality isn't being preserved, then we can't blame the subject for diving in. So the shortest route to that destination is to deal with the problems he and others have pointed out. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:COIADVICE is intended to be advice for an editor with a COI to follow to avoid running into conflicts. However, when the editor is the article subject sometimes what they think would "unambiguously violate" our BLP policy may just be something that the article subject doesn't agree with. I'd suggest that 1, 3, and 4 would be acceptable behavior in this situation. -- Atama頭 19:19, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

@Wnt:, if the article were a peerless example of polished Wikipedia perfection, Torgownik would still consider it grossly insulting. The problem is that he passionately believes in a body of work that is not just rejected by the scientific community, but ridiculed and considered a case-study in exactly how not to do science properly. I feel very sorry for him, but this genuinely is not our problem to fix, and the changes he makes are well outside of what could be supported by even the most charitable interpretation of the rules. Guy (Help!) 21:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

• In Guy's 3 diffs I see #1) a slightly heated rant about the article inserted into the article itself, which is wrong there but would have been fine on the talkpage. Per AGF and BITE, I think this was just an editing mistake and Russell Targ should just be informed that discussion about the article should go onto the talkpage instead of the article page. #2 is the insertion of the WSJ citation about silver prediction. Yes that's a COI edit and could be phrased more neutrally, actually on second look, it really wasn't too bad as written and if you insist on reverting Targ's adding it on COI grounds, then ok--but I'd support another editor rewriting and reinserting it since it's relevant and sourcing is fine (the WSJ article itself is online and it takes a factual and suitably skeptical though diplomatic tone towards the psychic experiment). #3 fixes the Lockheed date (uncontentious so I'd tend to take Targ's word for it) and makes a few other minor additions that strictly speaking have COI/promotion issues, but those issues are fairly minor on the scale of such things. I do think the mention of Bobby Fischer should be left in the article as a gloss on the existing hyperlink to Mrs. Targ's biography page. The talk page is kind of noisy but if people can dial back their bureaucratic impulses a bit and Mr. Targ is willing to limit his participation to the talk page rather than the article, I don't think intervention is needed at the moment. 70.36.142.114 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

AGF would work if he had been here a day or a week. He's been here longer than that, and his advocacy has been extremely forceful. Those are not the only problematic edits to the article made by him. As I say, he keeps doing this even after being told multiple times that he should not. The problem is not the specific edits themselves, it's the fact that he refuses to accept that he should not be making these POV edits to his own article for numerous good reasons. Part of the problem is that a few people sympathetic to his POV are egging him on and contributing to an impression that adding POV content to your own biography is fine by some people and that objections are about the subject matter rather than about policy and the consensus that biography subjects should not add contentious content. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that according to the article Targ is legally blind. I've seen a couple of other misplaced edits, and I'm sure they are not merely accidental but excusable in the sense that they don't mean he's ignorant of where to put the edit. Wnt (talk) 16:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I know this. It might explain one r two of the edits, but most are clearly content edits. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia is giving a lot of contradictory signals in this situation. The actual WP:COI lists "escaping" the conflict by not editing the article as one of three options. It calls for blocking editors only in the case of single-purpose self-promotional accounts, not BLP subjects dealing with genuine bias. Yet Targ just recently got another "last warning" message on his talk. I think it should be clear that our enforcement should be more lenient than the written policy standard, not the other way around. It looks like WP:COI has been used as a veritable trashcan for random shoulds and oughts that don't actually tell a user what he is and isn't allowed to do. Wnt (talk) 23:56, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I should add that I no longer pretend to understand whatever agenda the skeptics are pushing. For example, I tried to add more information about just what the remote viewers were doing in Stargate Project, and they insist on taking it all out because it's a "fringe source" - even though it is simply someone who was there saying what they did, and I wasn't trying to use it to make contentious claims. Yet when I threw them a bone to see what would happen, an original reference pointing out the huge role of Scientology in the 1972 program [11] they showed no interest at all. They seem more interested in simply suppressing all information about the topic than in documenting even the reasons to disbelieve the data. Wnt (talk) 20:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

The agenda is very simple. Our policies forbid us form representing remote viewing as if it were a legitimate field of scientific inquiry, because it isn't. Targ hates the consensus view that it's pseudoscientific nonsense, we cannot fix that because it is simply not our problem to fix. The claims he makes are inherently contentious because he asserts that calling remote viewing pseudoscience, as the sources do, is unacceptable. In support of this he cites old papers which have been rebutted and/or refuted, as if the old papers themselves refute their refutations. A circular style of argument that is ubiquitous among promoters of nonsense. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place to pursue the WP:TRUTH, be it pseudoscience or extreme scepticism. BLP trumps everything. Is it time to hand out a few blocks and/or topic bans to the worst offenders here? And I don't mean Targ. --John (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I really only skimmed through this discussion and did not get into details, neither did I see all of his editing history. But there are so many more serious offenders on Wikipedia than this 80 year old man who is trying to edit his biography article. I agree with some of the previous users that he should be one of the later ones on the list to block. Caseeart (talk) 05:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then maybe they should be blocked too, but we don't not block somebody because other people need blocks, or because of how old they are (or aren't). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said - I don't know exactly what he did wrong. It seems that he is trying to promote himself.

You don't want a disabled 80 year old in the emergency room over an editing dispute. Compare it to civil court that even after conviction - consideration is taken during sentencing.Caseeart (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Maybe you could put a notification in bold words on the top of the article: "Many parts of this article have been edited by Targ himself and may therefore not meet WP:NEUTRAL standards." Caseeart (talk) 17:08, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we should circumvent policy to avoid hurting the feelings of a POV/promotion pusher. You said I don't know exactly what he did wrong. It seems that he is trying to promote himself. That is exactly what he did wrong. G S Palmer (talk) 17:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• At least he is honest about it. He is not sockpupeting and not hurting others. That is a minimal policy violation. Caseeart (talk) 18:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• If he is purposely introducing promotional material, then he is hurting Wikipedia's image and violating point four of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotion. G S Palmer (talk) 19:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• In certain circumstances Wikipedia does allow WP:ABOUTSELF. Him editing his own article is very similar. I will advise him on his talk page. Caseeart (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

He has been notified on his talk page, numerous times. He carries on anyway. That's the problem. That and the fact that he rejects the mainstream analysis of his body of work. Guy (Help!) 08:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Shugden SPA replacing academic material with self-published Shugden blogs and websites

• Western Shugden Society (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Peaceful5 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kjangdom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Peaceful5 is the most hyperspecific Shugden SPA so far. Over the years he kept inserting self-published Shugden blogs and websites at the Western Shugden Society page. Now, he just did a massive replacement of academic material with the same self-published Shugden blogs and websites that both Kt66 and myself previously cleaned up. Peaceful5's goal is to make the page an advertisement for the Western Shugden Society. And Peaceful5 is well aware of Wikipedia's policy of using self-published material. So he cannot plead ignorance. This is a willful and deliberate act. By the nature of his edits, he has a clear affiliation with the Western Shugden Society / International Shugden Community. Heicth (talk) 16:45, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I do notice that in your revert here, as well as removing what appear to be sources related to the Subject, you also removed a lot of text that is sourced to reliable sources (i.e. books published by reputable publishers, the BBC, etc, as well as an Infobox. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the case, you need to be careful to not blindly revert changes but to review them properly.Nigel Ish (talk) 19:22, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I noticed the same thing Nigel did while I was skimming through one of the editor's big contributions to the article. May I add (and I want to say this is something I learned from DGG, maybe), that the best way to stave off some types of disruption is to improve an article, and right now the article is not in a very good state. Drmies (talk) 20:10, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Not in a very good state" is a pronounced understatement, actually. I am frankly stunned that anyone would consider this "B" class. To make the article reasonable, I would at least expect a significant section on the history of the movement, a section of appropriate length on what level of organization, if any, it has, its specific positions, some information on the number of people involved, the theological/philosophical reasons for their positions, and reception of the group by other, independent, organizations. I don't see much if any content about most of those obvious topics in the article as it stands. John Carter (talk) 01:34, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to echo the concerns raised by Nigel Ish. While these editors may be attempting to introduce POV material, it also appears they have added some material that could be incorporated into the article instead of being blindly reverted. Gamaliel (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

a) There is no "blind revert". These are the same "sources" that has been discussed on the reliable sources noticeboard and other Shugden pages for years. For example, the book Man, Monk, Mystic says the exact opposite of what is claimed. Even worse in this case, these sources are not specifically about the Western Shugden Society. b)The Western Shugden Society article should be merged with either the New Kadampa Tradition or Dorje Shugden Controversy article. Heicth (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Please understand, we're new to this discussion and when we see an edit like that, it looks very bad if there is no edit summary or talk page discussion to explain it. I see no discussion of Man, Monk, Mystic, for example, and if it's elsewhere such as a noticeboard, you should like to it if you'd like us to consider it. I'm also concerned about the removal of the infobox and all the pictures. Gamaliel (talk) 18:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Fake photoshopped pictures such as this and this, uploaded and inserted by Peaceful5, are not proper Wikipedia material. Neither is a propaganda box (info box).Heicth (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The deletion of academic experts, and Peaceful5's insertion of the following Shugden blogs and websites is not acceptable:

• dorjeshugdenblog.wordpress.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.blogspot.com
• internationalshugdencommunity.com
• wisdombuddhadorjeshugden.org
• westernshugdensociety.org
• shugdensociety.info
• dorjeshugden.com
• Also see **here please**Heicth (talk) 22:05, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Proposal

SPAs Kjangdom (Kelsang Jangdom, a member of the NKT/WSS) and Peaceful5 both admit their affiliations with the NKT / WSS on their respective user pages. Kjangdom openly states "I am pro the WSS". Peaceful5 might be a person in charge of the entire WSS based on all his contributions, picture uploads and his statements on his user page. According to Kjangdom and Peaceful5's own language, the WSS is a "campaigning group". Organizers or members of campaigning groups cannot objectively edit related articles. These two engage in WP:MEAT, ridiculously disingenuous editing, openly delete academic experts who create "too much negative input", defend using a multitude of self-published Shugden blogs despite a previous admin warning etc. I propose that Kjangdom and Peaceful5 be topic banned from all NKT/WSS/Shugden related articles.Heicth (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. These two SPAs could very well be the same person. Compare the "Be peaceful.:-)" on Peaceful5's old user page to the "May everyone be happy:)" on Kjangdom's user page. It would explain Kjangdom's knowledge of Wikipedia terms such as "edit war". Heicth (talk) 01:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom edited his user page without responding to this ANI, probably to hide evidence of socking.Heicth (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedia editors!

I am not peaceful5, I am Kelsang Jangdom, as I mentioned on my talk page. After receiving the comment above I tried to upload a photo of myself for greater transparency. And now I'm responding to this message. I don't know what 'socking' is so I can't really respond to that. I am pro WSS but this is absolutely reason for banning me from editing the article on the Western Shugden Society. Shall we ban fans of Manchester United Football club from editing that page?!!

I am very concerned that some editors are presenting a completely one-sided and negative (and false) view of the WSS. My intention is to abide by Wikipedia's guidelines and work towards a more neutral and accurate article.

Anyway I look forward to working with you all at improving these articles on Dorje Shugden. If any neutral editors / moderators have any constructive feedback about my edits I'd very much like to hear from you. I only started editing on Wikipedia a week or so ago, so I am very new to this and there's lots to learn!

All the best, Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 14:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You are not merely a "fan." You are a high ranking member of the NKT/WSS. So if a member of Manchester United Football club continually states that secondary academic material is "negative", as you do even here, that is more than enough for a topic ban. And I just noticed you once again deleted academic material from the article. Heicth (talk) 17:06, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Heicth, if you can provide clear evidence of that allegation, then the proper place to make such statements might be the WP:COIN. If you cannot provide clear evidence of this individual being a high ranking member of the group, then I believe that you would be very well advised to read our various guidelines regarding civility at WP:CIVILITY. WP:OUT may well also apply, and I very strongly urge you to read that as well. John Carter (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

He openly says he is Kelsang Jangdom on his user page and even on this ANI page. Kelsang Jangdom is a member of the NKT/WSS. Heicth (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

You, however, said he is "a high ranking member" of NKT, which is a different matter entirely. We always have and always will have editors who have personal beliefs about topics editing articles related to them. It is hard for most editors in the English-speaking western world to not have some form of personal beliefs regarding Christianity That does not necessarily disqualify them from editing material related to that topic. Also, saying "I am pro the WSS", the quote you linked to above, does not necessarily mean that the individual is also a "member" of that group. I acknowledge that there can be a real reason to suspect bias in many such cases, and at times there can be very real evidence of bias, but there are and I think have been for some time individuals who have posted blogs as sources through some ignorance. Also, unfortunately, some blogs, admittedly not many, are acceptable as reliable sources. So far, I don't see a lot of evidence to justify what seems to me to be rather strongly condemnatory allegations. The allegations regarding Peaceful5 regarding his being a possible leader of the group are also poorly supported by the evidence presented. In all honesty, based on what I have seen so far in this thread and the allegations made about others, your own objectivity regarding this topic is itself open to some question, and that does not help you. John Carter (talk) 18:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Kelsang Jangom is a DIRECTOR of the International Shugden Community, the latest version of the Western Shugden Society. How much more high ranking can you get? Heicth (talk) 18:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The assertions made about me (kjangdom) above are false. Please my reply below under the header "Possible WP:OUTING by Heicth, seeking consideration of sanctions"Kjangdom (talk) 00:25, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible WP:OUTING by Heicth, seeking consideration of sanctions

It is worth noting that the post by Heicth at 18:40, currently immediately above this comment, clearly at least borders on outing as per WP:OUTING. While it is worthwhile having that information, I question whether this is either the best way or place to do so, and believe that, at least potentially, there are reasonable grounds for consideration of some sanctions against him. I would welcome the input of others regarding this matter. John Carter (talk) 19:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Heicth can't have re-outed someone who has already outed themselves. When editors comply with wp:COI, they know there's a potential to overstep. We should AGF that they won't, and try to guide them away when they wander close to the edge. That's kinda why we warn them. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.Heicth (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

You have some points, which I acknowledge, which is why I said "possible" sanctions. But I think a reading of WP:OUTING can see that identifying a person by specific details which they had not themselves revealed here could, not unreasonably, be seen as outing. That wouldn't in any way excuse COI editing, of course, but it does raise some potential problems. I also note that there have been recent edit summaries by Heicth which could be seen as being problematic in this regard as well. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I think a review of Heicth's own history, including his user page and his earlier user name as per that page, might well raise questions regarding his status as a possible SPA and rather POV driven editor. John Carter (talk) 22:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I understand the concern, but, in context -- given the user has given his full name and his association with Buddhism -- I just don't see it as worthy of any sanction beyond a warning to be careful. NE Ent 23:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.Heicth (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Kjangdom openly states who he is on his user page. He even has a picture of himself.Heicth (talk) 22:42, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The general rule is not to refer to off-wiki materials about editors, unless the off-wiki material is somehow related to Wikipedia itself. NE Ent 23:54, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The link given above is in the WSS article and has been since Kt66 introduced it the day after it was published (n.b., I seriously, seriously doubt anyone would think so, but Kt66's addition of that article isn't outing). Someone involved in editing an article and concerned about unwarranted claims should be expected to check its sources. Not only is there the article, but the no-permission photo (and standard procedure for anybody checking photo copyrights would likely lead to a connection). It would not surprise me if other sources previously in the article legitimately revealed a connection as well.

But of course, WP:OUTING discusses harm both in terms of "opposition research" (i.e., googling someone) and in making the link between off-wiki information and personal identity. Thus, even presuming Heicth caused no harm in terms of "opposition research" by accidentally discovering the information, the revelation of their job title might still be harmful in the WP:OUTING sense. I would say, however, that in light of the information we already had right in front of us, that damage would be minimal. But would it be zero? We can't presume that all sources legitimately included in an article are "on-wiki" for outing purposes, but I doubt we'd be talking about outing if the revealed information was more prominently featured (i.e., first paragraph instead of several paragraphs in). I think, at worst, this is one of those "edge" cases: conduct that should be discouraged, but probably not sanctionable given the totality of the circumstances.

In any event, I would also say it seems like Heicth was being fairly discreet above, and only let it fly after being pressured to provide evidence. While you did tell Heicth to be careful given WP:OUTING, John, I think you could have stressed the point more clearly. However, if there is damage from the revelation, I don't think this should mitigate any sanction—nor should it apportion any responsibility to you. I just think you might take it as counseling you to take greater care in making a similar request for evidence of a COI in the future.

Finally, I think the accusations of socking above are probably unwarranted. The specific evidence cited is easily readable as evidence to the contrary (I won't go into why publicly per WP:BEANS, though what I see certainly doesn't exclude meatpuppetry or canvassing). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with most of this.Heicth (talk) 01:14, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello again!

I am concerned about the recent "outing" described above, so perhaps it's helpful to clarify a little: Yes I am pro-WSS, but I am not a member of the WSS, never have been. So it is simply false to say that I am member of the WSS, let alone a high-ranking member (the article cited above from The Foreigner only talks about the International Shugden Community in Norway, i.e. not the WSS, so it is not necessary to re-post this article as "evidence" that I am a member / high member of the WSS). I would appreciate if the spreading of incorrect, personal information about me could stop immediately.

Moreover, I am not a high-ranking member of the NKT. This is simply not true! Please provide information to the contrary, or stop these lies immediately. I do assist at my local NKT centre as 'Admin Director', but I am by no means I high ranking member within the NKT, there are hundreds of Admin Directors like me in the NKT (and to be honest, it seems a bit stupid that I am obliged to spell out my relationship with the NKT on this page, as it is probably not that interesting for most other people!) If "outing" is against Wikipedia's guidelines, than surely "outing" with false information to discredit novice editors is also against Wikipedia's guidelines?

I would appreciate it if the relevant moderators could take action to ensure this does not happen again.

Thanks very much for your help :) Jangdom Kjangdom (talk) 00:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, this is part of why we tend to disallow trawling for off-wiki information; it's easy to, once you get to the point of doing PI-type stuff, come to a mistaken conclusion. Even so, I stand by my analysis of the above that nothing Heicth said above could not have been discovered by legitimate means (within the meaning of WP:OUTING), and in the same way, I stand by my conclusion that if there is damage, it is minimal. It does not change, in my view, that the only sanction needed is cautioning Heicth to take greater care in the future (as well as to take care not to let requests for proof cause him to release something that might be questioned). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:31, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editor using 2 IP addresses

This guy is inserting rather funny personal commentary, for example "Jim Crow style discrimination." He uses the IP addresses 80.252.70.194 and 82.71.13.29.Heicth (talk) 18:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I moved this from the bottom as it was part of the same issue that is still currently open. Blackmane (talk) 18:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposing some form of page protection and/or discretionary sanctions on Shugden related articles

I have left a message on the user talk page of Kt66, who is one of the few recent editors as per the history of the page. I do note that there has been a recent flurry of activity regarding the page, unusual for the article as per its history here. Maybe some form of temporary protection to the article, or some form of discretionary sanctions on the article and the broader topic of the recent Shugden controversy, might be in order. For all the recent flurry of editing to the article itself, there has been damn little discussion on the talk page. Even editors who have a clear COI are not necessarily totally disqualified from editing, because they can often provide, among other things, indications of factual errors regarding the topic and additional useful information. And, like I said elsewhere, I myself get the impression that the only editor who does not seem to be rather centered on this topic is Kt66, given Heicth's statement on his user page here that his former user name of User:TiredofShugden, which is kinda indicative of maybe some sort of anti-Shugden bias. Calling for more uninvolved attention to the article, and maybe doing something to prevent the recent edit-warring, like some level of page protection and/or sanctions of some sort, might be the best option. As more or less the proposal of both, I would support both possibilities. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi John, thank you very much for your attention to these pages. As you can tell, the pages Dorje Shugden, Dorje Shugden Controversy, and Western Shugden Society had remained relatively unchanged for 4 years from 2009 to 2013. The recent flurry of activity is related to the resurgence of real-world demonstrations and counter-demonstrations about this issue. Aside from some minor edits from uninvolved editors, as far as I'm aware there are no significant editors of these pages who are neutral and unbiased on these subjects which, as you suggest, is a good reason for everyone to go to the talk pages instead of edit warring. Among editors, KT66 is not strictly "centered on this topic", but he is not at all neutral and unbiased on these issues and was the principal editor writing against these practices in 2008. The articles as they existed from 2009 to 2013 were not without problems, and probably some of the material lacked reliable sources. That issue needs to be corrected, but the articles as they currently stand are very one-sided in opposition to the practice of Dorje Shugden. I attempted to restore much of the content as it had been previously, but that edit was removed. At the discretion of the other moderators, some protection is probably in order, although the articles as they currently stand should not be frozen. Peaceful5 (talk) 11:45, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

And, just for the record, on the basis of the frankly minimal effort I did in accessing a few databanks, the group has had at least a few well reported demonstrations opposing the Dalai Lama, none of which are mentioned in the article, and some members, at least early on, expressed serious concerns about facing reprisals from Shugden, who is apparently not a really nice supernatural entity if annoyed, possibly including death, if his worshippers were to stop worshipping him. In fact, the DL himself has said Shugden could potentially kill him, which indicates Shugden has a great deal of power. I haven't checked the article history to see what all was removed, but the current nature of the article, after "clean-up" by opponents of Shugden, is pathetic and rather clearly one-sided regarding one particular aspect of the society, poorly referenced, and honestly at least a bit of an embarassment. If, as seems possible, the recent revisions have been to the detriment of the encyclopedic content, and those who might have tried to improve it reverted on the basis of their alleged bias, some sort of broader attention to the topic, and/or formal efforts to ensure that future partisan damage would not recur, may well be required. John Carter (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous statement. The Shugden proponents are actively deleting the very little secondary academic material there is on the subject. For example they keep deleting Robert Thurman, one of the top experts in Tibetan Buddhism and specifically the Gelug school.Heicth (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, then there are established procedures around here to follow, which include something that you have done little if any of yourself, discussing the matter on the talk page. Your own status as what might reasonably be called a Shugden opponent and SPA, based on your own history and former user name, raises extremely serious questions whether you are yourself in a position to criticize others. In fact, I think as per your own lack of knowledge of policies and guidelines, based on your own recent history, that you may be yourself among the least qualified people to unilaterally judge such matters. May I strongly suggest that you acquaint yourself with all of our conduct and content guidelines and in the future behave in such a way as to indicate a greater degree of familiarity with them. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I think the problem with the Dorje Shugden Controversy page is that it is an obscure subject where people have strong differing views, so the only people who edit it have one view or another. Would it be possible to have someone who is neutral who can help with the editing? At the moment the intro doesn't even attempt to explain what the 'Dorje Shugden Controversy' is or to say that different people have different views. Thanks March22nd (talk) 19:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Seeking IBAN for Steeletrap

Steeletrap has been hounding me recently, and has been resorting to childish attacks to irritate me. The effort demonstrates a disruptive battleground attitude, and it takes time away from the work of constructive editors. I would like to have Steeletrap banned from interacting with me per WP:IBAN.

Recent diffs:

March

• 14:37, March 19, 2014: Steeletrap started a BLPN thread about a list article I had started five years ago, saying I should "be sanctioned for unacceptable mass-breach of BLP policy."
• By March 22, Steeletrap's BLPN thread, at Mass BLP violation, potential libel in List of Bohemian Club members, had concluded with most observers taking a boomerang view, that Steeletrap had intended to harm me rather than fix a Wikipedia article.

May

• 06:06, May 1, 2014: Steeletrap jokes about "the B-word" which is a reference to her calling me Binky which I indicated was insulting.
• 01:49, May 2, 2014, Calling me "Binkiesternet" when I have already told her I don't wish to be called anything but Bink, Binkster or Binksternet.
• 02:55, May 2, 2014, Telling other editors that "Bink is a bungler."
• 03:46, May 2, 2014: An offer, of sorts, to leave off calling me a "bungler" if I allow her to call me Binky or Binkie.
• 03:51, May 2, 2014: Stating the intent to put a "binky" in my mouth. (Binky as pacifier.)
• 04:47, May 2, 2014: Clarifying to Srich32977 that she meant I should use a pacifier.
• 06:49, May 2, 2014: referencing Binky as "the B-word" in reply to me.
• 01:26, May 13, 2014: "As usual, Bink bungles..."
• 03:45, May 16, 2014: Another insulting offer, this time trading an easing of insults for me allowing her to call me Binky or Binkie. With clarification.
• 15:46, May 16, 2014: Acknowledges to administrator Adjwilley that she will "refrain from using the B-word" as recommended.
• 20:16, May 21, 2014: Commenting about my vandal reversion at an article she never edited before. This is the start of the WP:HOUNDING sequence.
• 20:48, May 21, 2014: Acknowledges that her following me was hounding, but that hounding "was justified" because I made a vandal reversion error.
• 20:22, May 22, 2014, Steeletrap reverts me at an article where she has never before participated. HOUNDING #2.
• 01:15, May 23, 2014: Follows me to an article she never edited, and comments negatively about me on the talk page—"Binksternet rushed to judgment". HOUNDING #3.
• 01:54, May 23, 2014: Steeletrap removes the bit about "the B-word" from a friend's talk page.
• 02:19, May 23, 2014: Follows me to another article she has never edited, and comments about it on my talk page. HOUNDING #4.

At User_talk:Steeletrap#Edit summary with links a specific user, Srich32977 chided Steeletrap for this edit summary targeting me by name. The thread develops into me telling Steeletrap to stop hounding me, and Steeletrap stating the intent to continue—"I am not guilty of 'hounding' by correcting unambiguous errors... I cannot promise I will not revert any more of these errors..." With this statement I must take action to stop Steeletrap from interacting with me any further, as it interferes with my enjoyment of participation at Wikipedia.

Note that WP:HOUNDING says in part: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If 'following another user around' is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.". Thank you for your attention. Binksternet (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The binky puns were inappropriate. But an IBAN would be a disproportionate response. It was meant as a joke and I (per his request) have stopped doing it for weeks when I realized he was very sensitive about his Internet nickname. At this point, punishment for jokes about his nickname would be punitive rather than constructive, since the problem is solved. I also note that Binksternet scarcely complained about these (imo, innocuous) jokes until I reverted his errors on various articles within the last couple of days. Please also note that Bink made his share of "jokes" as well (e.g., calling me incompetent here). It's best that we move on and commit to being more civil to each other (as we have been over the past few weeks), rather than whining for admin intervention on such a petty matter.

As for the hounding charge, please first note that my use of the term "my "hounding"" was sarcastic and not an admission of guilt (hence the scare quote). Please also note that the burden is on Bink to prove an allegation of misconduct.

Second, please note that following someone to a page does not in itself constitute hounding. If that were the case, Bink would be guilty of hounding me (as would Srich, Bink's ally in this ANI). Per WP:Hounding, "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy" is not hounding, and 'following' someone for this purpose is completely legitimate. Therefore, to establish that I was hounding, Binksternet needs to prove that I was not correcting errors in the articles I followed him to. He can't do this because he has, explicitly or implicitly, admitted he was in error in both cases.

Bink alleges four instances of hounding. However, I only edited three articles which he edited. (the other case of "hounding" was a talk page post deleted within two minutes.) All three edits were reversions of unambiguous errors.

His first error (which he has conceded above, so I won't bother linking to unless he withdraws his concession) involved a false vandalism charge and threats of blocks leveled against a user who added accurate information to an article.

His second error was a deletion of a reference (at the end of an article) because it wasn't "used" in the article. Per WP:Cite, "a general reference is a citation that supports content, but is not linked to any particular piece of material in the article through an inline citation."

The third error was an erroneous accusation of "disruptive editing" and threats of blocks against User:GrinSudan, for allegedly violating NPOV by characterizing Stop Islamization of America as "anti-Islam." He said the cited sources don't support this position. The problem is, they do, as he later conceded. So in both instances, Binksternet was wrong and his error led him to demean a new user, in violation of WP:Bite and WP:NPA.

The old Bohemian club stuff also involved a multitude of (again, conceded) BLP and WP:V errors, many quite egregious, by Binksternet. I agree that seeking sanctions was a bad idea there, and I was (rightfully) criticized for detracting from the main point of the post by doing so. But the consensus was that I was in the right on substance/content. And the page underwent massive changes after that (I assume Bink doesn't dispute this). So the post was not frivolous, and did in fact improve the project. Steeletrap (talk) 04:03, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap complains that the evidence is being disregarded. Let's look at the "second error". Binksternet first edited that article 15 months ago with 2 minor changes. The 3rd edit was to remove the unspecific general reference. Steeletrap came to the article for the first time to revert that particular change. Steeletrap cites WP:CITE as the justification. She contends that if the reference is generally about a topic, it can be listed in the reference section. But, "[General references] are usually found in underdeveloped articles, especially when all article content is supported by a single source." which is not the case in Christianity and homosexuality. In fact, the article is fairly well developed. By asserting that WP:Cite justifies keeping every book, article, or (as in this case) doctrinal essay as a general reference because the reference involves homosexuality and some aspect of Christianity Steeletrap is not exercising good editing judgment. (Remember, WP:BURDEN says Steeletrap must show how the reference is helpful to the topic.) Mr.X wisely came in and removed several of these general references here, so at least two editors (Bink & X) do not think Binksternet's edit was in error. (And without it being "in error", Steeletrap's justification falls short.) You can me as a third editor who thinks the removal of the essay was correct. – S. Rich (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea about that incident, but it appears to be a content dispute, not the stuff of ANI. SPECIFICO talk 16:11, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Again: Bink's error was his belief that general references should be removed because they aren't "used" in the article. That flatly violates WP:Cite.

My (overwhelming) evidence is being disregarded. Usually Wiki editors "work backwards" and cherry-pick policy to justify predetermined conclusions. But they aren't even trying to put on a show of justice and deliberation. No one is engaging or even addressing my actual arguments. No one has argued that I "hounded" bink; they have simply asserted it. My guilt has been pre-ordained. Steeletrap (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This latest scramble occurred when I posted this message about proper use of edit summaries. You objected, so I pointed out how the ES issue was just part of your interaction with Binkster. I wish you'd taken the hint. Even now, editors are hinting that your best course of action is to agree to a IBAN. Instead of arguing, take the hint from King Canute and the waves. Your evidence is not overwhelming – the tide of editor comments here is against you. – S. Rich (talk) 18:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support – Steeletrap refuses to acknowledge the disruptive pattern of interaction that she initiates. For example, I said:

Steeletrap, don't dig yourself in deeper. You posted to Binkster's talk page and linked Coldplay. But neither of you have edited that article. Rather, you were referring to edits on the Magic (Coldplay song). Only, when you sought to admonish Binkster about the message to the IP, you mis-stated what the message had on it. There was no "intimidating ... big red warning sign" as you stated here. It was the polite, level one "please don't do that" template message. To use your own word, "sadly" you are getting your facts wrong. And, IMO, you do so because of antipathy towards Binkster. I do wish you would stop. I'd rather have you available to assist in clarifying Gini index than to see you blocked. Thank you. S. Rich

Steeletrap has removed this comment, but the pattern of antipathy and harassment is definite. Another bit of evidence is her new usage of the code word "C-". Steeletrap has made various comments about competence in the past and has legitimized edits by referring to competence. The most recent variation on competence is in a discussion with Adjwilley in which she referred to C-students. – S. Rich (talk) 04:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Seems the last use of "Binky" was on May 2, about three weeks ago.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 04:24, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This ANI is silly. Steeletrap may have been too familiar and somewhat disrespectful of Bink on a couple of occasions, but she has apologized and moved on. Bink's false allegations of hounding, which as Steeletrap explained before Bink filed this carefully researched ANI, were not indeed WP:Hounding, should not have been repeated here. Steeletrap has backed off teasing Bink, and now Bink should consider whether he was unduly sensitive about her impertinence. SPECIFICO talk 04:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here: The reversions and the puns about Bink's Internet name. The latter have been apologized for repeatedly and have not recurred for some time. The reversions were not accompanied by puns, or personal attacks of any sort. And the reversions were (as even Bink conceded -- once explicitly and once implicitly, see above) justified. So what's the issue here? Steeletrap (talk) 05:10, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

What's this about me having an "internet name"? I don't think Steeletrap is giving the right impression of my real-life career nickname, which has been "Bink" since about 1995, having origins that predate the popular rise of the internet. Binksternet (talk) 06:46, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

For anyone not familiar with the background, four of the editors commenting here (Steeletrap, SPECIFICO, Srich32977, and Binksternet) were parties to the recently concluded Austrian Economics arbitration case. Of these four, Steeletrap and SPECIFICO received topic bans and the topic area (which is not part of the present dispute) was placed under discretionary sanctions. There were no interaction bans issued. I can affirm from personal observation of the dispute since before the arbitration case, that there has been long-running animus, originating from their conflicts in the Austrian economics area, between the following pairs of editors:

• Steeletrap and Binksternet
• SPECIFICO and Binksternet
• Steeletrap and Srich32977
• SPECIFICO and Srich32977

Previous attempts at reconciliation, mediation, and voluntary interaction bans have not been successful, and the arbitration case seems to have had no corrective effect on these troubled interactions. I hope this is useful background to admins trying to make sense of the situation. alanyst 05:33, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This attempt at one-sided sanctions is part of the broader battleground to which alanyst refers. Steeletrap (talk) 05:57, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap protests too much. She refers to the IPs as "new users". These folks are not part of the 21,416,611 registered WP:USERS community. (There are two views about IPs: See WP:IPHUMAN and WP:NOTAPERSON. Me, I will sometimes post a "don't disrupt" message on IP talk pages when I see a lot of edits or prior similar messages.) Next she seeks to show how right she is with regard to the particular edits. Clearly she is following Binksternet and seeking to find picky-uni things to criticize such as WP:DONTBITE. And, as I pointed out above, she inflates the accusations about biting. But Steeletrap has a legitimate easy Get Out of Jail Free card. She can simply agree to a broadly interpreted IBAN as to Binksternet and then stick to it. This would be much preferable to having one imposed and/or being blocked. And it would free Steeletrap to work on much more useful editing projects. – S. Rich (talk) 05:48, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support This is as clear a case of hounding as exists on the project. It could be used as a case study. An IBAN is the minimum response indicated. Capitalismojo (talk) 12:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support IBAN based on the ample evidence provided by Binksternet. I have been watching some of this interaction from the sidelines and my impression is that Steeletrap is doing her best to harass and harangue Binksternet for maximum annoyance.- MrX 12:31, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support, but we could consider making it two-sided? An IBAN shouldn't be seen as punishment, though it probably feels that way: it is intended as a means to lessen disruption, and it appears that the interaction between these two (regardless of fault) is simply not productive. And I say this with the greatest respect for Bink, which of course means something like "tough guy"--thus perhaps not so different from "steel trap". Drmies (talk) 13:21, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Interesting Dutch meaning! In Belgium, "bink" is akin to hayseed, rube, country bumpkin. There's a beer by that name.
  If it takes a two-way IBAN to convince people, then I'm willing to accept that fate. I'd rather have the fact acknowledged that it is Steeletrap who initiates interaction. I'd much rather let her go her own way, as is my practice. So a two-way IBAN will not change my behavior; it will change hers. Binksternet (talk) 13:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"Case study"? This community is a joke. No argument whatsoever (nor any attempt to address my evidence, which clearly establishes correction of errors -- 2/3 of each were conceded by Bink -- which is an absolute defense from hounding) is made. Just convictions and dramatic conclusory statements about how awful I am. I suppose (to paraphrase Tyrion Lannister) if I wanted justice, I came to the wrong place. Steeletrap (talk) 14:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Of course it would limit ("change" makes no sense in this context) your behavior, Bink. You've reverted the lady's edits and commented to her in the past. You would not be permitted to continue that behavior. I don't support a one-way a two-way or any other action from this complaint, but further nonsensical statements will not help you both to simmer down. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support and expand I've recently come across several people mentioned here, though not Steeltrap directly. In my evaluation, an IBAN is needed between all the involved parties listed in the "Austrian economics" arbcom case mentioned by alanyst above, because they seem to be either hounding one another or egging each other on, causing collateral damage in the broader topic areas, and repeatedly in need of outside resolution like this request. -- Netoholic @ 14:41, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support I have had interactions with Bink for many years and in my experience he goes out of his way to be friendly and easy to get along with. He is sometimes forceful when expressing his position, but never abusive. He's one of the best editors we have. BTW, I've never heard "Bink" used as a nickname for a tough guy (and I've never seen that to be his attitude). Gandydancer (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

This post is remarkably revealing: Gandy (who worked with Bink to remove properly sourced content I added on Elizabeth Warren, showing (per the Washington Post) that she had been considered a racial minority on federal affirmative action filings to the USG) goes into detail about his friendly, longstanding relationship with bink. Yet he never once addresses the merit of the charges; indeed, he appears indifferent to them. This is a remarkably candid example of how wp and interpretation of "policy" work in practice: it's about who you know, not what you know. Steeletrap (talk) 15:26, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It is unclear what edits Steeletrap is referring to WRT Elizabeth Warren. Perhaps this is one from January that she has in mind. Steeletrap seems to say that re-visiting the Gandydancer & Binksternet edits to the article weakens Gandydancer's !vote. Is another look at the series of edits worthwhile? I don't think so. – S. Rich (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• support Steeltrap could probably end this by just agreeing to unwatch Binks page if applicable and pledge to seek out new places in wp. this doesn't even require an admission of guilt, just walk away. in the absence of such sense, i would expand the sanctions as there seems to be a chance for more of this in the future perhaps with a different editor. Darkstar1st (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly oppose I don't travel much in the circles that these posters travel in, but I'm very concerned that we are moving rapidly toward a "consensus" that is being formed among a group that is almost entirely composed of people who are philosophical allies of Bink and opponents of Steeletrap.

We have as noted by a commenter above a disagreement with Bink and SRich on one side and Steeletrap on the other that went to arbitration. SRich is now concerned about the insensitivity of some jokes about Bink's name, but freely admits he considers IP users not human and perfectly fine to abuse (overstated, but I still think bringing WP:NOTAPERSON into the discussion was an inappropriate defense of using threats to address minor differences of opinion). Under the circumstances, I don't think the opinion he voices here should be given much weight.

I know less about the history of Bink and Gandy, but am aware that they are close allies on some controversial environmental articles. There is nothing wrong with this of course, but it needs to be said that this is not by any means a random group of disinterested editors who have come here to discuss Steeletrap's behavior.

If Bink doesn't like jokes about his name, Steeletrap shouldn't do it, and it sounds like s/he has stopped. Bink could be more sensitive in his interactions with newbies as well. Do either of these things rise to the level of sanctions? Doesn't seem that way to me. I hardly get through a week here without someone calling me a shill, ignorant, a liar, or (my personal favorite) a "chickenfucker". I deal with it and try not to get worked up. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose This complaint should have died a quick death for the reasons I stated above. Since that didn't happen, I'm registering my view. It's clear from the discussion that there was no hounding according to the definition of the WP policy. We have several eager votes of support from editors who have tangled with Steeletrap on various articles. None of them makes a policy-based case for supporting Bink's request. None of them relates policy to the facts. In fact, given the tendency of editors to pile on at these ANI threads, it could be read as a rebuke of Bink's posting that so few of his friends and Ms. Steele's foes showed up to flog her. This should be closed without action. There's no current problem. There was no policy violation. Only some snarky behavior all around and a hypersensitive reaction from Bink. SPECIFICO talk 04:59, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Per WP:Hounding, following another user to correct his errors is not hounding. I have established above that all of the allegations of hounding involved the correction of objective errors (which led to personal attacks on other, apparently less sensitive users); two of the three errors have been admitted by Bink. The people who want to see me sanctioned are generally friends of Bink's who have tangled with me on other occasions -- all of them fail to address my 'correction of errors' defense and all but one (Srich, the guy who basically said IPs are fine for Bink to abuse) made no arguments at all. (One even cited his friendship with Bink as the basis of the sanction, while making no mention of my conduct.) Steeletrap (talk) 05:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per User:Formerly 98. Support a final warning to all parties to leave each other alone and stop with the schoolyard tactics. The next venue they seek should be met with IBANs on all sides. — goethean 15:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support at least a warning to Steeletrap for following Binksternet around combined with unacceptable mocking ("Binky", "B-word") and a general negative tone towards Binksternet which make the claim that Steeletrap is going after Binksternet for noble intentions not very credible. Oppose warning or topic ban for Binksternet who is simply doing normal and fine editing. Steeletrap should be told to disengage from Binksternet. Iselilja (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I want to clarify that I don't oppose a warning that I'll be banned for repeating "Binkie" to Binksternet. I have for weeks now stopped doing it and apologized for it, so any additional action (other than a reiteration of a warning) would be punitive and retroactive rather than constructive. But the four allegations of hounding presented above are distinct from that. If Bink wants to ban me for calling him "binkie," fine. But his attempt to condemn policy-protected reverts (of his admittedly false allegations of vandalism and disruptive editing against other users), in which no personal language was used, solely because I called him "Binkie" weeks before I made them, is disingenuous. Steeletrap (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose original IBAN proposal, in accord with votes of User:Formerly 98, goethean, et al. The hounding charge lacks merit if focus remains on error correction; there are many editors that track other editors that they believe are mistake-prone (as they should, for the sake of article quality). Moreover, Binksternet is not without his/her own social faults in the matters I have reviewed, and exhibits behaviour which, while perhaps more below radar than Steeletrap, is nevertheless persistently either inviting/provocative vis-a-vis conflict. That said, Steele's social behaviour with particular types of Users is not as mature as her clear intellectual skill and content expertise, and indeed, more restraint could be shown with editors easily offended. (While the perceived invective here is of the mildest sort compared to some WP fora, the matter of what one perceives as insulting is very personal.) Note, B, I often shorten User names in discourse, and so would have normally referred to both of you with the first syllables of your names, without a second thought. Bottom line: After this intervention ends, both need commit to highest quality editing in each other's territories (no major edits without Talk, no reverts without reading Talk, etc.); humanly manifest grace and patience should become an aim of both, and slights should be laughed off for the childishness they reflect. (I frequently spar with a curmudgeonly Admin—short for adversarial ministrations in this case—who perpetually refers to my Talk as "moans", mdr.) So, support a final warning to both to remain off of each others Talk pages for a fixed period, thereafter to show respect and not edit one anthers Talk pages, and any other reasonable, immediate "distancing" interventions. Blocks/bans should be a last resort, and for far more egregious behaviour that this. How much time are both of these editors wasting, of their own and ours, just in this dialog alone? This is not about winning this or any argument; it is getting good articles out before the public. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I hold that the hounding charge has merit because the focus of Steeletrap is not really on error correction, it is instead a one-sided initiative by her to needle me, after her belittling name-calling episode was called to a close by admin fiat. This is the next step in her little war on me, and she has stated repeatedly that it will continue. The intent to continue is what brought me here; I thought that was decisive. As provocative as I might be in my dealings with other editors (and I would argue that point), I have not been following Steeletrap, or needling Steeletrap, or referring to her with childish insults. I have not been reverting Steeletrap, nor have been talking to her about her notional errors. I haven't even been editing articles in her area of interest. This stuff is entirely one-sided, which is why I asked for a one-way IBAN. Your suggestion of a "final warning" to be given to me as well as her is not at all founded on my actions. Binksternet (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, I like your point about "getting good articles out before the public"; that is why I posted the request for one-way IBAN. I feel that Steeletrap has focused on her battle against me to the detriment of building the encyclopedia. Me, I have not responded in kind, so I have been able to continue building the encyclopedia. Since Steeletrap's accusation about "massive" BLP violations in March, I have brought out the following new articles: Black genocide, Charles R. Blyth, Verville Fellowship, Little David Records, The Devil Made Me Buy This Dress, and Geraldine Jones (character). Letting you know for context. Binksternet (talk) 20:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Additional evidence from S. Rich (diffs are from November 2013):

1. 15:26 5/11 – SPECIFICO first refers to "Binkie"*
2. 04:01 6/11 – Steeletrap refers to Binksternet as "Binkie"*
3. 04:10 6/11 – I ask Steeletrap to consider that the name may not be appreciated
4. 04:12 6/11 – Steeletrap responds saying "if anyone calls me Steelie they'll be banned"
5. 06:25 6/11 – I comment on the not-so-innocent nature of the usage
6. 14:33 6/11 – Specifico speaks up (again) and says my mentioning that he had used the same nickname earlier was PA and a violation of the Austrian economics sanctions

*Note: Steeletrap and Specifico are now topic-banned from this article.

It is clear that the insulting referral to a pacifier through a distortion of the nickname was not a one-time event. The sequence was initiated by Specifico (perhaps not as an insult) and picked up by Steeletrap. It should have stopped with the first gentle admonition (#3). But it was picked up again a few months later and progressed into outright insults. The insults by Steeletrap are just one of the harassing behaviors that Steeletrap has engaged in. Steeletrap should receive a bit of her own medicine and be banned from any further interaction with Binksternet. – S. Rich (talk) 16:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)17:21, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Again, you're overreacting, and failing to note that I apologized and have stopped doing this for weeks. Binksternet called me incompetent and said he wanted to pin a medal on me. Should he be banned? Steeletrap (talk)

Point of order

As I noted above, reverting errors is an absolute defense to charges of hounding. No one has made the case that I was not reverting errors in my 'following' of Bink to pages. My evidence shows that in all three instances, he was clearly in error -- and in two of the three, he (explicitly or implicitly) admits as much. I submit that Bink's original post, and the "votes" (particularly those citing their friendship with bink), should be dismissed because they don't address the issue of whether he was in error. (They are just conclusory statements denouncing me.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:09, 23 May 2014 (UTC) The one error he didn't admit to is also unambiguous: Bink removed a general reference because it wasn't "used" in the article. But general references don't have to be (and typically aren't) used in the body of articles, per WP:Cite. (That his edit could be made on another basis other than his stated rationale is entirely irrelevant. If I revert an edit on the basis that "I don't like Srich," that would be an error on my part even if it could be defended on hypothetical other grounds.) Steeletrap (talk) 17:38, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap is mistaken about the "absolute defense". WP:HOUND refers to fixing unambiguous errors. As demonstrated above, there was not such error in example two, let alone an unambiguous error. Also, HOUND says:

The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason. If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions.

Does Steeletrap have an "overriding reason" to follow Binksternet about? Sorry, no. The other diffs (unrelated to "error correction"} show this is not the case. – S. Rich (talk) 17:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Steeletrap is correct that in at least one of the cases (the IP template) Binksternet had made an error, but the approach by Steeletrap seemed in my opinion to be out of proportion with the magnitude of Bink's error. (A reversion of the template with a note in the edit summary would have been sufficient. Confronting Binksternet, and then canvassing for an explicit apology to an IP that has 5 edits over a period of 5 months is overkill.) I haven't personally investigated the other two examples. ~Adjwilley (talk) 19:29, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Because correction of errors is a defense to hounding, everyone accusing me of hounding must first determine whether I was correcting errors of Bink. I do not think I was "disproportionate" in asking him to apologize for threatening to block a user and calling them a vandal for adding accurate material to an article. But this (and the use of the B-word) is a separate issue from hounding. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Correcting errors is not an absolute defense. The style of interaction is confrontational. You have been insulting me, belittling me, and you have blown small errors out of proportion. This combination is textbook hounding. Binksternet (talk) 22:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

So let me get this straight. Are you saying 1) my edits (correcting your errors) were justified, but that I should be banned because I 'insulted and belittled you' in the process? Or do you think 2) my edits were unjustified, and I should have just done nothing when I saw, e.g., your threat to block someone for vandalism who added accurate information to an article. Steeletrap (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you standing up for editorial integrity? Binksternet removed unsourced biographical information from a BLP. "Accuracy of the information" does not justify adding it when it is unsourced. – S. Rich (talk) 01:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content, in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia." A new user's addition of factually accurate, uncontroversial information is not vandalism, even if s/he (as a new editor) does not comply with WP sourcing policies. Bink himself has admitted his error (as did admin ajdwilley above), and attributed it to a hasty reading of the article. Your need to distort these issues speaks to the weakness of your case. Steeletrap (talk) 01:46, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

"The style of interaction is confrontational. You have been insulting me, belittling me, and you have blown small errors out of proportion." But realistically Bink (and I mean no offense), you are often guilty of similar behaviors.

Here you go after an IP user who simply disagrees with you on the genre of some songs, because s/he "did not discuss the change in advance on the talk page or provide sourcing for the change". Seriously? Sourcing for the genre of a song? There is no discussion on the talk page or sourcing for the original genre assignment, why is this a burden that this other editor must meet? Its fine to revert it if you disagree, but putting a message on the users Talk page threatening them with a block and telling them that "changing the genre to meet their own preferences is unacceptable" seems a little over the top.

Here another editor is threatened with being blocked. Their offence? Adding a date of recording for an album without citing a source. Maybe I've misunderstood something, but the box seems to contain other information that has no sourcing information, and in any case, does something like this have to rise to a confrontation?

Maybe we should all just accept the idea that Wikipedia can be a rough and tumble place and try to be less sensitive. Lets focus on building an encyclopedia.Formerly 98 (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

all valid points, still it appears this issue follows the editor to completely separate articles instead of a one-time dust up. Darkstar1st (talk) 16:41, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Sort of. It looks like it has happened a few times, with some ambiguity on whether it was a protected exception. I think the larger point is that Bink can be pretty aggressive himself, but gets upset when he finds himself on the receiving end of similar treatment. If he was a gentle flower who was consistently polite and deferential to the opinions of others, it would be a different story. But he pretty consistently threatens people who disagree with him on even minor points with blocking, and routinely characterizes their edits as "disruptive". Then comes here and demands protection from another editor who says a few catty things that s/he shouldn't have, because its "disrupting his enjoyment". I just don't see it. Formerly 98 ([[User talk:Formerly 98|talk] 17:42, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

ok, maybe i misunderstood the difs, it appeared the issue migrated to unrelated articles specifically following the editor, not the topic. Darkstar1st (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

"Steeletrap apologizes and again accept responsibility for calling Binksternet "Binkie" despite him telling her not to do. She also apologizes for calling him a bungler. She recognizes that Binksternet considers variations on his nickname to be offensive and insulting. Steeletrap is warned to continue her good behavior of the past week, and never again make any puns about Binksternet's nickname. Should any of this behavior recur, she will voluntarily cease interacting with Binksternet, or be subject to sanctions."

Comment I think that is a proportionate and reasonable response to the jokes I made about Bink's name earlier this month. And it provides a framework for Binksternet to hold me accountable if I use a variation of his nickname again.

Note that this does not equate to an admission of hounding. Quite the opposite: No uses of Binkie (or any personal remarks whatsoever) were made in any of the alleged counts of HOUNDING above. All of those edits related to reversions of Bink's errors, which led him to falsely accuse other new users of vandalism and disruptive editing, and threaten them with bans. (Incredibly, he has admitted that he was in error, but still apparently believes I shouldn't have reverted his false allegations.) As some editors are seeing, he's obscuring two very different set of allegations: one true and relatively trivial (my use of "Binkie") and one false and serious (The HOUNDING). Steeletrap (talk) 18:19, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. The only interest Steeletrap has in Binksternet's editing style is based on malice. Steeletrap has not moved on from the Austrian Economics dispute which left her with a topic ban and me with no restrictions. All of the supposed corrections (and there was only one, my confusion of Marilyn Manson and Marilyn Monroe) stem from a wish to harm me rather than a wish to help the encyclopedia. Just as in the March appeal to BLPN, Steeletrap is demonstrating her spite for me. There is no good that can from further interaction of her with me. She should be IBANNED. Binksternet (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Please note that this "confusion" led Binksternet to threaten a new user with blocks and accuse them of vandalism. Apparently I was wrong to have stepped in. Binksternet also accused another (also new) editor of "disruptive editing" and threatened them with a block for using "anti-Islamic" to describe a group, a description he said didn't appear in the sources. When confronted, Bink noted that "Anti-Islamic" is used repeatedly in the sources, which I reasonably took to be an implicit admission of error. Steeletrap (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:Can you address the "bungler" remarks and the remarks about competence? And can you address the edit in which you exaggerated the level of warning that Binkster had placed on an IP talk page? And can you address the fact that you used the Binkie nickname a few months ago? My suggestion is to broaden the extent of your apology and acceptance of responsibility to all such interactions and improper personal remarks. And you should recognize that uncivil remarks are (or can be) but one component of hounding. – S. Rich (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I have added bungler to the apology. The competence stuff is months old, and has not been raised here. Since you mention it, though, the reason I followed Bink is I think he's prone to making snap judgments and false allegations (read: personal attacks) against other users, particularly noobs. If he stopped making mistakes so frequently, or stopped being highly critical of others due to his mistaken understanding of their edits, I would stop following him.

What "exaggeration" are you referring to? The talk page post when I said that one of Bink's (many) erroneous "warnings" threatened a block for no reason, when it merely called out another user for no reason? Sure, I apologize. But I think it's stupid to put that in there, since I self-reverted that error literally within 2 minutes, before anyone else responded to or even noticed the post. Steeletrap (talk) 18:55, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't give us half-truths. Your reverting was not because you made a mistake. Your edit summary said "remove post. Sadly, this isn't likely to make any difference." – S. Rich (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

And the competence issue lurks. Three weeks ago (not "months ago") Binkster referred to it in the List of Bohemian Club members talk page and you mentioned it here in your edit summary when referring to another editor. That other editor had cut & pasted your remarks from the Bohemian Club talk page in which you had said "I'm NOT going to use the B-word or C-word," – S. Rich (talk) 19:47, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Support with the addition that Bink should take responsibility for bullying newcomers and refrain from WP:BITE. I don't see any evidence that "the only interest Steeltrap has in Blinksternet's editing style is malice", and I think this statement shows that Bink is not yet taking responsibility for his own behavior. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:50, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I endorse your proposed addition. Obviously, threatening to block noobs who add unsourced (but accurate) song genres is childish and mean-spirited. And Bink is also error-prone, so many of these snap-judgments and threats actually end up being baseless and therefore personal attacks. But while I encourage other readers to vote on your proposed addition, I won't add it to the proposal, because Bink has more friends than me on Wikipedia and they aren't likely to go along with anything that criticizes him. The ANI process is 10% or so about policy and 90% or so about friendship and grudges. Steeletrap (talk) 19:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

News flash, Binksternet has been blocked for a week for EW. (That was smart of him!) So he won't have much to say in the next few days here. But I think the issues are pretty well laid out. Editors have chimed in with support and opposition to an IBAN. (Our closing administrator can decide if there is consensus in that regard.) But if a sincere apology can be worked out, along with a warning, I think this thread will close. I say "sincere" because I'd expect the apology to cover all of the uncivil remarks we've seen over the months. It should/might say "I apologize any and all uncivil remarks made in the past, including but not limited to improper nicknames and references to competence or bungling. Without admitting 'hounding' or 'harassment', I shall refrain from following Binksternet's edits on articles where I have not edited before. If, by chance, I come across Binksternet edits in any articles which are clearly and egregiously and ambiguously wrong, I will wait 24 hours before reverting or consult with another editor for validation of my evaluation of the error before reverting the error." – S. Rich (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't feel obliged to apologize for anything other than the (extremely mild) b-word and "bungler" stuff. My apology was genuine. But putting it in this over-the-top format was out of self-interest. Bink is a disruptive editor -- as his most recent block and long track record of blocks indicates -- and this justifies following him and reverting his errors and harassment of other users. I see no reason for imposing constraints on myself. Moreover, I view your behavior on this thread to be tendentious and motivated out of malice against me, so I'm not inclined to listen to you. I made this proposal out of self interest: because I wanted to save my hide and new that the pro-bink crowd would want some sort of concession.Steeletrap (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Srich, that's just nonsense. The controlling tone of your language, aside from serving no purpose, gives the appearance that you are trying to humiliate Ms. Steeletrap -- an editor with whom, accoding to Alanyst above, you've had a history of dysfunctional interactions. Taking it one step further, this entire silly thread has the surreal aspect of a Kabuki harassment of Steeletrap. Bink's an experienced editor, so whatever his complaint against Steeletrap's rude behavior, she was not hounding him. That had already been explained to him before he filed this ANI. Hmmm. What's up with that? I'm not suggesting a boomerang against Bink for harassment, but this whole dumb mess should be closed right now before another electron is diverted from the important goal of North American energy independence. All the initial "votes" from involved editors who piled on against Steeletrap occurred before Bink's block. I hope some Admin steps up to the plate and closes this so we can move on. SPECIFICO talk 20:51, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

• Update: OP blocked: The complaint for which he was blocked cited harassment and edit warring. I mention this because it is supports my claim that Binksternet is a problematic editor who routinely violates policy and harasses other users. Contrary to what his friends and my enemies have indicated here, his edits can be tracked for good-faith reasons (i.e. improving the encyclopedia). That's all I did in the four allegations of "hounding", all of which involved correction of unambiguous errors (which led him to harass other users) and none of which involved PAs. (The "binkie" jokes occurred weeks earlier.) Steeletrap (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Stale news update: Binksternet has been unblocket. Perhaps it's time to resolve this. How about a block for the same number of hours that Binksternet suffered? – S. Rich (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Srich32977: Its hard for me to see what purpose would be served by "a block for the same number of hours that Binksternet suffered". Certainly not protecting the encyclopedia, or for that matter, offering any potential benefit to Bink. It doesn't serve any purpose other than a smackdown/vindiction. Though I hesitate to say this, it suggests that there are goals here other than correcting a problem. I suggest some emotional distance.

@Steeletrap: - Apologize sincerely and watch your step going forward. There are plenty of bad/aggressive edits on Wikipedia, and you don't have to be the world's policeman. Somebody else will deal with the more egregious examples, and even if they don't, the world will go on. Bink: take a powder and stop threatening and harrassing people over non-earth-shaking issues like whether what genre a 1970's Kinks song belongs to. It really doesn't matter in the greater scheme of things, and all you are doing is making the world a less pleasant place, which is certainly not the goal of anyone who takes pride as a professional in the entertainment industry.Formerly 98 (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

To be clear, Bink's unblock has nothing to do with the merits of the original allegation of wrongdoing (for which he was appropriately blocked). It came in response to his (voluntary) acceptance of editing restrictions in response to his misconduct. I am happy he has accepted such editing restrictions and hope he chooses to extend them to other domains.

I apologize again for the language I used and the disrespect it reflected toward Bink. Steeletrap (talk) 19:26, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Just read Srich's "proposal." His proposals have shifted throughout the thread. Clearly, his goal is not to determine a reasonable, policy-rooted solution to this issue. Rather, he wants to punish me to the maximum extent possible. (He first supported an IBAN, then after Bink was banned supported only a warning, and now (having falsely perceived that Bink's unblock has allowed this ANI to regain momentum) This animus should be noted in future interactions between us. Steeletrap (talk) 19:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm may be stepping over the line here @Steeletrap:, but I think "I apologize again for the language I used and the disrespect it reflected toward Bink." would have been a good place to stop. Its time to convince us that you are going to do whatever is necessary so that we won't be back here mediating another conflict next week. Other than not using the B-word anymore, what's your plan going forward? Formerly 98 (talk) 19:47, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I am not willing to commit to not reverting Binksternet. Sorry. You yourself concede that he harasses other users. Should I really do nothing about that?

That said, I'm sincerely open to any suggestions you might have as to my future conduct (apart from obviously refraining from the puns about his name).— Preceding unsigned comment added by Steeletrap (talk • contribs)

This is getting too goofy. If either of them harasses the other in the future, the community will sanction them. Somebody zip this thing. SPECIFICO talk 20:49, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Steeletrap:"Shifting proposals" is not quite accurate. I have suggested various possibilities in an effort to resolve this. They serve as possibilities for administrators to consider and perhaps implement. Some administrators may be willing to impose an IBAN, some may be willing to simply warn you. And others may simply say the whole thing should dropped, but I think that is unlikely. It is not my decision. You can figure out for yourself what proposal (mine or someone else's) is most acceptable to all involved. – S. Rich (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm reasonably optimistic that there won't be an IBAN. Another admin, AdjWilley, was going to end this thread without an IBan. He decided not to because of an argument we had on his wall. But his view on the merits of the issue was anti-Iban. Steeletrap (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there is a significant range of possibilities between the extremes of a interaction ban / promising to never revert and simply promising not to use the B-word in the future. If you have some suggestions on what would be a reasonable compromise, lets hear them. If not, maybe a two way interaction ban is the next best choice. What we'd all like to see is either a more productive interaction, or failing that, less interaction. Formerly 98 (talk) 21:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

OK here is another (big) concession: 1) I voluntarily agree not to edit Bink's talk page, except with official ANI announcements. 2) With the exception of postings on noticeboards, I will not make any "meta" statements about Binksternet as an editor.(E.G. I can say: "Binksternet is mistaken [here]" but not "Binksternet is a mistake prone editor." This should not be taken as an admission of wrongdoing (wrt the "Hounding" charges) but gestures of good-will to Binksternet.

I also want to see you (80) push for Binksternet to be warned for harassment of other users, a position you say you support. He should also pledge to stop this behavior. If he improves his behavior, my obligation to interact with him will dissipate. Steeletrap (talk) 23:40, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Let me add: My acceptance of the above terms of agreement is contingent upon Bink accepting the same arrangement. (I.E. no posts on my talk page exempting ANI notices (meaning: no templates) and no meta-statements about me as an editor.) Fair is fair. Steeletrap (talk) 00:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan to me. @Binksternet: would that be an acceptable arrangement to you? It would be make a very positive impression on everybody if you guys could solve this, or at least give this a solid try for while. Can we all de-escalate here? Formerly 98 (talk) 01:43, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, at Steeletrap's request on my talk page I have independently analyzed the matter. See User talk:Alanyst#Question re hounding. I concluded that Steeletrap's behavior met all five necessary elements of wikihounding and, depending on whether correcting unambiguous error is exempted unconditionally, either two of the four of the diffs labeled "HOUNDING" in Binksternet's complaint above qualify as wikihounding, or else all four do. I also found that the magnitude of the wikihounding was at most minor, and arguably borderline.

Nevertheless, I feel that the proper remedy is a two-way interaction ban. Not because Steeletrap or Binksternet deserve it in any punitive sense (we don't do that) but because the apparent lack of any goodwill between them indicates disruption will likely arise from any further interactions, even if restricted as per Steeletrap's proposal here. That said, if Binksternet accepts Steeletrap's proposed arrangement above, I regard it as better than nothing and would not oppose it. alanyst 14:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this interpretation. He construes a talk page post gently advising Bink not to harass noobs in the precise manner identified by uninvoled user Formerly 98 (a post I deleted in two minutes), as "hounding." He also claims that my reversion of Bink's deletion of a general reference because it was not mentioned in the article (a direct violation of WP:Cite, which says general references are generally not to be used in articles) is "hounding." I believe alanyst is biased against me -- indeed, we have clashed for months. Steeletrap (talk) 15:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Steeletrap's proposal is worth considering, though it pulls a punch with regard to whether belittling nicknames are actually offensive and insulting, or whether that's just my opinion. It also ignores the hounding behavior. I would accept the proposal in the following form:

Steeletrap apologizes and accepts responsibility for calling Binksternet "Binkie" despite him telling her not to do. She also apologizes for calling him a bungler. She recognizes that belittling variations on his nickname are offensive and insulting. Steeletrap will never again make any puns about Binksternet's nickname, or refer to the "B-word" when discussing him. Steeletrap also promises to stop following Binksternet's edits. Should any of this behavior recur, she will be subject to sanctions.

I propose this version because it covers both the insults and the hounding, which everyone here should note has been completely one-sided, aimed from Steeletrap to me, and not returned in any fashion by me. Binksternet (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I can't accept this version because you take no responsibility for your harassment of other users (see the discussion from involved user 89). You were recently blocked in response to a post accusing you of harassment. (You accepted editing restrictions and were reinstated.) This makes it look like my conduct was motivated out of pure malice. What do you think of my second proposal? Steeletrap (talk) 17:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, it is just your opinion that the b-word and even bungler are insulting. (What do you think it is? A law of nature?) It may be a sociological or psychological fact of human beings or Americans or Wikipedia editors that they uniformly find that sort of language insulting, but I doubt it. Certainly, I should have respected your opinion on the matter, and I apologize for that. But let's try to avoid hyperbole Steeletrap (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Your second proposal was the following:

1) I voluntarily agree not to edit Bink's talk page, except with official ANI announcements. 2) With the exception of postings on noticeboards, I will not make any "meta" statements about Binksternet as an editor.(E.G. I can say: "Binksternet is mistaken [here]" but not "Binksternet is a mistake prone editor."

None of that is necessary if you stop insulting me, and stop following my edits. I don't mind if you post reasonable critical-but-constructive comments on my talk page. The part about "meta" statements is redundant if you agree to stop insulting me.

I certainly take responsibility for my edits, so I don't know what you are trying to portray with your assertion that I "take no responsibility for [my] harassment of other users". It's true that I did not follow your prescriptive advice to apologize to the IP user who said Marilyn Manson was a friend of Doug Stanhope (an IP user who will likely never see an apology), but I felt it was part of your hounding activity, and thus was not given in good faith. If somebody does not take responsibility for their edits then they have no business being here. Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Skookum1 edit-warring over nominations for speedy deletion

AFAIK, speedy deletions may be challenged by removing the tag. At least, that's what the tag itself says. User Skookum1 has nominated a number of dab pages for deletion as he has judged one of links to be the primary topic, per TWODABS, but according to what several admins have told him in recent disputes, TWODABS applies to clear primacy, not to the ethnolinguistic articles he's nominating to move. Regardless, AFAIK if someone challenges a speedy-deletion request, you need to make a regular move or deletion request; you don't start edit-warring over the request.

Warning here: [12] (I meant to warn him when he started edit-warring, but put it on the wrong page: [13])

Because I erred in posting the warning, so he did not see it before continuing the edit war, I asked him to revert himself rather than me reverting him. He did not do so.[14] The articles where he has edit-warred to restore a speedy tag are Makaa, Subiya, Sukuma, Northern Ndebele, and Yeyi. I'm notifying him of this posting now. — kwami (talk) 00:21, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

No, CSDs are challenged by: A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should instead click on the Contest this speedy deletion button which appears inside of the speedy deletion tag. This button links to the discussion page with a pre-formatted area for the creator to explain why the page should not be deleted. (per WP:CSD). (In other words, you don't just remove the CSD tag, you use the article page to discuss the issue.) NE Ent 01:28, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Check your facts, Ent. BMK (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've removed the tags, so the sea-lawyering is moot at this point. --Calton | Talk 02:36, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

More specifically (and perhaps helpfully): that's very true, Ent, but the key word in that sentence is creator. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Not all DB notices have a "Contest this speedy deletion" button, including Template:Db-move used here. HelenOnline 11:15, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

@Kwami:: here's a simple home truth. If any editor in good standing removes a CSD tag, that is not "edit-warring". The edit warring starts if, and only if, someone re-inserts the tag. A speedy contested by any editor in good standing, should be taken to AFD. Speedy deletion exists for unambiguous and flagrant policy violations, and is there primarily to expedite uncontentious deletions. If someone else disputes the deletion, someone who is not the creator, then it's a good bet the deleiton request is not uncontentious, and should be taken to AfD. I'm sick to death of hearing Skookum1's name here, but in this case I would say he's in the right per policy and precedent - this is not in any way related tot he article, which I have deliberately not reviewed. Guy (Help!) 22:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@JzG: - I think you have it backwards, Guy - Skookum1 is the editor who was re-adding the tags. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:25, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Bah, my bad. In which case: thwack Skookum vigorously with the WP:TROUT. When was the last time you came here and Skookum was not being discussed? Guy (Help!) 08:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Beg pardon? I'm on AN/I daily... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

His response here is wildly inappropriate and childish. CSD is for administrators to review, not regular editors. If an editor (or the creator) disagrees, they can post it where it belongs. Administrators who ignore the contesting should expect to be at deletion review or more. My suggestion: pick one, list it at Redirects for Discussion and use that. Better yet, list all of them in one discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

What's "childish" is Kwami warring over nearly everything going on to do with his pet theory that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics" which has stonewalled consensus to reform the badly-flawed NCL that he authored.....his removal of {{only-two-dabs}} and then, when that was re-added, adding {{twodabs}} which claims that there is no primary topic when he has not ever bothered to determine that himself is yet more hypocrisy, as is his coming here whining about "edit wars" he has provoked and furthered, all the while saying stupid/snide things like on Talk:Kavango people where he says something like "if you want to know PRIMARYTOPIC you have to ask Skookum" (he never gets my username right). As for being the creator of a page, that's debatable when he took redirects already extant and turned them into twodab pages without any discussion whatsoever.

The posturing and finger-pointing as if he was Mr Goody Two Shoes and his claims on primarytopic/parallel topics he hasn't once sought to prove, or cite that theory/claim of his (which is OR and dozens of RMs have proven him wrong time and again) are really boring but very persistent and apparently cover thousands of titles created by other people he summarily moved without any discussion (other than the very small one he "led" at WP:NCL in order to get his preference inserted into that guideline; prior to that he was using MOS in edit comments to mandate such moves....even though MOS says nothing at all to support those moves. And yes, I tire of hearing my name here too, the last two ANIs launched by Kwami were specious and groundless, blaming me e.g. for 3RRs he had himself committed when I had only 2RRs.....the one from Maunus contained allegations by him, and Uyvsdi, which were somewhere between complete fabrications and gross distortions about my activities and motives......I tried bulk RMs to deal with the hundreds of simple redirects he'd created in advancing his theory/agenda/preferences, those got shot down on procedural grounds "because nobody likes bulk RMs", then after filing and succeeding in filing individual RMs, despite his attempts to shut them down, have been vilified for a "frenzy of moves" and even had it pretended (in Maunus' ANI) that they were "undiscussed" and "disruptive". What was disruptive was the thousands of undiscussed moves and TWODABS creations that Kwami did, and further disruptive, his combative behaviour in RMs and guideline discussions since....and now with this little "game of templates".

As for the "creator" of TWODAB titles, he didn't create them....he created them as redirects to the primary topic (the people articles) and only after the db-moves were removed did he convert them to TWODABS. And in the case of many he moved in North America, e.g. Dakelh->Carrier people (since reverted to the original titles by RM/consensus) he was not the author of the title or the article; Gitxsan, Tsimshian and scores more have been reverted by RMs where the closer acknowledge TITLE and PRIMARYTOPIC etc, all of which were opposed by Kwami demanding "centralized discussion". He stonewalled both discussions at WP:NCL and WP:NCET where efforts to reform those guidelines so as to be coherent with policy and other guidelines were met by illogic and misrepresentations and edit comments of various useless kinds; very consistently misportraying what someone else had done or said..... consensus underlying TITLE etc and also as shown in the mass of RMs since approved indicate that consensus exists to move simple redirects back to the standalone title; the only person making this controversial is Kwami, who doesn't want to see his empire of "FOO people" titles reverted back to where they belong, and indeed in 98% of cases, what their original titles were for 7-9 years until he came along pushing his "languages are as or more important" agenda. Applying templates for moves consistent with policy should not be controversial; only Kwami's disputatiousess and edit warring makes them so.

The only thing controversial about those db-moves is that Kwami reverted them; otherwise TITLE is controversial, PRIMARYTOPIC is controversial, NCDAB is controversial......either all them need changing, or Kwami needs to back off and acknowledge that he was in error about them and not oppose them any further. Either that or start proving his primary/parallel topic claims and grow up.

As for childish comments, how many diffs of Kwami's do you want me to spend time amassing? What I said on my talkpage is the result of irritation and ongoing provocation and patronizing behaviour going back...two or three years. Here, another 1/2 of my time consumed by kwami's need to run to authority to stop someone from doing waht he doesn't want to happen, but has no rational way of defending.Skookum1 (talk) 10:06, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

re " Skookum1 has nominated a number of dab pages for deletion as he has judged one of links to be the primary topic" he neglects to mention that those TWODABS were originally redirects to the people titles and were only that until he created TWODABS in the wake of the db-move notice. Such half-information is typical of him; those TWODABS were controversial to create...and are based in his fallacious and unproven claim that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics". Something disproven over and over again, most recently in the view stats I came up with for Talk:Kavango people and his games on the Kavango; which like all the rest he's whining about HE directed to the people articles as apparent PRIMARYTOPIC. I've challenged him a good two dozen times to prove that "languages and peoples are equally primary topics" or come up with a textbook that says that; it's fiction, original research, and his own preference, and nothing more....Skookum1 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It is regrettable that two otherwise highly respected and productive editors such as Skookum and Kwami are still at each other's throats in this way. Weren't we close to telling them to both leave these issues alone the other day, if necessary through a temporary topic ban? I wonder what happened to that thread. In any case, Skookum, here's my advice:

1. You seem to be arguing from a view that there should be some kind of self-evident default assumption that the ethnic group articles in this set are the primary topic compared to the homonymous language articles. This may seem self-evident to you, but it sure doesn't feel self-evident to me, and presumably not to others either. If you want to apply a naming policy based on the premise that these articles are the primary topic, the burden of evidence will be on you to show that that's what they are.
2. You attempted to enforce your view of policy by requesting "uncontroversial" admin action, by means of the db- templates. If I'm not mistaken, you have done similar things in the past. You should have known that these moves/deletions would not be uncontroversial. You may of course well feel that they should be uncontroversial, that the truth is self-evidently on your side and that the dispute is purely due to the individual stubbornness of a single opponent. You might even be right with that. But even then, this is how the wiki works, you need to deal with your fellow editors as they are, and as long as you know Kwami is going to uphold that opposing view, you just gotta deal with it and find ways of solving the dispute. Pretending the dispute doesn't exist won't help you.
3. When your db-tags didn't work, it appears you chose to uphold your view by adding the {{Only-two-dabs}} tag to the dab pages, a template that asserts as a fact that one of the entries is the primary topic. I don't find this to be a constructive move either. The template is there to tag cases where a dab page is temporarily in a problematic state but there is a chance of turning it into something more useful by finding more than those two entries, and where deletion is hinted at as a solution only for the case that those additional entries are not found. I take it that nobody has been proposing that the pages in this set are ever likely to actually have additional entries beyond the ethnic and language ones. So the tag doesn't really express what you think is the case. If you still believe that the dab pages ought to be deleted in favour of a non-disambiguated primary topic page, then please just take the proper steps to make that happen right away. Not with an "uncontroversial" admin request, but with the proper process – either a WP:MFD deletion nomination for the dab page, or with a WP:RM nomination on the ethnic group page.
4. If you decide to do this, then I have a very strong recommendation to both you and Kwami, which I'd be prepared to enforce administratively if necessary: in any such move/delete debate, please both of you restrict yourselves to one statement each. You get to explain, in one brief statement, why you think the topic is primary; Kwami gets to explain, in one brief statement, why he thinks it's not. After that, for the love of god, please leave these things to others to sort out.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

my POV Actually, I don't much care which is the primary topic, I'd just like some consistency. Last time we had a discussion on this, we decided that, in general, neither the ethnicity nor the language could be considered the primary topic of an ethnolinguistic name, and so they should both be dab'd, with a dab page at FOO per TWODABS. Skookum wants to change that, and that's fine, but he should get consensus for the change before he starts trying to move hundreds to thousands of articles. Until he actually makes the cooperative effort to work out a new consensus, IMO it is appropriate to stick with the last consensus we worked out. What I object to most is this paranoid fantasy that "racist cabals" are out to thwart Skookum as the sole defender of TRUTH. It makes any discussion with him impossible.

my question So, @Fut.Perf.:, what should I do in the face of this? Try to enforce the consensus we have, or at least the last consensus that we had, which will inevitably mean more of the same petty bickering? Bring every edit Skookum makes in violation of that consensus to ANI? (Without notifying him, since any notification is taken as a personal attack?) Ignore it and let Skookum try to establish a new, unilateral consensus through mass page moves? Stick to the language articles, where I mostly edit, and let Skookum have free reign with the ethnicity articles? (Though of course he won't stop there.) Start hundreds to thousands of formal move requests? None of the options are attractive.

Or, to avoid personalizing new disputes, but at the risk of making you part of the "cabal", should I notify you of edits of his I judge to be inappropriate, and leave it to you to revert them if you agree? — kwami (talk) 16:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The first thing that would help would be if you could both agree to just do things by the books. (1) No bold undiscussed moves/renames, no passing off of intended moves as "uncontroversial"; (2) no reverts; (3) any and all intended move/renaming goes through regular processes such as RM; and (4) (and this in my view might be the most important thing): self-restrict the sheer amount of argument each of you may invest into any one discussion. You need to get off each other's throats, not least in order to leave some space for others to get their opinions in in peace and without being drowned in the noise. I don't see this whole affair to be likely to end in some administrative sanction against just one party. Failing this, the only way to gain some peace here is for both of you to impose some kind of (hopefully voluntary) limit on your own activities. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

No reverts: So, if Skookum starts up again, do I come to you, or to ANI? — kwami (talk) 21:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, what I'm doing right now, as an administrative measure, I am going through that latest batch of edit-warred-over pages and reverting them, per WP:PROTECT, to a pre-edit-war version. I'm too lazy right now to actually press the protect button on so many pages, but I would ask both Kwami and Skookum to please treat them as if I had – i.e., strictly no further non-consensual edits on any of them. I'm rather haphazardly reverting some of them to the initial version where they were redirects to the ethnicity article, and others to the clean dab page created by Kwami (without the "only-two-entries" tag, which is unhelpful). The only criterion I'm using to choose which version is that I'm going for the dab page if both targets are reasonably well developed articles, and for the redirect if the language article is a mere sub-stub. I hope you can both live with this for the moment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is not an isolated issue, and forcing the discussion route with Skookum1 has not helped much. Just in case anyone is not aware, I raised a CFD on May 24 in order to resolve a related issue underlying ethnic category edit warring. Skookum1 is the only editor to object to my proposal (even though from their comments it appears they did not know what I was proposing), they appear to go out of their way to misunderstand me and make stuff up about what I said or proposed (note this gem on their user page) and are now stalling the entire discussion as they have stormed off without withdrawing their objection. They think that they are not edit warring (everyone else is, but as they are right they are not). Their rants against kwami may as well be describing themselves. I am not taking it personally, as their block log shows a recent escalating pattern of disruptive behaviour. I am not sure they would agree with anyone about anything at this point. HelenOnline 09:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:CIR issue

I have been dealing with ScottKazama (talk · contribs) for apparently two years already. He is not a native English speaker yet he insists on contributing large swaths of poorly written prose to articles. I have told him multiple times that if he cannot write with better grammar he should not be editing on this project. He is also not a native Japanese speaker and he insists on contributing content that he has translated from Japanese-language reliable sources that are highly erroneous. I am not the only person who has had issues with ScottKazama's edits (see User talk:ScottKazama#Please use proper English.). I am not here as a spell checker for someone who is not a native speaker. He barely responds to any messages on his user talk page, and most certainly has not responded to the ones I have been leaving him regarding his lack of fluency. He means well. He doesn't do well.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Criminy. Sounds like someone in need of a Rider Kick... or a topic ban perhaps. At least from pages about Japanese culture, or from posting content supported by non-English sources? At least if he sticks to English sources, you don't need a bilingual editor to go in and verify that something he did was wrong. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

His grasp of English in general is poor, even when he is using (unofficially) translated material. The southeast Asian community does not teach the English language very well to its students.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 20:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't personally have a problem with picking up the slack for editors who make mistakes like that (not that I'm personally volunteering to follow this specific guy around with a broom). The big problem I see is that where it's been shown the editor can't use foreign language materials properly: picking out those errors can take a very long time, even for a language with so many bilingual English speakers as Japanese. But... yeah three of his last four edits contain mistakes that are clearly not acceptable English. I see two options: topic ban from using non-English sources as I suggested above (probably indefinite), or a mainspace ban (of, say, 6 months). I don't think blocking is a fair way to resolve this given this looks like someone editing in good faith. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:36, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

While I certainly don't dispute that there are issues with this particular editor, could we please stay away from broad-brush generalizations about "the southeast Asian community"? Such statements are neither absolutely correct nor are they relevant in any way to this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:14, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I have experience that English speakers of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore have difficulty writing English grammar on Wikipedia and in my professional life. Perhaps I should have made that clearer.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 14:32, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And I have experience with English speakers from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore who write fluently and correctly. (I further have experience with native English speakers from the U.S. and the UK who make an absolute hash of the language.) My point is that there's no need to draw the nationality or ethnicity of ScottKazma into this discussion; it is unhelpful and counterproductive to do so.

It encourages fallacious and spurious thinking along the lines of "Scott is from southeast Asia; people from southeast Asia are bad at speaking or writing English; therefore Scott's editing is problematic", instead of the useful and specific reasoning of "There are problems with Scott's (English) writing; therefore Scott's editing is problematic". See the difference? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Squirrel! While it doesn't matter if the editor in question is American, Malaysian, or Martian, that matter also doesn't matter the way the matter at hand matters. I'm for a mainspace ban, with the strong recommendation that he stick to English sources unless he knows that another editor can understand and verify any non-English sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, back to the issue at hand. Here's the ban language I'd suggest:

ScottKazma is banned from editing in articlespace for six months (or one year). This ban may be extended to indefinite if, upon its expiration, there is no evidence of improved care in English grammar (with evidence preferentially drawn from requested edits ScottKazma made, rather than solely from discussions), or if there is evidence of ongoing misuse of non-English sources in requested edits.

I'm personally not in favor of indefinite bans as a beginning measure, though I would support just going to indef if that's what other discussants preferred. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Only thing I can force myself to think of to add to that would be something about letting him revert clear-cut vandalism in article space. I'd think that WP:IAR would apply to someone reverting a vandal replacing an article with an ASCII drawing of Goatse.cx, but it doesn't hurt to have that spelled out just in case. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, this might be better:

Notwithstanding the provisions of WP:BANEX, ScottKazma is banned from editing in articlespace for six months (or one year). This ban may be extended to indefinite if, upon its expiration, there is no evidence of improved care in English grammar (with evidence preferentially drawn from requested edits ScottKazma made, rather than solely from discussions), or if there is evidence of ongoing misuse of non-English sources in requested edits. For the purposes of this ban alone, editors implementing changes openly requested by ScottKazma will not be deemed to be engaged in proxy editing. This ban does not alleviate editors that submit changes on ScottKazma's behalf of any other responsibility for making those edits.

The important points: WP:BANEX by default allows ScottKazma to edit in articlespace for the purpose of reverting obvious vandalism and BLP violations; the language of the new provision ensures it's clear that this ban does not interfere with that. Editors will be able to incorporate changes on ScottKazma's behalf, but will not be alleviated of any responsibility they would otherwise have (in other words, they're just as liable for disruption as they would be if they made the edit themselves). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think wikt:notwithstanding is the right word to use here. The way that is worded, it's saying that WP:BANEX doesn't apply to ScottKazama's ban. A better wording would be: "ScottKazama is banned from editing in article space for six months (one year), subject to provisions of except as provided in WP:BANEX". ~Alison C. (Crazytales) (talk, edits) 12:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're actually not correct (this is a tremendously common phrasing in treaties, and the citations on Wiktionary of the prepositional usage bear out that it means what I intend it to mean), but I'm not going to argue for a specific wording in something like this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the citations to which you are referring are indeed using the word in accordance with the definition, "in spite of". isaacl (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Problematic edits and edit warring by User:Bergman Gotland

Bergman Gotland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Article -stan

• First, he replaced referenced text with his pov/unsourced edit: [15]. His edit are against the two cited sources.
• Second, he ignored current sources and added a cheap unreliable link to falsify lead/intro: [16]. Also, his edit is just a copy-paste from an unreliable non-expert random link.

Article Indo-Iranian languages

Edit warring: [17], [18], [19], [20]. --111.96.7.7 (talk) 19:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

1. The edit-warring, at first glance, looks like a two-way street.
2. The replacement of "Persian" with "Indo-Iranian" is in fact supported by the second reference: from Persian -stan "country," from Indo-Iranian *stanam "place," literally "where one stands," His edit is not "against" the first source, merely unsupported by it. Also, is "About.com" considered reliable?

This also seems like a (pretty trivial) content dispute. Has there been an effort to communicate before complaining? Howunusual (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a content dispute, but I disagree with your interpretation. The third source does not say that "-stan" means "place" or "country" in *all* Indo-Iranian languages. The reference is merely to "Indo-Iranian", which does not mean that every single language in that family still uses that word. (I note that the first source is a paid blog while the second is a newspaper comment section. Neither are sterling sources.) --NellieBly (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Note: I've edited it, inadvertently messing up the edit summary. --NellieBly (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That suffix is Persian. The Indo-Iranian form is discussed in the second part of lead/intro. Changing "Persian" to "Indo-Iranian" is similar to call "English Wikipedia" as "Germanic Wikipedia"!. That suffix is pure Persian that has cognates in other Indo-European languages.

I removed that random link. It's really unnecessary. It's unreliable and the Indo-Iranian part is already in the lead section. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 03:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, the involved editor ignored everything and inserted his POV/unsourced again: [21]. It's not a content dispute. It's better to ask main contributors of that article for the help. Users: User:Altenmann, User:Florian Blaschke (has M. A. in Indo-European linguistics), and User:Zyma. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 03:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Plus, instead of inserting a bunch of similar sources or unreliable content, one expert etymology source is enough for the first part of lead section. Current cited sourced are not good enough, they are not bad, but better sources are required. When main contributors accepted previous revisions before the current edits, it means there was no content dispute. The current edits by a new user, introduced redundant and unnecessary changes. That link is not a RS stuff. Personal opinions by some non-linguistic guys. --114.160.71.150 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It also has to be remembered that some Iranian languages such as Avestan or Pashto have true cognates of -(e)stan that are however not identical in sound, and others have simply borrowed the word/suffix from Persian (if the word is present only as a suffix in a language, not as a full word, that's a tell-tale sign for borrowing).

Note how the user never actually mentions any specifics, they just take it for granted that the word is somehow Pan-Iranian. It's annoyingly amateurish to treat a large and diverse language family like Iranian as if it was a single language.

(I've noticed the same with Celtic, where people tend to equate Modern Irish/Gaelic, or sometimes Modern Welsh, with Celtic, as if there were no other Celtic language, and even sometimes cite made-up seeming forms labelled as merely "Celtic" that don't even correspond to any particular language, let alone historical stage of a language, for example in an explanation for some placename or so. That's plain irritating.) --Florian Blaschke (talk) 23:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Non-stop edit warring

The involved editor ignored this report and other edits. Still on an edit war and pointless reverts: [22], [23]. --118.111.192.204 (talk) 06:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio

Have to take a real life break, but Wadie Jwaideh has a lot of copyvio, eg from [24]. Dougweller (talk) 07:27, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Fixed it. Needs work but clearly notable academic. Dougweller (talk) 13:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Another sock of User:CensoredScribe

CensoredScribe, after blocks and a topic ban for repeated addition of unsourced/inexplicable categories and creation of numerous unencyclopedic categories, received an indefinite block and eventually a loss of talk page access. CS was later found to be socking with User talk:184.96.200.160, User:71.218.178.122, User:Cassandra Truth and User:Robopsychologist. User:Tranquility of Soul seems to be another: Adding rafts of categories to fictional characters, (Batman, especially, is a fictional engineer (see previous AN/I threads)), ToS was registered while the topic ban for CS was in the works, ToS's edits pickup during CS's blocks, etc. I'm thinking we're beyong the point of an indef block and up to a community ban here. - SummerPhD (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/CensoredScribe. Also note that Batman is not a fictional engineer, but a fictional scientist. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It would seem that Homer is a fictional engineer and Nimoy is a fictional celebrity. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm calling this one as blatantly obvious. Blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like Tranquility of Soul (talk · contribs) created numerous categories. Some of them look to fit into the "unencyclopedic categories" that SummerPhD mentions above. I am wondering whether they should be deleted per WP:DENY, nominated at WP:CFD or left as is. MarnetteD | Talk 04:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

All of them, if created after February 18 should probably be deleted per WP:G5 - aside from ~two days in mid-March each and every one of them would be 'created in violation of a block'. There may be one or two worth retaining per WP:IAR, but the vast majority are "Uhhhh...what now?" sort (For instance, "Fictional rangers" - because Power Rangers, the Lone Ranger, Aragorn, Drizzt, the Rangers from Babylon 5, and Walker Texas Ranger all have well-defined and defining shared characteristics, of course.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Given the numerous socks and tendency to add every article with any hint of a connection to every possible category, I'd suggest killing them all and letting normal editing sort them out. Incidentally, I think Ranger Smith and The Bushranger needed to be included to tie the whole list together. - SummerPhD (talk) 12:49, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I have finished tagging all the cats. I provided a link to this discussion in my edit summary so it is possible that we may get new questions. @SummerPhD: I noticed that this editor is now adding all sorts of items to navbox templates. Looks like they have the same problem as their category work as many of the items are only tangentially connect to the main subject of the navbox. This gives us another bit of editing to watch for when a new sock appears. We left Ranger Rick out of our list. We may need a new category for @The Bushranger: "category:WikiP admins with a sense of humor that made us smile" A bit wordy I know but it is accurate. Cheers to you both and thanks again for your help. MarnetteD | Talk 22:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Ranger Smith was included. Alas, he missed me! And thanks. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:22, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Request sanctions on Ihardlythinkso for violation of Interaction ban

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

---

Ihardlythinkso (talk · contribs) and I are subject to an indefinite interaction band, as per this AN thread. However he has already violated this ban at least twice before, and this edit is a clear reference to me and the {{discouraged}} template I formerly had on my user page. He has also made some nasty insinuations about my personal character, a clear violation of WP:NPA. I also find the timing of this post rather disturbing; he posted on a random thread on help desk, a part of wikipedia he doesn't normally frequent, shortly after I opened a thread there concerning a minor talk page vandalism incident with an IP editor, knowing that I would likely see his post.

The terms of WP:IBAN clearly state: "...if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to: make reference to or comment on editor Y anywhere on Wikipedia, whether directly or indirectly."

I know I have been asked to let someone else make the complaints when he violates the IBAN, however this is not realistic; if I don't stand up for myself no-one else will. This editor has already been sanctioned once for violating the IBAN; I request that these sanctions be escalated. MaxBrowne (talk) 03:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

You've been "asked" to let someone else handle it. I see nothing in the one diff you linked that could be construed to refer to you vs. one of the many other editors here. He said he knew "a case where a user left a "Wiki-break due to being discouraged" banner up while actively editing, along with derogatory comments concerning certain editors though they were unnamed." BFD - me too, and a lot of others. You are being told, by me, a non-admin: stop digging. Admins: proceed. ;) Doc talk 06:50, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For a non-admin, you make a remarkably low percentage of edits to article space, and I've seen you involving yourself in many threads on ANI. This suggests to me that you are more interested in wikidrama than encyclopedia building. You are being asked by me to butt out of this and refrain from involving yourself in future "wikidramas" where I am concerned. Thank you. MaxBrowne (talk) 07:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Nope. If there's a "wikidrama" here, and you are involved, I will not abide by your request. Another IBAN, perhaps? Doc talk 07:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't like your flippant attitude. I will regard future attempts to involve yourself in my disputes on wikipedia as harassment. MaxBrowne (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) I disagree. The diff from Ihardlythinkso was clearly meant to refer to one specific user, and gave enough hints about that user to make it clear Ihardlythinkso intended it to be understood as such at least by people who knew the circumstances. If MaxBrowne now recognizes himself as the user being referred to, I have no reason to doubt that this is what Ihardlythinkso intended (how many other editors that Ihardlythinkso used to be in conflict with and who had that template on their page are there likely to be?) Come tco this, Ihardlythinkso made this posting on a page on which MaxBrowne just happened to have edited a few hours previously in a different thread [25], a page on which Ihardlythinkso does not otherwise appear to edit frequently, and in a thread that otherwise had no connection to either of the two editors. This means the attack was both unprovoked in its content, and has the appearance of having been triggered by Ihardlythinkso following MaxBrowne's contributions. So, yes, for me, that is about as clear a case of a ban violation as they come, and given the severity of the personal attacks in it, it definitely deserves a sanction. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Could you possibly demonstrate assuming bad faith any more than you just have? (Oh yes, veto the possibility I made a genuine contribution to that thread to help that IP. Make it into something wild and in your imagination: stalking and baiting.) How is it you have a direct connection to God and truth, Future Perfect!? This not the first time that I've bogusly been accused of stalking and baiting by the OP, or by admin Bushranger, in his fanactically ridiculious arguments made to defend his ridiculous block. (How is it that IBAN breach are being used by the OP to make absurd and baseless accusations like stalking, all within policy??) Anything one writes in defense of self here is turned around 100% and used against the person, from experience. This complaint doesn't even belong on this board. (Or else, where's !vote by Happy Attack Dog? I miss him.) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Spare us the snark. Clear question, clear answer please: Which editor were you referring to? Name him, now. If you can't make a credible case it was somebody other than MB, you're blocked. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't remember. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

That's lame. Okay, blocked 72 hours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

A disappointing response from IHTS, to be sure. The block length I disagree with: it should have been less. Doc talk 07:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And I'm not surprised that I was attacked by IHTS here again without having been notified by him. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. As currently being discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention#Accusations_of_fake_retirements, there's no policy "enforcing" {{discouraged}} or {{Retired}}, and editors continuing to edit after posting such a notice are common. The third discouraged transclusion I checked, was posted over a year ago [26], and the user is actively editing Special:Contributions/Vertium (Note: As this is an example of the use of the discouraged template, and not a discussion of that editor, I'm not notifying them of this discussion). There is also not a requirement to memorize every one reads on Wikipedia, so IHTS's inability to remember which discouraged he's referring to should not be sanctionable. Could an admin with a clue ignore IHTS's ranting on their talk page (and here) and unblock them? NE Ent 10:36, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh give us a break. You can't really be so gullible to take that obvious non-denial-denial above at face value? Just 24 hours ago, Ihardlythinkso remembered that mysterious other editor distinctly enough that he could talk about details of the circumstances of that case (there were "derogatory comments concerning certain editors though they were unnamed" etc., and they "exhibited other low forms of conduct" as well). Incidentally, a sanctionable personal attack even if the individual being referred to had not been MB. He also seemed sufficiently clear about his memory to say "I know of one case", rather than, say "I somehow remember somebody..." And today, 24 hours later, all that memory is suddenly gone, and he can't bring himself even to utter the clarifying disclaimer of "... no, it was some other guy I was thinking of, not M.B."? This, indeed, is ridiculous. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that should be sanctionable here is an IBAN violation. The aspect of "a sanctionable personal attack even if the individual being referred to had not been MB" is troubling. I "know" an editor or twenty that are total pieces of garbage: is it a PA to say that about them, without naming them? No. Either he was referring to MaxBrowne in violation of the IBAN or he wasn't. The PA is totally unnecessary charge. Doc talk 11:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be clear that IHTS is referring to MaxBrowne in the diff provided, especially given his inability to name another editor in his denial(?) of an IBAN violation less than 25 hrs after his initial comment. If we are to take IHTS's sudden inability to remember at face value, we might as well take out the "indirectly" provision of IBAN as any slight attempts at obfuscation will render such comments unactionable. I find that to be unacceptable. On another note, given that IHTS was blocked twice before for such violations, the block length seems to be a reasonable escalation based on past behaviour. Whether the comment itself can be considered an attack is dependent on whether you view "...just a reflection on the personal standards of [DocBrowne]. [He] has exhibited other low forms of conduct as well..." as a PA. —Dark 16:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's not pretend that IHTS has been blocked because he could not remember what he was talking about yesterday. He was blocked for violating an interaction ban (again); the fact that FPaS wouldn't fall for his anaemic attempt to dodge responsibility for what he said is a good thing. As for the length of the block, given IHTS's previous blocks, in both the recent and distant past, I can't see how a block any shorter than this is consistent with the practice of meeting continuing disruption with escalating blocks. IHTS has dodged sanctions plenty of times in the past, it can't go on forever. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 21:18, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Seppi333 and article mathematical statistics

Seppi333 (talk · contribs)

JohnBlackburne (talk · contribs)

Some background. There has been a proposal to merge Statistics and Mathematical Statistics for a while, at Talk:Statistics#Proposed merge with Mathematical statistics. This looked like it was going nowhere, no clear consensus to merge or not to merge. To perhaps hurry it along it was nominated for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mathematical statistics, but the outcome of that was to defer to the discussion.

Seppi333 then took it on themselves to close the discussion themselves. But their close close was incorrect, not reflecting consensus but a supervote, and not one they should be doing anyway as an editor already involved in the discussion. They had already done the merge: [27], [28], [29], the last with an edit summary 'if you need a reason, see the AFD', the same AfD which had been closed due to the merge discussion taking precedence.

On seeing this I undid the close, undid the merge, [30], [31], then posted a note explaining the problems with the closure. I hoped perhaps a third party would close the discussion properly, though it was hardly urgent, the discussion having been open for months.

Seppi333 then redid the merge. Or more precisely undid my change without explanation, replied to my post claiming this time it was "not a merge related to this discussion. ... I don't need consensus to remove that", at the same time warning me of '3RR' (??), and accusing me of being in a 'tantrum'.

Can an admin look at this, both whether the close was appropriate and Seppi333's subsequent behaviour? I fear that if I did anything else myself I'd be dragged to a noticeboard anyway so better to preempt that as I don't think my edits are out of order.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 12:53, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Seppi's response (collapsed by Seppi for neatness)

" 'if you need a reason, see the AFD', the same AfD which had been closed due to the merge discussion taking precedence." You're basically suggesting that my justification for doing the merge was at the closed AfD. Now I'm going to point out that you took my quote COMPLETELY out of context. The full quote from this diff states: add copied template. if you need a reason, see the AFD. then note that none of that was even hinted at in mathematical statistics - it wasn't even accurate at the start. Should remain a rdr until its expanded with actual refs Notice how different it is when I say the content missing from mathematical statistics is located there? My statement was asserting that its inaccuracy is causing a problem (specifically, a WP:POV - both a fork as an article and a coatrack for content, as I'll explain below). You're literally selectively quoting so as to make me look like I never had any reasoning at all. You make it look like I'm POV editing by leaving out half my edit summary. Thanks for that, very shifty. The gist of what I meant by "see the AFD. then note that none of that was even hinted at in mathematical statistics" is that the article is so off base it's almost mocking statisticians. When undoing the merge, you restored content which was obviously a WP:COATRACK (and I indicated this in the edit summary). The remaining material was half decent, but uncited and was a laughable description of the field. Specifically, the article on this massive field was missing so much content that is derived from measure-theoretic probability theory (this is basically anything relating to all statistical distributions and estimation methods - consistent estimators cover both those concepts). What the article did have, however, was a crappy, incorrect description of what we do, followed by a section with seven of the articles eight citations supporting content about four mathematicians and the revitalization or a completely distinct field (more like mode of analysis) - decision theory - instead of statistics (or statistics/mathematics/mathematical statistics, which was the section title). I fear that if I did anything else myself I'd be dragged to a noticeboard anyway so better to preempt that as I don't think my edits are out of order. — JohnBlackburne So you drag yourself to another noticeboard instead? I applaud your keen logic, though something tells me you just intended to circumvent the NPOV problem and raise a "behavioral problem" that I have here. Just for the record, I'm still going to bring the issue to the NPOV noticeboard if mathematical statistics is remade by you without adequate sourcing so as to include correct, unbiased coverage of the field. In response to the following: On seeing this I undid the close, undid the merge, [32], [33], then posted a note explaining the problems with the closure. I hoped perhaps a third party would close the discussion properly, though it was hardly urgent, the discussion having been open for months. Seppi333 then redid the merge. Or more precisely undid my change without explanation, replied to my post claiming this time it was "not a merge related to this discussion. ... I don't need consensus to remove that", at the same time warning me of '3RR' (??), and accusing me of being in a 'tantrum'. — JohnBlackburne So yes, I redid the merge and my response has once again been selectively quoted so as to make me look like a shitbag, thanks! Your quote of me:"not a merge related to this discussion. ... I don't need consensus to remove that" Actual quote by me from this diff: @JohnBlackburne: This was not a merge related to this discussion. That page was a WP:POV FORK. I don't need consensus to remove that. Feel free to remake a CORRECT page with CITATIONS to that content. Not a page about mathematical statistics with 7 citations that said "Mathematical statistics is XYZ." (no citation) "Bob, Greg, Bill, and Rod used XYZ which was the fad in the 1970s." (7 citations) If you restore this again, we're going to the NPOV noticeboard AND I'm STRICTLY holding you to WP:3RR. Just test me. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC) — this diff (Note: the wikitext of this quote, but not the appearance, was adjusted to suit the technical limitations of the talkquote template) Per the lead of WP:POV, "The principles upon which this policy is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editor consensus." If it's not already readily apparent, I am not objecting to a Mathematical statistics article existing. In fact, I think it's a VERY GOOD IDEA if it follows the WP:SUMMARY STYLE approach and exists as a daughter article of statistics. Unfortunately, the way the two pages were written (particularly how mathematical statistics was written), the page constituted a WP:POV FORK (making statistics and mathematical statistics seem like disjoint fields and also contained a WP:COATRACK bias. What little was left was wrong. So, no, I really don't need consensus to correct that abhorrent travesty of an article per the aforementioned POV issues. I appreciate how you avoided including any of the multiple statements I made about POV so as to make me look like an asshat - thanks. As to the rest of what you said, yes, you did indeed have a tantrum IMO; you didn't bother asking my why I did it first - you just reverted. I could have explained this to you on your talkpage, but instead I'm doing it here. I also warned you about WP:3RR because decent wikipedia editors don't do stupid back and forth reverts in articles. My apologies if that made you sad. Take that (deceptive misquotes included) for what you will. Best, Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 14:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Relly Komaruzaman

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

---

A very simple timeline of events here involving Relly Komaruzaman (talk · contribs):

1. Relly Komaruzaman asks Mitchazenia a question here.
2. Mitchazenia removes the question here.
3. Relly Komaruzaman reverts the removal here with the edit summary: "Undid arrogant revision by Mitchazenia (talk) as an administrator of English Wikipedia who has obligations to respond such a question like this one"
4. Mitchazenia replies to Relly Komaruzaman here.
5. Floydian, a TPS, responds to the question here
6. Relly comments on Floydian's talk page here, calling Mitchazenia a "transvestite pantywaist".
7. Relly Komaruzaman also comments on Mitchazenia's talk page directly here, using a photo of the editor from his user page with a derogatory caption and a comment repeating the "pantywaist" insult.
8. After I issued a warning, including the diffs of the offensive comments, Relly Komaruzaman replies on my talk page here, saying he "just reacted the action."

I suggest that an administrator needs to clarify with Relly Komaruzaman that such comments about another editor are personal attacks and are not allowed. Imzadi 1979 → 13:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I saw those attacks this morning and had my finger hovering over the block button, but since I saw that you had warned him, I held off to see whether he abided by the warning or not. So far, I haven't seen any more personal attacks, but it remains to be seen whether it stays that way. I would suggest that Relly remove his personal attacks and be very conscientious of making any more; the ones Imzadi lists are sufficiently beyond the pale that any repeat of them is likely to earn him an immediate, lengthy block. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 13:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I was "thanked" three times by Relly, once for the initial warning, once for the followup that supplied the diffs of the specific comments, and last for the ANI notice. Imzadi 1979 → 13:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't mind if I will be blocked or something. My contributions are not significant at all than the transvestite pantywaist. Actually according to the real justice in the real world, the sissy administrator should be punished for his crime on this comment. Sorry, our habitats are obviously differences each other. You are West people who have no respect for the elders, but I am proud of your modernization.

Relly Komaruzaman | Talk 16:40, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 30 days. You know, it's pathetic enough to attack someone on the project. However, to repeat right here on ANI in front of the project and its admins takes the cake. Due to the fact that these specific, repeated personal attacks are sexual in nature, and in fact use transgender terminology in the attacks, I have blocked for 30 days. Someone might disagree, so feel free to change it if you desire the panda ₯’ 16:51, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Requesting block for Motique

Could someone please give a short block to Motique (talk · contribs). They have been asked to stop making certain types of edit (removing Arabic transcriptions, changing date formats (e.g. here, where they leave the article with two different date formats in use)), but have repeatedly ignored other editors. They have never responded to any attempts to engage them (zero edits to user talkspace or talk pages), and unfortunately I think a block is the only way of getting their attention. Two other editors (@Sean.hoyland: and @LibStar:) raised these issues with me after my last request to Motique to stop. Number 57 13:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Please also block Mottic (talk · contribs), which appears to be an alternative account (they switched from one to the other on 10/11 August last year), just in case they return to using that instead. Number 57 15:24, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• They also appear to never use edit summaries: this is a user who has logged about 4000 edits since August 2013. It seems they have a major communication problem. I agree with Number 57 that a block is probably the only way to get their attention. G S Palmer (talk) 14:13, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I have made at least 4 attempts to request they start using edit summaries with zero response. I fully support a block. LibStar (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• Indeed, this editor has been a pain for months, such as promoting Hebrew text over Arabic text without cause or explanation. Zero^talk 14:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• Adding category "Antisemitism in Norway", like Motique did here to the bio of a former Minister of Finance whose "crime" was that she had been critical of Israel: isn´t that a WP:BLP-violation? Huldra (talk) 20:26, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • In fairness to Motique, it was reported that she had been at a protest march shouting "Death to the Jews". Number 57 22:00, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
    • In fairness to Kristin Halvorsen, please read the discussion here. Jpost withdrew the story later in the day, after it had caused a minor diplomatic row between the two countries. (I am surprised some of those libels/stupidities are still to be found on the net: if anyone believes that a politician would survive (politically) for 2 seconds in Scandinavia after shouting "Death to the Jews" at a protest march, then I have a wonderful bridge to sell you! Special price for you, my friend...) Huldra (talk) 22:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
      • My point was that it was reported in the media and the accusations are still on the newspaper's website (not sure how they withdrew the story if it's still there). But anyway, Motique may not have seen that discussion (it's not even on the Halvorsen talk page), so I think we need to AGF in this case. However, it would be nice if an admin would actually look at this section and do something. Number 57 08:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• I too have repeatedly asked this editor to use edit summaries, and have protested at their promotion of Hebrew names over Arabic names. This editor has made some 4000 edits in the nine months that they have been active, but as far as I can see has not once used an edit summary, nor responded to, or indeed made, any talk page comments. With such a consistent pattern of contentious edits and a total failure/refusal to explain these or take part in any discussion, it is impossible to collaborate in any meaningful way wiith this editor, and a sanction would appear necessary in order to draw to their attention the need to communicate with other editors and to prevent any further disruption. RolandR (talk) 23:16, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. They had a final warning yesterday and haven't edited since. I've told them that if they don't communicate they will be blocked, possibly by me. Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Number 57 13:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

as of a few hours ago, Motique is still editing without edit summaries nor coming here to respond to concerns raised. LibStar (talk) 23:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Since User:Motique has continued editing past a final warning with no response here, and still no discussion they are now blocked 24 hours per the above complaint. In my opinion this is likely to become an indef if they still show no sign of cooperation. 4000 edits with no discussion is a lot. EdJohnston (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing by User:Trackinfo

After being warned at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring that the use a self-published sourced in the biography of a living/recently deceased person was against policy [34], User:Trackinfo attempted to reinsert the deleted text by using novel interpretation of primary sources and adding a reliable source that did not support the claims made [35]. When this was reverted, Trackinfo began a massive canvassing effort [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] to bring users he/she believed would be favorable to his/her side to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, where he/she had begun a discussion regarding the source. In addition to the excessive cross-posting, Trackinfo's message was deceptive and biased, as he/she made it seem that the dispute was about the reliability of the source in general, not just on BLPs. The canvassing appears to be an attempt to votestack the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard to create a false consensus allowing him/her to use a favorite website as a reliable source regardless of policy. The canvassing has also affected the deletion discussion of an article Trackinfo created, as it has may have brought biased editors to that discussion. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 18:33, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

This user has jumped through incredible hoops just to prove a point, in order to get an article I created, deleted. It seems just in order to get the "win." My deeper concern is in the use of the source, masterstrack.com which provides extensive information I use in my editing constantly. And as I discovered, I am not the only person to use this source, because it is a reliable source (period, not nit-picking whether it is used for a BLP, it is a consistently reliable source) for its subject of specialization. What I clearly did, is I left a message with other users who have also used the same source in the same fashion I have. Uh, those would be people who are familiar with the source (and its status within its area of expertise), unlike Hirolovesswords and others who take a superficial look at the site. Would you prefer the discussion to be made in the dark underbelly of wikipedia amongst a back room few who do not know the subject? When others did look further, particularly SFB (the leader of Wikipedia:WikiProject Athletics), they saw the insanity of this whole discussion.

"This is a non-issue and I'm sure all of us could make better use of our time elsewhere.

The extent Hirolovesswords has singlehandedly fought this process, created an edit war, trolled my editing, rebutted every favorable comment made by anybody on any related page, brought incidents on me both here and on the Edit warring notice board is well beyond the argument to delete an article, where it originated. It is ridiculous. Someone needs to tell this user to back off. Trackinfo (talk) 20:07, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Inergen

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

---

IP 4.34.95.235, 4.30.231.141 and 198.180.213.201 who I suspect are the same person keep adding trademarks to the Inergen page. I told 4.30.231.141 that this should go to the talk page but the edit was reverted by 4.34.95.235. Am I, MusikAnimal and Excirial correct in reverting these additions? Mtpaley (talk) 22:58, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

• All three IP's now notified. G S Palmer (talk) 23:05, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
• For clarity, the three IP's in question are:
  • 198.180.213.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 4.30.231.141 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
  • 4.34.95.235 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

G S Palmer (talk) 23:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for reference my question was more about my conduct that the IPs listed. I am I correct in reverting these edits? -Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk · contribs), 23:20, 27 May 2014‎ (UTC)

• I would definitely say so, but I'm not an admin. It seems like a blatant case of WP:PROMOTION to me. G S Palmer (talk) 23:28, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
  • I have done some clean-up and Panda has semi-protected. -- Diannaa (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Malicious page moves

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

---

Someone please fix these and block the editor. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Moves fixed by Writ Keeper. G S Palmer (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually gonna decline to block, though. Their other edits seem fairly reasonable; I wouldn't rule out the possibility that they were just trying things out without really knowing what they were doing. They haven't repeated since your warning, after all. Any admin who is not as easily duped as I should feel free to block as usual, though; pagemoves are a little more annoying than most. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If assuming good faith is "being easily duped," Wikipedia would be a far better place if it was full of dupes. NE Ent 01:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Ent, precisely the opposite is true. Wikipedia would have less drama, less unnecessary discussions to get to a final result that was inevitable in the first place, fewer disruptive editors more interested in hearing the sound of their own typing than in building an encyclopedia, etc. etc. etc. if more admins would go with their guts, eschew unneeded process wonkery, and just block when a block is obviously required. Those editors -- not necessarily admins -- with a predilection for "assuming good faith" well past the point of reasonableness are themselves a factor in encouraging discussions to go on much longer than they need to, and, in effect, enabling the misbehavior of some disruptive editors. (A general observation, not a comment on this case, which I have not looked into.) BMK (talk) 04:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the short note. I'm babysitting for a couple friends and it's been... interesting. The first thing I was handed was a bottle of wipes... --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Zeitgeist Movement member not here to build an encyclopedia

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

---

So far, the only activity of Zeitgeist-Movement-Member (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is preaching the values of the Zeitgeist movement, denouncing how Wikipedia determines reliable sources (on the grounds of repeatedly saying the word "science") and generally making it known that he's here to spread the "Truth" about TZM, regardless of what mainstream sources say.

The first edit he made kinda had to do with article improvement (though in a way that was understandably ignorant of WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR), but since then it's just "In science 1+1=2, in politics a large amount of people can vote to claim 1+1=5" repeated ad nauseam, pretty much ignoring whatever anyone else has to say.

This obviously not only falls under WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but is a complete case of WP:NOTHERE. It's also a bit interesting that Zeitgeist-Movement-Member appeared just after another TZM editor who made mostly the same argument as ZMM was blocked, but I'm not quite hearing quacking yet. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support block: This individual is not here to write an encyclopedia. No opinion on whether a SPI might be a good idea. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:33, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
• Support indef block. I don't think the best interests of the encyclopedia are the top priority for this editor. EdJohnston (talk) 04:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have also put in a request a WP:UAA for "Violation of the username policy as a misleading and promotional username.". TheMesquito^buzz 05:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

User has been blocked by @Future Perfect at Sunrise: for WP:NOTHERE TheMesquito^buzz 06:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruptive and Attacking user

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

---

Collapse for readability of page

User Ajnem was previously blocked over a Possible legal threat on Jimbo's talk page, and gained back editing privileges after 4 attempts with administrators.[46] Ajnem has a history of disruptive edits and attacks. We will focus on an example where Ajnem blanked out and restructured an entire article creating a wide range of un-sourced POV changes, as PR WP:PROMOTION for the subject. Ajnem attacked users who challenged his edits and managed to conceal his/her editing behavior and remain unnoticed. Most of the edits remained until a few days ago. We are focusing on these four consecutive edits Please refer here for additional details. Examples, Vandalism, Falsifying sources and other wikipedia violations by Ajnem WP:VANDAL Ajnem blanked out a few sections of sourced controversial material. Some of the material already had discussion consensus on the article talk page to retain the material[47]. Ajnem failed to mention his removal anywhere (neither the edit summery nor the talk page), which is a form of Vandalism. [48] WP:CAUTIOUS, WP:UNRESPONSIVE Ajnem restructured, re-wrote and changed the entire article in this edit [49], without discussing anything on this talk page WP:CAUTIOUS, He barely explained anything in the edit summery WP:UNRESPONSIVE. He even lied in one edit that he was adding info when he was also removing a large amount. Falsifiying sources, POV, WP:PROMOTION, WP:OR. First Example Please look here for precise wording: The NYT describes the subject of the article as a Muckraking Blogger. Instead of "muckraking blogger" Ajnem falsified the source and added – the subject is "journalistic" and covers "un-reported" incidents , is a ” watchdog" and "whistle blower" - and integrated all of that as part of the NYT article with a citation to the NYT. Second Example: Ajnem added a made up PR and POV information and falsely pointed to The Daily Beast as it's source: The article previously stated "Rosenberg also writes a weekly column for Heeb Magazine called "Crimes and Misdemeanors"". Ajnem changed it to: "Rosenberg also writes for the Jewish Daily Forward, Tablet Magazine, Moment, Sh'ma Magazine, Guilt and Pleasure, Jewish World Review, Jewcy, the Minneapolis StarTribune, the Daily Beast, and a weekly column for Heeb called "Crimes and Misdemeanors".[8]" Citation [8] points to this source, which does not state that information at all. (This is also a form of WP:OR) Ajnem Falsely accused, harassed and threatened a legitimate user. WP:PERSONAL, WP:HARASS On Jul 20-26, 2012 Ajnem made consecutive edits that also blanked out an entire section of sourced material on the subject's Grandfather [50], despite the consensus on the article talk page to retain the material[51]. Ajnem failed to mention his removal anywhere (neither the edit summery nor the talk page). Which as noted is a form of Vandalism. [52] On July 26 [53] and again on July 30 [54] User 208.53.73.127 (rightfully) restored the material explaining his edit in the Edit summery and the talk page. On July 31 Ajnem Attacked and harassed the user – with a false accusation of vandalism and a threat to block.[55][56] (Only later did Ajnem finally explain his edit). Cover Up: Ajnem covered up these actions by: 1- Mixing up sourced and un-sourced material followed the citation. 2- In many edits Ajnem combined both legitimate and illegitimate editing, both adding and removing of material. 3- Misleading edit summaries. 4- Diverting the discussion/argument back and forth away from the edit summery into two separate sections in the talk page. 5- Including user 208.53.73.127 in a list with other users that were creating wrongful edits 6- Falsely accusing and threatening the users who challenged the edits. Target's certain groups of people for defamatory edits But this article is just one example. In this case Ajnem was disrupting the article to remove criticism from the subject who is blogger that dedicates his life to defame religious Jews. Ajnem has a tendency of targeting religious Jews by putting defamatory/libelous information on their BLP articles sometimes turning the article into an WP:ATTACK style. This article is another example of how user Ajnem made major changes transformed the article into a whitewashing article on the subject. [57] Again Ajnem did not mention anything on the talk page and almost nothing in the edit summery. I won’t now get into all the problems with this edit. I therefore propose that Ajnem should this time be indefinitely blocked to avoid more libelous edits on BLP articles. Especially BLP articles on religious Jews. If Ajnem will dispute the block – the administrator should seriously consider how Ajnem conceals the disruptive behavior making it very difficult for other users to detect. Caseeart (talk) 07:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Class using Wikipedia as a host and uploading copyright violations is back

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

---

See this archived AN/I thread for reference.

• Basetsana Magapa (talk · contribs) - sandbox - example image
• Thandymoroks (talk · contribs) - sandbox - example image
• Mojadi (talk · contribs) - sandbox - example image

All three accounts are back, behaving as before. They are using Wikipedia as a web host (see sandbox pages) and uploading a number of copyright violations. Their images have been repeatedly deleted as have the sandbox pages. They have refused to contact us regarding their (apparent) class. I am requesting a block of all three accounts (Mojadi already has been blocked) and deleting of all their uploads and sandbox pages. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 12:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Baseball Bugs disruptive behaviour on the Reference Desks

User:Baseball Bugs has been a disruptive and unhelpful user of the Reference Desks for a long time now. His conduct today on WP:RD/H is symptomatic of the general pattern, rather than isolated. A user asked a reasonable question about terminology relating to disability, and got a perverse answer from User:StuRat which included an arguably derogatory term. User:Viennese Waltz queried this, and Baseball Bugs responded with unhelpful sarcasm: [58] ; he then tried to draw a very fine distinction of language to head off VW's criticism of StuRat: [59]. Then, BB directly accused VW of harassment: [60] [61] [62] - including providing this accusation as a false and unhelpful response to the previous OP's complaint about the hostile response to the earlier question: [63].

He's also tried suppressing other users' RD contributions: [64]; suggested that an IP user was too ignorant to know a human being isn't a plant: [65]; uses Google Translate to answer RD/L questions [66]; and claimed Roman Catholicism is polytheistic: [67]. This is not the usage pattern of someone who is on RD to help people. Above and beyond the obvious and repeated false claim against Viennese Waltz, I'd say this verges on WP:NOTHERE. During the 'Manning naming dispute', BB was censured for ad hominem attacks on other participants ([68]). I maintained then, and I maintain now, that this behaviour is not, and never was, confined to that case, but characterises this user's entire engagement with this site and its other users. I encourage the administrators to apply an appropriate restriction on his usage. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that AlexTiefling's had an account since 2004, has a user page with about a zillion user boxes and half-a-zillion categories ("Wikipedians who like Harvey Birdman"), and proudly displays a barnstar, yet in all his time here, he's managed to make only 5,134 edits, and of those only 882 (19.06%) are to article space, while a hefty 2,783 (60.15%) are to Wikipedia space. One might profitably question what this editor's purpose is in being here - is it to build an encyclopedia? BMK (talk) 17:29, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, that's entirely an ad hominem. What does the characteristics of AlexTiefling have to do with his central point? It's a DH-1 argument.--v/r - TP 18:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that arbitrator Newyorkbrad has had an account since 2006, yet only 12% of his edits are to article space, while a hefty 45% are to Wikipedia space. One might profitably question what this Newyorkbrad's purpose is in being here - is it to build an encyclopedia? Is there something in Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines that says N% of edits must be to mainspace to remain here? BMK, I agree with TParis here. Your comment is out of line. Unless you are prepared to provide evidence that Alex is not here to build an encyclopedia, drop the accusations and back slowly away. There are many, many tasks to do for the encyclopedia. Mainspace is but one subset of the overall effort. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh, Hammersoft, please don't be disingenuous, you're much better than that. In general, admins, bureaucrats, Arbitrators and other fucntionaries spend a much larger percentage of their time outside of article space for obvious reasons that I know I don't have to explain to you. As for how AlexTiefling's stats are relevant, they reveal someone whose focus, as an ordinary rank-and-file editor, does not seem to be where it should be, on improving the encyclopedia. Thus one can legitimately speculate what his motivations are in bringing this matter to AN/I, especially when I'm not seeing anything for an admin to do here. Was it simply to stir up dramah? I dunno, but I do know that bringing AT's history to the attention of other editors here may well be beneficial in the long run, when the next complaint is filed, and the next.

If AT doesn't want to be characterized as a non-productive editor, there's a simple solution - he should edit articles or otherwise do something that improves the encyclopedia. BMK (talk) 21:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What does any of it have to do with the validity of the complaint? You're trying to undermine the credentials of the complainant, without addressing the argument itself.--v/r - TP 21:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

BMK, I thought better of you than this. The issue here is not the location of someone's contributions - I make no secret of being quite as attached to RD as BB is - but their effect. It's none of your business who I am, or why I choose to spend my time on the site as I do. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I never asked you who you are, and I don't care, so that's another red herring you've thrown into the mix, along with the "laughable" SPI on Bugs, which you just had to mention. As for what this has to do with the complaint, the character and behavior of the OP of an AN/I filing is always a legitimate issue. TParis, you know that full well. BMK (talk) 23:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Is AlexTiefling somehow guilty of some grave crime because he spends less than N% of his edits in mainspace? --Hammersoft (talk) 23:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Gee, has a "crime" been alleged? Has someone accused AT of violating policy? Must have happened when I was otherwise engaged.

  As far as I can see, all that's happened is that the relationship of the complainant to the project, as evidenced by his editing statistics (an admittedly crude instrument), has been explored in case it might tell us something about the OP's motivation in bringing a non-substantive complaint to AN/I. That's it, end of story.

  Are you planning to keep ratcheting up the rhetoric with each comment you post? Will I next stand accused of tar-and-feathering the guy, and then of keel-hauling him, and finally of lynching him? You clearly don't agree that my statement about his editing stats has relevance, fine, I disagree, or I wouldn't have posted the comment, but there's little need to keep upping the ante as you are doing. BMK (talk) 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of upping the ante, what has the content of my user page got to do with anything? Why did you bring it up? AlexTiefling (talk) 09:41, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you believe that StuRat's conduct is remotely appropriate in this circumstance. [69] is among the most offensive things I've seen on Wikipedia this week, and that's saying a great deal. Notified user appropriately. Hipocrite (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may not like the outdated term "retarded", but if you look closely, his was the only comment that actually tried to answer the user's question. And since no one would answer my question as to what the correct term is, I looked it up on the recent Supreme Court decision. The answer is "intellectually disabled". VW has long had the habit of coming to a given entry not to try to help answer the question, but merely to harass another user. He is the instigator of this latest fiasco, and he is the one that needs to be disciplined. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Don't care. People are not to be called retarded. Period, full stop. Hipocrite (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where does it say that? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously denying the complete and utter unacceptability of calling people retarded? Hipocrite (talk) 16:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting your information from? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

List of disability-related terms with negative connotations. Are you seriously denying the complete and utter unacceptability of calling people retarded? Hipocrite (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a reliable source. BMK (talk) 18:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I may have misread the comment, but other than the unfortunate/inappropriate word choice, StuRat seems to have been trying to be helpful. G S Palmer (talk) 16:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and it is certainly possible that even in the US and other individual countries, not every individual will necessarily know which terms do and do not give offense to members of groups to whom such terms are applied. The categorical statements by Hipocrite above seem to be almost attempts to unilaterally define policy and guidelines here, and this is not the appropriate place for such attempts. I can, and will now, say that it would probably be in the best interests of any reference desk volunteer to have access to one or more online databanks, such as those available at Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library, to help them in their efforts at the reference desk. I'd encourage that, actually. But I can't see any reason to denigrate StuRat for maybe using a word to which other people object for basically reasons of political correctness. John Carter (talk) 18:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even slightly endorsing StuRat's conduct. But I can't tackle everything at once. And BB's response above - about the supreme court decision - does not provide an answer to the OP's question, but to a question about intellectual disabilities in particular which only arose as a result of StuRat's unhelpful first reply. The original question remains unanswered; the fact that BB claims otherwise is further evidence of the derailing and distracting conduct which characterises this entire farrago. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:22, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

StuRat said the ones he knows call each other "brother". How is that not an answer (in fact, the only answer so far) to the OP's question? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't start this thread in order to evaluate StuRat's answer - which is one second-hand anecdote from a person he refers to by a derogatory term, and which the OP didn't find adequate - I started it to get a review of your conduct on the RDs. Please stop derailing it. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you started it in order to continue the harassment VW started against both StuRat and me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

In addition to not recognizing harassment when he sees it, the complainant here misread what was going on. The IP in question had not only leveled an attack at another user but had also vandalized the previous paragraph. VW reverted it without paying attention to what was going on. Separately, JackOfOz fixed the vandalism part, and the IP's attack stands. Oddly enough, I never see VW criticizing IP's for their behavior. I can only conclude that his attacks on guys like StuRat and me are personal and vindictive. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can be reasonably sure you're the same person each time. I just discovered you've recently been exonerated in a sockpuppet investigation; we can therefore be pretty certain that every time your name appears, and only then, it's you 'speaking'. The same isn't true of most IPs. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If you took that SPI seriously, you're not qualified to be commenting on anything here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Hell, no. It was laughable and unjustified, and I take it no more seriously than you did. It's entirely separate from this discussion; would it help if I struck my rhetorical reference to it? AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If it was "laughable and unjustified", why did you see fit to mention it here, except in an attempt to throw as much mud as possible on Bugs, hoping that some of it would stick? What the hell is your purpose here? In this thread and on Wikipedia? BMK (talk) 18:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I was simply making a rhetorical flourish to emphasise that dealing with BB's conduct is a different kettle of fish to tackling disruptive IPs. Anything else you're seeing there is in your own mind. My purpose here in this thread is to try and get the uncivil and anti-social behaviour of a fellow user addressed. My purpose here on Wikipedia is to help build an encyclopedia and provide helpful references; beyond that, it's not your concern. Are you through with the ad hominem yet? AlexTiefling (talk) 21:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so the fact that you brought the "laughable and unjustified" SPI out of nowhere, when no one else had mentioned it before: when it had nothing to do with the substance of your complaint, or, indeed, with the character or behavior of Baseball Bugs, all of that is "in my own mind"? My, I do have a very fertile imagination, don't I. I can imagine words and statements right onto the page, signed by you, even. Amazing! What a guy I am.

"Rhetorical flourish" my great Aunt Sadie. BMK (talk) 23:21, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, along with striking everything from your second paragraph, at the very least. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As you can't answer a straight question, I think I'll leave it in. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

What part of "Yes" did you not consider a straight answer? Actually, though, every complaint you've lodged in this section is bogus, so you may as well box it up now and be done with it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The part where you unilaterally extended my offer from the details of my rhetoric to the substance of my complaint, obviously. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your complaint has no substance. It's bogus. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the addition of vy to the word might as vandalism? [70] If so this is a little extreme. It's the sort of thing which could easily happen unwittingly if the person had selected the wrong place and hit a key or two which they didn't notice because they weren't looking where they selected. It should have been removed when spotting it, but it should have no bearing on whether the comment is removed. (That removal will need to stand entirely bu itself.) Nil Einne (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: [71] - BB now decides that passing notes about the character of the participants in this ANI is a good idea. AlexTiefling (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're nannies. Sorry if the truth hurts. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Regarding my use of the factually correct term "mentally retarded", see my explanation here: [72]. Part of the problem here is the euphemism treadmill. When I learned to talk, "mentally retarded" and "black" were the politically correct terms, but the next generation has new terms and has decided that any terms used by the old generation are offensive. StuRat (talk) 16:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have some real-life expertise in this. Professionals stopped using the word long (like 20 years) before it became a slur specifically because it was factually inaccurate. "Retardation" means ""lateness" or "slowing", with the implication that the individual simply needs more time to reach an average level. (This is also why "growth retardation" is being replaced by "growth deficit".) "Retardation" also implies an external cause, as opposed to a genetic/chromosomal cause.

This reminds me of the Englishman who loudly defended "dyslexia" as a better term than "learning disability" despite the fact that there are fifty different learning disabilities and dyslexia isn't even the most common one. --NellieBly (talk) 21:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out elsewhere in this thread, "mental retardation" is still used by the New York Times and others. Slowness in learning is at least part of the problem, and many can learn the basic skills needed for life, given enough time and repetition. And, to me, calling them "mentally deficient" sounds even worse. StuRat (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the term "euphemism treadmill." I was very aware of the process, but hadn't heard that phrase to describe it before. BMK (talk) 17:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome. Also note that it's an ongoing process, so whatever term we use now, such as "special", as in the Special Olympics, may soon sound as outdated and borderline offensive as the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People does now. StuRat (talk) 19:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes. My wife's office is very concerned about these matters, and I keep trying to point out that they're running the Red Queen's race. Ultimately the problem is that people don't like being characterized, but since characterization is inevitable, given human psychology, they try to control the process by controlling the words used. However the words used are just a stand-in for the characterization they object to, so over time the words start to appear demeaning again, and we're back where we started. And scientific endeavors don't help much, because their attempts at "objective" characterizations -- words such as "moron" or "idiot" -- leak out into the language at large and become pejoratives. BMK (talk) 21:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting a bit older, and I can agree that at least part of the problem regarding StuRat is that we change politically correct phrasing on a fairly regular basis. That is not my reason for commenting here, but rather in response to the rather absurd comment BB made about praying to saints, linked to above. Theologically, asking a saint for his prayers to God is no different than asking your next-door-neighbor for prayers, although there is a good chance that a saint might be more in tune with the Christian god than one's neighbor. Both are considered able to perceive the outside world, such as in Lazarus and the rich man. That particularly comment, which, honestly, is simply an assertion of so far as I can tell made after no research, here or elsewhere, and clearly stated in biased way, is very problematic, and honestly does not at all help provide the help sought at the reference desk. Granted, some degree of religious bias is expectable from people with religious opinions, but people legitimately trying to help at the help desk should be able to overcome such biases. I don't know that there is necessarily cause to request that BB have his degree of input in general at the refernce desk limited, but there is I believe sufficient grounds to ask him to read WP:COMPETENCE and make a bit clearer effort to conduct himself in accord with it.John Carter (talk) 16:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may disagree with BB that praying to saints is a form of polytheism, or barely different from it, but has been a commonly held view with protestant denominations for a long time. You have a right not to be personally insulted, but you do not have a right to expect that opinions about religions should be suppressed because you believe they are mistaken. Paul B (talk) 17:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

While you have a point regarding the fact that John Calvin decried praying to saints, and all sorts of other veneration to saints as well, it seems to me that you, in a sense, are at least coming close to saying that those groups which like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do pray to saints should not be considered reliable sources regarding their own activities, but that only independent sources, which in this case are those of people who already disagree with them, are the only ones to be considered. I don't have access to the various Wikipedia Library databanks, but the reference books I know of on the broad subject of religion do not consider praying to saints any more "polytheistic" than praying to Michael the archangel or others. There is also the comparatively recently changed definition of the words "pray" and "worship". At the very least, one would expect someone at the reference desk to at least look over a few reference sources before commenting. Having myself been doing little but going through independent reference sources here lately, I have to say that so far as I can tell none that are not specifically denominational in nature would support a statement such as he made, and, if that is true, then there is a real question whether he is really competent to respond to reference questions, which more or less by their nature seek what might be called the opinions of reference sources. And I regret your implication that saying what Catholics and Orthodox say about themselves, rather than what some Protestant sources say about them, would be "suppressing" that opinion, although I think it clear the comment itself more or less seems to be "suppressing" the rationale used to explain/defend prayer to saints as it is done by those bodies which do it. That still, to my eyes, raises questions of competence as per WP:COMPETENCE regarding that matter. John Carter (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Your response is utterly bizarre. "you, in a sense, are at least coming close to saying that those groups which like Catholicism and Orthodoxy do pray to saints should not be considered reliable sources regarding their own activities, but that only independent sources, which in this case are those of people who already disagree with them, are the only ones to be considered." How did I say any such thing, or anything remotely like like it? No-one has suggested that Catholics should not be allowed to express their views. This debate was initiated by someone what wants BB's expression of common Protestant views about Catholicism to be suppressed, an aspiration that you seemed in part at least to support. There is nothing in my comments that could even vaguely be interpreted to support the claim that Catholic views on Catholicism should not be articulated, but only those who oppose it. This discussion has wandered rather far from the initial issue raised, but it illustrates why we should have a bias in favour of free debate rather than a rush to suppress dissent or "incorrect" language. Paul B (talk) 17:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Paul, you seemed to be supporting the comment linked to by BB in the very first post to this thread, which I reproduce here. In that comment, and the thread it links to, I see nothing which might be called sympathetic to the veneration of saints or indicating the reasons for same, and, yes, that was a discussion at the reference desk. It seems you may perhaps not have seen the comment earlier, and I urge you to read it now. In any event, that discussion certainly did nothing to support "free debate", which really has no place in a discussion at the refernce desk anyway. There is a difference between free discussion of ideas, repeating biased, sometimes outdated, criticism of others base4 at times on outdated positions of those others, and free debate. The reference desk is not a location for the latter. And, yes, misusing the reference desk in that way is seriously probelmatic, and, if I may say so, as the compiler of the pages in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, probably in at least a way contrary to the purposes of the reference and wikipedia itself. If BB, as he said, found the matter "murky," then he should have done what someone at a reference desk would do, and consult reference sources. The fact that he apparently did not, but chose to voice a rather clearly prejudicial opinion anyway, is I believe something that can legitimately seen as problematic. John Carter (talk) 18:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It's not a question of censoring or suppressing dissenting opinions. BB's claim was presented as factual, but is not one which is taken seriously outside the propaganda of certain small groups. No serious scholar in the field thinks it's true. Few if any of the world's one billion Catholics think it true. It's hard to be utterly definitive about religious claims, but I think it's not going too far to describe the claim that Catholicism is polytheistic as a lie. We're not supposed to be lying to RD enquirers. Simple. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

BB also refers several times in that thread to "more modern" Protestant churches that do not pray to saints. It is not a response to the original question which was how is it decided that such and such a saint is going to be the patron saint of footballers or whatever. It is just gratuitous insertion of a personal POV, irrelevant Catholic-bashing.Smeat75 (talk) 18:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

"Retarded" may be politically incorrect, but the context it was used ("A retarded man I know...") is simply descriptive, not pejorative as "you are a..." directed at another editor would be. There's a fine line between maintaining decorum and becoming a stifling, college campus-esque free speech zone. I think attempting to declare a project-wide ban on the r-word in any form whatsoever is a bit over the line. Tarc (talk) 16:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Darn 58 days late. Is this supposed to be an adult discussion by any chance? BB made a comment which may be all too apt an editor (I fail to see it as being sarcastic), but berating him for it is sad. "Mentally retarded" was used as a heading in a NYT editorial on 3 August 2012, so I doubt it is that ancient a term at this point. [73] and in an article on 14 May 2014. If the NYT uses a term, I doubt it is intrinsically offensive. But the NYT may simply be "behind the Times" so I looked up other sources: [74] Is Voice of Russia politically correct? A few hundred others? What we are left with is a tempest in a teaspoon. Cheers. Collect (talk) 17:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The word "retarded" means "delayed". It's similar to calling someone "slow". In fact, it is a euphemism, since it avoids saying directly "stupid". Of course, like other euphemisms, it came to be used as an insult ("Cretin" comes from "Christian", referring to the view that mentally deficient people have souls, equal in the eyes of God to others). But we have to be aware of what words actually mean and how they are used before we make knee-jerk announcements about how outrageous a comment is. Euphemisms can also be insulting, because their purpose is to evade and conceal. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• What I find more problematic than the seemingly innocent usage of a potentially offensive word (I think we can all agree that StuRat had no malicious intent) is the inability of the participants to "drop it" and move on. That reference desk thread should have ended after VW commented that usage of the word is considered offensive, but instead it descended into childish bickering and wanting to get the last word in. The reference desk is not suppose to cater to your own ego, if your comment is not going to be helpful, then don't type it. I don't think it'll be amiss for me to say that people need to grow the fuck up sometimes. —Dark 21:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it would be. I do note that there does not seem to be yet any sort of discussion regarding how to deal with the complaint. If, as at least a few people agree, StuRat made an understandable mistake, and as he was never really the focus of this thread anyway, that still leaves the question of how to deal with BB. Any opinions from any of you out there what sort of action, if any, is called for in this situation? John Carter (talk) 21:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any guidelines about what sort of replies are appropriate at the reference desk? All I see is a statement that volunteers will not give medical or legal advice. Talk pages for articles, of course, are usually clearly marked "not a forum" but I see no indication that the ref desk threads should not be used for general chit chat on the subject or clearly POV remarks such as "more modern" Protestant churches do not practice "polytheistic" customs such as praying to saints.Smeat75 (talk) 21:25, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Many Episcopal/Anglican and Lutheran churches bear names of Saints. Very few of the later-established Protestant denominations use such names on churches (a couple of historical anomalies, but generally true). The distinction between praying "to" a Saint and praying that the Saint "intercede" on one's behalf is an interesting subject. Further complications are "non-historical Saints" such as St. Christopher who have been "demoted" by the Church. Not a simple topic at all. Collect (talk) 21:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you, but it's irrelevant. Saints are not deities in the ordinary sense; BB's claim was false on the face of it. I'm not here on this board to debate theology, politicised language, or whatever. The subject here is BB's conduct. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:49, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Normal standards of civil conduct apply, and it's my contention that BB has fallen far short of them. There's also a general expectation that one should not provide false answers as though they were true; BB's claim that Catholicism is polytheistic falls well into this category. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If Bugs agreed not to edit the refdesk, and instead worked on the encyclopedia, for six months, would that make you happy, Mr Tiefling? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

That implies that the problem is with the RD, in which case I am in almost as much trouble as BB. I don't want to see him banished from RD; when he gives straight answers, they're often good. I want him to refrain from his incivility. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:03, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I entered here with an open mind. I rather think the behaviour of Mr. Tiefling has now provided me with a solid opinion about those who regard this as a kindergarten exercise. I suggest a rapid close with admonitions to the OP. Collect (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) WP:RD/G I think actually addresses both of those points. And, FWIW, I think the beginning of the second paragraph, saying snd I quote "We expect responses that not only answer the question, but are also factually correct, and to refrain from responding with answers that are based on guesswork" is I believe specifically relevant, as is the secohd point of WP:RD/G#What the reference desk is not. There is also a bit of OR in terms of "more modern" Protestant churches (which are the most "modern"? Ones hundreds of years old which may have not had substantial review of the phrasing of their doctrines in the intervening time, unlike, say Vatican II?) And, FWIW, my objections are not specifically based on the fact of opposition to Catholic/Orthodox doctrine, that's just what struck me at the time as being the POV misrepresentation of a matter of opinion based on the opinion of one or more groups in some form of opposition to the primary group rather than the statements of the groups themselves on such matters. Such soapboxing in favor of one group's beliefs over another's is also specifically addressed on the RD/G page. The most important problem displayed, at least in my eyes, is BB's insistence of making a basically off topic and more or less irrelevant to the question comment in the first place. John Carter (talk) 21:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks John Carter I had not seen those guidelines."The reference desk is not a chatroom, nor is it a soapbox for promoting individual opinions." BB's insertion of a personal POV on a theological point entirely unrelated to the original question is clearly against those guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 22:04, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes - thanks, John. I should have included a direct reference to WP:RD/G myself; thank you for correcting my oversight. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@AlexTiefling:, what do you think of Demiurge1000's proposal above, about a possible self-imposed ban of BB from the reference desk, in favor of articles, for the next six months? John Carter (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, I'm not keen on it because it implies the RD is the problem, and I'm firmly of the opinion that BB's behavious generally is the problem - check out the Manning Naming Dispute findings, for example. However, pragmatically, BB not using the RD would at least take the heat out of it. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Then feel free to formally propose it below so we cna get this over with. I think this is much ado about nothing, personally, as the Wikipedia reference desk is more akin to yahoo answers than it is to a serious reference desk. Bugs at times does the equivalent of a fart in a church; not terribly appropriate but not heresy either. Tarc (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll admit to not knowing whether it's me, or an admin, or whoever, who should propose a specific solution. I came here to get expert advice on dealing with the problem. But I'll start a 'proposed resolution' section, and see how we get on. Thanks for the prod in the right direction. AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposed remedies

Demiurge1000 has proposed that Baseball Bugs should take a voluntary 6 month break from the Reference Desk. I am currently neutral on this proposal, but have the following queries:

• Does anyone with experience in such matters have an alternative proposal?
• Is Baseball Bugs willing to go along with the current proposal voluntarily?
• If it's a self-imposed exile, what's to stop him (quite sensibly) deciding that it's dull, and returning to RD ahead of time?
• What can any of us - me included - do to foster a more constructive tone on RD?

AlexTiefling (talk) 22:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Issuing the same suspension to VW would help a great deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Or, as a compromise, institute an interaction ban between VW and the set consisting of StuRat and me and whoever else VW attacks frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, no one specifically said so far as I can tell that you were going to be suspended. So far as I could see, what was proposed was that you might do so voluntarily. Are we to take the comment above as indicative that you would be unwilling to do so?

In response to AlexTiefling's last point, like I said somewhere above, it would help a lot if those who volunteered at the reference desk also took advantage of the various databank sources available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. It would probably help if even one person got involved there, and sent the documents he might recover to other volunteers as that individual would doubtless be overwhelmed personally. And maybe making it a bit clearer that it might take a few hours to respond, with the questioner pinged when a response is available, might help as well. That is the sort of response I have myself gotten when calling reference desks in the past, and at least once the reference librarian said she had to spend several days of time not otherwise committed at work trying to find an answer. (I used to ask really obscure reference questions in the past. The librarians at college allegedly even had a less than complimentary nickname for me, I was told.) John Carter (talk) 22:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

All I've ever wanted to do at ref desk is to try to answer questions. I don't always do it well. But invariably, when I stand up to bullies and nannies (such as VW), I get schlepped here for it. I'm willing to go away for a while - but not unconditionally. VW, who caused this problem today, needs to go away for an equal amount of time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal That Alex Tiefling, Vienna Waltz and Baseball Bugs all shall refrain from any interactions on noticeboards or at the RefDesk for a period of six months. And that cups of tea be handed to each. Collect (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Count me in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support this proposal, as opposed to any other on this page, as the only one offered which deals with all parts of incident. BMK (talk) 09:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat concerned that Baseball Bugs' pattern of conduct is getting papered over by minor remedies that don't address the underlying problem. It was just a few months ago that we had a thread on this very noticeboard that imposed another mutual interaction ban on Baseball Bugs and a couple of other editors, based on a pattern of disruptive bickering at the Reference Desk: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community sanctions: The Rambling Man, Baseball Bugs, and Medeis. That discussion came within a hairsbreadth of imposing a full-on Ref Desk ban on Baseball Bugs; one would have thought he would take that warning to heart.

Instead, he's back at it. And the attitude of "I'll go if I can take my adversary down with me" isn't exactly promising. I don't think that layering on another interaction ban is going to be a durable fix. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:01, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying I should just kiss up to the likes of VW instead of standing up to him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:05, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I would say that previous discussion came about as close to a "full-on Ref Desk ban of Baseball Bugs" as it did to a desysop of The Rambing Man, which is to say, not very close at all. BMK (talk) 00:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(e-c) Good point, TenOfAllTrades. BB seemed to indicate above that he would voluntarily ban himself on the condition that others be sanctioned as well. We rarely have given individuals being considered for sanctions such an ability to dictate terms in cases like this. I guess I should have to ask @Baseball Bugs: again if he would be willing to agree to a self-imposed ban for six months, regardless of other circumstances, or whether he would insist that any sanctions which may or may not be imposed on him would have to be imposed by others. John Carter (talk) 00:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

VW instigated this problem, in his usual MO of attacking another editor (StuRat, in this case) while making no attempt to actually answer the OP's question. Why is that behavior somehow acceptable? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

@Baseball Bugs:, based on the comment above, which to my eyes rather clearly qualifies as tendentious editing/refusing to get to a point, I am going to presume that you would not agree to a unilateral self-imposed ban from the reference desk. Is that the case, and are you oh that basis asking us to act on the assumption that you are not willing to agree to a self-imposed ban? John Carter (talk) 00:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

No, I'm not willing to accept a ban if the instigator of today's problem, Vienna Waltz, is allowed to continue his behavior. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It hasn't been established - or even asserted by anyone apart from BB - that VW is in fact to blame here at all. The claim that he is - and that I'm furthering some pattern of harassment on his behalf - is unsubstantiated. I will therefore oppose any proposed measure which censures VW without a clear basis. Interaction bans when one party is clearly principally at fault are great for deflecting blame. I raised this ANI thread because I believe BB's behaviour needs to be closely scrutinised. Penalising VW just because BB says so is no adequate response to that. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Why is VW's behavior acceptable? He attacks me frequently, and he attacked StuRat today. Why is he allowed to get away with such garbage? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Support six-month ban from the reference desk for Baseball Bugs, based on the material presented. I might also support sanctions against others involved, but that would probably best be dealt with elsewhere. Also, as noted by me and others above, his own conduct, which is the reason this thread was begun, has on more than one occasion fallen well short of the WP:RD/G, and I have no reason to believe it will not continue to do so should he be allowed to continue in like manner in the future without some sort of serious admonishment. And, of course, a ban would prevent such disruption from him during the period of the ban itself. I might also agree to an indefinite ban, which might be reviewable after three months, if cause for such a review were given by Baseball Bugs through his conduct elswhere during that period. John Carter (talk) 01:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I agree with John Carter. 6 month ban for Baseball bugs from the reference desk. Other bans can be discussed elsewhere. His recent behavior on my own talk page leaves me little choice. BB seems to be looking for a fight and that is not what Wikipedia is for.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Totally unfair. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IF you feel that there is cause to request sanctions against others, please feel free to present the evidence to support that contention in a separate section. John Carter (talk) 01:39, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've complained about VW before, and no one will do anything. Hypocrisy. Double-standard. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing less than a stern final warning for Bugs just based on the issue that brought about this complaint. No opinion on whether others require sanctions, nor whether stiffer sanctions are necessary in light of other disruption. "Retard" may certainly refer to someone with developmental problems, but not long ago the terms "idiot", "imbecile", "moron", "cretin", and a litany of others that I won't even repeat also referred to such individuals in various technical and medical senses, but it seems clear that it would have been very inappropriate to use those terms to refer to a developmentally-disabled person. The euphemism treadmill (or perhaps the pejoration treadmill) is a fact of life, and refusal for editors on noticeboards and help boards to recognize that a large number of people consider a specific term to be horribly offensive does not justify their use of that term. As much as I've enjoyed Bugs' efforts to lighten the mood in some cases in the past, there comes a time when we must take things seriously. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • You seem to have forgotten that it was StuRat who referred to his friend as "retarded". That's not a term I'm inclined to use. They're mad at me here not because of that, but because I stood up to VW after he attacked StuRat but didn't try to answer the OP's question. That's something VW does frequently. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
    • I see nothing in [75] that constitutes any form of an attack. Referring back to your "didn't answer the OP's question" point, your comment also did not. I see a clear mentality of "he did something wrong so I can too", which is clearly not acceptable practice. —Dark 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Given the history of questionable behaviour on the RD, I would be willing to support a six month ban from the reference desk. However like TenOfAllTrades, I do think that this is a scrappy solution to a more extensive problem. Also, I may be unaware of the history between the editors, but I do find references to VW's edit as an "attack" to be rather bewildering. —Dark 05:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
  • • • If you did know that history, you would understand. Note how VW made no effort to try to answer the OP's question. He went there solely to harass StuRat, just as he has done to me countless times, i.e. to harass a user while making no effort to answer the OP's question. In fact, even now, no one besides StuRat has provided a useful answer to the OP's question. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any sanction which singles out one party without dealing with all of those involved. Given that Bugs has a tendency to not shy away from actively pleading his own case, while one of the other parties (VW) has yet to make any kind of statement here, the attempt to sanction BB alone looks to me like a case of the squeaky wheel getting all the attention, if not outright anti-Bugs bias from some. Even-handedness -- which does not necessarily translate into equal sanctions for all -- is required here. The offer to allow the complainant to choose the sanction is especially worrisome. Also, we don't generally say "This is a tempest in a teapot, but let's get on with it and sanction somebody so we can close the thread." BMK (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - While I disagree with much of how BMK has characterised this dispute, I agree in one key respect: I don't think it should be me choosing the sanction. I'm not an expert on Wikipedia's processes, and this needs input from people who are. I only started this subsection because Demiurge1000 advanced a solution and suggested I get on with it. If any admin here wishes to propose a better answer, I'm all ears.

VW commented on my talk page saying they didn't have time for this thread. I don't see why BB, who is the subject of this complaint, and who has advanced, I think, one isolated diff to support his claims about VW's behaviour, should get to dictate a sweeping resolution which penalises VW as well. Come to that, StuRat isn't the subject of this complaint either. I don't like his choice of words, but that's neither here nor there. Attempts to by BB widen the scope of this are merely a distraction. If BB thinks VW is harassing him, let him start a thread here with a collection of diffs like the one at the top of this thread, and have it out.

This thread has a lot of tangents. The specific character of the veneration of saints isn't the point here. The acceptability of so-called 'politically correct' language isn't the point. The point is that BB makes the Reference Desk an unpleasant place to be, by confrontational behaviour, constant derailing of topics, and giving unhelpful or simply false answers. I think the diffs I've provided - all from a period of about 3 days, but far from isolated - demonstrate that.

What strikes me about this thread is that BB has made no attempt to account for this behaviour. His only response has been a kind of tu quoque where he claims the complaint has no substance, and calls for sanctions against VW. There's no sign of any understanding on his part that there's a genuine problem here. As I say - I've witnessed this behaviour from BB before; nothing here is isolated. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with DR

Someone here evidently mentioned the suicide case that I had some discussions with Tutelary about, and because of that, Miller is holding Tutelary's DR hostage. Whoever commented on that, please remove it and notify Miller that he can re-open Tutelary's DR. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with you - that's very unhelpful. How can we get the DR moving again? It's entirely unrelated to this. AlexTiefling (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

There's no urgency as long as any potential BLP issues are kept out until after a proper discussion can be had. It will happen, just not right this minute when it is linked to this issue here. There's no need to sidetrack either discussion with the other. It isn't urgent: we are gradually writing an encyclopedia, not delivering up-to-date news. Calm blue ocean. 86.146.28.105 (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IP socking or did editor forgot to long in?

An IP thinks "This is (Redacted) ridiculous! And they have the balls to keep removing the POV sign! There is no (Redacted) concensus!" The IP is edit warring to his/her version nad has violated the 3RR rule. A logged-in account and an IP added the same text unrelated to the image. It appears that User:TheNorlo is not logging in to avoid public scrutiny. QuackGuru (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If they have violated 3RR, then report them to WP:AN/EW, not here. G S Palmer (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I did not log in because of laziness... not to avoid public scrutiny.184.70.5.58 (talk) 06:04, 29 May 2014 (UTC) There we go! TheNorlo (talk) 06:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I apologize to have lost my temper even if I still believe in what I said.TheNorlo (talk) 06:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The image in question was clearly (biased) unrelated to the section in which it was presented. So I've added some kind of related information... Then decided to delete it since the info given in the image description was trivial and did not represent the bulk of the section.TheNorlo (talk) 06:10, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

You were aggressively editing the article and did violate the 3RR rule. I think you should restore the image and also restore the summary of the usage statistics to the lede. The reason you deleted the image was because you deleted like it. The lede should only have four paragraphs per WP:LEADLENGTH. QuackGuru (talk) 06:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I just received a legal threat over the phone about Yank Barry

The caller refused to identify himself, but "just wanted to let me know" that legal action would proceed tomorrow. I directed him to the Wikipedia legal department, but he insisted that it would be directed toward editors. - Richfife (talk) 17:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• A recent SPA
• A slightly less recent SPA

Neither of them seem to be on the verge of throwing around legal threats, though.

If you should get any more phone calls, do also let them know about the talk page or about OTRS (not in those words). --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Also let them know that editing to balance the article properly continues - I've just blanked large parts of it per WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:59, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

There was undue weight, and use of primary sources, but some of the information removed appeared to be properly sourced - mainstream, non-tabloid newspapers - including one described as a newspaper of record, and was relevant to the article. Peter James (talk) 19:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No good being appeared to be properly sourced. Get it right, then include it. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You're asserting that it was "not properly sourced", but not getting into specifics. How is it not properly sourced? The sources look fine to me and to multiple other editors. Almost none of the text removed by you was added by me, by the way. - Richfife (talk) 22:40, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You may wish to notify the WMF legal department at legalwikimedia.org or, if you feel it is urgent, at emergencywikimedia.org where someone will make sure the right people see it. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:35, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Just to clarify: please do not contact emergencywikimedia.org except to report serious threat of violence, suicide or death threat, bomb threat, etc. We cannot help with legal threats. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 18:39, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my bad. Struck. — MPelletier (WMF) ^(talk) 18:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! - Richfife (talk) 19:02, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Richfife, have you ever put your phone number on Wikipedia as a contact number? I ask because if you haven't, something is seriously wrong here. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:55, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have not. However, as a personal point, I make sure I am easy to contact. I'm in the phone book, etc. As I mentioned though, there was no caller ID and the caller refused to identify themselves. So far, just a single data point. An attempt at a chilling effect, I assume. - Richfife (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it was. Has there been any particularly belligerent users or IPs editing about Yank Barry as of late? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Could be, could be - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You might do some Googling on your name and phone number. Someone out there might be bragging about having heckled you.--v/r - TP 20:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Eh. Let 'em heckle. - Richfife (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Re: "User:Richfife encouraged people to "heckle" him in person, and then they did so". Excuse me? Since when is having a listed phone number an invitation to heckle? All I said was I didn't care, not that I was encouraging it. Is there any actual evidence that I'm being heckled? I just checked and came up with nothing. Yank Barry has a history of attempting to shut down criticism and there's no evidence that this isn't more the same. - Richfife (talk) 22:20, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Guess what, buddy. Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy... we don't care about your cause any more than anyone else does. Begone! --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that this was an off Wikipedia legal threat directed at multiple editors and needs to be taken seriously, right? - Richfife (talk) 22:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I am taking it hugely seriously. Just look at my face. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:32, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned about the deletions made by Demiurge1000 [76] being overreaction to the threat. It's well cited that the subject of the article was convicted of extortion. The Texas prison deal is also well cited. That deletion should have been discussed on Talk first. This article has been the subject of massive COI editing, extensive sockpuppeting, and is about someone who is heavily into self-promotion (he has a PR agency and is having a movie made about himself) and multi-level marketing. It was originally created by an SPA as a promotional piece, mentioned as such on the COI board, and then a number of experienced editors started finding more info about the article's subject. That's how we got here. John Nagle (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, see WP:BLP. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Particularly in regards to this edit, you've been repeatedly nakedly asserting that the sourcing isn't good enough and not responding to people pointing out that the sourcing seems fine and asking for more detail. Are you too busy in real life right now? What's going on? - Richfife (talk) 23:34, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The above brief "No" could use some expansion. Let's discuss the content issues on Talk:Yank Barry. Thanks. As for the threat, I've edited the Yank Barry article, I edit under my own name and am easy to contact, and haven't received any threats. John Nagle (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I think what Demiurge1000 means to say is WP:COATRACK. We have a BLP subject here where 85% of the article is negative. Per WP:UNDUE, the article needs to be balanced. The negative info needs to be rewritten in the way that it doesn't hijack the article disproportionate to this person's life.--v/r - TP 06:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:Hsrc1234

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely for username violations

Citing User talk:Hsrc1234,

Next step is to find out whatever means I can in wikipedia to file a complaint against you for misusing whatever wikipedia rights you currently have. After that, its legal intervention.

This considers a series of reverts of the user's edits to Homeland Security Market Research, and probably also the user's block for displaying a promotional user name. One revert, for removing content without a proper edit summary, was mine, the rest were performed by Mean as custard. Whether the user's complaint is valid may be further discussed on the article's talk page; the article is flagged as being under dispute. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:44, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I can only assume that the username Hsrc1234 is a claim of affiliation with the Homeland Security Research Corp. If Nsrc1234 withdraws the threat, a block under WP:NOSHARE seems in order. If the user gets their name changed and clarifies that they are not sharing the account, I still think a topic ban (at least from that article's article space) is in order after that.

Although in all honestly, it may just be worthwhile to up the block to "cannot edit talk page" and call it a day. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC) I say revoke the talk page if he's going to issue legal threats. He seems to not be here to contribute to an encyclopedia anyways, since one of his complaints is, and I quote, "misleading our company's potential clients". —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 19:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinintely for violating the username policy; however, he has contacted me by email, so this saga may not yet have seen its end. Daniel Case (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The legal threat was issued 45m after you blocked him, Daniel. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

• This is a case of WP:DOLT. The page in suspect has 4 primary sources and 1 questionable secondary source that didn't mention the subject. No significance at all about the organization. This article should've been deleted from the get-go, or merged to the DHS article, and we could've avoided any legal threats. I've done so. Issue over.--v/r - TP 20:07, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Should action be taken against Battlesnake1, who created the article with the bogus content in the first place? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 10:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Factchecker atyourservice isn't here to build an encyclopedia

Factchecker atyourservice (talk · contribs) who also signs his edits as "Centrify", continues a years-long pattern of disruptive, battleground interactions with other editors and is in clear violation of his October, 2011 final warning issued by Qwyrxian. Edits made in plain violation of WP:CIVIL since October, 2011 include the following non-exhaustive list:

• "You could barely articulate any rationale ... much less a coherent one..." [77]
• "I celebrate CHRISTMAS, motherf***er!" [78]
• "...you can be sued for slander or libel..." [79] (struck out on advice of admin)
• "[do as I say] or else stop talking" [80]
• "you hostile asshole" [81]

This editor, who in addition to the comments above, has also interjected disruptive comments at this mediation while simultaneously failing to agree to mediation ground rules, started on Wikipedia with the blatantly ad-hominem username "User:Factcheck 4uwingnuts", and prominently displays on his userpage his essay "Wikipedia is an incorrigible, destructive cesspool of agenda-pushing by sneaky, dishonest POV warriors". It is abundantly clear from his words and deeds that he is not here to build an encyclopedia and will not give up his disruptive behavior. His own talk page is a dismal record of other editors' appeals to join in conversation ranging from appeals to control himself, requests to cease interactions with them, and at least one failed attempt to initiate mediation. Administrator attention is years overdue. — Brianhe (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Editors with aspirational user names are a blast, aren't they? - Richfife (talk) 20:28, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I will only note that the OP seems to have misquoted or edited the quotes badly to make them look worse than they were. However, the last one seems to be a cut and dry personal attack. Name calling is a personal attack. I don't agree at all with the title of this header. There is nothing from any of the diffs that shows Factchecker is not here to build an encyclopedia. That should be reserved for vandals and editors with an agenda that has absolutely no encyclopedic value.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

2, 3, and 4 are all taken completely out of context. #3 is the most egregious misuse of context and Brianhe should redact that one immediately. Brianhe is inappropriately implying that Factchecker is issuing a legal threat. That couldn't be further from the truth. Factchecker is actually discussing the need for 3rd party sources - a policy requirement. #4 is perfectly supported by WP:NPA. Factchecker is saying, provide diffs or stop making accusations. That's written explicitly in WP:NPA. #2 looks like a joke. Now, on to #5. While I don't know Factchecker's position on that article, Factchecker is correct that if we are sourcing an accusation against another organization by the NAACP to the NAACP itself, then it needs to be attributed. So overall, I'm seeing a lot less flame than the OP is pretending exists.--v/r - TP 21:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:18, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

And to top it all off, #1 was from 2012. I hate the cliche calls for the boomerang on this board, but seriously, Brianhe? WP:ANI Advice #14--v/r - TP 21:23, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I've read the essay and see no problem with it at all. It restates parts of Wikipedia:Why Wikipedia is not so great#NPOVness (non-bias) and expresses justifiable frustration towards POV editing (while not naming or even referring to any specific editors, articles or controversies, so far as I can see). Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 21:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Sorry we see things so differently ... I struck out the legal "advice" cite but stand by the others as showing a pattern of behavior which extends to today where Factchecker stated that his vitriol, in the face of a reiteration of Qwyrxian's warning, is richly deserved. I'm completely dumbstruck that people are defending this, and saddened that an admin's "final warning" to a disruptive person apparently means so little. — Brianhe (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If I gave someone, let's say Mark Miller because he was kind enough to show up in this thread, a final warning for calling people panzies and then someone shows up to ANI 3 years later with a majority of 2+ year old diffs and out of the remaining 2, one was entirely supported by policy and the other one is probably a personal attack but towards a user displaying WP:TE behavior for not understanding that we must attribute when using primary sources - well hell, I'd expect ANI to roll their eyes at it too.--v/r - TP 22:17, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to add that after I was called an asshole I was called "Mr. Conspiracy" for using a newspaper article that Factchecker has not read in spite of his false claims that he has. He doesn't have access to HighBeam and hasn't requested a copy of the offline article. So a dispute over the actual content of sources -- which could be resolved by getting a copy of the article -- is twisted with personal attacks, bluffing by saying "go read WP:TRUTH", and false accusations of original research and POV pushing. A straightforward content dispute was escalated and the waters poisoned by this behavior. Factchecker has doubled down and insisted that this kind of behavior is OK, and he's going to do more of it. It's not ancient history to point out that this is his permanent mode of operation. He's abused others years ago and continues to abuse others this day. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 22:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

No, you were called an asshole for this comment where you insist on removing alleged from this sentence: "Friendly's Ice Cream Corporation and Myrtle Beach Friends Boulevard LLC was sued in 2008 by the NAACP for closing their indoor area and only offering inferior outdoor service during Black Bike Weeks from 2000–2005". That sentence was sourced at the time to this source which is indeed a NAACP press release which still exists in the article right now. I'd say you're still displaying WP:IDHT behavior that might earn you a block and the OP a boomerang. I suggest you find a secondary source. There should be plenty, I remember that dispute and it had a lot of media coverage. This will work, I have highbeam access and it looks legit.--v/r - TP 22:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Here. Multiple sources, same allegations. Want more? I read the dozens of sources cited in the article, and the additional sources listed below the footnotes. It's not a fabrication to state that the facts reported came from a spectrum of different sources. One was a New York City police officer. Mayors. Reporters. At some point it starts to look like a 'conspiracy' when the only reason we want to add "alleged" and "claimed" to a fact is just because the NAACP happened to also have stated the fact in a lawsuit. And now an admin comes and tells me it's OK to call me an asshole because I objected to this drive-by, one-size-fits-all policy of watering down whatever you see without bothering to do due diligence and read all the sources. The existence of racism in America in the 21st century is not an extraordinary claim. Yet it's being treated as if it were some kind of Bigfoot sighting, requiring all kinds of disclaimers and attribution. And I'm an asshole for objecting? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

If the source does not use the term ""allegation" than we do not use the term in the article. It is considered a weasal word. "Alleged and accused are appropriate when wrongdoing is asserted but undetermined, such as with people awaiting or undergoing a criminal trial; when these are used, ensure the source of the accusation is clear".--Mark Miller (talk) 00:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(ec) That is the case if the source is a secondary one, but when our information comes from a primary source things are different. While the primary source can be used for the view of the matter according to that party, we cannot endorse that viewpoint in Wikipedia's voice by stating the claim as fact. Therefore, the use of "alleged" is proper and necessary. BMK (talk) 02:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wow...really BMK, and you think using a primary source is a justification for the use of a weasal word"? Well ok then...--Mark Miller (talk) 02:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Mark, like many people, you confuse "should be avoided" with "shall not be used". Weasal words are bad when they are weasaly, which means that they are used to make implications and create impressions which are not explicitly stated, or they act to undermine an actual fact by creating doubt about its veracity. But when they accurately reflect reality there's nothing wrong with them. If the word "alleged" bothers you that much, then other constructions can be used: "According to the NAACP..." or "...the NAACP charged" or whatever, as long as it is clear that Wikipedia is not saying "such and such happened" as opposed to "the NAACP said that such and such happened." That's WP:NPOV, which is a policy, not a guideline. 03:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Attribution is the preferred method, but I'd rather see 'alledged' than have something written in Wikipedia's voice.--v/r - TP 03:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

So now I'm a racist-denier? Very nice, good job Dennis. You're being called an asshole not because this has anything to do with the NAACP or racism. You're being called an asshole because you are trying to use a primary source to make a negative claim about another organization and you're defending it against our WP:IRS policy. All you have to do is change the source. You said you have plenty, I've even read one on highbeam. As Captain Picard would say, "make it so." Quit defending a primary source and add in your secondary sources and, like a Christmas day miracle, you wouldn't have been called an asshole. When people defend things that are indefensible, like racism and using a primary source inappropriately, and they just don't stop, they get called assholes. Alright </dickishness> the bottom line here is that I'm pissed off that you're not accepting any responsibility. People don't just randomly get called assholes for no reason. You did something. Now, we determine if that something you did was appropriate or not. In this case, no, defending a primary source is inappropriate. You were wrong, and he was also wrong. Now is the time for you to say, "You know what, I guess I should've just fixed the citation, I'll let it go this time since I screwed up too" and then we all go on our merry way.--02:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Like Dayum! Well...there ya go. And I agree....not just because of the Star trek analogy.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

(undent) Responding to the claims that the "old" issues with this editor are now dead. They aren't. I didn't make an exhaustive list of diffs when I opened this thread because I thought the issues would be patently obvious. In case they aren't, here are some recent edits, all made in 2014, that show a continual pattern of belittling and browbeating other editors.

• 7 February: "silly argument", "take this discussion seriously" [82]
• 6 March: "dramatic critical language", referring to other editor's contributions to discussion [83]
• 11 May: "laughable POV-pushing falsehoods" [84]
• 15 May: "your unstructured feelings about stuff", referring to other editor's contributions to discussion[85]

Hopefully we can concentrate on the editor's insulting and disruptive behavior not my section title, or Dennis's research methods. — Brianhe (talk) 23:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Trying to find issues with any of those 4 quotes ... not succeeding the panda ₯’ 00:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Look out...this coming back to hit the OP.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

• Brianhe is reminded to use recent diffs and to not come to ANI for slight offenses. Dennis is reminded that we cannot use primary sources for statements in Wikipedia voice except for unambiguous facts such as dates of birth, religion, political affiliation ect. As far as Factchecker is concerned, the 2011 warning is reemphasized and he better straighten up. Calling people assholes isn't constructive and helpful to encyclopedia building. The 'last warning' is renewed as of May 2014.--v/r - TP 03:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. — Brianhe (talk) 04:27, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should also warn Brianhe not to use quotation out of context to misrepresent the statements of other editors. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Ban evasion

86.157.103.109 is unmistakenly a community ban evasion by User:Jagged 85. The same range of topics, the same bias, the same sloppy research, edited from the same broad geographical region (London). See also Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Jagged 85#May 2014 Anon IP edits to Muslim history of science articles. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Now blocked one week for evasion. EdJohnston (talk) 04:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

For future reference, I have listed the IP's edits at Cleanup12. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation of sources by user:Tendergreens

See [86] and [87]. The first is definitely a gross misrepresentation of the source - replacing 'Credit Suisse' with 'Lloyd Bancaire' - and the second is almost certainly the same, given that the article has said ' Mount Kellett Capital' rather than 'Lloyd Bancaire' for some months (I can't access the source, unfortunately). Note also that this contributor has been attempting to recreate an article on 'Lloyd Bancaire' (misplaced at Talk:Lloyd Bancaire, and at Draft:Lloyd Bancaire), despite it being repeatedly deleted (and apparently salted) for advertising and/or creation by a banned user. [88] AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:28, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The entire history of deleted versions of

• Lloyd Bancaire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Talk:Lloyd Bancaire (edit | article | history | links | watch | logs)
• Lloyd Bancaire Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Draft:Lloyd Bancaire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Draft:Lloyd Bancaire (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

and any similar page needs to be looked into and compared to newly (re-)created versions. Reasons for past deletions include copyvio, socking/banned editors, and possibly more. New editors who come out of nowhere and repost or rewrite this page raise eyebrows, to put it mildly. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:06, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

anon IP making death threats

From this edit on my talk page I'm pretty sure it is a user I've encountered in AfDs. But making death threats is unacceptable. LibStar (talk) 08:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for a month for that, for what it's worth. Bencherlite^Talk 09:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Unambiguous legal threat from Rock Attire Mi-Sex

Rock Attire Mi-Sex (t·c) diff stated: Mi-Sex Corporation Limited (Kevin Stanton) how dare you alter and revert the mi-sex Wiki DO NOT AMEND this Corporation will deal these matters in Court REVERT NOW Jim1138 (talk) 09:11, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Has been indef blocked. Jim1138 (talk) 09:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit War at Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh

Bigidilijak and Freemesm Appear to be caught up in an edit war of Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh.
I added all reliable sources. He is insisting that the Hefazat-e-Islam Bangladesh is a madrasa, which is an islamic institution WP:DPL. This is User:Freemesm's third edit warring. In fact he was already blocked for 48 hours. Thanks Bigidilijak (talk) 10:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

PresidentistVB

The behavior of this user seems to me wholly unacceptable including personal attacks (for example referring to other users as monkeys diff). A review of this situation seems long overdue. --_nonsense ferret 09:49, 29 May 2014 (UTC)