Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User: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)

I am not disputing that he is not following Wikipedia rules, and I also confirmed that he was in fact warned on his talk page.

However I agree with Wnt to avoid a block for additional reasons.

• I consider his violations to be minimal (as I pointed out earlier).
• Once established that User:Torgownik is in fact Mr. Targ (-I believe it is-), then what he writes on his talk page or his edits should be treated like WP:ABOUTSELF, which is allowed to be used as a source if it meets certain guidelines. We need to accommodate his disabilities and cannot expect him to create a self published blog/website. Instead we should treat his talk page (and his edits in the article) as his published blog.
• My main argument is not about policy - it is about ethics. We need to consider his pervious life long work, along with his current age (80) and disabilities. Just like any business is required to take measures to accommodate disabled (such as wheelchair accessibility etc. - even at high cost), we too need to understand that a person at this age would have difficulties adapting to all Wikipedia policies. Being legally blind makes it difficult for him to read and write and go through all the policies. We need to consider the possible effects of blocking him, just like a civil court would consider sentencing a disabled person. Caseeart (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• So you recommend that we circumvent policy to cater to a disruptive editor and allow them to turn their page into a blog. Is that right? G S Palmer (talk) 14:45, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Targ has only edited his article in minor and positive ways since this was brought up. There's no need to take any action against him. Meanwhile his opponents called him a "crank" writing "crank papers" etc. no less than seven times (never mind that the NSA, DIA, CIA, SRI, and SAIC were all behind this) ... and the really funny part is their contorted Wikilawyer song and dance about how it would be undue weight to list his "non-crank" papers in his publications list because the others are 'more cited', even while they have opposed pro-parapsychology sources of any other kind that might support Targ as 'undue weight'! Now it is a rare thing anywhere on Wikipedia for "UNDUE" to mean anything other than "what I disagree with", but it is also rare to see the same people hitting the ping-pong ball from both sides of the net. Wnt (talk) 16:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Many editors have been exceedingly patient in explaining to Targ the various policies over and over and over again. At this point if he is unable or unwilling to understand and adhere to WP policies, then he is either not competent to edit here or has failed to get the point of the policies.
• I empathize with him because it can't be easy to read that the majority of his life's work is considered pseudoscience. My empathy does not excuse his behaviour, however, and does not extend to ensuring that he is not harmed by being blocked. It is not WP's place to bend the policies to make sure he doesn't end up in the ER. He is responsible for his own actions and for taking care of himself, and his age and vision are therefore not relevant to the discussion of whether to block him.
• Since he has shown that he is unable to non-disruptively edit the Russell Targ page, I think an escalating block on that article page while still allowing him access to Talk pages and his own User page (if this setup is even possible) might help. Ca2james (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• It is everyone's ethical requirement to accommodate a disabled elderly person. Especially in a case that he is trying to edit his own article which IS allowed under certain circumstances per WP:ABOUTSELF.
• If you want to make Wikipedia a better place - it is not through bullying elderly disabled people and whitewashing their work in front of them. It is not through blocking an elderly disabled from editing his page just because he has difficulties adapting to wiki policies.
• If you are concerned about the reliability of some of the material he want's to add - just put his name as the source and citation - that he himself put the info in the article (similar to WP:ABOUTSELF). Let the reader decide.
• This article is from the best I've come across. There are too many poorly written Non Neutral BLP articles that whitewash the subject. There are so many promotion articles. There are so many users who go from one BLP article to another posting defamatory information often transforming the article to an attack style. Too little is being done and there are not enough policies protecting. Correcting those articles and blocking those users is what we need to focus on.
• I think we are going back and forth repeating the same arguments. I hope the administrator who will make the decision will understand my concern. Caseeart (talk) 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "If you are concerned about the reliability of some of the material he want's to add - just put his name as the source and citation - that he himself put the info in the article (similar to WP:ABOUTSELF). Let the reader decide.": Absolutely not, no. If a proponent of a controversial subject like Remote Viewing wants to argue his case for it, he needs to do so out there in the scientific literature - *not* on Wikipedia. Wikipedia will then reflect the actual balance of reliable sources from the relevant literature - and that's a fundamental cornerstone of the whole project. I appreciate the idea of being respectful to an old man, but if his work is discredited by the scientific community, then that's what we have to say and there really is no respectable alternative. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:55, 30 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)

I can try. There are a few administrators out there who have displayed over the years what I might call a remarkable, at times looking almost superhuman, ability to deal with sensitive, disputed topics related to the humanities. @Dougweller:, probably to his mild consteration, because he is already one of our busiest admins, comes to mind right away, but, given the amount of stuff he has to deal with on a fairly regular basis around here, I can well imagine he might find himself forced to respectfully decline. Give me a few days to finish a list of articles from one reference source and I might be able to pull up and distribute at least the sources available to me. Anyone else who might be interested is more than welcome to take part as well. John Carter (talk) 20:27, 31 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)

• Blocked. The ban discussion seems to have stagnated a bit. It seems obvious to me that ScottKazama, however well meaning they may be (it's hard to tell), is a net drain on resources. We're supposed to be building an encyclopedia here. After selectively reviewing the user's contributions, as well as their talkpage, I've reached the conclusion that they need to be indefinitely blocked per Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and Competence is required. I don't see how anybody could follow this user around and simply "correct" the English, even assuming that somebody was willing to spend the time, since the English (for instance in User:Mendaliv's three diffs above) is so poor as to be incomprehensible; I can't tell what they meant to say. That's apart from the other concerns raised by Ryulong. I also sympathize with Ryulong's advice to the user about sources,[12][13] about using edit summaries,[14][15] about insertion of personal opinion in articles[16][17], etcetera. That's only a small selection of attempts to communicate that I found on the user's page, and a lot of the time the user doesn't seem to understand, and so Ruylong is impelled to post the same criticism again and again. I actually think Ruylong has been very patient, and has tried hard to advise the user, to not very much effect. Nor do I think it's meaningful to give a ban predicated on the user's need to "take more care". It's surely not a question of care, but of competence. Banning from the only topic that interests them, and/or from using the only kinds of sources that they, well, will use, seems unnecessarily bureaucratic. Also, considering the language issues, explaining such a block to the user and preparing them for complying with it would be difficult. (You realize Ruylong has been trying to explain much simpler stuff to them for two years.) But if anybody would like to try that path, feel free to unblock and institute a ban instead. Bishonen | talk 20:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC).

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)
        • It was reported here that they were withdrawn; the highly libellous claim seem since to have reappeared. My points still stands though: nobody with "any" knowledge about Scandinavia could believe such claims for half a second. We should not encourage people to edit sensitive issues in areas which they are completely clueless about, IMO. Cheers, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 29 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)

Thanks, Huldra (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

back editing after block

I notice Motique is back editing after block and still no edit summaries. LibStar (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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: [18] ; he then tried to draw a very fine distinction of language to head off VW's criticism of StuRat: [19]. Then, BB directly accused VW of harassment: [20] [21] [22] - including providing this accusation as a false and unhelpful response to the previous OP's complaint about the hostile response to the earlier question: [23].

He's also tried suppressing other users' RD contributions: [24]; suggested that an IP user was too ignorant to know a human being isn't a plant: [25]; uses Google Translate to answer RD/L questions [26]; and claimed Roman Catholicism is polytheistic: [27]. 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 ([28]). 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)

• BMK, my only intent was to point out the absurdity of judging someone based on their % of mainspace contributions. It would be pleasant if you retracted your accusation, but not expected. --Hammersoft (talk) 12:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused as to why you believe that StuRat's conduct is remotely appropriate in this circumstance. [29] 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? [30] 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: [31] - 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: [32]. 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. [33] 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: [34] 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)

• Oppose 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. I am going to oppose this after a re-reading of the proposal and BMK's comment where they state: "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."". This does seem a bit odd. Look, Bugs can be a controversial editor, but in the long run much of this complaint is misguided and many of the comments don't seem to be looking to far into the situation. The retard comment was made by another editor in referring to a "friend" of theirs. this got way out of hand and i have to apologize if any of my own actions prolonged this. I think we may have a situation where there is indeed a tempest in a teapot.--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)

There is a difference between "complaining," which is just so far as I can tell making accusations against others, and "presenting evidence," specifically evidence to indicate a pattern of misconduct of such nature as to provide sufficient cause for action. Please bear that in mind. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 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) (stricken, see below —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 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 [35] 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)
    • You're right. I've stricken my recommendation since it was based solely on my mistaken reading of the diffs as Bugs using the term "retarded" to refer to an individual. I'll let those more experienced in this dispute make their recommendations. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:44, 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)
        • I'd like to note again that you did not make an effort to answer the question either. Your logic implies that because VW did not answer the question, he is there to harass StuRat. But how is that any different from your comments in that thread? From what I can see, your contribution did nothing but escalate the issue. It would help your case if you provide evidence of VW actively harassing you and StuRat, as I have nothing to go on other than your word. —Dark 13:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
          • I didn't know the answer to the OP's question. StuRat gave an answer, and then VW attacked him for it, and I stood up for StuRat. Then I asked what the right term is, and no one would answer. So I did a little google search, and the answer (or one answer, apparently preferred by professionals) turns out to be "intellectually disabled", which I posted there. So I at least contributed something factual to the debate. I'd like to know what useful or factual input you think VW contributed. As regards diffs, I don't know when or if he's attacked StuRat at other times, but I wouldn't be surprised. As to VW attacking me, look in any archive where I make a statement, and if VW has made a statement immediately after, it's most likely an attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
            • "I don't know when or if he's attacked StuRat at other times" - So basically, you are not aware of any history between VW and StuRat, but decided that this edit by itself constitutes an attack? I don't understand how that comment by itself could possibly be seen as an attack on StuRat. Also, I find your decision to "defend" StuRat from the perceived attack to be exceptionally questionable. "I at least contributed something factual" - so did VW, with his comment that the wording could be considered offensive. You're making a very poor case for yourself; I find your judgement to be biased based on your own poor interactions with VW and without any assumption of good faith. —Dark 19:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
              • Supposing that what VW said to StuRat was factual (and the discussion here contradicts that), explain how it was of any help whatsoever to the OP. As regards good faith and VW, he destroyed my assumption of his good faith a long time ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:42, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
                • It was as much of a help to the OP as any of your subsequent comments on that thread. Regardless of what VW did, you also did absolutely nothing in that thread except to bicker with VW and other people. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that if someone else makes an off-topic comment, you have free rein to do the same. Also, if you are unable to assume good faith, I suggest that you avoid all contact with the editor. You are refusing to look at your own conduct - instead, deflecting all blame towards VW without any reasonable justification or proof. —Dark 03:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
                  • I hear you. Farther down (and later) I've changed my attitude about VW and am ready to assume good faith on his part, i.e. I've had the epiphany that he's mostly a good contributor, is not targeting me in particular, and hence I no longer have any reason to get upset with him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:26, 30 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)

There is a reasonable point above. Personally, I think the best thing that the editors at the reference desk might be able to do to make the reference desk function more easily would be to develop pages like Bibliography of encyclopedias and its related pages, go through some journals to find lists of good reference sites available at no cost which they might be able to use and perhaps generate a list of them somewhere, thus making it easier for people at the RD to find sources which might relate to questions of a particular type, maybe develop pages like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Encyclopedic articles, particularly for topics of a contentious or non-scientific nature, and also try to have at least one of your editors gain access to each of the databanks available through Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library. Steps of that nature are, more or less, what paid reference librarians do, and it would seem to me reasonable for those at our reference desk to do the same sort of things. John Carter (talk) 14:48, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

P.S. For what it might be worth, I went through a 1986 guide to reference books and listed all those reference sources listed in it that would now be in the public domain at wikisource:User:John Carter, based on the fact that their inclusion in that work indicated tacitly and often explicitly that, despite their age, they were still considered useful. I also went through archive.org and added links to their pages relevant to the works in question. For some, more dated, topics, going through those, and other works at archive.org and elsewhere, might be another possibility. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose all topic bans here as not addressing the problem - that is, a lack of civil colloquy among those named.. And noting that an interaction ban between the three is not an onerous "sanction" but a means of promoting civility at the RefDesk. Collect (talk) 11:37, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I myself would support an interaction ban on the three primaries involved at the RD and related pages. John Carter (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose anything that comes out of this. Tempests and teapots and such. Tarc (talk) 14:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose, BB can be a bit of an arse sometimes, but then so can most of us RefDesk regulars, including me and everyone above. No good will come of any sanctions here. DuncanHill (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
• Is he page-banned already?. Out of the OP's diffs, the only one that bothers me is the removal of another user's Refdesk response. I am also plumb mystified by the "close" at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive825#Community_sanctions:_The_Rambling_Man.2C_Baseball_Bugs.2C_and_Medeis -- it looks like Bugs is presently either warned from disruption at the Refdesk or presently banned from the Refdesk depending on how you "interpret" that close. If ANI is going to work you have to be clear about what your actions actually are/were. Wnt (talk) 17:21, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good question. I stopped taking an interest in that AN/I case when it became apparent that TRM was going to be treated equivalently with BB, just as BB is attempting to do to VW here. I can't make head or tail of the final resolution. Can one of the admins who oversaw that case help us here, please? AlexTiefling (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I dropped a message at the talk page of the admin who closed the last discussion, and have received a response at my user talk page here. I myself remember seeing on one of the noticeboards the discussion about jc37's closing of this discussion and others, but don't remember the details, although I suppose anyone who wants to can look them up. Neither do I remember the subsequent alternate close to which he refers. But it does seem to have been, well, a bit of a mess. John Carter (talk) 20:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

That close enacted a page ban, but after further review on AN, the page bans for the three were vacated (by me), as there didn't really seem to be consensus for them. So no, as of now, BB is not currently topic-banned from the Refdesk. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 20:54, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

My concern, and take this entirely as worth only what an anonymous concern is, is that this pattern keeps repeating, and Bugs continues to blame everyone but himself, to insist that it is always other people at fault rather than himself, to refuse to admit even the possibility that the common factor in all his disputes is himself. He uses a lot of distraction and derailing tactics, to prevent any discussion of his behaviour being about the behaviour he is reponsible for and which people have questioned. He continues to post things that he knows are not true, after he has been informed that they are not true (see: the stuff about Catholics being polytheists, posted several times by him tangentially on questions about Catholicism; see his continued, though less frequent these days, insistence that any ip user familiar with Wikipedia using a new ip address is a 'sock' or a 'drive-by'). I don't think I have ever seen him admit to being wrong about something, unlike nearly every other user of the Reference Desk, unless he is faced with an admin who seems on the verge of actually blocking him.

So, my concern is that, if we simply continue to impose interaction bans between Bugs and whoever he has decided is persecuting him, eventually he will have an intercation ban with every registered user on the Desks, and then who will be able to call for action when he berates and lies to new users? 86.146.28.105 (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And one of my concerns is that there are a number of editors who have taken a dislike to Bugs' style and who aren't shy about trying to get him in trouble whenever possible. Bugs does cross the line occasionally, I think even he would admit that, but then so do many of us -- after all, we're all human, there are no angels here that I am aware of. Bugs' behavior is nor particularly egregious, there are many editors who surpass him in that regard, but for some reason, Bugs attracts a fair number of detractors -- perhaps because Bugs has a quick and irreverent sense of humor, and displays it often. Most of us see that as lightening things up, but others apparently take umbrage at it.

So while we are bending over backwards to find fault in Bugs, perhaps we should also bend the other way to see that there are those who are -- not to put too fine a point on it -- out to get him if they can. That doesn't mean that every complaint about Bugs is necessarily to be disregarded, or that every complainant is part of the "I Hate Bugs" club, but it does mean that the complaints need to be closely examined to see if there's anything to them. BMK (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Help with DR

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

---

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)

I'd say that it's this case that's less urgent. I'd rather we got the facts straight in a case with external context first, and handled this internal matter afterwards. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

The DR case was inappropriately closed due to the mistaken belief that this unrelated discussion is relevant; I think it's clear enough that this is not the case. I have reopened it since the dispute still requires resolution. It's at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd.23Hanged vs. found dead, the talk page discussion is at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd#Hanged vs 'found dead'. The content issue involves points of principle that have a much wider impact than this rather silly argument. Guy (Help!) 13:51, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Bless you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:16, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

It wasn't inappropriately closed. The above complaint is about the reference desk and baseball bugs and the DRN filing request brings up the reference several times and the above complaint touches on the DRN case. There was more than enough cross over to make it an issue. I also felt that Bugs behavior in trying to re-open the case was a little bullying and I don't respond to that.--Mark Miller (talk) 18:19, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed like bullying. My complaint was that you were closing Tutelary's DR case because of some alleged reference here. It's not fair to penalize Tutelary for something I've allegedly been accused of. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"Holding hostage", "Penalizing" and other aggressive statements can be taken for bullying along with overly aggressive posts after being asked to stop commenting on my talk page, but I should apologize to you since it seems our other positive interactions seem to make me "involved" enough not to open or close. This isn't in the guidelines but it seems that one other volunteer would not re-open the case because of a conflict with another editor so, it seems that this was not an action I should have taken.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:13, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears that was a personal restrictions of another volunteer and it was not a part of our guidelines. I have added content to restrict opening and closing based on interactions but this might be reverted if others find it too restrictive. We only have about 5 volunteers that are active and it could restrict DRN too much in the opinion of others.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Maybe my words were a bit too strong. Emotion-driven. And I seem to recall that you and I used to get along well, so I am hopeful that we can return to that status. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't hold grudges and see you as a net positive for the project as many editors do. I have no problem with you.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:02, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

VW

Well, I guess I owe somebody an apology, though I'm not sure who. Certainly not Viennese Waltz (talk · contribs). In response to questions earlier about diffs demonstrating my complaints about VW, jI went looking through the ref desk archives for "viennese waltz". My intention was to try to find the time he told me that showing me up in front of the OP was purposeful. I didn't find that, but I've had the epiphany that "it's not just me." He's that way with most anybody, including not just folks like StuRat, Medeis, et al, but with other users, including OP's. In one case, he told a user to stop asking so many questions about some subject or other. (If that isn't nannyism, I don't know what is.) He's been doing this for at least four years. (The first archive item that turns up is an attack on StuRat in the summer of 2010). I must be resigned to the reality that VW is just naturally snippy with everyone, and nothing is going to change that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:25, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Are there any diffs to support those assertions? NE Ent 01:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I could construct a list. But you could just do what I did, and look in the archive for the user's name. I scanned through a few pages of it. The very first item that showed up was a snippy comment at StuRat, nearly four years ago.[36] And by the way, I have never been able to figure out why the archives turn up in random order instead of by date, but that's another story. It's important to note that most of VW's comments appear to be factual rather than attacking. And my whole point in bringing this up is to say that I've changed my mind about VW, and won't be complaining at him anymore. (I'm too often an idiot, but I can learn eventually.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:49, 30 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 [37] 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)

If ~85% of media coverage of the subject is negative, "balancing" the article would be what would make it POV/UNDUE. (Not saying that's necessarily the case in this particular case, but an "85% negative article" is not, necessarily, automatically UNDUE.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I've had much the same concerns as TParis since I first got involved at the article. It used to be more blatant, the article was using the "criminal" infobox and the lead focused more heavily on his legal problems. The difficulty we keep running into is that there are two kinds of sources for Yank Barry. There are independent sources which are overwhelmingly negative, and there are press releases (or news articles that cite press releases) that are positive. It's difficult to get a balanced article when the press is focused on the problems he's had, and when there is a very blatant PR campaign to improve his image (a PR campaign that extends to Wikipedia; the article has been hit multiple times by sockpuppets connected to his organization as well as this recent personal threat against Richfife). I first got involved in the article from a request at WP:COIN because of those problems. I wish there was reliable coverage of such basic biographical information as his childhood and family, his marital history, even his musical and business career. Maybe someone with better resources and/or research skills can help out. -- Atama頭 15:35, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To help illustrate how widespread the problem at the article has been, here is a list of single-purpose accounts who have only edited this article or edited other articles related to Yank Barry, just in 2014 (there were more in the past):

• Gogvc (talk · contribs) - Since blocked for being a promotional account, username matches the domain name of Yank Barry's charity organization web site.
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs) - A CU-confirmed sockpuppet of Gogvc, also blocked.
• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs) - The original creator of the article, now blocked for "editing against consensus, likely COI, plugging of one subject, etc.".
• Fmrjournalist (talk · contribs) - Blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of Accurateinfo973.
• Npl10 (talk · contribs) - Not blocked, and admittedly not editing promotionally, has only edited to remove information about an upcoming film Barry is allegedly producing.
• Bestmomever (talk · contribs) - A suspected sock puppet of Gogvc, CU says it is a "likely" match to Gogvc, the SPI case is awaiting administration.
• BeadCatz (talk · contribs) - Just showed up today, editing in a very promotional manner and without sources.

Again, this is just since January of this year. And this only includes the accounts, there have been numerous IPs making such edits, and there have been similar SPAs editing since the article's creation in 2010, including those whose usernames blatantly connected them to Barry's organization. -- Atama頭 17:44, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and new SPA BeadCatz (talk · contribs) just re-inserted the bogus info which Atama had just deleted. [38] The subject of the article employs a PR agency ("The Publicity Agency", Tampa, FL)[39] to polish his image, and that does seem to extend to Wikipedia. We've been to COIN twice, AN/I three times, and sockpuppet investigations as listed above. The edits driven by the PR effort are so inept and heavy-handed that they're more annoying than effective. Kind of like the anonymous phone threat. It may be time for semi-protection, just to reduce the noise level. John Nagle (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I warned BeadCatz after they violated WP:3RR at the article (they have reverted 4 other editors today). Another revert and I'll report at WP:ANEW (I won't bother to report someone for violating it if they hadn't been alerted to the rule first, especially a new editor - I assume they are new). Having SPAs show up to edit war and insert promotion isn't unusual at this article, unfortunately, and it's one reason why it has been a challenge to constructively develop it. -- Atama頭 18:33, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, BeadCatz, with a Wikipedia career of 2 hours, just hit 4RR at Yank Barry.[40]. They've been reverted by three different editors, and given multiple warnings. Please pull their plug, and I'd suggest a week of semi-protection so we can do something else for a while. John Nagle (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Interesting that the account was created in 2012. Are we dealing with a marketing firm sock farm?--v/r - TP 18:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I checked all the other possible socks listed above. All the others were newly registered, except for the one that created the Yank Barry article four years ago. John Nagle (talk) 19:09, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Dr Gonzo5269 (talk · contribs). It's like drinking from an SPA firehose. - Richfife (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, the Dr did make two other edits prior to posting to the Yank Barry talk page, to unrelated articles (the biographies of a professional wrestler and an American football player). So this doesn't fit the pattern of previous SPAs. Though it does seem odd to show up out of nowhere to make practically the same argument of older SPAs. Also, I checked the creation log and the new account was created 4 hours before the block of BeadCatz so that doesn't suggest block evasion to me. -- Atama頭 22:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Although the possibility they learnt the trick many SPAs learn of at least trying to appear interested in other stuff can't be ruled out. The account creation is interesting. Creating before a block isn't a definite sign that it isn't block evasion since it isn't uncommon among block evaders, particularly persistent ones, to create and perhaps even start using a sleeper before they are blocked. Particularly if it's clear they are likely to be blocked. However it seems BeadCatz only had one edit, to their sandbox, when the new account was created so it doesn't seem it was obvious they would be blocked, unless perhaps they'd been around long enough to recognise that there's a fair chance the BeadCatz would be quickly blocked. Alternatively, they may have been hoping for multiple simultaenous socks. Another possibility is there's some degree of meatpuppetry and the SPAs actually belong to at least 2 different people. In which case the BeadCatz and Dr could be different editors. Either way while it may be premature to block, I think the Dr account should be carefully monitored, although I also wonder if it will stay around anyway. Nil Einne (talk) 17:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards meatpuppetry right now, but the fairly advanced level of the edits (properly formatted external link summaries for instance) makes me wonder. - Richfife (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The new "Dr Gonzo5269" editor is commenting on the talk page, not editing the article. We can try to communicate with them. That's progress. I put a note to the Yank Barry PR operation on User_talk:BeadCatz#Promotional_editing, pointing out that what they're doing is counterproductive. Maybe they'll engage more. Note to Barry's PR operation, if you're reading this: Get one account, make it clear you represent Barry, and discuss what you want to say on Talk before editing the article. You might get somewhere. Using lots of new accounts making hit and run edits is not going to get you anywhere. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As pointed out I am a new account so I'm not totally clear what the issue is here but I do not appreciate my name being thrown around in this manner. I have many interests on Wikipedia. I am a fan of Steve Van Zandt and it was through following him I heard of Yank Barry. I remembered liking the song "Louie Louie" as a kid. I began to do some research and it was from that I learned of the multiple Noble Peace Prize nominations which I happen to find rather impressive. Any info I post about Yank Barry will be something that has been reported in the past. I do know the Richfife account replied to my post in a heartbeat. Does he have something against Yank Barry? From my limited initial research I have found mostly positive information about Yank Barry. He seems to be genuinely helping the refugees from Syria. I will continue my research as I am now thoroughly intrigued by this whole ordeal. I do not see why there is a fight here or why some editors are against Yank Barry. Having said that I am not a meat puppet, a sock puppet, and I certainly didn't call anyone. As long as I cite my sources I don't see any problem with having a positive opinion about Yank Barry, Stephen Neal, Ben Askren, or anyone else I decide to take an interest in. Thanks.--Dr Gonzo5269 (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Richfife continues adding unsourced material on BLP Yank_Barry

This user is clearly violating BLP rules and directly going against WP BLP rules. He has made a claim that the subject filed bankruptcy. This is a serious accusation on a BLP page. It must be backed up with actual and real court documents of the bankruptcy filing and charge off. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. But USer:Richfife continues to ignore this. This is not the first instance of his complete disregard for the serious nature of such actions on a BLP. There is a zero tolerance policy on this matter as outlined by Jimmy Wales policy here: Zero information is preferred to misleading or false information.

This page has seen so much negative and clearly biased postings aimed at causing financial harm to the subject. I went through the entire Talk:Yank_Barry#Nobel_Peace_Prize_nominee and was shocked to see this statement by User:Richfife, Don't kid yourselves: This page is the number one Google result for a search for "Yank Barry". We are threatening his livelihood (and rightly so. His means of livelihood is extremely suspect). So, as they say, buckle up. He can not defend the fluff that goes onto the page, so he won't. My guess is that he will periodically "wait for the dust to settle" and come back. Keep the page on your watchlists. on 03:59, 14 April 2014. This user should be blocked immediately to maintain the integrity of WP. (Ganbarreh (talk) 20:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC))

And how do we know you're not hired by Yank Barry to whitewash his article, hm? —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 20:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Same way I might ask, Jeske, why I should trust you to be balanced and neutral about a topic of this nature? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(EC to Demiurge) Ganberreh has, including this An/I post, 6 edits to his name, all about or on the talk page of Yank Barry, all made today despite the account being made on 23 May. If you've read the above thread, then you should know that there is a serious concern that that article is the centre of a concerted PR campaign, so a new editor coming on and joining the debate pro-Barry should be put under more scrutiny than normal. I suspect Ganberreh is associated with the PR campaign. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 21:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a WP:RS reliable source for the bankruptcy.[41] It's an article in ArtNews written by a notable Bloomberg writer, William D. Cohan. John Nagle (talk) 21:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The material on the bankruptcu is sourced, is sourced to a reliable source (the Montreal Gazette), and has been since it was added. The claim that we need court documents rather than newspaper coverage is a call for primary sources over secondary one, which flies right in the face of WP:SECONDARY. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:10, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Montreal Gazette is not reliable until you can proof it. That is a basic common need for all editors to be comfortable with the accuracy of the information. Unless you can get a copy of it an upload for reading, it is not reliable. If we accept this, there will be no end to editors say, "trust me" I have the backup. the burden is on you to backup your content, not the other way around. That is a basic requirement, you know that. Then ArtNews, if that one passing statement is accepted, then all passing statements on all the other articles written in so many articles I have found on CNN should be admitted. But those have been struck out claiming them to be not well sourced. We cannot have double standards and selective here. The standards of source acceptance need to apply to keep this page neutral. (Ganbarreh (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC))

We are threatening his livelihood and rightly so

That's a quote. Is that what Wikipedia is for? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it is a partial quote, missing an opening parenthesis... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We have a reliable source for Barry's sources of income being somewhat sketchy, a CTV expose from 2002.[42] Excerpt: "Barry then went after the better life with a vengeance. Today as a member of the ultra-exclusive Ocean View Golf Club, Barry claims he makes his money from VitaPro and managing offshore investments. But many people say that's just a cover. They think Yank Barry is just a smooth talker with questionable business practices. Investigative journalist David Marchant is one of the few reporters keeping an eye on the world of offshore banking...". The details follow at the link given. That CTV article is far, far more negative on Barry than the Wikipedia article. John Nagle (talk) 22:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Let's call a spade a spade: It was a wildly inappropriate comment on my part and I admit it. What I wanted was to point out was that this was a situation that was likely to spin out of control and I semi-consciously resorted to overheated language to make my point. I wound up making rather more points that I intended to. That being said, this is not a case where I'm standing on the mountaintop crusading solo against Barry. Many, many people are watching the article from both sides and I hope that we are all watching each other's backs to make sure we don't go over the line when it comes to the article itself. - Richfife (talk) 22:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a problem with SPAs at that article. Agreed? There's also a problem with SPAs getting riled up to participate there because they think people biased against them are dominating the discussion there.

Did you give them a very good reason to think that? Yes.

Is there a lack of people willing and able to deal with the SPA problem there? No.

Richfife, would it hurt you a great deal to take a break from that article for a month or two?

The same question for the other accounts that have made a very large number of edits there recently.--Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And you think that the endless stream of pro-Berry SPAs is going to take a break from the article because you ask then to? AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The semi-protection will help. Since I'm not obsessed with the topic (and really don't care about it at all), I quite frankly have absolutely no objection to it being full protected until the SPAs (and other obsessives) get bored enough to either go away or discuss it properly on the talk page. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to think about it for a bit, but I'm leaning towards no for a number of reasons. First, whether you want to take it seriously or not, there was an effort to scare both myself and a number of other unnamed editors off the article IRL in the form of a threatening phone call. This brings things perilously close to negotiating with terrorists. Second, given the suspicion of of sockpuppetry, it's not clear who the editors with large numbers of edits actually are. Third, comment on the edits, not the editor. As of late, the majority of my edits to the article proper have been either obviously neutral or positive in nature. Fourth, lets call another spade a spade, I don't think you're particularly objective about me either. "Wikipedia is not your conduit to promote criticism of this Barry guy" doesn't exactly line up with the changes I've made to the page. I hadn't even heard of him until a routine run of edits to remove non-notable Nobel peace prize nominations sparked an explosion. - Richfife (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I've only made three edits on Yank Barry during May 2014. I'd been looking at business-related COI problems from WP:COIN, such as Banc de Binary, Riak, and Dun & Bradstreet Credibility Corp, where, like Yank Barry, there's heavy promotional editing. I've made lots of comments on the Yank Barry talk page after finding sources, and I've been on WP:COIN, WP:ANI, and WP:BLPN due to the COI/SPA/sock problems. I'd never heard of Yank Barry until the article popped up on WP:COIN. There's general consensus from the editors involved who have a track record on Wikipedia outside Yank Barry articles. Disagreements are hammered out on talk. There's no edit warring going on between any non-SPA accounts. All the trouble is coming from editors with very narrow editing interests. It's not clear how those editors are connected, but it's clear that as soon as one is blocked, another pops up. Admins, figure out a way to get us out of whack-a-mole mode. Thanks. John Nagle (talk) 00:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Since I seem to possibly be among the group mentioned in a post above, I will respond. I only care about the verifiable facts on any article I edit on Wikipedia. I only care about how articles reflect on Wikipedia's reliability as an encyclopedia. Sometimes when I find articles that are not as good as they could be, then I'll try to fix the issues whatever they are - that's what I'm here for...to edit. If other editors misinterpret my efforts to source statements, to keep a dispassionate tone, to maintain a neutral point of view in any Wikipedia article, as being either for or against any issue or person, that has not ever been nor ever will be my intent. I have attempted to discuss my edits on Yank Barry on its associated talk page. I have attempted to place Welcome templates on any new editor's talk page who edits the article. I have done nothing on the Yank Barry article that would necessitate my having to take a break from editing it, I have done nothing there that I need to apologize for. Shearonink (talk) 00:01, 31 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)

On closer inspection, Jagged 85 has been avoiding his ban for some time now. Several more IPs popped up while I undid the edits of 86.157.103.109:

• 86.186.44.113
• 87.81.139.93
• 86.157.99.120

All are from London, too. It seems the user is trying to make a comeback at Wikipedia below the radar. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 20:22, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree 86.186.44.113 and 86.157.99.120 are Jagged_85. I'm less certain about 87.81.139.93 (I wasn't aware Jagged_85 had such an interest in martial arts), however the edits to Hospital, Water wheel and Watermill are all suspicious. --Merlinme (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This diff [43] is enough to convince me that 87.81.139.93 is sock the same edit can be found in History/Zosimos_of_Panopolis J8079s (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Following are the details referred to by J8079s above. The edit by 87.81.139.93 (7 May 2014) is almost identical to the last of the following edits by Jagged_85 at Zosimos of Panopolis (the edit changes the first line to the second):

• 17 August 2008
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was a Greek alchemist and Gnostic Mystic
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an ancient Egyptian alchemist and Gnostic mystic
• 12 September 2008
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an ancient Egyptian
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Egyptian
• 6 March 2010
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Greek or Egyptian
  • Zosimos of Panopolis was an Egyptian or Greek

References

Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 31 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)

Note my signature, since you've obviously noted little else. Monkey Two (talk) 12:36, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

the use of multiple misleading signatures on the same talk page is certainly something I have advised you against (diff). --_nonsense ferret 13:52, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

A few more things I'll submit since there is a mountain of information and it can be hard to file through it all, especially since he attempted to delete most of the things he's said from the relevant talk pages. Monkey Two has lead other editors to believe he was new to Wikipedia only to reveal almost a week later that he's had at least one other account before on WP. Here he posted on his page that he was an administrator and another administrator had to remove it.Here he threatened to "level" me and threatened hostility if I didn't accept his OR arguments. When he couldn't provide any reliable secondary sources to support his OR arguments, he turned to "tag bombing" the article. When they were removed by another editor and replaced with a single factual accuracy dispute tag, he went back and tagged the entire lead again. I was willing to try DRN and was waiting for him to create a post before addressing any of these issues, but since another editor has stepped in, I guess that's at of the question now.Scoobydunk (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is very important to separate questions about the appropriateness of editor behaviour and substantive decisions about article content. I would suggest the former only are suitable for discussion here. --_nonsense ferret 17:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, it's not just about editor behavior, in case you didn't know. There is, at issue, the behavior of several admins and editors; but you're absolutely right, there's a place and time for everything, and I've no reason to be here. If you can, would you please uncheck the box so I may no longer have an inbox filled with emails about this page? The functionality to untick the "watch this page" box seems to have been fiddled with. Cheerio... Dr. Matt (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree with nonsenseferret, which is why I didn't post any concerns about content and all of my diffs speak to behavioral issues. Also, is there something against posting entire articles to talk page sections? He's done this before on another user's talk page, and now he posted another full WP article to the John Punch talk page here. I don't know if a WP policy says anything about this specifically, but I do feel it's rather disruptive. However, this is only a drop in the bucket compared to how he's obliterated the talk page by adding over 20 new sections and subsections and dissecting/transplanting previous discussions so those conversation no longer make sense and are impossible to follow.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:08, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I will limit my hand-typed content as much as possible so I may defer my space to the permissible use {hence, the existence} of a template reminiscent of the behavior manifested in the archived history of my new member WP:EXPERIENCE, which incidentally, "violated" a number of the founder's principles meant to govern exchanges, instill civility, encourage trust and promote good will. Those "violations," to employ a word I believe to be overused by some users, are also manifested throughout the documented revision histories covering my past 7 or 8 weeks as PresidentistVB; provided, of course, they have all, by now, been restored (and will no longer be tampered with), since they are not the property of any single user, and I have not been made aware of any Oversignt action involving my work or the work of anyone I have been communicating with.. I shall respectfully disagree that the removal of my "mislabeled content" comment was justified as so inappropriate to the issue of my behaviour as to be deleted also from the revision history, where an author should be able to look for his work. For the record, that was the third and last time nonsenseferret will ever abscond without notice or reason or authority, completely erasing me along with his own scent, from my history. [I DO HOPE YOU CAN READ THIS IN BRITISH, DEAR SIR.. I CAN LEAVE IT 'TIL TWO HOURS PAST SUN-UP IF YOU WOULD PREFER. For the record, and I speak now donning the white coat of a DMD, any- and everything I do constitutes s part of the whole of my "behavior." Fortunately, since I emailed Sue a copy of the suspiciously deleted content 5 minutes after it was first posted and, if I didn't believe this section and/or the users herein to be in violation of numerous federal laws, I would post it in here, again. I'm sure Sue will be asking me why the digital summons I told her about in advance led her on a wild goose chase. If she does, I'll tell her the truth. One more comment I'd like to make before I take off this clinic coat... to be sure, the readers are surely wise enough to realize the behavior exhibited by the subject comment was most revealing about the user who deleted it, and then deleted it again, and the user who entered the room to say, as if in support of a friend (as if I had uttered so much as one word to complain), "[he did the right thing and should do it again; look at me, i did the right thing, too.]" Well to that I can respond in a few ways: (1) "Congratulations. Well done, men;" or (2) "My grandmother used to say, 'Those who cry the loudest.. are the most guilty.'" or (3) "What is wrong with you people? What have I ever done to you to make me the subject of these childish monkey traps?" If you ask me, and I'm just commented on what I observe, "It's curious how quickly the two of you managed to become the very things which I was alleged to have accused you of! You're running around in here and elsewhere like a couple of wild monkeys, and I am not defaming your characters when I comment only on what I see... Lastly, because this is not the venue to protect the rights of its users, I have notified the appropriate authorities, with the exception of the section's creator, with whose email I am nearly finished, that I will be respecting WP POLICY to allow for the proper protocol to play out its course, but it will not be held in a public forum. My primary concerns are to protect the rights of all users, to inform and educate them (especially the admins) of the potential for damage to themselves and the WMF platform, and to improve the overall experience for everyone. As this section bears my name, and I now have authority to make such a change, vacating the original creator and inviting him to rule in his new space, it is both in good form and incumbent on all users to respect my respectful wishes for same. Enjoy the game while it lasts... I agree tht displaying a mural is less a message and more a broadcast. But hey, I'm not the one who's been gaming.. :-) WP:GAME Dr. Matt (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Worked on the perfect email to send to @Nonsenseferret: but it said he doesn't receive emails from users. This is the record of that attempt. Please do not delete anything else in this section. It may be evidence. Thanks...

Dr. Matt (talk) 21:38, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Incivility at Voyager 1

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

---

Could someone maybe deal with User:BatteryIncluded? Please see Talk:Voyager 1. Thanks, 141.6.11.18 (talk) 16:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Telling someone to FYS (i.e., "fuck yourself") is not particularly nice. Nor is calling another editor a "misogynistic asshole". The dispute seems to center on whether Voyager 1 should be referred to as "manmade" or "human-made", with BatteryIncluded supporting the latter and evidently arguing that supporting the former amounts to misogyny. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:32, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Gave a level two warning for NPA. I don't think admin action is really needed here. If BatteryIncluded continues with the personal attacks, action may be merited. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Could someone take a look at the talk page again? Battery has said "Sorry, but men created the probe, and only PC Nazis care about language being "gender neutral"." when referring to the spirit of the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎Tutelary (talk • contribs) 18:22, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User talk:BatteryIncluded#Bon Voyage doesn't bode well either. Choor monster (talk) 19:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, Battery did not say that - an IP did, and he was just quoting them. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks made by editor, after being asked to stop

User:Cebr1979 continues to make personal attacks against myself, despite asking them to refrain from me. They claim I am targetting and attacking them, when in fact, I am not. I am merely working based on the act of the Wikipedia Soap Project, and other policies held by Wikipedia currently in place.

1. Attack 1
2. Attack 2
3. Attack 3
4. Attack 4 (blatantly calling me "silly" which I see as a personal attack speaking on part of my editing, and not my edits)
5. Attack 5
6. Attack 6 (After I apologised for making them feel bullied, which I explained was not my intentions, was told I am trying to show superiority -- which I am not -- and claims I like to do things because I like to do them my way, which I do not. My edits are always made in the best wishes of Wikipedia, and following the procedures/policies/decisions decided by projects and other users)
7. Attack 7 (Saying I hide behind "Civil" whenever "I'm wrong")
8. Attack 8

While my edits can be seen as harsh and blunt, I am merely editing in the consistency of the quality soap articles have been held to over the past few years. My creditability and long-standing edit history of soap articles, and other non-soap related articles proves what a valued and valuable member of the editing community I am. My edits are in good faith and while I'm sure 1979's are too, their continued belief that I am against them, while I am not, are completely unfounded. While I do admit, I can be brash and (at select times) seen as potentially owning pages, but that is not the case. Soap articles are just continually vandalised with fancruft editing to believe what they should be, and as one of the sole editors of soap articles, am trying to keep the integrity of the articles. And being attacked, and talked poorly of, is demeaning my character and creditability on this website. I took discussions to talk pages, and still received attacks, claiming I owned the page(s), yet I have never once taken "ownership" of something or claimed it was "mine". And then being called a "bully", which I am far from being, is hurtful as someone who has been bullied both online and offline. My brashness can sometimes be seen as something it is not, but I would never, ever bully (intentionally, unintentionally) another person, online or not. I apologised to them for making them feel bullied, but their continued inability to remain civil and refrain from personally attacking, is something that must go on notice. As much as I tried to keep discussions to edit-related only, said user kept trying to make it a personal attack on my editing skills and intentions. I am willing to answer any questions the admins may have for me, as I do feel I was acting in the best intentions of Wikipedia and the projects that protect soap opera articles, in the best intentions for Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"While my edits can be seen as harsh and blunt..." So he or she knows they come off that way, and continue to do it... Hmm???? He or she is also bullying the newbies, creating policies that can't be verified and claiming to know more about a show than the show itself! When I make edits, he or she literaly follows me around from page to page reverting everything I do with no explanation as to why he or she has reverted it and, when I ask, he or she deletes my questions from his or she talk page to make it look I never asked!!! Does this sound like "good faith" on his or her part??? Everything can be verified by simply checking his or her edit history.Cebr1979 (talk) 02:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, whenever I reverted anything (concerning you or anything else) I included an edit-summary, explaining why I did so. Once again, being personally attacked. I do not simply follow you. You just happen to edit pages on my Watchlist, etc. And no, my removal from the talk page (as I explained and was ignored) was because of OCD tendencies to keep my talk page consistent. And how a user edits their talk page is their own wish to do so. If I remove a discussion, I am allowed per Wikipedia. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 02:25, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Another thing livelikemusic seems to believe is a wiki policy is that a television show's credits cannot be used as a reliable source... Would a show not know more about its own show than other third party links? I also stumbled upon this:

"I checked out that page and found nothing about not using credits of a TV show. In fact I found this page, which states you can use TV episode info: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings So, until you point me to the correct page that says you can't use TV credits as a source, please do not revert my edits. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 16:39, 9 August 2013 (UTC)"

Could you please elaborate? Why are show credits not considered a reliable source when discussing a show credits??? Thank you in advance.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This is also very interesting: "My point is, from those two links, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Film.2C_TV.2C_or_video_recordings and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources , a consensus has already been reached by Wiki in regards to the use of TV credits. My confusion is that you are saying a consensus is "needed to be reached", while I am saying that a consensus (based on those two links) has already been reached. So, having read those two links, what are your thoughts on the matter? Also, Livelikemusic, you were the one who asked for a discussion on this matter, but have yet to say anything since asking for this discussion, so I'd like to hear your thoughts about things after having read those two links. Thanks! Jason47a (talk) 17:25, 10 August 2013 (UTC)" Cebr1979 (talk) 03:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My discussions with another editor are not what's being discussed right now. You're continuing to make this a personal attack on me, which is what you're being reported for. Per the Wiki SoapProject, and its editors, the credits were deemed unreliable, due to it not being third-party and inconsistencies and false things found. Why bring up past discussions from last year, as well? Once again, your continuing to use my discussions with another editor as an attempt to attack me personally. Especially since shows themselves state they do NOT comment on contract status or negotiations. That's why third-parties are required, they CAN talk about them, and you're pulling quotes from discussions about other subjects where I did respond. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

How is asking for clarification on whether or not a show's credits are a reliable source a personal attack on you? You know what else I want clarification on? What you wouldn't consider a personal attack! Are those your two favourite words? Cebr1979 (talk) 03:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

And regardless, a show's rep does not usually comment on contract status when called for an interview. A show's credits are not a rep giving an interview. They are the definitive source and not a rep doing the talking. You are continuing to get silly now, you're grasping to keep your precious personal interpretations of wiki policies in tact so you can remain supreme editor of your favourite pages. That's not a personal attack, that's just what you're doing.Cebr1979 (talk) 03:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually no, it's not what I'm doing. And it is a personal attack, as you're talking about ME, not the edits themselves. I've given multiple sources of your personally attacking me, especially after I asked you to stop, and you are not attempting to show your own form of owning a page. You consistently discussing ME and not the content alone is a personal attack, per Wikipedia policy as dictated. That is why you've been reported, and instead of attempting to defend yourself, you'd drudged up past discussions which have either settled or just fizzled, and continued to make said-attacks. Continually calling me silly, especially in a hidden note on a cast member page, is a personal attack, which defames my editing on Wikipedia and can be seen as libelous. And claiming I'm doing it to reign "supreme", which I have never set out to be or done, is once again personal. My next response will be to an Admin, only. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 03:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Good. Now, to the admin who sees this: I am asking for you to elaborate as to livelikemusic's personal interpretation of show credits not being a credible source. Clearly, there are others who disagree with him or her, not just me, and I would like confirmation. If he or she feels that is a personal attack against him or her, so be it. Cebr1979 (talk) 03:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Cebr1979 and Jason47a, please contain yourselves and wait for an administrator to pick up on this thread. At the moment, you are misusing this board by treating it as an unruly article talk page, and making a public spectacle of your uncivil behaviour. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing actual attacks. Sarcasm and frustration, yes, as well as accusations of WP:OWN and WP:BITE, but this was the only post that is obviously unacceptable. However, by the standards livelikemusic is holding Cebr1979 to, livelikemusic made a personal attack on @Jason47a: as well.

As a matter of fact, I can't locate any discussion at WP:SOAPS's talk forbidding the use of show credits -- @Livelikemusic:, could you please link to it for us? Otherwise, there does need to be a proper discussion as to whether or not credits would fall under WP:SELFPUB as sources which cannot be used as the base of an article, but can still be used in an article for reasonably non-controversial statements (with third-party sources being handy for additional verification). (That appears to be the rational behind Wikipedia:MOSTV#Cast_information, which actually calls for the use of the original broadcast credits, which would explain why WP:TV has absolutely no problem whatsoever with show credits). Without a link to a discussion or guideline clearly establishing the consensus that credits are not to be used for soap operas when they are used for all other TV shows, this falls under WP:SPADE instead of WP:NPA. Ian.thomson (talk) 04:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ian. I agree with your assessment of "Without a link to a discussion or guideline clearly establishing the consensus that credits are not to be used for soap operas when they are used for all other TV shows, this falls under WP:SPADE instead of WP:NPA." Hopefully livelikemusic can provide a link to such a discussion and/or guideline otherwise edits quoting show credits will have to be accepted by him or her.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Jason47's comments were old that I was quoting (hence me signing my name after them and what Jason said was in quotes with the original dates attached). He's not a part of this conversation.Cebr1979 (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

This board is not for the discussion of the reliability of show credits. Please use the proper dispute resolution process if you are unable to come to a suitable agreement on the talk page regarding the usage of such sources. Now regarding behavior, this is ridiculously childish. However although the majority of the diffs show incivility and a failure to assume good faith, they are not actionable. I would advise both parties to stop accusing the other of nefarious intent and talk the changes through. This is not a school playground, stop calling each other names and communicate. Calling someone silly is not going to get you anywhere. —Dark 10:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I never called anyone a name, and yes it does violate personal attack policies, since the user spoke on me as an edtior and not on the edits themselves. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 16:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

livelikemusic... It's done now.Cebr1979 (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, I don't feel it is.... The policy clearly states: "Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor." So unless Wiki admins do not wish to follow what they've written, action needs to be taken. So unless an ADMIN and ADMIN ONLY can explain how the edits did NOT violate what it set in written word, it is not over for me. I'm tired of injustice on this website. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 17:51, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I do not see the accusations of article ownership and biting to be serious personal attacks that merit a block, in this case. Unless you can provide evidence of recent severe ad hominem attacks, I don't think any admin action will be effective at the current time. Yes his comments are unfounded and doesn't assume good faith, but I do not think it is actionable. As long as Cebr understands that these accusations are very unhelpful and detrimental to proper discussion and promises to refrain from making them in the future, I do not foresee a problem. However if he continues his incivil conduct then by all means, feel free to repost here. —Dark 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I do apologise for my silly comment and thank you for your time in this.Cebr1979 (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Which comment do you apologize for? This one where you actually insulted an editor inside an article that's now a matter of permanent record? Let's be a little more specific here - had I seen that edit yesterday, you'd still be blocked today - I chose one link at random, and if any of the rest of the links are even close to being as bad, there's a serious problem here. the panda ₯’ 09:45, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
  • Blocking him over that particular edit is excessive to say the least. I do not see any attacks beyond that diff - unhelpful allegations of article ownership and accusations that are borderline incivil, sure, but nothing serious enough to justify a block. —Dark 12:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Scott Morrison (politician)

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

---

Google is displaying this libellous version of the article on a search. The article is also under current vandalism. Please lock the article and WP:OVERSIGHT the relevant diffs. --Surturz (talk) 02:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Wouldn't help. This is cached on Google's servers. I already emailed Google about it.--v/r - TP 02:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I followed these instructions to see about getting the content removed that way as well. Hopefully one of them will work. Go Phightins! 03:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Google seem to have updated their cache. Thanks all. --Surturz (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

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

Locked Out

Damn it! I locked myself out of my account using a wikibreak enforcer set to unlock in a week and has gone wrong somewhere. I need to do some userspace work but it won't let me create the page.

Could an admin Please remove the wikibreak enforcer? It's in my commons js.

Thanks, User:titusfox (talk) 11:23, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Donw but please be more careful in the future. —Dark 12:09, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

One can always bypass it themselves via disabling javascript in their browser. Werieth (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

AfD legal threat

User:Europa6 on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eugenie Carys de Silva has told the nominating editor (and presumably everyone else reading) that "if you continue to falsely develop arguments to have a page removed, then please once again be aware that legal action will be sought against you for defamation of character, discrimination, and prejudice" and demanded "evidence" that the other editor has no personal vendetta, threatening that failure to provide such evidence may itself be "raised as evidence in future, possible investigations". --McGeddon (talk) 16:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I deleted this report when the user downgraded their explicit legal threats to general WP:BATTLEGROUND, but have been asked to restore it with an explanation instead, so here we go. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

It was a bright-line legal threat being used to gain leverage in a dispute and blockable per WP:NLT and WP:CIVIL, even though Europa6 subsequently altered the post to omit "legal", "legal action", "investigation" and the like. While Europa6 has also made a statement that he or she retracts the legal threats, the fact that they were so readily made suggests to me that a block per WP:NOTHERE and WP:CIVIL would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Would the implicit retraction in this revision be considered the same as a retraction of legal threats done while blocked? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 16:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

We usually ask that someone "unambiguously" retract any legal threats. I think redacting information that indicates a legal threat is explicit enough. Just using common sense, why would they bother doing it if they weren't trying to reassure people that no legal action was forthcoming? -- Atama頭 19:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I personally think an explicit retraction is the only way to unambiguously retract legal threats. Regardless, I don't think the redactions that Europa6 made were sufficient to mitigate the WP:CIVIL violation that follows using a legal threat as leverage. I suppose it's more academic at this point; I don't think a block will be forthcoming. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Could an admin please take a look at the above named AfD? It appears we have some malarkey going on. two new editors have found their way there to make their first edits, one of them admitting they were asked to be there. Thanks. No notifications made as this smells like socks. John from Idegon (talk) 21:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I just marked the AfD with {{nab}}. Whether a SPI is needed is probably a question to be answered by someone more experienced than me; certainly at least one participant has been solicited into participating, though sometimes such claims are simply poorly-thought-out covers for socking. I seriously doubt those !votes will taint the outcome, though. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Europa6 (talk · contribs) and Factcheck1111 (talk · contribs) are  Technically indistinguishable. Frizvanov (talk · contribs) is  Unlikely to be a sock, however given that their first and only edit was to support Europa6 and the sock Factcheck1111 at the AfD, WP:MEAT/vote canvassing is pretty likely.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:22, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

TheLittleDuke's NLT block review

A few days ago, TheLittleDuke (talk · contribs) was blocked for legal threats he made in an edit summary and on Twitter. Since the block, TheLittleDuke has deleted the tweets and rescinded the legal threat.[44] I contacted Yunshui (talk · contribs), the blocking admin, that the situation as far as NLT has been resolved,[45] but he disinclined to unblock TheLittleDuke on the bases that he was not convinced that TheLittleDuke is here for anything other than to promote his company.[46] TheLittleDuke also has an outstanding unblock request that is now two days old with no action taken. —Farix (t | c) 17:02, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My initial reaction to this was to think there's no way in hell this should be lifted given the disingenuous claim of privilege on the grounds of having made donations to the Foundation (which is questionable given the Foundation doesn't accept donations in Bitcoin form). After all, the legal threat is not merely a NLT issue but a civility issue. But it seems like there's some contrition on the part of TheLittleDuke, and that reblocks are cheap, an unblock would not be unreasonable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking a look at this atm, but in the meantime: please don't take this the wrong way, but I think the situation has suffered due to the some of the involvement of non-admins in this unblock request. Not because non-admins or their opinions, views, and advice are unwelcome--all very much are. But when a non-admin makes conditions for an unblock like: If you explicitly rescind the legal threat, then you will be unblocked, pursuant to the following condition: You agree to have a mentor, who may revert any edit of yours and levy any arbitration sanction, excluding blocking or banning. It is recommended that this mentor put in a "no edit to mainspace without prior approval" type thing. This will be in effect for two weeks, and may be extended by a consensus of admins., they are making a promise that they cannot keep, since they cannot actually perform the unblock. Qualifiers like Note that this is, again, a (Non-administrator observation) and This offer must have an endorsement(preferably multiple endorsements) from (an) admin(s) to have effect are not particularly helpful in dispelling this appearance of an empty promise, since someone who is unfamiliar with the way enwiki works isn't likely to really understand what that means. So when the blocked person meets these requirements and doesn't get unblocked, either because no admin actually agrees with those terms or just that no admin has noticed them yet, they get understandably irate, since they did what "we" told them to do, to no avail. Non-admins, as always, are welcome to provide any help or insight they might have regarding an unblock request, but I would suggest that a non-admin providing unblock conditions that they haven't gotten an admin to agree to beforehand--and thus have no way of holding up their end of the bargain, i.e. an actual unblock--is a bad idea, and should be avoided. I know well that everyone here was acting in the best of faith to try and help out, but I don't think it was actually helping here. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 17:37, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, BTW, who is Lixxx235, whose account was created in February 2010, but who didn't edit until July 2013 (1 edit), made 2 edits at the end of April this year, and has now been editing consistently for the last two weeks? And why is a person with that track record counseling a blocked editor on what to do to get unblocked? What is going on? BMK (talk) 19:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I caused any disturbances. I just thought that, maybe, since no one was on the page and he obviously wanted to get unblocked and seemed reasonable, that it might have been a good idea to engage in a bit of conversation. If it was disruptive, I'm sorry, if you want, I'll never comment on that page again. Thanks. Lixxx235 (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The main issue is that it's not really fair to TheLittleDuke to accede to demands believing he would be unblocked when you had no authority to do so. Even if you might have been correct (and frankly, you weren't), it's a problem because you shouldn't be setting the conditions for an unblock. That's all it is. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, sorry, won't happen again. Lixxx235 (talk) 22:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

User:Tprg

Above user appears to be repeatedly adding speculative information about Telenova's that have not yet been created as per user talkpage User_talk:Tprg.

Editors have requested that user does not post such material here and here,

Can someone please advise/assist on the matter please as it appears to be an ongoing issue Amortias (T)(C) 22:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, the user ignores the messages that are left and insists on creating soap operas article unconfirmed sources is a blog and other highly dubious references, the user takes time and in the same way and is currently unchanged.--GeorgeMilan ^TALK2ME 06:03, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Death threat

Death threat by User:Altimgamr sock (see edit summary). Semi-protecting my talk page would be appreciated. Bahooka (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the edit, blocked the account, semi-protected the talk page, and emailed emergency@. I'll be checking for socks momentarily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:52, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your assistance. Bahooka (talk) 23:53, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

false claim as reviewer

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

---

the user claims as reviewer by placing tag on his user page and starts to argue. The discussion page is this User_talk:Visakha_veera#Use_talk_page. The evidence of his profile is http://en.wikichecker.com/user/?t=Visakha+veera — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vin09 (talk • contribs) 06:40, 31 May 2014

So from the look of things, Visakha veera is not a reviewer... but does this require administrator intervention? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I just removed {{User wikipedia/reviewer}} from Visakha veera's user page and left a note on his/her user talk explaining. I don't think admin action is needed with respect to this. It's an honest enough mistake, I think... not nearly as serious as displaying the administrator tag improperly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I respect your statement but this user has been warned for edit on disruptive edit and rolled back thrice on Andhra Pradesh page, did the third rollback after seeing this discussion--Vin09 (talk) 06:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

What does that have to do with this complaint about Visakha veera improperly using the reviewer badge? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:01, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way, Vin09, I notice that you have made seven consecutive reverts to Andhra Pradesh in the last 24 hours. You are in violation of WP:3RR. I have warned both you and Visakha veera. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:04, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Engineer1989 (or is it User:Intelligentguy89?)

Intelligentguy89 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made unfounded allegations of sockpuppetry. Three editors: myself, User:Ms Sarah Welch and User:Iryna Harpy have raised similar concerns (of undue weight amongst other things) at the inclusion of certain content in Indian general election, 2014. Not content with the way discussions have been going against the inclusion, User:Intelligentguy89 has been behaving in a very aggressive and belligerent fashion. He seems unrepentant.

Note that as he has moved his userpages over another name without creating the account, I don't know how to notify. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 11:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

You did the right thing by notifying at both places. I've moved the userpage and talk page back to their correct spots. Nyttend (talk) 14:25, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

• Note - User:Intelligentguy89 have similar editing/edit summery trends with User:Jyoti.mickey so a CU would be worth checking. Edmondhills (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

WP:OUTING attempt

I have removed an WP:OUTING attempt here - would an admin please attend to this? 121.219.8.176 (talk) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't post links to sensitive information on a public noticeboard. Instead, please follow the instructions in the edit notice for this page - namely, please make a request per the instructions here. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 14:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Hvhhvgghvhgvhvh

The user recently made this edit, which gives me the impression that he/she might be a sockpuppet. As I was uninvolved (not to mention unaware) of his/her case, I do not know which account he/she might've originated from. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

User was blocked while I was typing this. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:50, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Rangeblock possible?

• 117.18.231.44 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.54 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.40 (talk · contribs)
• 117.18.231.36 (talk · contribs)

See Dougweller's last note at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Md. Ziaul Haque. The campaign is continuing this morning to insert the subject into various articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:05, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, to a rangeblock, which can be fairly narrow, yielding little collateral damage. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd do it but they make me nervous, prefer someone more tech savvy. Dougweller (talk) 16:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's a very small range (117.18.231.32/27), so I've blocked it for two weeks. If the range expands or if the protection needs to be extended, just drop me a note on my talk.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Done.—Kww(talk) 16:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:54, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Virus spreading IP

110.45.173.160 (talk · contribs) is spamming virus infected external links. The Korean IP is static thus blocking should solve that problem for good.TMCk (talk) 14:42, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Blocked by Jayron32.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

89.205.38.27

89.205.38.27 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly makes personal attacks against RockNRollStaaaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and uses vulgar language. (Here are two examples; the latter one features an image of male genitalia [47], [48]) He has been warned twice previously for personal attacks (one of which was removed impolitely). He has also been warned previously for genre vandalism and disruptive editing. Administrative help to cope with this problem would be appreciated. –Myxomatosis57 (talk) 20:12, 31 May 2014 (UTC)