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

Assistance requested at Fringe Theories Noticeboard

Assistance from one or more Admins and any experienced editors is requested with issues related to this discussion at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard (yes there is such a thing). Short synopsis; we have an editor who has created around 160 articles, and almost all of the ones we have looked at so far have major problems. We over at the tin foil hat noticeboard are sending out an SOS. Any help is greatly appreciated. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Propose a Topic-Ban on New Articles in Article Space

I propose that this editor be topic-banned from creating new articles in article space (rather than via the AFC review process), since he or she is cluttering article space with a large number of articles that need deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Holy crap batman--v/r - TP 17:44, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support The combination of refusal to communicate with other editors, fringe topics (need less on here, not more) and the obvious vast amounts of original research. Their intent does not seem to be malicious, but they've chosen the wrong platform. All this belongs in their blog. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:49, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support seems pretty obvious that these articles need to go through AfC and that the user isn't willing to do that without some strong handed encouragement. CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:56, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment/Question How will this go any better at WP:AFC? Some of the articles appear to me, a non expert in Hindu material, to be potentially direct translations form a worthy book or set of texts. I am wondering whether it might not be 'our' problem that 'we' cannot understand them easily as submissions in clearer English. A comment from an experienced, perhaps immersed, editor would be relevant to this discussion before moving to a draconian apparent remedy. For example, if they be direct translations or quotations from learned texts then we should, surely, treat them in an identical manner to other such texts an the editor should be granted the same courtesies as are extended to editors creating articles in other faiths/disciplines.

This material is arcane, certainly, but is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles? If proper then there is no issue save for our understanding the material. If improper then remedies are already available to you, ranging from deletion through to blocking the editor. Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

"is it proper or improper that it is in Wikipedia as articles?" Yes, in the way it is written. It presents material from Hindu astrology as uncontested fact. We don't do that. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Timtrent: A host of reasons: 1) AFC space isn't indexed by search engines, 2) AFCs arn't searched by our search bar without going to more advanced options, 3) AFCs can be deleted easier by CSD guidelines, 4) Editors in AFC space review it before the first 2 things limitations get removed, 5) AFC has a giant "THIS IS A DRAFT" banner.--v/r - TP 18:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

If it is not proper for the articles to be here, and I suspected it was not for the reasons stated by AndyTheGrump, might the correct route not be a bulk AfD? If it is not proper then AFC is not the place for them either, surely? I come back to my thoughts that one does not need extraordinary measures to deal with this. I have never heard of a topic ban against creation of new mainspace articles and I feel intellectually against it for a great many reasons. Fiddle Faddle 18:28, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I am cementing and formalising my opinion as a firm Oppose. I have made a asmall edit to my original text, adding the word "clearer" as a modifier for "English"Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Timtrent (Fiddlefaddle). Look at this revision of Rasasvada, for example, which Aditya soni had created, and nobody else had edited it except one editor adding a single cleanup tag. It's quite difficult to read and understand, but that's because I'm completely unfamiliar with Indian philosophy; the article appears to have solid sources, and the difficult-to-understand comes partly from the author's way of writing, which makes me suspect that the author isn't fluent in English. As a result, I can form only two conclusions: either it's a decent article on a specialised topic, warranting only some wording cleanup, or its problems are profound enough that only a specialist can understand them. Neither one warrants the ban that's proposed here: if it's a decent article, we shouldn't sanction the guy, and if a specialist is required, the article will sail straight through AFC because people over there aren't specialists in Indian philosophy — AFC is good for filtering problems that anyone can understand, not things like this. Either levy no sanctions at all, or prohibit creation through AFC as well; if the nominator were to remove the AFC creation option, I would be neutral. Nyttend (talk) 18:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

In the very first section, he has it entirely based on a primary source, Second Quantization (talk) 15:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as much too broad. If one were to prepend "For the large majority of Hindus" to most of these articles they would be indistinguishable to me from Holy Spirit (Christianity) which begins: "For the large majority of Christians" and then is entirely based on WP:INUNIVERSE sources. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 19:00, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I do not think the editor in question is being malicious here. But whether intentionally or not, the serious problems with so many of these articles is creating an enormous amount of work for everyone else. The FTN Board is not exactly one of the more well traveled ones and we just don't have enough regulars to deal with well over a hundred suspect articles. (Sometimes we are stretched to handle even normal posts and issues that pop up.) Beyond which the editor's refusal to engage with the community and take some advice on board or show some regard for standards and consensus makes it almost impossible not to see more problems down the road without the new article creation ban. In short, I support the ban because I believe that without it we are going to continue to see the creation of questionable articles on a scale that will further severely tax the limited resources of the community to fix or delete. I am still trying to come up with a sane way of dealing with 160 articles that need to be checked and possibly deleted or mass migrated somewhere. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:02, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Changing position to Oppose based on compelling arguments from several editors, as well as closer examination of the editor's record by Salimfadhley, whose judgment I trust, and who concluded the issues are likely not as widespread or serious as initially thought. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Mixed view here. This seems like good content and it seems clear that the user knows a lot about Hindu astrology. The real problem here is that the articles themselves are badly written. Readers of WP should not have to be experts in Hindu astrology to get through even a single paragraph, but that's kind of the issue we have here. I think this user's material and knowledge are valuable but the articles he is making should spend some time in userspace being edited a bit. It doesn't have to be perfect by any means, but it has to at least look like it was written in English. Would anyone be available to help mentor or copy-edit this content? I can do some work with the grammar myself but I would like someone (perhaps from Wikiproject Mythology, Wikiproject Hinduism, or Wikiproject Astrology) to help out since they might have familiarity with the information and can offer more direct constructive criticism. Alicb (talk) 21:20, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - A ban from creating new articles related to this topic might give this editor an opportunity to improve the existing articles to a point where they meet the WP:NFRINGE standard. I would prefer this than to have to manually review the hundreds of articles on this subject. My greater concern is that this editor feels that this subject (Hindu Astrology) is somehow exempt from the normal rules that govern articles about religious topics in Wikipedia. As a result we have over a hundred pages most of which would never have got past AFC review, this is a prime example [1]. The comment about Einstein in the lede is an automatic 5 on the Crackpot Index. Let's not allow articles about Hinduism to be of lower quality than articles about other religions. If editors were writing such blatant gobbledygook about Christianity or Judaism I think we'd be quick to delete it. I think we need to be consistent in our standards. --Salimfadhley (talk) 22:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Why do you think this would get stopped at AFC? It appears to have decent sourcing, and to someone unfamiliar with the subject, the only problem is the comparatively poor English. Most people at AFC are totally ignorant of Hinduism and other Indian philosophy (not complaining; I am too), so if an article's not badly sourced, they have no reason to object to it. Nyttend (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Regular AFC reviewers tend to have sufficient clue to recognize when to call upon subject specialists from relevant WikiProjects for assistance. Such requests for help are routinely done for drafts about highly technical, arcane or obscure subjects that are hard for non-specialists to evaluate. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 16:23, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't take an expert in Hindu Astrology to realise that it wasn't "an evil and ruinous yoga" that made Einstein perform poorly in his studies, Second Quantization (talk) 16:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, definitely. Miniapolis 23:09, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I have been asked to participate in this discussion but I do not know where to begin from.

I started my exercise of creating new pages by first locating the most important and relevant topics that had not been earlier dealt with by any contributor, and having done that one by one I took up those topics, worked on them and created the pages on Indian philosophy and Hindu astrology, the subjects that are known to me. Nowhere have I expressed my own thoughts or done original research; I have based all information included therein as has been available to me online and in the texts that are in my possession which texts also find an online mention. I never thought my well-intentioned efforts would one day cause the kind of problem they have. As an ardent follower of Indian philosophy I was merely obeying the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. Knowledge is the light that reveals the true nature of things and removes ignorance; knowledge purifies the mind, that mind which involves all human beings in duality to suffer the pangs of pleasure and pain. It seems I have failed in this task for I have not been able to convey properly.

Friends, I am not a preacher and I am also not a teacher set in the mold of Sankaracharya, Ramanujacharya, Ramana, Varahamihira, Vaidyanatha or Kalidasa. I am an ordinary human being. Philosophy and astrology are difficult subjects to handle. This I know. They are all the more difficult for those who do not know these subjects. Where to begin from I simply do not know. It was long ago said – "they do not know who know, those who do not know, know" - which paradoxical situation will always remain due to the limitations affecting our thoughts and acts.

It has been nice meeting you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to comment here. I think that you are making a lot of useful contributions of information that is badly needed on Wikipedia. There are a few concerns with language that I think we can address but as long as you provide the sources for the information that you provide (either a link to a website or the names/page numbers of print texts) then that should be good enough for other editors to work on. It may be time to call on the users at Wikiproject Hinduism to take a hand in working on these articles. Alicb (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Dear Alicb, no information in my 160 odd articles is without a direct reference to the source. I have dutifully provided the relevant links to the websites, given the names of the books, their authors and page numbers. I have neither promoted myself nor anyone else. There is no problem with the language either, because as far as is possible I have used the same words and expression that has been used by the authors of those very books and articles. Why should there be a problem in accessing those sources, I fail to understand. Moreover, there is already talk of difficulty in handling 100 odd intended AFDs pertaining to the pages I have created, doubt has also been raised about the ability of the editors who had reviewed those pages, and to top it all, my efforts have been termed as utter non-sense and a hoax and therefore already stand summarily dismissed. Then, I do not understand why so much time and effort is now being wasted just to prove my efforts are a bunch of trash. Even if all 160 pages are deleted I stand to lose nothing at all since I have already gained a great deal by way of revision of my knowledge while writing these pages, which revision has served as my Upasana (contemplation). And I am sure some readers must have also gained and improved their knowledge. Through your agency I request for the charade that is being presently played out to end, it is sickening to say the least. Already some very harsh and bad words have been used belittling my efforts, the kind of words I never use; that is enough, there should not be any more of it. There should not be any further delay in deleting my 160 odd articles. I hope you will speak on my behalf and have all 160 pages created by me deleted soon. After the requested deletion is done I shall quit Wikipedia and enjoy my liberation. Nice knowing you.Aditya soni (talk) 05:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• • the Vedic instruction that if given the opportunity I should unhesitatingly pass on to others, who are willing, all that I have studied and learnt. There is a beautiful passage in the Taittiriya Upanishad (in the ninth Anuvaka) dealing with this. Learn and pass on the knowledge. That is what Wikipedia is about. That is what humanity is all about. But we cannot present the Vedas here without presenting them in the correct (for Wikipedia) form. In the Western phrase, we do not cast pearls before swine, for they will not, cannot understand. More work is needed to aid understanding. For those that are willing. --Pete (talk) 04:34, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for now per Fiddle Faddle/Tim.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Fiddle Faddle/Tim. As a side note, talking about tin foil hats in this context should be blockable. --John (talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see any substantial problem here. It looks like Aditya soni is doing a pretty good job with the sources though a little more explanatory detail in some of the articles would be helpful. --I am One of Many (talk) 06:22, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

[2]: They are claiming in wikipedias tone that Einstein did poorly because he had a bad horoscope, and claims that anyone with this horoscope has "has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious". Please explain how this is a "pretty good job", Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

super strong support; unless those "opposing" actually pull their fingers out and hold this editor's hand through the process. However, I feel Wikipedia requires WP:COMPETENCE, and it requires its competent editors to be editing competently rather than holding the hands of someone who cannot write a coherent sentence in the forlorn hope that something might be salvageable from the inevitable mess. Barney the barney barney (talk) 13:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Barney, the editor seems to me to have written some very coherent sentences, right here, in this thread. Better, grammatically, than some of the comments from native English speakers on this page, and certainly better than I could do in a language that may not be native to me. Sure, there are problems with English in some of the articles - it's complex content, with difficult translation issues, I'm sure, and it seems it may need someone to help him work through those issues (if he's still willing). It's probably important that he stops adding new articles until that can be worked through, to keep things manageable. Seems we may need someone who is familiar with the subject matter, and that's obviously not you or me. Maybe nobody will come forward to do that. If they do, I suggest it's not up to you or me to tell them how they should volunteer their time. Speaking of which - I thank Aditya soni for the substantial time he has so far donated in an attempt to create and share this content, and I hope we can help clear up any issues. Begoon ^talk 15:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sort of "ban" at this stage, for clarity, per my comments above, in case anyone is "!counting". (Sad reflection on us, in my very humble opinion, that we leap straight into a "ban" vote after one line of non discussion, then try to hold the discussion we should have already had within the !vote. I hope I'm never subjected to that, and I suspect we all hope that for ourselves.) Begoon ^talk 16:21, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment, Just to clarify - nobody is proposing a 'permaban'. Nobody is proposing to wholesale delete 160 articles which are obviously the result of hard work and research. Some of us are asking this editor to cool it, and respect the norms of notability and sourcing on Wikipedia. I note that at least four of Aditya soni's recently created articles on Hindu Astrology are all subject to AFCs for broadly the same set of reasons: Incomprehensible articles on ultra-niche that are loaded with WP:OR and rely on unreliable occult/esoteric sources. This editor has not yet pledged to do anything differently even in light of the considerable attention criticism in AFD discussions. --Salimfadhley (talk) 14:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Observation: Today I was glad to note that an esteemed editor had approached one page i.e.Rasasvada, with the intention of improving it. But just see what he has done. He has deleted the entire section – "Obstacles to Samadhi and their removal", in which part I have cited Sanskrit passages from Vedantasara that provide definition of the term – "Rasasvada" – in the context of Advaita Vedanta and are the basic reason as to why I decided to create this page. The editor in good faith has extracted the very heart from the body of this essay and killed it. The reason he gives is that the passage is original research based on ancient source. Three drawbacks are evident – 1) the editor does not know Sanskrit language, 2) he does not know who Sadananda was, and 3) he has never read the work of Sadananda titled Vedantasara belonging to mid-15th century, which systemizes Sankara’s Advaita philosophy. Since then, this work has been translated and commented upon by many learned savants. I chose to cite from the translation and commentary by Swami Nikhilananda which was first published in 1931 and which translation and commentary is available online, the reprint I possess is of a recent date. I have conducted no original research.Aditya soni (talk) 15:06, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

UserAditya soni, I believe that you are acting in good faith, hence any bans or threats of bans may be unwarranted in your case. I have reviewed your older articles and found some of your work on Hinduism and Buddhism in general to be of good quality and potentially useful. I remain concerned about recently created articles such as Trikasthanas (astrology) which as I have previously stated are incomprehensible and fail to articulate any kind of notability according to Wikipedia's standards. None of the sources I was able to verify appear to be particularly important or reliable. None of the sources I could verify seem to deal with the subject matter in any significant depth. The reason I am pointing this out is not to criticize your scholarship, but to encourage you to apply your considerable intellect to an appreciation of Wikipedia's rules. --Salimfadhley (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

• support I have mixed feelings about this, but I think in the end something has to be done about in the form of review and guidance. To some degree my issues with the Hindu terminology articles can be ascribed to my lack of familiarity with the material, but I also get the impression that a lot of what I'm reading is slight paraphrasing of near-to-primary source material. It's rather as if our articles on Judaica were constructed from reworded passages of the gemara. It's not an appropriate approach to a general interest encyclopedia. The astrology articles are worse, bordering on incoherency. I've said over and over again that we need people who know the material to write these Indian articles, but the articles need to be actually readable too. Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support - I was still weighing this one up and believed the editor in question could turn over a new leaf until this comment which is just completely at odds with how WP works and suggest the editor just doesn't get it. An editor has no place here if they refuse to participate in discussion, especially about their own problematic editing. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Friends, I have already stated that I chose Wikipedia to share, with all those who are willing to know, the knowledge that I had fortunately gained through the intensive study of numerous scriptures and texts, guided by a Guru. For more than two long years I waited and kept on waiting for some good soul to turn up so as to help me improve and expand the contents I had posted. No one turned up. You will agree that most editors who are so very vocal in professing extension of aid, guidance etc., when they do appear on the scene come out with all their guns blazing, firing at will all ammunition that are in their possession ranging from code, technicality, procedure and so forth, in such a discouraging and insulting manner that persons like me who mean no offence are made to feel - "Why have I entered the dangerously dark abyss called Wikipedia, only to be unceremoniously driven out?" At least one really concerned editor ought to have long ago, or even recently, in a polite and purposeful manner pointed out my mistakes and volunteered to help and guide me; then he and I could have happily re-worked and re-written the 160 odd articles bringing them up to the set norms and standards. I would have been only too pleased to do so. But, now too much water has flowed down underneath the bridge, the bridge has collapsed, I have exhausted my patience, there is a very bitter taste in my mouth which I am unable to wash out, and I find my heart bleeding and genuinely crying out goading me to quit Wikipedia the soonest. I am being asked to turn a new leaf; I have failed to understand what is meant by this phrase. I have not rebelled. But, enough is enough. Please, for God’s sake, stop the farce which is being played out at my expense. I was here not to win praise and stars, and later become an Administrator, but all the same I have a feeling someone is being a sadist. I thank you all for allowing me to share my feelings. Be good and help the needy. Allow me to take leave. I had never had an opportunity to meet so many on a single stage; it has been a great learning experience. I have vowed not to create any new page ever.Aditya soni (talk) 03:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support purely for lack of a better alternative. If somebody were to offer to mentor this user, or some such, I would be far better satisfied than with a tban. Essentially, to me the user is eminently competent, but unable to distinguish between what they know and what the general reader can be expected to know; their articles are written for others like themselves. This is also borne out by the lack of wikilinks in their articles. This also raises an unusual sort of NPOV issue; though the articles may be written neutrally, their lack of context, or WP:INUNIVERSE if you will, make them harmful, because the vast majority of readers are not familiar enough with these topics to judge for themselves. To me their English is a trivial concern, and not a factor in voting "support;" there are armies of editors out there with far poorer English. Aditya soni, whichever way this turns out, I suggest you do not take this personally; take this as a break in which you can familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies. A Block is not infinite; it can be appealed, and if you can show that you've addressed these issues it will likely be overturned. Regards. Vanamonde93 (talk) 08:50, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose It is clear to me that Aditya soni is highly knowledgeable on the topic, but needs to familiarize himself with WP guidelines. A break from creation and a focus on article improvement would be great. However, by the bitter tone of his reply, I am concerned that a tban like this might make him leave WP altogether, which would be pretty bad, as we would be losing an editor with great knowledge on a niche topic. However, I do not see any good alternative. Changed my mind based on discussion at the fringe noticeboard. Kingsindian (talk) 09:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wikipedia does not come out of this with glory. As Wikipedians we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor and are causing them grief, a lot of grief.

Whatever the rights and wrongs of the way they have approached the creation of articles, they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive. They simply failed to engage with us in the way we expect usually. We must not have tried hard enough.

Now, we are voting on whether they should be allowed to continue. That appalls me.

Patently, they have a great deal to offer. And, equally patently, we are driving them away.

This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory. It seems pretty mainstream to me. The folk there needed the help of an admin, though I am wholly unsure why that was. This type of issue can almost always be handled by experienced editors without invoking the bucket and mop, but here we are, at the big ban hammer board, voting on how much hammer to use.

I am ashamed of our behaviour towards Aditya soni, and feel he deserves an apology, one I am giving him on my own behalf for any hurt I may have inflicted on him myself.

We need to guide him, yes. He needs to be content to accept guidance, yes. Requesting him to use WP:AFC for his next couple of drafts may well be a good idea. Mandating him to do so is not. This whole process is very WP:BITE, and we need to correct this now. Fiddle Faddle 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"we have taken a huge potential step against an inexperienced editor", he has been editing consistently for 2 years and has made nearly 1,700 article edits in that time. That's not new or inexperienced. "they are by no means a vandal, nor disruptive" By doing what they did, they have created a large amount of work for others to fix it by trimming down fringe claims and removing non-notable articles. I brought up the issue of fringe claims with them over a year ago [3], and they didn't even respond to me. Further, they acknowledge that their articles are only of interest to fellow astrologers [4][5], that's pretty much categorically in the face of WP:FRIND. If only astrologers are interested, then there are no independent sources and it's not notable (WP:NFRINGE). You also said, "This started at a fringe noticeboard, which is odd, because Hindu Astrology does not seem to me to be a fringe theory" I take it then you don't understand what a fringe theory is in wikipedia. A fringe theory is something which conflicts with an accepted domain of knowledge but which has no following amongst experts. For astrology that is science. Hindu astrology is fringe for the same reason that creation science is fringe (and creationism is used as an example in WP:FRINGE). Although they have many adherents, in terms of the relevant discipline (science) they have almost no following. "It seems pretty mainstream to me." No doubt there are some indian scientists who believe it (since it is wound up with religious beliefs in India), but science doesn't obey borders. The mainstream in science doesn't accept astrology, and the subset of that in India doesn't either from what I have read of it. Second Quantization (talk)

• Oppose. [Non-administrator opinion.] I have not examined every article created by Aditya soni but I have extreme difficulty making sense of many of those I did read. I think it is fair to assume from the responses of others that I am not the only one. I reject the assertion that this is simply due to ethnocentrism, or as another editor has suggested elsewhere, a discussion of “my religious nuttery is better than thy religious nuttery”. While I have little experiencing studying the major writings of any religion, including Christianity, I am still able to comprehend articles that touch on obscure topics of a wide variety of religions with much greater ease that this group of articles. The fact that this issue was raised in WP:FTN is irrelevant, as is the issue of whether Hindu astrology is a fringe theory or not. I would have the same opinion if this was brought up in WP:FOOTY. With that said, I oppose a topic ban on Aditya soni. It is apparent from his/her edit history that this general topic is his/her only area of interest within Wikipedia, and a topic ban would ensure that we would loose him/her as an editor. As problematic as I find these articles and as much as I would like to see him/her attempt to work with others, I do not see any history of objectionable behavior (e.g. edit warring to prevent others from trying to fix the articles) that would warrant that action. Location (talk) 17:03, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

One way in which the issue of whether Hindu Astrology is a fringe theory is very much relevant is with regard to the four articles currently at AfD where editors have raised WP:NFRINGE as a policy reason to delete them, among other reasons: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equal house system (Hindu astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unmaad yoga (astrology), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trikasthanas (astrology). 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The issue here appears to be whether or not Aditya soni can put together articles - regardless of the topic - that are reliably sourced and somewhat easily comprehended. Location (talk) 18:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Can we concentrate on one article? Trikasthanas (astrology), mentioned above, doesn't seem at all to match what a Wikipedia article should be. It looks more like something I'd find in a book that takes astrology seriously, or on an astrology website. Is this what we want? Dougweller (talk) 19:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: I am not sure what you mean by that. You mean the decision should be based primarily on one article? If so, I disagree. If not, as Salimfadhley, who has spent much more time than me on this says, there are many contributions, especially older ones, which are decent, and should be considered as well. Kingsindian (talk) 20:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: That's good to hear. I'm not saying base it all on one article, I am asking if we want this one and if it is in any way typical. What do you think of it? Dougweller (talk) 20:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

@Dougweller: Too much detail, very dense, impenetrable to people not familiar with the subject. Probably should be deleted, but I am very inexperienced in such matters. Definitely large sections should be removed. Kingsindian (talk) 21:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban from creating articles directly in article space. This seems to me very much the kind of thing the Articles for creation review process was created for. If the user creates articles via that process only, it'll be an advantage both for Wikipedia and for themselves. However, in view of the user's goodbye post above, I suppose the issue may be moot. But if they should change their mind about leaving, I do believe we need to insist they use the AFC process. Bishonen | talk 20:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC).

No, we don't need to insist on anything here. This does not even begin to rise to the level you are suggesting. I understand this is your opinion, and I will respect that, but Fiddle Faddle has this correct. We are not really trying very hard and I think a good deal of this is because some editors just don't understand the subjects and don't feel compelled to collaborate. I think that we need more patience with editors. I see no reason for admin intervention or community sanctions here.--Mark Miller (talk) 20:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I previously voted support and now continue to support this. Aditya soni is clearly an expert in certain aspects of Hindu culture but feels that this expertise provides an entitlement to disregard some of the fundamental rules of Wikipedia. This editor resigned in protest not just because of this discussion but because of the numerous AFDs and the growing consensus that his recent Astrology articles were not up to the standards of wikipedia 1, 2, 3. Aditya soni has never conceded that any of the criticisms of these articles were valid and his refused to make use of AFC (and other processes designed to assist new editors). Now faced with a possibility of mild and temporary editorial review Aditya Soni has resigned in disgust. In the immortal words of Cartman: "Screw You, I'm Going Home!". --Salimfadhley (talk) 23:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Thank you for those words, which serve to escalate an unpleasant situation. As experienced editors our role is not only to create and edit articles but to provide a place where the less experienced can grow and become more valuable. I am thanking you for the Cartman quote, in case you are in any doubt.

People have driven away an editor whose understanding of the somewhat arcane topic appears to be great, but who is not quite working in a collegiate manner. I have read a number of the articles. They are difficult to understand. So is particle physics. They are not well referenced. Often, nor is particle physics, in that each has references from within the universe in which the topic exists. So what? We, the self styled great and good, are meant to be capable of editing the arcane and impenetrable to make it available to the ordinary reader. What we have said and are continuing to say to this editor is "Betake yourself and your topic that is difficult to understand, and go!" We disguise that as some sort of topic ban. Go us!

The wisdom of crowds often creates something far more unpleasant, and I believe we have seen it here. We have a posse and lunch law here. Yes, 'lunch', because we will have this editor for lunch.

The adult approach is to put this to bed as an understood but unwise proposal which will not be implemented, and to attempt to salvage something from the mess - we need to try to salvage this editor's feelings. I'm sorry that I asked them to come here and comment. As you see on their talk page they feel savaged the more by having done so.

For clarity, I have never met them before this, and never read their work. I joined this discussion because I felt then and feel now that this is a grave injustice being perpetrated on an ordinary person, someone like you and like me. I remain ashamed of us for doing this.

Are we not meant to guide and encourage the less collegiate editor, the less experienced editor? Or do we throw them under the bus when we don;t quite 'get' what they are trying to do? Fiddle Faddle 06:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support I disagree strongly with Timtrent that we are seeing articles created that are simply written by someone who understands the subject but writes articles that are difficult to understand and need better referencing. They are in fact articles which have Wikipedia stating in its own voice that astrology is an objective fact. The author even says as much at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reka yoga (astrology) - " But all the same Reka yoga is a bad planetary combination; it has a restraining and at times destructive effect." Now he has the right to believe this all to be true, but not to create articles in which Wikipedia itself is asserting these things to be true. Dougweller (talk) 07:42, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia presents many things as facts. A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc. If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. We use the Edit button and make judicious edits. We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI. If we did that we would have very few editors left and the WP:AFC backlog would go up tenfold at a stroke. Not all articles are excellent. That is why we edit as a community. We don't chuck them away unless and until they are shown to be hopeless cases. We certainly do not throw their creator under a bus.

If we are very lucky we may be able to salvage the editor as a contributor for years to come, but I do not blame him at all for being extremely upset with the way he is being treated. Fiddle Faddle 12:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"A good number are not facts at all, but are hypotheses, theories, etc." Presenting hypotheses as fact? Name one and I'll show you an article which needs to be edited. Also, I suggest you read Evolution as fact and theory before implying the word theory mean "not facts at all". "If something is presented as a fact that is genuinely not a fact there is a simple and expedient mechanism for making it clear that it is not a fact. ... We do not then seek to prevent an editor from ever creating articles in main namespace again by a massive ban hammer style proposal at ANI" Actually, this happens all the time, because it is a massive drain on everything to chase civil POV pushers around fixing their edits (and that's even if they don't just edit war back). Second Quantization (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - this guy clearly knows his stuff. He needs some help fitting it into our way of doing things, but this is exactly the sort of material we could do with more of. I'm disgusted at the behaviour of those who want it gone because they don't understand, it's foreign, it's arcane or whatever. I know a little about this sort of stuff, and while it's very hard to get into, especially on a sleepy afternoon after lunch when I listened to a chap explain this area for a week, it's valid within the limits of the subject. We shouldn't be presenting it as fact, but we shouldn't be deleting this very real scholarship. --Pete (talk) 04:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Pete,I wish you had made your appearance earlier. I have stepped in mainly because of you. Whatever be the opinion of the people in the Western world about astrology as a pseudo-science or a hoax or a non-sense, but you know that Astrology has been a part of Hindu life and culture for the past 4000 years or so, and it still continues to play an important role in our life. Even those Indian skeptics who vehemently speak and write against astrology, in fact, secretly approach priest-astrologers in the time of need. I can vouch for this fact because I am in this field though not as a professional. After the introduction of British method of education by Macaulay, who divided the world into the educated and the barbarians, the longstanding Indian method of thinking changed; everything ancient was questioned and even rejected, which situation worsened because of the influence of Karl Marx. Hindu astrology also took a severe hit and the number of those rejecting it as a science grew larger and larger, and also because of the support extended by the then political establishment. The vexing question, whether astrology is a science or not, was finally settled by the Supreme Court of India which court on 05/05/2004 ruled that astrology is a science, and even directed the Indian Universities to teach this subject. This judgement was delivered in the Case No. Appeal (civil) 5886 of 2002 P.M.Bhargava & Others. Vs. University Grants Commission and Another. You can access the court order at Govt. of India website - http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=26188 I am sure you are aware of this court ruling which is now the law of the land. Please enlighten all participants especially those who are against Hindu astrology and eager to bury my four articles already listed as AFDs. You have read the Indian Sanskrit texts. Our ancient thinkers did not use many words, they were very brief while defining and explaining the various astrological and philosophical principles. The later translators and commentators were in no position to change that method of expression lest the true meaning became lost. Hence, the language appears arcane and difficult to understand. I have not digressed from the available and referred to texts. This is it. My objecting friends should have directly asked me to re-write and if possible simplify what I had presented all that which is now under their scrutiny. They did not and you know the rest. They have driven me out.Aditya soni (talk) 11:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I, for one, am glad to see that you have chosen to reengage. I found the reasoning of the Madras High Court (quoted approvingly in the decision linked) particularly apt for an encyclopedia: it had "held that the very purpose of imparting education is to gain knowledge and therefore there should be every scope for making a study on very many subjects in order to enrich ones craving for knowledge. Any such attempt from any quarters in furtherance of that pursuit should not be stultified. The learned Judge further held that it was for the pupil concerned to select any particular field or subject in furtherance of his future career, and merely because the subject has got its basis or origin traceable to some cult, it cannot be held that the same would only result in propagation of a particular religion." I, for one, believe that your articles can be edited so as present knowledge more neutrally and not necessarily only result in propagation of a particular religion. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 14:26, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't say that I have read the ancient Sanskrit texts. I have a shallow understanding of the arrangement of the Vedas, the Upanishads and so on. It is a rich and deep subject! I can barely read Sanskrit, and puzzling out meaning with the help of Monier-Williams is a slow task. Though very enjoyable. Max Muller is another sage I revere, and when I next visit Oxford I am charged with visiting him at Holywell.

Despite what the court in Madras says, we cannot present astrology here as fact or science. We can certainly describe it for those who do, giving the sources and rewriting to make it less impenetrable, in line with Wikipedia's policies. We already present many arcane fields. Particle physics is mentioned above, but we also cover Harry Potter and Karl Marx in great detail. There is certainly room for the Vedas here, and your contributions are welcome, at least from those who have an inkling of what you're talking about. For many others, it comes across as nonsense, and I understand their confusion, though cannot support their behaviour towards a scholar. Obviously the wisdom of Advaita is yet to blossom in their hearts.

It is obvious that you are a scholar, and one who knows his texts. I can help edit your work here in line with policy, if you'll accept my feeble understanding of your field. Quite likely there are others here with better knowledge of both Sanskrit and Vedic tradition who can join in. Some of the advice given above is very good, such as the suggestion that you cease creating new articles until we have dealt with those already here by rewording them in line with Wikipedia policy. --Pete (talk) 19:18, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose as proposal is too broad. AlanS (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support. I've actually read some (non-Wiki) articles on Vedic (Hindu) astrology, and the long-winded and often dire articles that this user is writing sound like they come from the Middle Ages. I believe they are not only inappropriate, too long, and a detriment to Wikipedia, I believe they are actually misleading in terms of the belief system they purport to represent. Softlavender (talk) 05:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• What an excellent idea. Let us ban every editor whose writing quality is poor, or whose style we do not agree with, from creating new articles. Far better to ban them than to educate them, because it saves so much trouble. And, even better than that, it isn't WP:BITE at all, if we say it isn't. Alternatively we can edit the articles we think are substandard. I thought that was what Wikipedia was about. Fiddle Faddle 13:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I never said that the writing quality is poor or that I disagreed with the style. I said the articles are misleading. Do we want an encyclopedia to be misleading? If you think so, fine, but I disagree; I think an encyclopedia should be accurate and up-to-date. Softlavender (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Yesterday, I asked User:Aditya soni, if willing, to make some changes to one or two articles so that Hindu beliefs were represented as beliefs rather than as universal truths. [6]. Today, I note that User:Aditya soni has done just that. [7] and [8]. Even if one is not entirely satisfied with the results, I hope we can all agree that this is strong evidence of a willingness to work collaboratively. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 13:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support I was invited to ANI for a third opinion. The concepts the user writes on are "real" concepts (not WP:FRINGE) in Hindu astrology. That said; many of them do not warrant an independent article, but however need to mentioned in the master article. Trikasthanas (astrology) IMO should be merged with Bhāva and retained as a para or 2. The articles created by the user are primarily based on WP:PRIMARY sources, thus may be coloured by the author's perception (Read WP:OR). Articles like Devatas (Vedanta) seem to be WP:POVFORKs of the master article (in this case, Rigvedic deities or Deva (Hinduism)).Redtigerxyz ^Talk 06:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Comment Dear Mr. Redtigerxyz ^Talk ,I had seen the page Deva (Hinduism), but I did not know where to incorporate my written matter posted at Devatas (Vedanta), therefore, I created a new page owing to inexperience. But,I have not done any original research nor relied on primary sources -

Ref 1 Raj Pruthi’s book – Vedic Civilization is not a primary source; it is a secondary source on the topic. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 2 The book - Sree Varaha mihira’s Bhirat Jataka is not a primary source; it is translation cum commentary by B.Suryanarain Rao, and a secondary source. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 3, 5,6 Swami Gambhirananda’s book on Brahma Sutra Bhasya of Sankaracarya is a tertiary source; this is Swami Gambhirananda’s translation and commentary on the Sanskrit translation of Brahma Sutras by Adi Shankara. The entire book can be accessed at http://michaelsudduth.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Srimad-Bhagavad-Gita-Shankara-Bhashya-English.pdf

Ref 7 The book – New Perspectives on Advaita Vedanta is not a primary source; it is a secondary/tertiary source. The entire book is available on line.

Ref 8 The book – A Constructive Survey of Upanishadic Philosophy, as the title suggests is a masterly survey of the Upanishads conducted by Ramachandra Dattatrya Ranade.

Ref 9 The book- Patanjali Yoga Sutras contains the original Sanskrit text along with English translation by Swami Prabhavananda. It is a secondary source. The entire book can be accessed at http://www.estudantedavedanta.net/yoga-aphorisms-of-patanjali.pdf

Ref 10 The book – Eight Upanishads Vol.1 contains original text of Isa, Kena, Katha and Taittiriya Upanishads along with English translation and commentary by Swami Gambhirananda.

Ref 11 The book – Studies in Upanishads as the name itself suggests is a tertiary source.

By the way I have already sought deletion of all 160 odd pages created by me. Therefore, I request you to please quietly delete all pages without inviting or involving others, then, there will not be any kind of aspersions cast on my understanding of the subject, my ability, my sincerity and my integrity. And, by deleting all articles your precious time and effort would also be saved. I hope you will not disappoint me. I seek forgiveness from all you for having created so many thoughtless pages and thus carelessly bothered you all. I have deleted my user page but I do not know how to quit Wikipedia entirely (including disabling of my password i.e. access to any page), please help me. Also, please close this discussion too, which has needlessly gone on and on. I am glad you have also supported a ban on me. You may collectively ban me for ever, I won't be bothering you in future, never in any case. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 10:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support Continual fringe claims in all created articles (all with terrible sourcing too),[9]: "Generally, a person born with Reka yoga has neither knowledge nor wealth, is penurious"." Albert Einstein was born with a Rekā yoga which made him perform poorly in his studies during the course of the dashas (planetary periods) the planets giving rise to the said yoga." That's a claim in the wikipedia voice that planet positions made Einstein do badly in school.

[10]: "King George III born on 4th June 1738 with Unmaad yoga inasmuch as in his case Mars occupying the 10th house aspected the lagna and the Moon combining with Saturn casted its inimical aspect on Mars; he suffered from mental illness." Of course this sentence doesn't seem to make much sense since the second part seems unrelated to the first, but I think it's obvious what is being implied here.

[11]: " These are the three evil houses of suffering whose lords and occupation invariably bring difficulties, suffering, loss, anxieties, worries, obstacles, disease, confinement, incarceration, impediments, enemies, lawsuits, accidents, injuries, surgeries, and death like experiences in the lives of all human beings." "From the 6th house are divined diseases, disappointments, ..." "The 12th house indicates disturbance to sleep, mental worry, ... ", "The lord of the 6th house should not be stronger than the lord of the lagna if so then one cannot overpower opponents and foes, and is vanquished illness and ill-health will overpower the body. " This is the Viparita Raja yoga that confers learning, longevity, fame and prosperity, illustrious friends, success in all ventures and victory over foes."

People seem resistant to the idea that poor writers shouldn't write 160 articles laden with a fringe POV, but I think it makes sense. Second Quantization (talk) 15:37, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

And I don't think I'm being unreasonable here, I did even ask him to be wary of our polices over a year ago: User_talk:Aditya_soni#Fringe_guidelines (old nick), Second Quantization (talk) 16:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support, reluctantly. I have hesitated over this due to the ideas already eloquently expressed by Timtrent/FiddleFaddle. However, can we really afford to have hundreds of articles which are poorly written, dense, and in universe, presenting astrology as fact? Who will go and clean them up? Who will monitor and fix every new page?

I wouldn't support this if the articles were just badly written, but writing astrology as factual in Wikipedia's own voice is a massive POV and FRINGE problem and I just can't support its continuation. BethNaught (talk) 15:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support I had intended skipping this dispute, but Reka yoga (astrology) is an abuse of Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Mahadeva states that the person born with Reka yoga is devoid of education and wealth and has bad nails - Oh come now! When feeling threatened, Squirtle withdraw their limbs into their brown-orange shells and spray water from their mouth with great force. Where's the difference? We list and describe all sorts of stuff that is patent nonsense, so long as there is a significant cultural following. Pokemon, astrology, synchronised swimming. We are an encyclopaedia, not some slitty-eyed moral judge. --Pete (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Friends, I need not disturb you but I cannot avoid narrating to you my day's experience. Only today I noticed the reasons given by the editor who has nominated page titled – Char Dham (Vedic) for deletion. His intention suits me fine, but he has very sadly termed this topic as original research and a hoax because he could not find a reliable source that indicates Char Dham exists in Vedic literature. That hurt me. He seems to have not appreciated the contents of section – Pratardana’s description of the four Dhams in which section two significant Mantras from the Rig Veda i.e. IX.96.18 and IX.96.19 referred to by two authors, have been cited along with the explanations by those authors. Evidently this nominator does not know Sanskrit and Hindi but even then I have led him to Rig Veda Vol. 5 pages 335,336 published online by Aryasamaj Jamnagar which is actually Swami Dayananda Saraswati’s translation of the Rig Veda and his commentary on that text. The word Dham (धाम) in Vedic philosophy refers to plane of existence. In order to assist him so that he properly understands this topic I have specifically brought to his notice the words – "तृतीयं धाम" at the start of the second line of mantra IX.96.18 on page 335 which is explained by Dayananda Saraswati on page 336 as – (तृतीयं, धाम) (pronounced - triteeyam dhaam; triteeyam means 'three') (three dhams) are देवयान (Devayana or Devaloka) और (and) पितृयान (Pitriyana) इन दोनों से पृथक् (beyond these two) is the तीसरा (third) जो (which) मुक्तिधाम (Muktidham) है (is); and to the two words – "तुरीयं धाम" (pronounced - tureeyam dhaam; tureeyam or Turiya means 'the fourth') appearing in the next mantra on the same page. Dayananda Saraswati explains - (तुरीयम्) चौथा (fourth) (धाम) (dham) परमपद (the highest state) परमात्मा (Paramatman) है (is). The link to this text is http://www.aryasamajjamnagar.org/rugveda_v5/rugveda.htm . These two mantras of the Rig Veda directly speak about the Char (four) Dhams (planes of existence), and these are the mantras I have cited. I have failed to understand as to how the nominator missed noticing these mantras. I am not objecting to the proposed deletion of this page. Thanks.Aditya soni (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 13:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not the nom, but you are writing articles on the basis of original research. You are working off the primary texts, and primary religious sources (which are themselves quite old). See WP:NOR and WP:SECONDARY. Wikipedia does not accept original research. Engaging in an original or interesting synthesis isn't a bad thing, it's just something that is forbidden in wikipedia, Second Quantization (talk) 15:08, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure that we're getting original research? The texts are old, but there are extensive commentaries. I'm getting the feeling that all of the material is well-sourced. The problem could be that the average contributor to ANI is sadly deficient in Sanskrit, let alone Vedic lore. --Pete (talk) 17:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I think Pete has the right of it. Old commentary is not original research. Referring to Dayananda Saraswati's interpretations of Rigveda is no more original research than referring to Augustine of Hippo's and Thomas Aquinas's interpretations of scripture in Just war theory. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 17:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. The question is how we refer to it. So long as we are clear on that, there is no problem describing any belief system. Hell, if we could have a reliable source for what bunny rabbits actually believe, that would be awesome, and a great addition to our pool of knowledge. In this case we think the articles may be over detailed, badly worded, implying fact instead of description of a belief, and maybe misleading, because of that. The question is what we do about that. We can fix them, discard them because they are too misleading, too voluminous and too hard to fix, engage productively with the author, berate the author (and accept the risk of losing them, or even consider that a positive), or any number of things inbetween. Nobody ever said this encyclopedia thing would be easy. We edit, we discuss. Sometimes we reject. Sometimes we can adapt and include. As long as we consider these things properly, we are doing our "job". Begoon ^talk 18:22, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Pete, Since I am the one who nominated this article. Dayananda Saraswati DOES NOT classify this an independent concept in his commentary. I have read the Hindi commentary. Dayananda just uses the term dham in his translation. The article plays with WP:SYTH. The whole article is a WP:HOAX product of WP:OR. That said, the author has created articles which are not hoaxes (eg Equal house system (Hindu astrology)).--Redtigerxyz ^Talk 14:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Throw a mentor at the problem. Mentor needs to have a lot of good faith and patience. This author has created articles like A_Constructive_Survey_of_Upanishadic_Philosophy. Discouraging him may be a loss for WP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayakumar RG (talk • contribs)

Are you nominating yourself for mentor? Second Quantization (talk) 20:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I would if I weren't inexperienced myself. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:32, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support ban from creating new articles in article space on a temporary basis. Redtigerz has said above that Hindu astrology is significantly notable and from what I've seen in reference works I have to agree that there could reasonably be a fairly wide selection of articles on the topic. There do seem to be some real questions regarding the editor's capacity to adhere to NPOV in content right now but a good mentor might be able to help there. I can try in the near future to help a little in that regard and would be willing to be a secondary advisor once I become a bit better informed on the topic in a few weeks but think that for the moment anyway it would be in his and our best interests to ensure his created articles are a bit better from the word go. John Carter (talk) 16:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment The material about the India Supreme Court ruling on whether the Vedas are a science is exactly the sort of thing that should go into the encyclopedia, if it can be sourced. But over a hundred articles? Can AFC handle that much? Maybe some of them could be moved to user space to work on them, until they can be approved. At least they wouldn't be lost. I know the milhist group sometimes does this. —Neotarf (talk) 21:44, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Supreme Court’s ruling is on Hindu astrology as a science.

Sepharial in his book - The Science of Foreknowledge (pages 58 – 70)(url= [12] ) concludes that the Hindus did not get their astrology from the Chaldeans or the Egyptians; the astrological methods of the Hindus are essentially and fundamentally different from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians, the zodiac is not related to the equinox, the Hindus are aware of the precession of the equinox, and the calculation of periods is based on 27 nakshatras reckoned from the place of the Moon at birth; the Chaldean directions based on diurnal aspects of the planets after birth have no place in Hindu astrology and the Hindus do not use the time-measures such as "one day for a year" method of directing used by the Chaldeans and the Babylonians. Hindu astrology like the Hindu astronomy evolved originally, the trine is the basis of Hindu astrology. Chaldean astrology did not have its birth in India, but astrology existed in India more than 2000 years before the Chaldeans.

We, in india, believe that Jyotisha or Astrology is as old as the Vedas which embody eternal knowledge. Jyotisha forms the most important of the six Vedangas or the body-organs of the Vedas; it is the scientific study and application of the language of the heavenly bodies determined on the basis of astronomy and mathematics. It is a cosmic science not bound by limitations of a laboratory. Astrology did not come to India after the advent of Alexander, references to astrology are found in the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. All ancient texts of Hindu astrology are in Sanskrit covering a very wide scope and variety of principles, permutations and combinations of planetary positions; Hindu astrology is a very complex multi-dimensional system and therefore, any criticism of this system should be made by one who has studied this system.

Even so when will this inquisition stop? Do I find it interesting? No. Do I find it entertaining? No. On the contrary it recalls to my mind an Urdu sh’er from Mirza Ghalib’s ghazal which reads:

آگے آتی تھی حالِ دل پہ ہنسی : اب کسی بات پر نہیں آتی :

which means – "Previously I could laugh at my heart’s plight, but now I do not laugh at all".Aditya soni (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)Aditya soni (talk) 03:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Aditya. Let me reply to some of your comments:

• the astrological methods of the Hindus are essentially and fundamentally different from the Chaldeans and the Egyptians - There are plenty similarities between Chaldean and Hindu astrology, although no one knows who borrowed from whom. Both cultures divide the circle into 12 and 360 (the basis of modern angle system).
• The astrology found in the Vedas is not horary (ie it is not based on birth charts). Horashastra was influenced by the Greeks, as the Yavanajataka itself says. Natal astrology was found in Ramayana and Mahabharata because they were edited several times, and the final version came only during the Gupta period, long after the Hellenistic period.
• I cant help but notice how you keep on referring to astrology as 'science'. Astrology may be a knowledge system, a branch of study, but it is not a science because it does not use the scientific method. No one is against representing astrology in this encyclopedia, but ultimately you cant claim in WP's voice that astrology is scientific. Jayakumar RG (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Offer I dunno about being a good mentor, but I'd be happy to work with Aditya soni if nobody with more knowledge of the subject can be found. I think we should put anything problematical into user space, work on it there, and push it into mainspace when we're happy with it. I don't think anything good is going to come out of more ANI discussion - most of the regulars here, bless their hearts, have no knowledge or interest in the Vedas. --Pete (talk) 08:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as it appears to comprise two distinct issues. First is "he uses dense language" which is an endemic problem on Wikipedia, although Wikipedia also has many articles written in purple prose as well. That is a good reason for editing articles to make them more readable, but not a strong reason for anything else. The second issue is the perennial "religion/science/fringe" trichotomy. My suggestion is that articles on religion be clearly marked as relating to religion, and not being in the "science" category in the first place -- thus stopping the never-ending battle about placing "fringe theory" on each clearly religious topic. We should be able to trust that readers can understand that an article properly labeled in a "religious category" is not about "science". Collect (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Dear Pete (talk), the issue is not the Vedas but my articles on Hindu astrology. Permit me to give a brief but essential explanation.

All created things transform, this is one of the many salient aspects of Truth. But then, Truth itself is very difficult to apprehend. Before coming face to face with Truth, which is present everywhere equally, we are asked by our ancient seers to give up righteousness and unrighteousness, we are asked to discard what we think is real and that we think is unreal, and we are also asked to discard that by which these two are meant to be discarded. Man is certainly not instinctively drawn towards Fate even though he is more aware of death. All knowledge including Astrology gained through experience and study reflects man’s attempt to understand the purpose of his own being and all else connected therewith, as also to know what determines Fate.

Our ancients who had propounded the principles of prediction were conversant with the science of astrophysics and possessed a high level of inferential ability; they were able to draw inferences with astounding results from what they observed in the ordinary course. They knew that revelation requires a human agency for its own manifestation and they also knew that knowledge can be more dangerous than ignorance. Therefore, leaving no scope for doubt and economizing on words, they evolved the method of simply defining the basic and the most advanced principles of prediction and described various yogas (planetary combinations) along with their results avoiding repetition and without offering explanations. All Sanskrit texts on Hindu astrology exhibit this particular methodology. Astrology is man’s effort to understand Time; it begins from the stage when a firm grip over the various principles of Astronomy and mathematics has been achieved.

Astrology is intended for prediction, and prediction itself depends on the Rising Ascendant or the Lagna and the other positions of the planets, which positions involve astronomical calculations. Thus, Hindu astrology consists of Ganitha, the mathematical part, and Phalita, the predictive part, and is more a science of tendencies which assumes that planets influence the activity of man and hence, his destiny. Hindu astrology actually speaks of the fruits of Poorvapunya (the results of the karmas of previous births). Since all events are believed to re-occur in a pre-determinable manner, therefore, astrology is said to be the study of man’s response to stimuli, and that planets simply offer a lawful channel for the outward operation of cause-effect equilibriums each man has set in motion in the past. Prediction is broadly based on the strength, nature, aspect and combination of planets, on the qualities and the strength of the rasis (signs) and bhavas (houses) owned, occupied and aspected by the planets, and on the influence of the yogas. Hindu astrology basically requires the discerning eye to be able to identify the yogas and then apply the prescribed results judicially in accordance with the established principles.

The ancient Sanskrit texts are the primary source, the translations and commentaries on these texts are the secondary source, and texts that explain the application of principles with the aid of live examples are the tertiary source. The translators, the commentators and the later teachers and practitioners have retained the expression of the original texts because the original expression, which is treated as a statement of fact, cannot be changed. For example, Kalidasa in his Uttara Kalamrita, tells us that if either Saturn or Venus or both are devoid of strength, occupy the trikasthanas (the 6th, the 8th or the 12th house) or are in association with the lords of those trikasthanas or own the trikasthanas then during their dasha (planetary-period) they will prove auspicious, and if one owns an auspicious bhava and the other an auspicious bhava then they will prove all the more auspicious. This statement is an observation given as a principle; it cannot be changed by us. This can be tested only through experience because observations do not depend upon specifications alone, and qualitative analysis does not depend on the quality of the sample in hand but on its natural order.

My friends have found my way of writing and the presentation of various principles to be unreadable and violating certain Wikipedia norms. This is so mainly because they had never before encountered such things, they have no inkling of Hindu astrology, they do not understand the mechanics involved; they do not respect the sanctity of ancient Hindu scriptures; they do not know Sanskrit and are also not aware of the importance of brevity. In my articles I have remained faithful to the Sanskrit texts and commentators who have presented the principles etc., as statements of fact. I cannot change their language or mode of expression to suit the critics of Hindu astrology who do not even know Hindu astrology. Nowhere have I given my own opinion or conducted any kind of research. I have not violated any Wikipedia’s norms. If you know Hindu astrology well please do improve these articles, but in case you also find this task difficult (as I have found) then why burden the unprepared editors and readers with information which is beyond their ordinary understanding notwithstanding the fact that there are more persons visiting the pages on Hindu astrology than on the Upanishads and the Vedas.

You find me here because of your notification and because I am eager to know how this discussion ends. Regards.Aditya soni (talk) 13:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

You have apparently taken the texts of the old Sanskrit works at authoritative and by wikipedia policies and guidelines as per WP:FRINGE and related pages we cannot. I suggest you read that page and other policy and guideline pages which relate to the broad topic of pseudoscience which is one of the fields all forms of astrology fall into. Also, it might help if you more clearly demonstrated an understanding of the fact that wikipedia is intended to be read and useful for general readers not specialists. There are other WMF entities which are more suitable for more in–depth discussion of topics which cannot be achieved in wikipedia given or particuar policies and guidelines. You have already received one generous offer above to help you better work within the existing wikipedia structre and I think it would be in your best interests to take it. I am willing to offer what assistance I can too. But you do apparently have some mistaken assmuptions about the depth and width of coverage wikipedia gives any topics and those mistaken assumptions seem to be causing you some probems here.John Carter (talk) 14:40, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss the intricacies of the subject. I don't know - or have much interest in - Hindu astrology per se. Few here do. But it can be presented as lore in the same way that we present other arcana. I accept that the primary texts are beyond modification and that the laws governing the movements of planets and their supposed influences are likewise fixed. Such is the nature of Prakṛti. But in the Wikipedia world, we cannot couch our descriptions as absolute fact. We may perhaps quote recognised scholars in their opinions, but they must be presented as opinions, not eternal truth. It is a matter of presentation.

There is no doubt that Hindu astrology is notable enough to be included here, given the vast number of followers. We are a broad church and there is room in Wikipedia for all manner of arcana. You will find details of every episode of Gilligan's Island, for example, and we are positively devoted to football. These topics have their own saints, and fanatics who religiously chronicle the important trivia. Hindu astrology can be presented in these terms - a collection of articles and subarticles on a subject area with a wide following.

The typical Wikipedia editor, especially those with their minds aligned on this page, has little knowledge or interest in the subject, is quite unfamiliar with Sanskrit, let alone the Devanagari characters currently used to present it. The Vedic scriptures might as well have been composed by space aliens, for all the impact they have on the consciousness of the typical wikiperson. Hence their description of a subject familiar to hundreds of millions of human beings as "fringe". They know no better, but here is not the place to educate them.

We can work together, probably find others with an interest in the project, and massage the information into acceptable wikiformat. --Pete (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

But Pete, one by one, the editors who have participated in this discussion, have started deleting the pages created by me. Some have even defaced a few with large uncalled for tags. Shortly, there will be no article for John Carter, you and me to re-work. All problems thus stand resolved. I thank you all.Aditya soni (talk) 02:56, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

@Pete: I am all for it. I will be back on wiki after a 3-day break starting now. I am not very familiar to the topic like Aditya, but quite interested. @Aditya soni: Meanwhile, please read some of my thoughts on the comment you made above. Jayakumar RG (talk) 06:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Created over 150 articles and they have got sources. Primary or secondary, he has been creating many articles having multiple sources to show. User:Ad Orientem has made a good opinion, Aditya Soni must only add only those information that are not Wikipedia:FRINGE, if he wants to add FRINGE he must also add the refutation. Remember that both FRINGE and Refutation requires a Reliable source. Aditya Soni must follow these simple guidelines and there will be no complaints. Bladesmulti (talk) 02:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I went thru several edits, as well as the RFC, what convinces me the most is the point put out by Timtrent and Bladesmulti. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I had previously supported a topic ban (above) based on the editor's apparent unwillingness to engage in discussion. That was, by no means, a demand that he engage with me in particular. Engaging with other editors is sufficient. I'm encouraged by Pete's apparent willingness to get involved. If he is confident that this can be resolved without a topic ban then I'll withdraw my support for said topic ban. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's a failure of communication. I'm lucky enough to have a small understanding of where he's coming from, but for most of the regulars here, he might as well be writing articles in Sanskrit. A pity, because he knows his material well, and if we can get him to accept our ways of doing things, we'd be blessed with good, well-sourced articles on a subject we are light on. On that note, some of the articles he's created have been deleted. Fair enough, that's process, but it would be good to have the article text moved into his userspace so the work is not completely lost and it can be worked on until (if) it meets our standards. --Pete (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I saw was a failure to communicate but if he is willing to "accept our ways of doing things" (which includes collegial discussion) then yes, the contribution is worthwhile. I'm no longer convinced a topic ban is the best way to resolve the issues raised. St★lwart¹¹¹ 10:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic Ban Review (2nd Attempt)

Hi, the original thread got archived, so for convenience I've copied the postings from the original thread to here again. Hopefully that's the right thing to do.
Cailil is really busy in real life and so has recommended that I ask here for someone to do the review. The previous review can be found here. I know it takes time to do a review, so thank you in advance. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:14, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about "someone" doing a review. You're now asking the community to do a review. First: you'll need to link to the discussion that led to the topic ban. You'll need to link to where you were notified that the topic ban was in effect. You'll need to educate us as to what you've been doing in the meantime - i.e. showing that you've been able to edit positively outside the area of the topic without any squabbles. Finally, you need to show us your way forward: if permitted back into that topic area, how will you act? What will you do to avoid the behaviours that led to the topic ban. Remember that if the community lessens the topic ban and you go back to the same issues, the next step is not a re-imposition of the topic ban, it's usually a block - after all, a TBAN's role is to be that "last chance before an indef" the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

FYI, some background; this stems from Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive626#User:LevenBoy which led to the issue being added to general sanctions; the page listing topic bans etc. is at Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log. HighKing was topic-banned in August 2011, it was lifted in June 2012, and then re-imposed in June 2013. HighKing has not been a prolific editor since then, but I can see no actual violation of the topic ban (i.e. adding/removing "British Isles" in articlespace), although he has been active on the talkpages of British Isles and some others as regards naming disputes. Black Kite (talk) 11:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he was let back in and did it again doesn't give me the warm fuzzies the panda ɛˢˡ” 15:16, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• HighKing has noted my extremely busy RL situation (this wont change in the short term) since this is a community sanction the community can overturn/change the topic ban if there is a consensus to do so. In the past I've been concerned more that there is no fundamental change in HK's behaviour from gnoming in British & Irish topic areas, most notably but not limited to naming disputes related to British-Irish history or historical figures or flora and fauna articles, rather than there being an actual breach of the topic ban. From my point of view as this is an indefinite topic ban there needs to be (as EatsShootsAndLeaves points out) evidence of positive attitudinal change and development of a different/productive way of editing. From my point of view showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted--Cailil ^talk 18:15, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

As noted above, this Topic Ban is specifically in relation to editing in relation to the term "British Isles". From discusions with Cailil, we agreed that the disruptive behaviour was rooted in a couple of habits that ultimately led to squabbles and disruption - and although primarily with a banned sock, it was pointed out (and ultimately I recognized and accepted) that my behaviour was the "trigger" for the sock to engage. Regardless of the right/wrong of each individual situation, ultimately my editing was the common factor, and therefore something needed to change. Since that time, it is true that I've not been as prolific. Partly because my previous "gnoming" in these areas (one of the areas that needed addressing) accounted for a high proportion of my editing, and partly because of changes in real-life. Since the Topic Ban I've created a couple of articles - Sir Fineen O'Driscoll and Coppingers Court, one of the areas I was told I should concentrate on rather than gnoming. I believe I understand which of my editing habits were problematic in the past, and I won't be revisiting those habits in the future. Thanks for taking the time. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 21:40, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Just to address Cailil's point above - it should be seen that there has been evidence of positive attitudinal change and development, specifically research and creation of articles, and avoiding gnoming. To address Black Kite - Cailil specifically stated that discussions on any issues was still fine and my Topic Ban did not forbid any discussions on any topics. I was never a confrontational editor to begin with, and I always discussed changes and been courteous to those that engaged on various topics. I think its fair to say that the deep-rooted issue was my insistence on an exact definition of "British Isles" in articles, with references to show that it was being used within the references. Other areas, involving an "exact defintion and usage", were also highlighted by Cailil even though these topics did not fall under the Topic Ban, but I understood what was being said. I don't believe there's any need for the Topic Ban to remain in place any longer as I've shown I understand the reasons why it was in place, and I've addressed those editing habits at the root of the problem. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 12:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that it fell off with only dissenting opinion meant the request failed. No need to repost the panda ₯’ 14:02, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that there were only dissenting opinions, apologies for reposting if that is the case. I saw that editors had posted some observations and questions, and it seemed to me that it "fell off" due to a lack of activity. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting of topic ban. I'm impressed that you've not gone the sock/evasion route & have thus respected your top ban. If the community chooses to lift the TB, I would recommend less attention to the topic-in-question, in future. I don't wann seeya getting blocked or worst. :) GoodDay (talk) 15:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you GoodDay. As I've said above, I believe I've addressed the behaviour that was at the root of the problem, and have shown to the community that I've learned. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 17:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've confidence in you :) GoodDay (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting with the appropriate ROPE. Happy to give a second or third chance. Drmies (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies - I assume ROPE is some further probation period? Is there somewhere you can point me? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

HighKing, see WP:ROPE. It's not so much a rope as it is a leash... Drmies (talk) 18:45, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support lifting -- He has shown respect for the sanctions. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 09:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

• No Support A leopard never changes its spots. Highking has been banned in the past and as soon as a ban is lifted returns to previous behaviour. To recount that Highking was never sanctioned for sockpuppetry while operating under his 2nd account - User:Popaice. No support. Dubs boy (talk) 17:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose As Calil states, a lack of problematic editing since simply proves that the topic ban works. My experience from working on problematic areas affected by nationalist POV is that editors do not change; topic bans expire and the same editing patterns re-emerge. HighKing can be a productive editor in other areas of Wikipedia if they wish, but I don't believe allowing them to return to the whole "British Isles" combat arena would be a productive outcome. Number 57 10:02, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

On that basis, is it true to say that you wouldn't agree to a Topic Ban ever being overturned? Harsh. No chance then for an editor to show they have the ability to learn from mistakes, or show that they've recognized their problematic behaviour? -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:15, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

In areas with bad POV problems like this, I think lifetime topic bans are the most effective way of cleaning them up. As I alluded to above, I have edited around the edges of another area with some awful issues, and I haven't seen topic ban work as a temporary solution - the problematic editors return when it expires with exactly the same viewpoint - sometimes they are more subtle in their POV after their ban, but the POV remains. The issue for me is the desire to return to a topic area in which the banned editors clearly have a strong POV, and I don't believe it is a positive move to allow this. Number 57 10:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Some background: I edited a lot of articles that in my opinion (at the time), used the term "British Isles" incorrectly. We attempted to create rules for usage and formed WP:BISE and discussed edits among interested editors. That initiative eventually failed, and led to the discovery of a large sock farm (still active today). I wasn't ever editing from a "nationalistic" point of view, but from a (misguided) attempt to enforce a standard definition across lots of articles. Cailil correctly pointed this out (took a while for me to grasp, but I see it now), and also pointed out that this was the root of problems caused by gnoming in other areas. Enforcing definitions (especially of controversial terms) where definitions are not "exact" in the real world, was the problem. I don't believe the Topic Ban is serving any useful purpose any longer - it is "working" not because it is in effect, but because I've learned and cut out the problematic behaviour (and learned too). I don't believe any editor would say I'm a POV warrior (exceptions made for the sock farm obviously), or that I even have strong nationalistic POVs. It's less of a desire to "return" to a topic area, and more of a desire to rejoin the community as a fully-fledged and trusted editor, without a shadow of a Topic Ban hanging over my edits, and being able to show that editors do learn, and do change for the good. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 10:50, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha! This made me laugh. In truth, Highking systematically went page to page removing the term "British Isles" and at an unreplicable speed. I think a history of edit warring and sockpuppetry are reasons enough to decline this request.Dubs boy (talk) 21:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. If this editor had chosen to edit in an other way then things would be different, however on the editor's own admission, editing has just been reduced so things are not different. It sounds like the editor is mainly interested in editing in the problematic way. Maybe it would help if the editor indicated the kind of constructive edits that he wishes to make but cannot due to the topic ban. Op47 (talk) 22:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Op47 - just in the interests of transparency and completeness, No, that's not what I said. Yes, my editting has been reduced, but I stated that it is mainly due to cutting out the problematic "gnoming", and partially because I'm not as active as I was before. You appear to attribute the "reduction" as involuntary, and therefore nothing has changed. Not true. 80+% of the reduction is my choice, because the gnoming is the underlying problem. And in terms of "different" editting patterns - I have also researched and created a couple of new articles and working on another. But you've asked one important question - "what kind of constructive edits I wish to make but cannot due to the Topic Ban". I'm not going to blow smoke. The honest answer ... I've nothing in mind. Keeping the Topic Ban in place wouldn't affect my editing .... but would and does affect my "standing" in the community. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 09:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - If the topic ban is lifted simply for "time served" reasons, HighKing will likely return to the same behavior that led to the topic ban in the first place. This, in turn, will attract more disruptive socking to counter his edits. Déjà vu. I think that HighKing should not be allowed any wiggle room to muck about with the "British Isles" phrase at all, ever, as it will only lead to disruption (major headaches). The restriction is not an albatross around his neck. It is a safeguard against disruption. I have no doubt that the stalkers that watch his every edit will come out of the woodwork the second the restriction was lifted and he made a "BI" edit. Not worth the trouble. Doc talk 09:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Doc - to be honest, I kinda agree with you. The only point I would highlight is that I'm being heavily penalized (in my opinion) for the actions (past and potential future) of the sock (who's already attempting to disrupt this discussion). I recognize that the community can't afford to invest the time, energy and resources into every petty event, and I also recognize that the community has no appetite for anything to do with the phrase "British Isles", regardless of whether any edits are actually right or wrong. As you say, and I agree, the disruption isn't worth it. You say I'm likely to return to the same behaviour. I'm saying the opposite and I'm asking the community to trust me. You say it is not an albatross around my neck. Well .. I think it is because it's a sign that the community doesn't trust that I can behave appropriately. And it's going to be impossible for me to demonstrate that the leaf has been turned without a little trust from the community. I don't know what more I can do. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hello :) I have to agree with Cailil above when he says "...showing the community *only* that ban has not been broken proves that the ban works not that it should be lifted". I see no reason to remove the ban because I know the background on this. It's not a "penalty" on you. It's there to "prevent" disruption, and it should remain in place to prevent disruption at large. Nothing personal. Doc talk 11:22, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi :-) I don't get that. How can it *not* be viewed as personal? It's a Topic Ban on me? I've said above that I recognize fully (and hopefully articulated the fact that I recognize fully) the behaviour that causes the problem. I'm asking that the community trusts me enough to lift the Topic Ban. You don't agree ... ergo you don't trust me. Kinda hard not to see it as personal.... I'm not whining or making excuses or blaming the sock or ranting. But I really don't see how the Topic Ban will ever be lifted at this rate ... which translates into the fact that I can never rejoin the trusted editors who operate without a Topic Ban. Victory to socking? Taking your logic one step further, if this Topic Ban extended to all editors, then it wouldn't be personal. But it doesn't. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose I was around when this whole thing started(well before the sanction were in place). The wording of the ban "is topic banned from editing in relation to the term 'British Isles' broadly construed." seems reasonable considering this user was prolific in this content dispute. I think this ban has kept this user out of trouble. I think lifting the ban would be about the same as an invitation to start editing in this area which I think is a bad idea.

While I appreciate that this user has respected the ban I also think that this user returning to this topic would result in more trouble. I don't think it hangs over him like a cloud, we don't have a big banner on his userpage or anything. The only thing this ban is doing is keeping him out of an area that was problematic for him before. Chillum 14:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• Support in part because the community seems increasingly more concerned about avoiding any 'disturbance in the force' than in creating content. It is absurd to contend that an editor cannot change. In this case any repetition would rapidly result in the ban being reimposed, possibly with greater sanction. When I started editing Wikipedia there would have been no question about time served being sufficient in this case. We are now being over precious. I speak here as a veteran on those disputes having to handle socks and ill will from both sides so I know the editors concerned through long practice. We also allowed GoodDay to edit again and he was as if not more disruptive on this issue. If it helps I'll happily agree to mentor (or monitor) his behaviour as I attempted to do for GoodDay. I'm semi-retired from Wikipedia in the main because I think it has shifted from using behaviour as an enabling constraint to one where for some admins its a governing constraint which they see as the primary purpose of the encyclopaedia as a whole. So the time I used to put in to monitoring controversial articles is available ----Snowded ^TALK 02:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Question

Is the problem the Topic, or my previous behaviour? I've stated I've no intention of ever returning to my previous behaviour. I've also articulated my understanding of what the problem was, and I've demonstrated that I can edit without gnoming while still being productive, and seen out the agreed review period without any violation. I'm getting the distinct impression from Chillum and Doc that the Topic Ban isn't really anything to do with my behaviour. Is there an elephant in the room? Nobody here is stating that they believe I'll return to my previous behaviour... but that the Topic Ban should still remain in place as it doesn't cause me any negative impact. I disagree, hence this request. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 19:09, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that you want the ban lifted so that you can continue to not edit in the area the topic ban prohibits you from editing? If that is the case then the ban is of no force or effect and you can just ignore it.

There is no banner on your user page, nothing to stigmatize you in regards to this ban. It might as well not exist if you are choosing not to edit in the whole "British Isles" area.

Unless you actually want to edit the subject of "British Isles" again then there is little point in removing the ban. It is the possibility of you returning to editing "British Isles" again that I object to.

You asking for this ban to be removed is essentially you asking for permission to edit the subject of "British Isles". I don't think that is a good idea. Chillum 14:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Your response pretty much sums up the problem. You're saying that the problem is editting the term "British Isles" - as far as I know, the Topic Ban is to address behaviour, not "protect" a term from being editted. I've summed up before above, but here's another attempt. Previously, I had maintained that the term was incorrectly used in some articles, and I had tried to nail down a definition, and nail down guidelines as to usage (the WP:BISE). That had failed (start of sock problems) but I continued to implement the half-agreed rules anyway - resulting in more disruption (height of sock problem). The problem was described that I was engaged in systematic editting of articles containing the term, and my edits resulting in the removal of the term without proper referencing. When my edits were scrutinized, most of my edits were correct. But - and this is the problem and the root of the behaviour issues - some were not and some were marginal. I think the marginal calls were the ones that gave me my Aha moment, and I started to understand the issue. In real-life, there isn't a single definition and it is often used loosely, and trying to apply a straight and narrow definition is always going to cause problems. I'm asking for the Topic Ban to be lifted because I've learned the lesson, articulated what lesson I've learned, addressed the problematic behaviour and demonstrated that I can behave without resorting to wiki-gnoming or any other of the behaviours that led to the Topic Ban. So yes, removing the Topic Ban would leave the way free for me to edit any topic including "British Isles". Just like every other trusted member of the community. I'm trusted with every other Topic. Bear in mind as I've stated above, I've no intention of seeking out any such edits involving British Isles, or resorting to any of the previous problematic behaviour. I won't seek out articles containing the term as I did previously, I'll simply edit normally as I've been doing. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 11:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Dive into Highkings contributions history, pick any day and you'll find some instance of random IMOS application. Take 21st Feb 2013 as an example. Highking applied IMOS across 36 different articles and at 1 point applied IMOS across 20 pages in 16 minutes! Highking was not reading the articles nor was he attempting to find a context for the edit. It was mud slinging and seeing what sticks. How would he be able to gauge if an edit is correct if he doesn't even read the article? Take away the ban and his mask will slip. And a user with a history of socking is bound to have another sock account still active.Dubs boy (talk) 19:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when has this guy Murray been the arbiter of what can, and can't appear on these pages? He keeps reverting the above comment. He and his colleague Highking are both long term edit warriors. They revert a change and if its reverted back they leave it a while then try again. See Murray's activity on the War Memorial Gardens article for example. Neil Edgar (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

EEng and edit warring

I'm a minimal party to this, so I shouldn't issue a block. EEng has been engaged in an edit war and has ownership issues with Phineas Gage. He has greatly expanded the article to where it is a GA candidate. Six editors, ChrisGualtieri, Chiswick Chap, Johnuniq, Tryptofish, Magioladitis and I have said it is time to move on and for EEng to stop (See Talk:Phineas Gage). EEng then went and reverted for 4th time in the past 48 hours. Others editors have had their edits reverted by EEng. This has already been the subject of an ANI discussion that went nowhere. He has also been the subject of a disruptive editing this past month. EEng also resorts to name calling and diatribes. Such as name calling in the two previous discussions at ANI and a recent diatribe on how all the above editors are "hit and run" editors. Issues range from content to style. EEng's style is, as Dicklyon put it (note EEng's style in the diff), "There's no reason for this article to be so excessively idiosyncratic in style". EEng reverted Dicklyon for supporting his fellow "Gnomes and MOS Nazis".

I feel a short-term block is in order unless the disruptive editing and rudeness doesn't stop. I don't want to see EEng topic banned from the article. He is a major contributor and co-author of the only scholarly publications on Phineas Gage. His input is needed in order for the article to become a GA. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an awkward situation because EEng is very skilled and has done a lot of good things, but this may be a case where a person gets used to being right, and is unable to make allowances for others. @EEng: Suppose we are all wrong—what should you do about that? Should you revert us because we can't argue as eloquently as you? Should you persist until we go away because we are obviously misguided? Sorry, but those approaches won't be successful. Please find a way of rationalizing all this in your mind as being our fault, and move on to something else. Johnuniq (talk) 07:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I protected it for 24 hours, after which I began looking at the history page to see whose edit was the most recent. If this edit be at all typical, we have substantial violations of WP:CITEVAR going on, among other things — people attempting to take the article away from the standardised citation style used by its major author. Let me remind you that not all citation standards use the {{ndash}}, among other things (example), and that the placement of {{shy}} permits the article to be formatted like a professional print publication. In real life, when amateurs tell professionals that they're right and that the professionals are wrong, without solid factual evidence, they get ignored and forced out of the way if necessary. Kindly step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard. Nyttend (talk) 12:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Spectators should know that this is almost entirely about the preferences of certain editors for one form of markup over another -- in most cases, not even affecting the final appearance of the page! -- and who think WP is improved by their going around forcing all articles to conform -- for example, replacing {{ndash}} and {{mdash}} with literals — and – because "that's what editors expect to see" or "templates slow down the servers", which of course is nonsense. Such edits carry blithe edit summaries like "required by MOS" when, of course, MOS says no such thing. (And, of course, it's almost impossible to distinguish — from – from a regular hyphen - when editing.)

This is just the latest in the longrunning campaign, by ChrisGualtieri and others, to teach me a lesson about submitting to the will of the borg. Here's what John Vandenberg had to say about this a year ago: [13]

ChrisGualtieri, you say "someone, clearly not me, needs to reach out and assist in this matter so that this article" - had you and others tried to do so in a peaceful and thoughtful way, you would have more success I am sure. I have had no troubles when I have suggested improvements that bring the article syntax towards greater MOS compliance .. Others have also had successes, large and small, esp. Mirokado. Sometimes two editors need to revert EEng and discuss the issue, after which I have always found him able to accept the desired changes. Not everyone has had the same success, and they cite WP:OWN concerns, but in many of these cases (not all) they have acted like bulls running through this china-shop, doing mass-/automated-'cleanups', without first discussing the issue on the talk page, or doing so in an aggressive fait accompli manner. John Vandenberg ^(chat)

(Bold added by me.) This latest kerfuffle is just more of the same of that.

EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• This EEng guy, sheesh. Hard to fathom sometimes. Anyone might think he had a metal rod stuck in his head. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

:) Here's a joke: Phineas Gage runs into a bar... EEng (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

... unlike: EEng runs into a block... Martinevans123 (talk) 13:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• My issue began when EEng added 487 Template:Shys to the article that did not render one active use. Putting shy and nbsp templates into invisible comments is completely useless. Cite templates should not be using Hyphen and nbsp templates as Bgwhite pointed out. EEng tries to make eloquent arguments, but has repeatedly been unable to comprehend the basic "Shy" template function. The article as I originally found it had every reference broken with a "false referencing" system that is the most complex and inane system I've ever seen. And I'm not just saying that, EEng called it a "hack of hacks", but EEng had effectively modified the appearance of the page to what looks good on his computer. I had less then 20 characters (not words) across the screen when it began. The page was effectively unreadable. While much has been done to improve it. Also... What CITEVAR issue? The biggest change I see is the Macmillan source (one of many) being cited with the year of its publication in the text; it is also the one with the biggest error that EEng is violently opposed to highlighting. Specifically, the one where Macmillan gives the wrong information and says there is a second source that apparently (according to EEng) doesn't exist. There is definitely a content and COI issue here at play, but BGwhite's concern over edit warring and EEng's name calling should be examined. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• When multiple papers by the same author are cited, it's common to add the year of publication e.g.

Jones (1998) discovered this, confirming it in Jones (2001), and giving further data in Jones (2002).

-- because it looks stupid to write

Jones discovered this, confirming it in Jones, and giving further data in Jones.

This is an accepted style on WP, and that you think there's something wrong with it is typical of everything that's happened in the last year.

• My "hack of all hacks" was an experiment to see if existing < ref> machinery could be tricked into putting citations in alphabetical order by author name. I spent considerable time trying to get other editors interested in finding a better way to do it, and I finally abandoned it as too unwieldy. For a year you've been trying to make it look like this some evil thing I did, claiming that "it seems that EEng made the article deliberately difficult to edit."

My discussions with other editors about how I planned to keep others from editing the article by making the markup extremely complicated

Discussion with anther editor regarding the ref formats and figure #s [14] (section Extensively revised): "There are several technical innovations which I am not completely happy with, but I hope others might come along and offer better ways to achieve the same results ... The article is on 160 watchlists and as I said before, I'm hoping someone might be inspired to invent/discover a cleaner way to do these things." Request at Village Pump for better ways to alphabetize refs [15] (sectionControlling order of reflist): "Nasty hack though this technique is I actually feel its advantages outweigh its drawbacks and I'd like to take it live in the article, with the hope that someday a purpose-built facility will become available to make the hack unnecessary. There's only one other editor at Talk:Phineas Gage who's willing to engage this kind of technical issue and I'd be most happy if you'd look over the implementation (in my sandbox) in detail and explore the question with us." Attempts to get other editors to participate [16] "For the moment there's one other editor who engages at all regarding this article, and I'd very much like there to be more" [17] "I'm wondering if you want to work on formatting/cites/technical stuff only (and fine if that's true -- this has been really helpful) or whether you'd like to engage on content as well. I'm kind of tired of being the only editor who actively engages the sources, and then gets accused of ownership!" [18] "I could really use an unbiased eye to comment ... I keep trying to get others involved but can't."

• As for the rest, I refer again to John Vandenberg from last spring ([19], bolding added):

from what I have seen it is User:ChrisGualtieri who is regularly misusing sources, making a mess of both article and the discussion page in the process of the Tendentious editing. While labeling someone a troll is not OK, neither is Chris' misuse of sources, and Chris' bull-in-china-shop approach to 'fixing' this article, which has been going on for months. ... John Vandenberg ^(chat)

EEng (talk) 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• I thought Phineas Gage was a delisted FA, I'd never realised it had never got there in the first place. Having a done a few edits on it, just from the referencing and prose in the bits I looked at seems it ought to be possible to get up there. I see last year it had an abandoned GA review which seems to have broken down over stability issues. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic, but somebody once asked at the Graphics workshop, when I was active there, if we could enhance one of the images, so that the words on the bar could be read. I think we were unable to help much, because the detail wasn't there. Begoon ^talk 03:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I've been involved in trying to get editors to solve these disputes for a long time. The problems are not entirely one-sided, in that editors on both "sides" of the dispute have a history of asking for help with dispute resolution, then suddenly losing interest when the resolution process starts to look serious: see, for example Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Phineas Gage.
• There is a comment above that tells the editors who have expressed concern about the situation to "step aside and stop preventing this professional from permitting this article to be written to a professional standard." That comment is not helpful. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, and if we are suddenly engaging in "professional" editing, I'd like to know when I'm going to get my paycheck. Until that time, I would suggest that all editors who come to a page in good faith are entitled to be listened to, without being told summarily to step aside.
• About edit warring, EEng was already at 3RR when I reminded him at his talk page: [20]. His page edit subsequent to that time, [21], is, despite the edit summary, in part a 4th revert.
• This dispute is partly about formatting, but also about writing style and how to balance sources, some of which EEng coauthored in real life. The talk page discussion shows numerous editors expressing thoughtful comments, with EEng a minority of one, and not persuading anybody. Even allowing for some stubbornness on both "sides", he is unilaterally impeding progress towards making the page a GA.
• A this point, I would see a block for anything other than 3RR as punitive, rather than preventative, and I doubt that EEng's opinion of his role at the page would change following the block. I share Johnuniq's concern about preventing EEng from making any contributions to a page where he truly does bring expertise about the subject matter.
• It seems to me that the best action would be to topic-ban EEng indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, but continuing to allow him to edit Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Disappointed to see EEng here again; I think we may need a block at this point. I take John Vandenberg's point with a pinch of salt, as it contains zero diffs. If the problem was one caused by "mass-/automated-'cleanups'" we would not be here for the umpteenth time. This seems more like an OWN problem. Block or a topic ban? I don't know but I do know we cannot go on like this. --John (talk) 17:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Honestly, I can't read all that. Who is interesting on working on the article? I don't mean who is interested in working on how template xyz displays some picture or transmits some bit of mysterious data to some other template, but who is interested in working on the article to provide information about the subject to a reader? If it is just EEng, you should leave him alone to get on with it and formatting be blowed. If it is genuinely other people too, then EEng needs to lighten up a bit about the formatting (who cares if the line splits midway through supercalifragilisticexpialidocious if nobody else can make out where supercalifragilisticexpialidocious is in the text when editing because of all the templates?). That's it, if anybody wants me, I'll be cutting a baby in half to stop two women arguing over it. Belle (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There is a significant group of editors who want in good faith to not only improve the page, but to make it a GA. This isn't a question of telling us to leave him alone, but it is a question of EEng needing to lighten up. (No babies were harmed in the posting of this reply.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:10, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I would include myself in the group who would like to help bring this article to GA but have been turned away by EEng's OWN and BATTLE behaviour. I would also encourage anyone interested in helping out here to read the last discussion here on this editor's conduct, which was archived without resolution a few weeks ago. I think we do need to take some sort of collective action here. --John (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• Can we agree on a topic ban? I, for one, support an indefinite topic ban at Phineas Gage, while allowing continued editing at Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
• I would be happy to settle for a topic ban rather than a block. --John (talk) 20:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Question: Tryptofish, you don't seem to have made any response to EEng's explanation for the template formatting - that he was attempting to get "citations in alphabetical order by author name". I'm not saying that's the only problem, nor that his approach to that problem was the best one. But it seems like a reasonable explanation for what he saw as good faith improvements to the article. Do you except that explanation or not? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:57, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It may explain one or two edits, but not the larger issues here. If one goes over the talk page history, for example Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, the concerns are far more wide-ranging than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing against that. I was searching for some admission of (at least some) good faith on the part of EEng. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, via the link given by EEng, the "citations in alphabetical order by author name" attempt was made over a year ago and before any of this mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I see. So it's not part of "this mess" at all? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 I don't believe it is part of this mess. But I may have missed something from the loooong talk conversations. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've been AGF'ing for the longest time. Don't just look at Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD, but also at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive829#Personal attacks and OWN violations. I'm hardly someone who is unsympathetic to him. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know. The ongoing "discussions" you and EEng have had are the main reason I took that article off my watch list last year. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Then let's be very clear that I have not lacked for AGF. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

• A topic ban for EEng and ChrisGualtieri I think are now in order, plus a minimal block for EEng for the latest round of edit warring. This is not just about styling, though placing 487 {{shy}} templates is extremely excessive. Arguments have also been over content and referencing. EEng and Chris are the most vocal. Taking both out of the equation would help any of the other editors get this to GA. Bgwhite (talk) 21:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Does EEng have any explanation for the 487 {{shy}} templates? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123 If I understand correctly, EEng states MOS says you can use them (MOS:SHY), but says nothing on how many. If you want to consider style as part of the argument, I'd say judge for your self via this snapshot, before most of the mess started. Bgwhite (talk) 22:14, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

They look like aids to editing that might be dispensed with after a major article-wide edit had been completed. And invisible to the reader, of course. But I guess some other editors might find them troublesome. (In some future software release I suppose they might be part of user-definable edit skins). Martinevans123 (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Wee note. Another editor found them to be an issue, but I support EEng's use of them in captions and other tight places as per the Template's documentation. In our last discussion and EEng's last edits, he has resolved the vast majority of the issues. SHY appears to trigger on spelling check runs, but overall, they should remain as long as the perform a function. So the previous issue has actually been resolved, but getting to that point was a bit tougher than I would have liked. That's all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• I would support a topic ban for both of them at Phineas Gage, but I oppose banning either of them from Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Tryptofish, no offense, but do not blame me or EEng when you caused the mediation to be rejected. That's right you (the filer) caused it to be rejected. EEng felt it was premature and I didn't even get a chance to voice myself. You may mean well, but you certainly have gotten your facts wrong here. I ask that you strike your above comment about that. EEng should not be blocked, there is no reason to block because it'd simply be punitive. ANI is not a place for an RFC/U and it most certainly is not going to help when 5+ people all want this at GA. Tryptofish, you supported much of my changes, I realize my changes were far from perfect - and I'll admit that I was blindsided by all the errors in Macmillan 2000. You know better than anyone else that I also want this article to be GA or FA. EEng reacted with hostility and I have been afraid to try and deal with it since. Sorry if I add my voice to the pile, but I spent 40 hours researching Gage and I tried to work with EEng - but I do not need to be abused. I won't stay in such editing environments. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:17, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, EEng's being receptive and fixed all the issues I had and then some. I do not think any MOS issue actually remains now. EEng fixed all the issues before this came to ANI with this edit. Why was this brought to ANI anyways? WP:CIVIL? Recently, he's been tense, but not anything outright 'disruptive'. I'm confused. Anyone care to explain why this is open still? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Here's a recent sample edit. EEng has been fighting for years to keep his idiosyncratic formatting in this article. Use of {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> is eccentric, disliked by other editors, and makes the article very difficult for others to edit. EEng has added this formatting many, many times and is currently at 4rr. He is arrogant and rude if challenged on his weird formatting and long-winded writing style, such that it is very difficult to work with him. Most people just walk away, which has reinforced EEng's feelings of ownership of the article. It's not viable to suggest we can go on like this. --John (talk) 05:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Chris, I feel a need to reply to what you said to me, although it also is becoming clear to me that nothing is going to come of this ANI thread. I can sympathize that you would want to respond to what I said (following what Bgwhite proposed, although subsequent talk separated my comment from his), but turning it back at me is a cheap shot, and I think you know it. Your diff simply shows that I withdrew the request, after seeing that no one besides me was willing to participate. I didn't cause you or anyone else to choose not to participate. You made that choice – and I remember diffs where you, first, came to me at my user talk to ask for my help and, then, were demanding dispute resolution and, later, turned tail when I started the mediation. Also, the reason given by Bgwhite was not related to the attempt at mediation. It was what he called your "most vocal" posture at the talk page. So my advice to you is to take notice of how Bgwhite, coming new to the page, perceived your conduct, and keep it in mind going forward, since undoubtedly this issue will crop up again. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:16, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Its interesting to look at the page statistics, EEng (talk · contribs) and ChrisGualtieri (talk · contribs) have between them contributed 81% of the article [22]. Although a couple of editors who've commented here pop in the number of edits, none of them have substantially contributed to the prose and do not appear in the top 10 contributors of text. Their sole contribution appears to be undoing EEng (talk · contribs)'s formatting style to substitute their own preference and its really for no benefit to the article. I dunno guys, there are plenty of really badly formatted articles out there but this isn't one of them. It may be idiosyncratic but it works and it works well - the article looks fantastic in WikiWand. I think some people are forgetting that wikipedia is first and foremost an exercise in writing an encyclopedia. So if your only interest is in formatting it "differently" I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. BedsBookworm (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a red herring. If your only interest is in making fallacious observations at an administrators' board I would suggest you find something better to do - like writing. --John (talk) 13:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

And so we arrive at the nub of the matter

It's even sadder than you make it sound, BedsBookworm. This bunch isn't changing the (visible) formatting of the article to be more attractive to the reader or conformant to MOS -- for the most part they're changing the internal, invisible markup to other markup that does exactly the same thing.

Are {{shy}}, {{hyp}} and <p> unusual? Yes. So what? Why does everything have to look like what some self-satisfied roving enforcers are used to?

Are these forms really "disliked by other other editors"? It depends on the kind of editor. If you mean "disliked by editors who show no interest in an article other than to make the markup look they way they think it should look, and who, out of nowhere, arrive to assert their personal preferences as 'rules', apply their mindless scripts, then rush off to clutter the edit histories of the next thousand articles (having had zero effect on what the reader sees)", then I guess Yes.

Oh... except sometimes they do affect on what the reader sees. As explained here, there are places where double-newline doesn't create a paragraph break as it usually does, and <p> must be used instead. Yet here's a high-handed edit (edit summary in full: "no need") taking out <p> in the places where there is, in fact, a need -- and thereby breaking the formatting. Then someone else has to take time to fix it. [23]

So the best thing these activities achieve is nothing, but now and then they screw something up. It's like the old joke about selling at a loss but making it up on volume.

If there's a lesson here, it's that Wikipedia needs a rule something like "Style and formatting should be consistent within an article, though not necessarily throughout Wikipedia. Where more than one style is acceptable, editors should not change an article from one of those styles to another without a good reason" -- except that there already is such a rule, right at the top of each MOS page. (Take a look.)

I've been fond of quoting Beyond My Ken in recent days:

The flip side of "ownership" is the problem of editors who come to an article with a particular agenda, make the changes they want to the page according to their preconceived notions of what should be, and then flit off to their next victim, without ever considering whether the page really needed the change they made, or whether the change improved the article at all. These hit and run editors certainly never take the time to evaluate the article in question, consider what its needs are, and spend the time necessary to improve its quality. Their editing is an off-the-rack, one-size-fits-all proposition, premised on the idea that what improves one article, or one type of article, will automatically improve every other article or type of article. In the grand scheme of things, "ownership" may cause conflicts when two editors take the same degree of interest in a particular article, and disagree with it, but mostly it helps to preserve what is best in an article. On the other hand, hit-and-run editing, including the plague of hit-and-run tagging that's defaced so many Wikipedia articles, is a much more serious problem, because it's more difficult to detect, frequently flies under the flag of the MoS (and therefore is presumed at first blush to be legitimate), and is more widespread. Wikipedians should worry more about those who hit-and-run, and less about those who feel stewardship towards the articles they work so hard on. 03:04, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

ChrisGualtieri and I have had our serious differences, but at least he takes a longterm interest in the article‍—‌Tryptofish too, of course. John may think this incident has reinforced my "ownership" of the article; I'd like to think it's raised awareness of the cumulative damage done, and the huge amounts of editor time wasted, by (I'll say it again) these self-satisfied roving enforcers. EEng (talk) 05:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Careful now EEng, you wouldn't want to get blocked by an uninvolved admin, would you. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

After the block

I'm saddened to see that there was a block, and I have some concerns about Bgwhite being involved. But, instead of being "the nub of the matter", I feel that EEng's post above was a saddening demonstration of why we have a problem, and a problem that will continue after the block is over. (It's certainly a textbook case of turning an ANI thread that was about to peter out as "no consensus" into something worse.) EEng, sincerely, I'm glad that you point out, just above, that I have a good-faith interest in the page, so please listen to me about this: The claim that the editors who express concerns about the page are simply driving by, and objecting to the formatting as WP:IDONTLIKEIT, without any legitimate interest in page content, has started to become a recurrent theme in this discussion, and it is wrong and needs to be refuted. It is starting to run afoul of WP:ASPERSIONS. What has happened at Talk:Phineas Gage over the past week or so is not anything like that. It is not just a matter of disliking something trivial that readers of Wikipedia do not see. After all, we can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. What really did happen was a group of editors showing up in response to a call to make the page a WP:GA, and trying to work in good faith to that purpose, and then finding themselves in an edit war where each of them successively made either one or zero reverts, and you made all the opposing reverts unilaterally. It's a falsehood to say that the idiosyncratic page formatting is an accepted alternative, equal in the eyes of the editing community to what occurs on greater than 99% of all other pages. If all that formatting (not to even mention the more substantive issues about sourcing on the page) is a good idea, let's have a community RfC at WP:MOS and determine that the community thinks that. Until then, such a consensus does not exist. But the editors at the Gage talk page expressed concerns that are consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus, and the talk page consensus was unambiguously against you. So let's put an end, right now, to this theme of calling the editors who have disagreed with you drive-by editors who do not care about page content. It's a lie. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

• It's an offensive and disruptive lie and the block was merited for making and repeating it. John (talk) 07:46, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
• I think the block - done during the middle of this discussion - is not necessary a good thing (because now unless someone copy-and-paste stuff over from EEng's talk page, his opinions cannot be heard. Thus, I have added a {{DNAU}} for a few days so that this discussion is not archived before EEng gets a chance to reply here again. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 04:10, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

For those who took the weekend off, Bgwhite blocked me Friday night, calling my post above "harassment".

• I posted the following (here edited somewhat) at my own talk page, in response to Bgwhite's block notice:

Noting that you blocked me for comments regarding you, I'll let the great John Stuart Mill explain how ridiculous you're making yourself look:

If the test [of what is offensive] be offence to those whose opinion is attacked, I think experience testifies that the offence is given whenever the attack is telling and powerful, and that every opponent who pushes them hard, and whom they find it difficult to answer, appears to them ... an intemperate opponent.

In other words, Bgwhite, it stings because it's true, you're mad because you can't think of anything to say in response, and as the person criticized you shouldn't take it upon yourself to decide whether the criticism is within bounds. I doubt I'll appeal this since there's more use letting it stand as a 48-hour monument to your thin-skinned pettiness.

EEng (talk) 06:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, Bgwhite had nothing to say.

• Tryptofish says: We can't have it both ways: it cannot be something that has caused "damage" to the page, and at the same time be something trivial and petty and unseen. But I didn't say that each change was simultaneously damaging and petty/trivial/unseen. I said that each change was at best trivial/petty/unseen, but now and then one of them is damaging.
• Here's the actual "lie" in this conversation (since apparently it's not OK to call other editors self-satisfied, but it's OK to call them liars): that the article violated MOS, or GA criteria, or the mysteriously unspecified "present-day Wikipedia consensus" to which Tryptofish refers; and/or that any of this posse have responded to my attempts to discuss their changes, other than to tell me they are five and I am only one.

• Here's a diff [24] showing the hundreds and hundreds of changes which started this scuffle. Point out a few of the violations of MOS, or of the "present-day Wikipedia consensus", or of the WP:Good article criteria, being corrected here..
• Here's a link [25] to my attempt to discuss these changes. Point out where anything more meaningful than "we outvote you" was said in response to my attempts to discuss.

• Let's hear again how self-satisfied is hurtful namecalling, while accusations like "COI", "arrogant and rude" -- not to mention "lying" -- are thrown around with impunity in this very discussion.

EEng (talk) 07:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(rolls eyes) Name calling is childish gaming to involve an admin who takes interest in any case on ANI. Doing it isn't going to make you immune.--v/r - TP 07:29, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm torn between rolling my eyes, too, or just wiping a tear from them. I got into this whole mess as someone who considered EEng a Wiki-friend, thinking that I was coming to take his side in a much earlier complaint, but I was surprised by what I actually saw, and for the longest time, I have tried to take a middle stance that opposed any sanctions against EEng. What tipped it for me was the unambiguous edit warring and unwillingness to accept consensus during the recent GA discussion. In the last ANI complaint about EEng, just a month ago, the discussion was about to quiet down when EEng needlessly re-inflamed it. The same thing happened above, in the post that prompted the block. And now, it has happened yet again, in the post-block comment directly above. Although I can understand that any editor might want to let off some steam after a block that they consider to have been unfair, I'm afraid that I cannot pass this off as simply that. EEng does not have to agree with other editors, but he is failing to acknowledge that they have non-petty concerns, and failing to indicate that he is willing to make an effort to work towards consensus, unless that consensus is what he personally prefers. The discussion here got off track with competing proposals to issue blocks and to topic ban another editor, but I suggest that the only way to get a meaningful conclusion is if editors will focus on this one editor. I still think we should topic ban EEng indefinitely from Phineas Gage, while continuing to allow access to Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems whose correction I was reverting

• The true lesson of "The last ANI complaint about EEng" is quite different from the one Tfish implies. The OP of that thread (Johnuniq) complained that "recent behavior of User:EEng at WT:MOSNUM as disruptive ... EEng should be told to make an argument a couple of times, and then keep quiet". But none of the editors subsequently calling for my head in that ANI thread were participants in the MOSNUM discussion -- instead they were (surprise!) the same cast of characters seen piling on in this ANI thread. And in fact, in a subsequent MOSNUM discussion the following unsolicited compliments were posted by someone who actually was involved in the earlier MOSNUM discussion -- the one in which (according to Johnuniq) I had been so disruptive:

• [26] The discussion on kWh was mostly good-natured, and it was resolved well with Eeng's stewardship
• [27] If I had known about the proposed topic ban I would have opposed it. You are doing a good job. Consider toning down for newcomers not yet accustomed to your style, especially non-native English speakers who might not appreciate the wit.

It might add force to that editor's comments when I say that he and I completely disagreed about the issue under discussion until almost the very end.

• I believe in the good faith of everyone here, but some are so certain that they've ceased to examine their own claims. So please, do what I asked in bold above, which is to open the diff linked there and point out two or three of the MOS violations, or "concerns consistent with present-day Wikipedia consensus", that were (as you've claimed) being addressed in that diff, and which I was therefore resisting or reverting. Unless you do that, everything you and John and Bgwhite say here falls to the ground.

EEng (talk) 23:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC) (P.S. Others e.g. Martinevans123, Nyttend, BedsBookworm, Ritchie333 -- please, everyone ping your favorites -- are encouraged to look at the diff as well, and opine.)

Difficult to offer an objective comment as I have become familar with EEng's "colourful" style of interaction. I think much of this is good-natured but often appears, especially to those unfamiliar, as flippant, aggressive or arrogant. That said, as EEng suggests, I think actual clear diffs, to illustrate this "blockable" behaviour, are still required. It's obvious that he does not see himself as the only guilty party here. But I've always found both Tryptofish and John to be very resonable in all my previous dealings with them, so I'm sure they must have a valid point. I think Bgwhite may have made a grave error of judgement, as an involved admin, in blocking EEng while this discussion was still open. It seems to have served only to antagonise EEng and made postions more entrenched all round. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Martinevans123, thank you for the kind words and for your desire to find a reasonable resolution. I will attempt to reply with specifics. Where you ask about blocking, as opposed to a topic ban, I want to make it clear that I have advised against any block, throughout this discussion, so I am not going to defend the block. I think there is a case that the block was borderline WP:INVOLVED, and I also think that there are cases that, both, the block was provoked and that there was a valid rationale, instead, for a 3RR block. In the end, it's time to move on from the block, not to go back over and re-parse it.

EEng asks for specific diffs concerning the consensus about MOS. I asked EEng, at his user talk about two months ago, to direct me to where discussions about MOS and his formatting approach had taken place: [28]. He replied, in part, that there was never really such a discussion, and that the way he formats pages is largely just a matter of his personal "pet peeve" and "pastime": [29]. I then asked, in part, to make sure that I had understood him correctly: [30]. He never disagreed.

EEng presents the discussion about the GA editing as one where the only responses he got from anyone were of the "we outvote you" nature. I will point to an example where I tried to engage with him with great specificity and in great detail about these editing issues: Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD. And that's just one example of where I have tried to engage on these issues; there are many more. Now I understand that EEng is asking here about responses in the most recent talk page thread, but anything he asks there, I already answered before, and it is unhelpful to keep acting anew as if nothing has been discussed already.

EEng argues that the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one, and that my analogy was incorrect. In that earlier thread, I said this: [31]. EEng replied: [32]. The first half of his reply could have ended the entire affair peaceably. The second half was a needless jab at John. Unfortunately, John responded: [33]. EEng then massively escalated the conflict: [34]. When I referred back to that exchange, here, I was referring to the fact that EEng failed to drop the stick then, as he is also doing now.

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I did not ask for "diffs concerning the consensus about MOS". I asked you to point to something in the article that violates MOS. To make that easy I provided you with a diff of the "corrections" (which you supported) to these alleged violations. You still haven't pointed to anything.

• But since you bring it up, as seen in your diff I did not say that 'the way [I format] pages is largely just a matter of [my] personal "pet peeve" and "pastime"'. I said that ragged right margins are a pet peeve, and hunting them down is sort of a pastime". That's quite different. (I have to sit through lot of boring meetings, and they frown on pornography, so I hyphenate instead.)

• I didn't say that "the previous ANI discussion was nothing like the present one". In fact it's a lot like the present one (e.g. same cast of characters piling on). What I did say that you draw the wrong lesson from it, as explained above.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wish I was smart enough to understand edits like this one. Whether Bgwhite should have issued the block or not is somewhat beyond my ken, but that EEng's behavior left something to be desired is clear to me, and that a stick needs to be dropped is clear to me also. "Drive-by editor", if it involves an assumption of bad faith as seems to have been the case here, is certainly not productive and can be considered a (blockable) PA. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• This bullet point slightly revised for clarity. Don't blame me for your headache, Drmies, because that's not my edit -- this one is [35]. To see what I mean by that, see this slice of the revision history [36] I was in the middle of fixing citations, adding content, and other such trivial stuff, during which members of the posse showed up repeatedly to revert to "their" version, in which important stuff (like non-visible markup linebreaks) is they way they like it, and irritating blemishes (such as internal notes pointing out missing page #s in citations) have been banished. That this old version of theirs was missing a lot of actual content didn't matter, of course.
• After the third such visit from The Enforcers, I opened a discussion [37] in which I carefully outlined the issues as I saw them. As you can see, with one minor exception, I got no substantive answer -- just a lot of "we're right and you're wrong".
• After a few more days with no response, I explained [38] that I was restoring the article to a blended version, for example removing most of the hidden notes "since I gather editors find them to have low signal-to-noise ratio".
• And next thing you know, here we are at ANI!
• I have never said or implied that anyone's acting in bad faith, only with such certainty that they forget that consensus means "reasoned discussion" not "voting".

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Drmies. Those kinds of edits give me a headache, myself, and I've parsed through probably a hundred of them. The tl;dr to take from them is that there are a huge number of non-displaying comments, templates that you have to look up what they are for (and that often have no effect on the appearance of the page on most devices), notes appended to notes, and content about how some investigators (collaborators of EEng in real life) went about determining that previous investigators were "incorrect". At a minimum, there is a good faith conversation to be had, as to whether other editors agree with having all of that in a GA (and I predict a forthcoming complaint that I got all the details wrong in that description), given the complexity that it poses. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for your strikeouts, Tfish, though now a perfectly good "put-up-or-shut-up" challenge will have to go to waste. I guess I can forgive that in the interests of the greater good.
• My "collaborator" is a man I've never met and have spoken with just twice on the phone, and with whom I coauthored one paper six years ago. If there were a dispute of any kind on this subject I'd most happily present it -- warts and all. But there's not: every paper on Gage in the last 15 years explicitly endorses the article's presentation.

We can have a good-faith conversation on all of this, but it's going to require that absolute certainty, and accusations of COI, be checked at the door. Back to the Talk page!

EEng (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Drmies, I appreciate the outside view. It would really gladden my heart if EEng would voluntarily recuse from editing that article for the duration of preparing the article for GA, something it is easily capable of. I tell you that as a frequent GA and FA reviewer, the esoteric formatting would be an instant fail. It makes the article more difficult to edit without imparting much if anything in the way of improvement or utility. If you don't trust me (or any other editor) to have the best possible at heart for that article, I will voluntarily join you in recusing from the article. Apart from the funky coding, most of the work in the article is good, but it is improvable. No work of man can say otherwise. There are a zillion other articles you can edit, and you can of course contribute to article talk. I predict the only alternative will be a formal topic ban, and/or more blocks. I would totally have blocked you for your obfuscation, rudeness and contempt for your fellow editors had I not been involved in trying to edit the article a few months ago. I am famously lenient and I am sure other admins may have a quicker block reflex than mine. Or do you have another option you wish to suggest? --John (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• And sorry, I don't know how that happened. I read your comments EEng, and the last bit about returning to talk is a good point. But earlier on you talk about other folk who want to improve the article, and to raise it to peer-reviewed status, as being a "posse" and call us "enforcers". That isn't acceptable at any time, and it especially isn't right after a block for being mean to your potential co-workers. Please, take a break from this warfare, and do something else for a while. It's a wiki and you really can't prevent others from editing your work, or be mean to them when they try to do so. This is fundamental to our enterprise here. --John (talk) 21:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• John, I have no answer to offer here. A very narrow topic ban may be the best solution: no one wants to prevent EEng from editing (I hope), but it seems to me there is broad enough disagreement with their edits to this article. BTW, I agree that "posse" is not acceptable language and violates AGF. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Drmies, I also think that a very narrow topic ban has become unavoidable, as much as I have tried (fruitlessly) for the longest time to avoid anyone having to be sanctioned. Below, EEng calls me to task for, in his opinion, never providing a direct answer to his questions. In my opinion, I already did exactly that, many times, with Talk:Phineas Gage/Archive 6#WP:BRD being just one good example. EEng apparently believes that I'm doing WP:IDHT, and I believe the same about him, so I'm not going to respond below, and I'll just allow whoever may be uninvolved to decide for themselves.
• I propose, yet one more time, that EEng be topic-banned indefinitely from editing Phineas Gage, with no restriction to editing Talk:Phineas Gage. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for an understanding

Directly above, Drmies points to this diff: [39]. Take a look at the diff, and see who the editor was. EEng replies "that's not my edit". EEng goes on to refer to the editors who disagree with him as "the posse" and "The Enforcers". And all this in the context of an ANI discussion about his unwillingness to treat other editors in the discussion with good faith and without insult. I'm not asking him to agree with other editors. But I'm still waiting for him to acknowledge that other editors really do have good faith concerns, and demonstrate a willingness to engage with them on neutral terms. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Like I said, you have to look at the revision history [40] to see what I mean by "that's not my edit".
• I have said repeatedly above that I believe everyone to be acting in good faith, if misguided. It's the stubborn certaintly, combined with the absolute refusal to give even a single example of the alleged problems (see below), that's pissing me off.

EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for even one actual example illustrating the alleged problems (nth request)

Tfish, you and John keep talking about the "esoteric formatting", but despite my repeated requests you never say what that is. For the love of God, right here, right now, in front of everyone, after all this wasted time and effort, one of you please specify what you're talking about. Let me suggest you do this by making (say) three actual, live edits to the article, each illustrating one variety of this "esoteric formatting" by removing or fixing one or two instances of it. Then link the three diffs here, each with a link to the pertinent MOS provision or other guideline).

If indeed there really are clear violations of MOS, I'll be the first to rush out and fix all instances of them. If it's a matter of judgment or opinion, we can talk about it on the article's Talk page, one by one.

That's all I've ever asked for, and not too much to expect. I doubt I'll be participating here further until that's done. EEng (talk) 03:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Gosh, people can reference the recent past and the reason this was brought here, but let's review some issues. This edit resolved the <!--In con{{shy}}sid{{shy}}er{{shy}}a{{shy}}­tion of this important omis{{shy}}sion, --> issue. Shy templates in invisible mark up = totally useless. Painfully old, but this edit to restore useless invisible comments was a repeat issue. Part of the issue has been resolved by you acknowledging Template:Cite_web#COinS after BGwhite pointed it out, but that was also for technical reasons. Glad you understand that now. Though MOS:MARKUP was a repeatedly mentioned. The replacement of many templates you've added with actual characters makes sense and many equivalent changes are so widely supported that even AWB makes the changes for you. Though I am certain that: <!--DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING>>>>-->{{sic|neighbouring|hide=y}}<!--<<<<DO NOT AMERICANISE THIS SPELLING --> is a perfectly good example of two irrelevant and distracting invisible comments that is in the current version. Your insistence on nonequivalent measurements "three inches (8{{nbsp}}cm)" are also a bit unusual because of the way you choose to display them. Though this and numerous other issues are best dealt with on the talk page... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm looking at the article in the editing window right now. Half of what I see seems redundant to me. Upload links in the image syntax, all kinds of templated spaces and spacings, marked-up paragraph breaks, lists, hidden comments of all kinds, hard returns in the middle of sentences and paragraphs, a plethora of notes with all those formatting codes in the notes (hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins)--I have never seen so much templating in one article, and the net effect is, for an illiterate like me, that my editing the article seems very unwelcome. I hope that was not the purpose, but man this looks awful. Drmies (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Still waiting for links to pertinent MOS (or other) guidelines showing that this is anything more than a matter of judgment that should be discussed on the article's talk page, rather than unilaterally thrown away by people using edit summaries like time to move on, majority opinion the best guide [41]. So much for discussion and consensus. Your bit about "hard to tell where a note ends and the regular text begins" is especially amusing, since there used to be comments explaining <!--END NOTE--> (see [42]); but I was told those weren't wanted, so I got rid of them [43] It sure is hard to please everyone. EEng (talk) 17:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

4RR, EEng, 4RR. --John (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD, WP:VOTE, John. EEng (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR is an absolute rule, one of very few we have. Believing you are right or that a consensus was improperly arrived at are not legitimate justifications for breaking it. If you plan to break it again, you will be blocked again and you would be better topic-banned from the article as this is less stressful for all concerned. Is this the case? --John (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No. Do you plan to high-handedly WP:TAGTEAM me again, then talk sanctimoniously of 3RR? Do you plan to shift from one misinterpreted guideline to another, then in desperation denigrate another editor's work as "shit writing", as in [44] --

If I'm confusing you by referring to ideas that are perhaps new to you, I can make it simple to help you. It's shit writing; it sounds like a teenage girl's diary, not an encyclopedia. Does that make it easier to understand? --John (talk) 08:25, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

-- then give lectures about respect and collaboration, and threaten blocks and topic bans? EEng (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[Behavior/Misconduct] User:Semitransgenic

Wasn't there also a User conduct noticeboard about behavior and etiquette a few decades back? I will fill my report here, I really am sorry but I could not find the specific board unless the policies have changed and it has been merged with another in which this board has to be close to the right noticeboard for this kind of issue.

User:Semitransgenic has a very colorful way of responding to random people and sure if this is how he talks home or to his mother then good for him but he will not talk this way to me. This disgusting display of human behavior stayed up right there, above a newer post of an of an either totally clueless or ignorant administrator(!) (tools) [text censored by User:KoshVorlon twice] who chose to say absolutely nothing, for one(!!) entire month without no one taking a notice not even the administrators which is a complete failure to contain a breach on both sides, the administrators and Semitransgenetic, who even had time to amend his position and apologize for some of the most disturbing comments I have ever seen on the entire internet but choose not to. It is saddening to see comments like these slip right through because it really shows poor integrity of individual users here. There is no point of being preachy here but people like him don't belong on Wikipedia unless Wikipedia was a discussion board of homemade moonshine-makers and avid wife beaters and even then it would not be acceptable the way he reacted. I demand a sincere apology from him because there is simply no reason or to act like this to your fellow user on Wikipedia. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:41, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Other than the WP:NPA violation of calling someone a "prick", not much there. WP:WQA is sadly long gone, and since the NPA is a month ago, not much we can do at this point. It's also nowhere near the level of "disgusting display" that you suggest the panda ₯’ 00:45, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I knew the board didn't disappear completely but I started to think I made it up in my mind since even my browser couldn't fetch any relevant pages on Google which was strange. Anyhow I don't care about how normal or ordinary you think his comments are it's his hostile tone that you should be offended about not even what words and how many expletives were used in the process because it makes no harm to anyone, it only hurts his reputation and shows what a character he is. That is insignificant. What is not insignificant however is that a full scale ad hominem-fueled "personal attack" just slipped under all radars implying that it happened and it will happen again unless he is penalized whichever way you find to be the best but not too low because again this is not an innocent accident of two clueless parties but a well-construed personal attack that some people usually take to the courts so it would be preposterous to dismiss it as "not much there." ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Calling someone a "prick" and saying things like "get a life" lower the level of discussion on WP, tend to inflame and provoke in-kind responses, and create an unfriendly and hostile edit environment. At the same time, implying Semitransgenic is a "moonshine-maker" or "avid wife beater" does the same thing. I think if there were direct admin intervention in these incidents at this initial stage we would see less instances where they fester and snowball into events that result in indefinite blocks. I would very much like to see both ItsAlwaysLupus and Semitransgenic receive a 24-hour block. DocumentError (talk) 07:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I held Wikipedia in high esteem until this happened and I hope it won't happen again. I did not come to Wikipedia to be insulted. Perhaps the policies have changed between the times I wasn't here and it is now okay to attack users perhaps even using racial slurs, learned internet tough guy phrases and of course our favorite penis references in which case I would not bother taking my case here and dealt it with Semitransgenic personally. Also please stop putting words in my mouth, I did not call Semitransgenic a "moonshine-maker" or "avid wife beater" I was merely reflecting on his sick behavior. Is this a public open-court thing that non-administrators are allowed to this discussion? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that would achieve, since this incident has clearly been drawn out over a long period of time. The diff in question is this, definitely not "spam", and during the edit war Semi brought his concern up on the talk page here and there was no real effort from Lupus to discuss the point at hand. Name calling doesn't help, neither does putting warning templates on experienced users' talk pages or wrongly accusing them of spam, and the hyperbolic sky-is-falling tone used in this report is quite frankly ridiculous. Maybe apologise to each other and civilly focus on the content dispute? – filelakeshoe (t / c)  14:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If copying the entire poriton of one article and inserting it in a hardly coherent section in a second article is not "spam" then I am sure you will educate me on the right terminology. Meanwhile I see it as a spam because he continued in that endeavor more than twice and actually past 3RR but in an extended period of time because not everyone has time to be an editing warrior on Wikipedia so that went unnoticed as well. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

These type of questions can seem hyperbolic until one is the subject of the vitriol be leveled. I think we should work to empathize with User:ItsAlwaysLupus rather than dismissing his concerns as overblown. I would, personally, have my enjoyment of WP lessened if someone was using this type of language toward me. DocumentError (talk) 21:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with DocumentError. I just noticed this thread when looking back at something els, and I do not know all the background. I'm not asking for a block, given the time passed, but the English Wikipedia really needs to get better at not standing for the kind of discourse that I see in the two diffs at the top of this thread. We should expect better of one another. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User:ItsAlwaysLupus has a track record of spewing sentiment that contravenes WP:AGF, some difs:

• [45] edit summary: "How many times do I need to cancel your anti-NPOV crusade" = Bad Faith
• [46] a false accusation of spamming an article by placing a spam warning on user talk page = Bad Faith
• [47] edit summary: "Spam-pushing unrelated sources" a false accusation = Bad Faith
• [48]edit summary: "rv Semitransgenic spammer" = Bad Faith
• [49] edit summary: "Nice brutal South Africa apartheid era-like attempt to annihilate any slightest hints that point to a music style while abusing the same sources to compose the "era" hypothesis intro." = Bad Faith

I ignored the above instances of bad faith behavior, but when it arrived on my talk page, I requested that this user cease from making intentionally inflammatory, and completely false accusations, the user chose to ignore this request. Semitransgenic _talk. 09:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is without a doubt one of the worst occurences of someone grasping at straws this hard I have ever seen. You not only show no remorse but also are springing so hard to come up with a counterattack even as bad as it is. This guy is unbelievable! Sullying the other party's credibility with anything he could scrape off the barrel but he absolutely fails at giving explanation for his vicious attack. Oh well, if only I forgot that it is voluntary to post here and not bound by any legal obligation. (: ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is all, also, clearly unacceptable behavior and uses words whose only purpose can be to inflame and provoke. I, therefore, reiterate my call to subject both ItsAlwaysLupus and Semitransgenic to a 24-hour block. This is the minimum block and should not be seen as punishment but as a record-creation action that would allow future violations to be quickly and succinctly addressed by reference to the block as a benchmark point; it would be easy to sort-out who was the problem editor in the future by viewing editor actions from the date of the block forward. I call on both Semitransgenic and ItsAlwaysLupus to volunteer for such a block. Whomever volunteers first will be seen as a leader willing to put WP first, and whomever volunteers second will be seen as a team player willing to work with other. Whomever doesn't volunteer for the block will be seen in an unflattering light. DocumentError (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

You certainly deserve a trophy for the loudest person here but what's with those tacky ways of making your random sentences bold to influence anyone's decision. Seriously? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus is hereby blocked for 24 hours. This is a contingency block, meaning I don't have any power to enforce it at this time, but I am making a mental note to apply it if I become an admin. DocumentError (talk) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

By the time you are an admin on Wikipedia I will become the sole ruler of Earth so I better watch that tone if I were you. (: ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I just removed your comments about Ed Johnston. Using personal attacks against an administrator isn't going to help you at all, especially since your'e complaining about a user being rude to you . KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 17:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

KoshVorlon, please. No one has mentioned [redacted]'s name here as seen here except you. You can't just force me to accept your patronizing opinions on me then trying to silence me by performing an unauthorized access into my text. I am against bold-splaining as much as the next person but do not ever attempt, as a non-administrator, to censor my text. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

If the text violates NPA, then yes, I will remove only the NPA violating part of the text. I don't need to be an administrator to do that. In the same way, I would accept any revert on any text I post the violates NPA as well. Once again, attacking an admin here, when y ou're complaining about being attacked doesn't help your case. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 11:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not care whether it's a lower admin or a big admin so stop assuming I am attacking anyone when I am not. He could be a president of Universe for all I care but the proof he is an admin and he let it pass by was all what I needed. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I will accept the proposed 24 block but only on the condition that an overall consensus to impose this punishment is demonstrated here. Semitransgenic _talk. 18:01, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to use voluntary blocks to document anything. At this point, it's simple. Both editors need to recognize that two wrongs do not make a right, and both editors need to cut it out. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Very concise, very short. I like your post. The discussion as it is now sadly won't lead anywhere because this is a classic children waging a "pointing fingers at each other" war, that I called some of his edits a "spam" (I stand by my words that what he did he did overstep his boundaries and went on just plain destructive behavior but perhaps there is another less "bad" word for that) and he now points back at me saying bad faith which is pointless name-calling so his word has as much worth as mine in this particular example but he uses it to divert attention from the fact that he done wrong and ain't gonna apologize. ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This thread is getting tediously dense in personal attacks. I don't see a single diff here that shows how Semitransgenic spammed the project, engaged in "destructive behavior", or assumed bad faith. Coming here and demanding an apology (seriously?), blowing off your own disruptive behavior with personal attacks, and then making baseless accusations make me think that maybe you are the one who should be blocked. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't you have the courtesy to respect the boundaries of a private conversation? Do have the impression that my comment was intended for you even? Who are you? ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

ItsAlwaysLupus, this is not a private conversation, this is a general noticeboard where every editor may comment and reply. You may dislike what NinjaRobotPirate said, or disagree with it, and you may point out where he is wrong, but you don't have the option to shut him out of this discussion. Fram (talk) 08:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:StanTheMan87

Every time the image of Mullah Omar is deleted [50] right away StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) uploads another copy of the same image. On his user page he wrote "I detest wik-i-diots." [51], He's edit-warring on Taliban page [52] and pov pushing on other pages. Looks to me like single purpose account with specific agenda and likely another editor's sockpuppet.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I re-upload that image becuase I see no reason as to why it must be taken down on a supposed copyright violation when it's in the Public Domain being published by the U.S State Department. "I detest wik-i-diots" is in reference to users such as Dannis243 who revert edits without justifying them, as you can see [53]. POV pushing? Since when is citing sources on the documented elimination of minorities under the Taliban regime POV pushing? See [54] Single purpose account? Since when is it an offense to edit articles based on historical interest? See [55] [56] [57] [58] Specific agenda? Please, am I meant to be some agent of the Taliban, when I upload a U.S State Department wanted image of their leader onto Wikipedia for scholarly discussion? I do it for Wikipedia's benefit and those that use it, not for my own self-gratification. Sock puppetry? I only have one account, launch some sort of investigation if it pleases you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

As for the image, in my experience US government websites tend to be pretty bad about actually ensuring the images they host are PD, though in most cases those sites don't have the kind of claim the RFJ website does. A big issue is that, at least on the file page, the date and author of the photograph are unknown. The type of image suggests it wasn't taken clandestinely, but instead professionally... it seems likely the image is not PD. It should probably be deleted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that the FAQ on the RFJ cite does specify that images that have copyright will be tagged as such and reusers are required to get the proper rights for reuse for those, and this image is not tagged with that, then it is not our fault that the RFJ misclaimed this as PD; they are an authorative source here, and thus I see no issue with calling that image PD, unless we can ultimately verify that it is a true copyvio. --MASEM (t) 03:40, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I just don't think it's a credible claim of being in the PD. It has a number of markings indicating it's a studio photo. And without the original source, author, or place of publication, how are we to really evaluate the claim that it's in the PD? At least military photos will tell you the name and rank of the photographer who took an image, and give you an indication of when and where it was taken. This has absolutely nothing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:44, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think or hope that the people in charge of that site did sufficient research to chase down the source for the image. Also keep in mind: the US does not respect copyrights of certain countries (the ones listed with "none" in here), so if this photo originated from one of those countries, the US gov't would consider it public domain. --MASEM (t) 03:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but at the very least my experience (and I'm sure that of others) has borne out that most federal agencies have no clue what's going on when it comes to copyright. The fact that there is no source, author, or date information only makes it worse. We just don't know. This is a pretty straightforward application of the same precautionary principle used over at Commons. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:24, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

So the monkey selfie stays, and a picture of a dangerous human goes? Come on. Try not to make Wikipedia look stupid. Maybe at least wait until someone actually complains to Wikimedia about that photo - which is highly unlikely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:25, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I could find no evidence of 3RR by User:StanTheMan87, the issue of the image's copyright is clearly open to debate as seen above and ANI is not the correct venue to broach the topic, interest in a specific topic is not a hallmark of a single-issue account, sock inquiries should be brought up in a different forum, and make an uncivil statement like "I hate wik-idiots" without directing it at a specific user doesn't seem to violate WP:CIVIL. DocumentError (talk) 07:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If I may have an input into this discussion, is it possible if the U.S government purposefully enhanced the quality of the image https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mullah_Omar.png from the undoubtedly original version http://www.newyorker.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/120123_r21781_p323.jpg for identification purposes? This is directed at Mendaliv (talk · contribs) who suggested said image was taken professionally as opposed to clandestinely. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:52, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Suggest that a thread at WP:PUF be opened to discuss the image issues, to separate out if any admin action is necessary --MASEM (t) 14:11, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

The image is NOT one of those mug shots created by a U.S. federal government employees. It is obviously a pre-2001 Afghanistan made image. Other websites may use it but it cannot be used in Wikipedia. Plus, the guy in the picture cannot be verified as being Mullah Omar, it's just speculation. StanTheMan87 uploaded it to Commons and it was deleted, he then uploaded to Wikipedia and it was deleted and now he re-uploaded it. He seems to be obsessed with this image. I think he's stirring some kind of trouble in Wikipedia. See this, he removed image of Zalmay Khalilzad and replaced it with a well known bad guy (Mullah Omar). That is obviously not a good faith edit.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Who do you imagine is going to sue Wikipedia over it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the US does not have a copyright agreement with Afghanistan and about 9 other countries (usual suspects here) as it does with most others as it has set up through the Berne convention. As such, even if it was a Afghanistan photo, the US (and specifically the RFJ site) will consider it in the PD. I do note that Jimmy Wales has asked us, when considering works from these areas, that we still do respect their copyrights, but we would probably need evidence that this came from there --MASEM (t) 16:08, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Given the absurdity of Wikimedia's position on these matters, maybe just replace the wanted-poster picture with the monkey selfie. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:12, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Copyright agreement with Afghanistan is irrelevant because we don't have any evidence that an Afghan photographer actually took the photo but can only guess. Another problem is that we don't even know if this really is Mullah Omar. Suppose it is not him then we (Wikipedia) would be deliberately misleading the world at large, sort of protecting the real Mullah Omar. The other issue is that StanTheMan87 copied this image from the New Yorker [59] and used another website (RFJ) in the source. (notice the one at RFJ is tiny).--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:58, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Do valid sources say it is him? Also, try google-image for the subject and see what turns up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

If CIA can't be sure then we must forget about searching for valid sources. The monkey selfie (File:Macaca nigra self-portrait.jpg) is a better choice than uploading an image of an unknown person as the leader of Islam.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, in response to User:Krzyhorse22 comment on the re-uploading of the image, yes it is true I have uploaded it twice. I have no idea as to why is was ever removed, which is precisely why I re-uploaded it. I thought that adding a PD image to an article in which no image was present would benefit Wikipedia and those that might come across the article for their own private use in order to enhance discussion. We have images of infamous people such as Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Osama Bin Laden so as to expand users understanding of the people they represent. I thought I was making an important contribution but clearly by all the uproar I have created, I was gravely mistaken. Secondly, I added Mullah Omar to the article Pashtun People as a.) He is an ethnic Pashtun and b.) I thought it more appropriate to insert a former Afghan head of state over a former U.S ambassador based on the fact that Afghanistan is the homeland of Pashtuns. There is an image of Saddam Hussein in the article entitled Iraqi People [60] and an image of Joseph Stalin in the article entitled Georgians [61], so clearly by those examples, a person's moral reputation cannot exclude them from being depicted as a part of the ethnic group in which they are a member of. Finally, in regards to the alleged "speculation" over authenticity of the image pertaining to be Mullah Omar, a source from the U.S government is as good as any source if not better, in establishing who is and who isn't an individual, especially one focusing on the apprehension of criminals by the U.S State Department. If the intelligence community of the U.S government are advertising a $10 million bounty for the capture of Mullah Omar, than that is good enough proof to conclude it is indeed him. If User:Krzyhorse22 disagrees, than the onus falls on him to prove otherwise. Allow me to reiterate: With regards to the person being depicted in the image [62], the U.S government believes that the person in the photograph is the person being represented in the article. If User:Krzyhorse22 challenges this assertion, than he/she should take it up with the U.S State Department, as well as the entire intelligence community of the U.S government. StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:55, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

It was deleted because it is simply not allowed in Wikipedia. You swapped Khalilzad's image (first Muslim/first Afghan to serve as U.S. Ambassader) with Mullah Omar (a wanted terrorist who only ruled part of Afghanistan as a warlord). This is obviously your attempt to make a particular ethnic group look evil. Pashtun people are not limited to Afghanistan. Like others, they live all around the world and that article is not intended for Afghans but for English readers. You're falsifying articles [63] [64] [65] , adding unreliable/mirror sites as sources [66]. BTW, I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar. So now you either accept that monkey face or go find clear evidence.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You have not answered my question, why it is "simply not allowed in Wikipedia"? Elaborate please. My evidence is better than your here-say. I have a certified U.S government source, and the Berne Convention supporting my claim that the image in the Public-Domain, least in the U.S from my knowledge but could also be elsewhere. You have your own rhetoric based on what it appears to be personal and moral objections on the image in question. That's not good enough for removing a perfectly valid image which has 100% relevance on to the article in which it is on. Your claim that I am falsifying articles is baseless, those edits are cited with a source, upon source. Every link you add in which you claim I am somehow ruining Wikipedia is in fact just showing how little you know about Wikipedia. This very discussion for example, shouldn't even exist here. The allegations you have brought against me have been refuted, by User:DocumentError and you just look foolish. I'm not even going to consider responding to your interpretation of what is morally good or evil, which is POV, you should know that Wikipedia is supposed to espouse neutrality, and even when editing the Taliban article I have mentioned atrocities they have committed as both a regime and militia See [67] and [68] so don't even dare accuse me of being some sort of jihadist web sock-puppet. On your supposed phone call with the "head of the CIA", you'll have to submit some sort of evidence in writing, and the CIA will have to also corroborate on your claim. Your claim is therefore not reputable, as you have stated it yourself, it could easily be purely a fabrication and you clearly have a one-sided view on this discussion, as you are pursuing for the image to be removed, and reporting me for all vices under the sun. So now you can either accept the PD image or go find clear evidence. Toodles. StanTheMan87 (talk) 08:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You just called John O. Brennan to consult with him on a Wikipedia ANI? Count me impressed. DocumentError (talk) 16:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87, without permission, you copied the image from http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/mullah-omars-face . That's why it is not allowed in Wikipedia. About the reward for justice site, whenever it uses an image for its own purposes, it does not mean Wikipedia can do the same. That site is referring to people who want to use their content for personal use. Wikipedia has strict rules, I don't need to teach you go read for yourself. I'm sure you know all of this but pretending stupid. The evidence is that you deliberately concealed the newyorker.com from the file's description but instead posted reward for justice. That's a typical fraud act. Stop ranting about the image, which will get deleted where it is nominated. I reported you here for disrupting Wikipedia. Don't argue with me, admins can see what you're doing. Behave and you won't be getting reported.

DocumentError, it was a joke. If I did you know what he would say.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That image existed long before 2012, the date in the New Yorker article you linked. In the interest of wrapping up this frivolous filing so it doesn't drag on forever, I'd like to ask StanTheMan87 to just stop replying. I regret to be the one to inform you, but you're clearly insane. DocumentError (talk) 16:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll also note, KrzyHorse22, that you have been making [[[WP:NPA|personal attacks]]. , as any further personal attacks will result in your being blocked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OpenOffice

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

---

There's a (presumably good faith) dispute about the content of the disambiguation page OpenOffice. The dispute deals with the adding/removing of non-ambiguous titles to the page proper. One editors add them. Another editor moves them to the See also section. In particular, the inclusion/exclusion of Libre Office is at the nub of the dispute.

This incident relates to one editor, Walter Görlitz, who, in my view, is demonstrating disruptive editing and battleground mentality towards me specifically.

Background

Here's the edit history of adding/removing the non-ambiguous terms:

• Added by Thumperward: 16 August 2013
• Removed by 50.138.228.216: 16 August 2013
• Revert-warring between David Gerard and 50.138.228.216: 16-20 August 2013
• Revert-warring between 202.75.18.110 and 50.138.228.216: 20-31 August 2013‎
• Removed by JHunterJ (as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation): 8 October 2013
• Added by David Gerard: 28 October 2013
• Removed again by JHunterJ: 28 October 2013
• Partial removed by Nigelj: 1 February 2014
• Partial added by Walter Görlitz: 1 February 2014
• Added by Enquire: 16 February 2014

The page was marked for clean up by Widefox on 6 March 2014 due to the inclusion of non-ambiguous terms. I answered the call for clean up on 6 August 2014 and was reverted by ClareTheSharer (citing "POV changes" and "No Talk discussion and changes ignore consensus"). No particular problems or issues so far (although ClareTheSharer's comments were undeserved) because I presume the issue lies simply in a misunderstanding of what to list on disambiguation pages.

Walter Görlitz

The incident I am raising is with Walter Görlitz demonstrating disruptive and battleground-style behavior in the discussion that followed. His behavior seemingly carries a grudge over from other discussions (or he is unable to distinguish this discussion from another). In particular:

• (on-going) disagreement at Talk:OpenOffice.org
• a RM I made at OpenOffice last January

Particular comments included:

"Introducing delusional information that you and Tóraí lean toward is not an option though. As for the attempted insults that we show ownership, it doesn't fly. We simply support the references. Suck on that." (29 August 2014)

"Pretty much everything you've written is skewed to some degree and everyone who has commented here and at the OpenOffice.org has stated that." - 30 August 2014

Then there's this gem of disruptive editing editing, 31 August 2014, where he avoids repeated requests to explain his objections.

Another particularly noxious example is making out that I'm working against consensus (what consensus?) in moving the non-ambiguous terms to the See also section. And (falsely) pointing to the unrelated RM discussion as evidence for consensus on this matter (7 August 2014). Or reverting changes that move the non-ambigious terms citing an unrelated RfC on OpenOffice.org.

These issues may appear small but when grudges from unrelated issues are carried across articles or discussions it feels vindictive and is wearing.

Action requested: A warning or (short) block for battlefield mentality and disruptive editing.

--Tóraí (talk) 21:28, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Already blocked for edit warring by Mike_V. Amortias (T)(C) 21:33, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

At the same time, he needs to made understand his behavior towards me isn't on. He'll be back in 48hrs and his attitude in this dispute won't have changed unless he is told it's not acceptable. --Tóraí (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This is being dealt with by the administrators involved on his talk page. Best to let them thrash it out and I'll notify the admins involved so there aware of this issue as well. Amortias (T)(C) 21:49, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

OK. If you ask one of them to look at this tread and decide what to, I'd appreciate that. May I suggest Bbb23 since he/she is currently in active discussion with Walter. I won't for want of keeping interaction with Bbb23 (or who ever) unbiased. --Tóraí (talk) 21:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Requests sent to the administrators involved in his block/unblock requests. Amortias (T)(C) 21:57, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Looking at Walter's block log I think escalating blocks should be used instead of continuing with short blocks. PhilKnight (talk) 22:11, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree absolutely and have said as much in my decline and other comments on Walter's talk page. To say he's not taking it well is an understatement.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I've had a few interactions with Walter Görlitz in the past year. None of them have been pleasant, regardless of how he was approached. Since that time, I've seen a few articles on my watchlist that he also edits and have noted he is often quite abrasive (typically unnecessarily so). He does seem to approach editing with the battleground mentality mentioned above, and is prone to edit warring without apology. I have no vendetta or hard feelings against Walter, but he does seem to stomp on editors a lot. Since my interactions with him have ended up mostly negative, I just try to avoid having any contact unless absolutely necessary. But how long is one expected to do that without commenting on his persistent and unapologetic disruptive behavior? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:18, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Based on his recent user talk page comments, I'm thinking of increasing his block to a month. Would anybody object? PhilKnight (talk) 23:51, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. User appears to have been reverting what he thought was vandalism and was subsequently blocked. Whether it was vandalism or not is a dispute for another page. However, as I myself have been blocked multiple times for reverting both vandals and sock puppets, I can sympathize with his current block. The OpenOffice issue appears to be more of a content dispute. Combining this current current content dispute with his unrelated block appears to be an attempt to stack the deck against the user. I would need to see more evidence that a block is necessary. On the other hand, the user should be on 1RR at the minimum. Viriditas (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support but I'd like to hear from Mike V, the blocking administrator.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:55, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have no objections to an extended block. I feel this is a reoccurring problem that Walter does not see or does not wish to address. After reviewing the progression of the talk page, I agree with PhilKnight and BBb23 that this issue won't resolve when the block expires. Mike V • Talk 01:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've extended the block to a month. In regard to the comment by Viriditas about 1RR - if Walter Görlitz could be persuaded to follow 1RR I think that would go a long way to resolving this, however for the moment, I have just extended the block. PhilKnight (talk) 01:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, when the block begins to come to a close I would like to propose a 1RR agreement with him. Mike V • Talk 02:22, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Zoe Quinn again

This is mostly asking for review of my actions, rather than asking for sanctions, etc. On Talk:Zoe Quinn I've just twice reverted a proposal for a new section in the article that discusses Quinn's ongoing harassment. I've reverted because some of the sources (Reddit, Talking Ship) look dubious, and the allegations made against Quinn in the post are serious. The post has been restored by Titanium Dragon and Tutelary, however. Do others think this was a reasonable move on my part, or is this more me being a BLP zealot? Opinions from uninvolved editors are welcome. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

My view on this is that it qualifies under the exception of WP:BLPTALK since it was a proposed section, and directly dealing with content in the article. They were proposing for text to be put into the article. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Moreso, how can we reach consensus on how to cover the material if every single discussion about it has been revdeleted? Tutelary (talk) 00:47, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Discuss without BLP violations? Sergecross73 msg me 00:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

As somebody who has recently gotten involved with making edits on the article, I feel like there should be discussion and a consensus regarding the addition of a section talking about the scandal per what Tutelary states above, including references to wherever the supposed violations of WP:BLPGOSSIP Moreover, I feel like it should be brought up that Zoe Quinn has had 36 deleted revisions since it's creation in May, and the majority of that seems to stem from issues with WP:BLP. A third opinion is desperately needed on this matter. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 00:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed. You can't simply post BLP violations on a talk page though, it applies in all namespaces. Some of those sources are distinctly shaky (or are merely repeating from unreliable sources - putting "allegedly" on the front of a sentence doesn't miraculously make it not a BLP issue). I am also slightly concerned that the "scandal" is being inserted in the article gratuitously; here on Wikipedia would not be the first location on the Internet that efforts have been made to disparage the subject recently. Now, I could be wrong (its happened before), but I agree with Mr.Stradivarius that erring on the side of caution is always the best method. Black Kite (talk) 00:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

But it's not erring on the side of caution. It's removing a whole post to start discussion on the talk page on how to best cover it, if cover it at all in the article. You can't be asked or forced to supply a citation for every single little thing that you're arguing while you're arguing with sources. Again, see BLPTALK, it was directly related to making content choices. Tutelary (talk) 00:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And BLPTALK says "When seeking advice about whether to publish something about a living person, be careful not to post so much information on the talk page that the inquiry becomes moot" - in other words, if you think something might not be BLP compliant, don't post the whole damn thing on the talk page. Black Kite (talk) 01:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Since (I believe you're the one) who revdeleted it, how would you propose we discuss it then if we can't discuss it on the talk? Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It shouldn't be beyond clearly intelligent contributors to discuss the scope of a section without actually repeating BLP violations - and it should be fairly obvious what is and isn't one (I'm not saying the whole section was). Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, I want specifics on how we can discuss this--the potential content in the article on the talk page without it being deleted as a 'blp vio'. Please and thank you. Tutelary (talk) 01:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That particular sentence from BLPTALK has been discussed somewhere else recently. It's an unfortunate and misguided statement. More important, it's in direct conflict with the overarching mandate that BLP applies to all pages. If it were true, you could say almost whatever you wanted on a talk page as long as it was in the context of a "content choice". That is an absurd and unacceptable result.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It's so that when discussing somewhat new content, it doesn't get all deleted as a 'blp vio' when it's important to get something right in the article, which is what was attempting to happen; get it right in the article. I wouldn't even say I support a new section detailing what happened, I just feel like it should be allowed to be discussed on the talk. Tutelary (talk) 01:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In this particular case, some of the text posted in the article and talk page contained serious BLP violations. It may have appeared well sourced, but it was presenting some highly negative claims as facts, in spite of questionable origins, along with some incorrect claims that are not supported by the sources. Perhaps some of the issues need to be discussed, but that text wasn't the way to do it. - Bilby (talk) 01:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, no mention is being made at all as to what information is or is not the violation. There's no means to collaborate and iron out. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 01:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be fairly obvious which part is problematic, though. As Bilby says above, presenting negative claims by third parties as facts is not something we can allow. Black Kite (talk) 01:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The statement of "We need a third opinion on all the revdels" is faulty because they're already coming from multiple parties. There's already multiple opinions present stating that these are flagrant BLP violations. Sergecross73 msg me 01:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The only things which are claimed as facts in the section in question are the things which we have significant external confirmation of. The word "accused" is used re: her ex's accusations, while things which are stated as facts are things which are independently verifiable and not in contention. Indeed, we have confirmation of a romantic relationship between Zoe Quinn and Nathan Grayson because Kotaku commented on it starting after the article he wrote about Zoe Quinn in defense of Grayson and their reporting. We have several sources which have noted the claims re: Joshua Boggs, and the fact that he hired her is not in contention. Literally everything else after the first paragraph has been independently confirmed as it is on the open internet and has been reported by a huge number of sources, and there is absolutely no way that we can report on the controversy - which has, at this point, over 72,000 results on Google for Zoe Quinn sex scandal alone, and which has been reported on or commented on in numerous sources, including Slate, Kotaku, Bright Side of News, New Media Rockstars, Daily Beast, Gamesnosh, Motherboard, Gamer Headlines, Talking Ship, Game Revolution, and Daily Dot. That's ignoring the various other folks who have commented on it, including TotalBiscuit and InternetAristocrat, the latter of whom now has several videos on the subject matter, one of which has north of 750,000 views. The entire reason that Zoe Quinn has gotten coverage is precisely because of the controversies she has been embroiled in, and her notability is pretty much entirely contingent upon these controversies - and notably, per the standards people are claiming above, if we are complaining about single sources here, it is worth remembering that Zoe Quinn's claims of harassment ultimately come from her.

Thus, I see one of two possibilities: either this article needs to be deleted, or this article needs to include the controversy. And it is impossible to include the controversy without noting what the controversy is and what caused it. Given that people have said that this article should be preserved, then it needs to include the controversy, and to do that it must mention what the controversy is about - accusations of nepotism and improper relationships because of romantic relationships she had with people who gave her positive press coverage or hired her to work for them. There is no getting around this. Wikipedia has reported on sex scandals and affairs upon many occasions in BLPs, including Ted Haggard and in the various articles about Princess Diana and Prince Charles, and I really don't see how this is special or different. We have reliable sources which have made these allegations, the fact that they are (largely, but not entirely, as there is some independent confirmation in some cases) based on the account of an unhappy ex should definitely be noted, but it does not prevent us from making note of it - if a politician's wife left him and claimed he had been cheating on her with five women, we would report on that not because of the wife, but because of the reliable sources who would repeat the wife's story and make it into a story. We have reported on all sorts of cases where we do not know all of the specifics, such as about the shooting of Michael Brown, but that does not prevent us from noting what was said about the shooting or what was claimed about the shooting in numerous reliable sources.

The proposed section is not out of line with the sort of accusations which are seen elsewhere, and it needs to be worded carefully, but I think I succeeded at that, and if not, we can work to make it better. And mentioning the cause of the scandal is absolutely necessary to talk about the rest of it - the accusations of nepotism and corruption, the censorship of posts, a voluntary media blackout on the part of many gaming sites, Kotaku's own response to the matter wherein they confirmed that Zoe Quinn was in fact in a romantic relationship with one of their reporters and denied that it was improper because the article he wrote for Kotaku about Zoe Quinn was penned before the relationship began, fights over media corruption, the other game jam she supposedly attacked... and all of this, all of this, is a matter of public record, because it is still available to be seen or has been documented by various folks, and the reliable sources have documented the issues involved. This clearly does not fall under WP:GOSSIP because we can confirm all of this actually happened. The specifics of the affairs we have reliable sources talking about allegations and accusations, though in one case (Grayson) it has been outright confirmed by his employer, so we should word those things as being accusations and allegations - and they aren't just a whisper campaign either seeing as they do, in fact, have actual evidence of the content in question, and in some cases actually link to it in the articles.

I do understand the issues involved with slander and libel but the reality is that this stuff has been reported on by reliable sources per Wikipedia standards, there have been a number of reliable sources which have written articles about the subject matter, it has a bunch of non-reliable source attention, and it is something which, assuming Zoe Quinn is notable, is what makes her notable, given that the material associated with Zoe Quinn pretty much always mentions the controversies she has been embroiled in. If we are worried about NPOV, that's fine, and we can work on the wording. But BLP clearly allows reporting on sex scandals, provided that they are reliably sourced, because we have done this several times before and have numerous BLPs with sex scandals mentioned in them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Literally everything else after the first paragraph has been independently confirmed as it is on the open internet - and therefore it must be true - and has been reported by a huge number of sources - and how many of them are reliable sources? Being 'on the open Internet' does not mean it is suitable for Wikipedia. Verifiability, not truth through reliable, third-party, fact-checked sources. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Every one of them - including the ones in the first paragraph - are reliably sourced. Which you would know if they didn't keep deleting it. Every single one of them. Note that list of reliable sources? "Slate, Kotaku, Bright Side of News, New Media Rockstars, Daily Beast, Gamesnosh, Motherboard, Gamer Headlines, Talking Ship, Game Revolution, and Daily Dot". Those are all used as sources. All of them have reported on the scandal. Every inch of it can be reliably sourced. Everything from the second paragraph on down - the reaction to it, the further allegations of another game jam being attacked, the censoring of posts on reddit, the YouTube video pulldown, the media blackout from several gaming websites, GamesNosh's host arguing with them about keeping up an article about it, and Zoe Quinn's response - all are documented in reliable sources. Every statement made can be sourced in reliable sources. Ergo, the whole argument seems silly to me - we're arguing BLP, but there's no question that this has been reported on, and we have covered other sex scandals in BLPs, and a great deal of it isn't even about the sex scandal itself, but accusations of nepotism and corruption which resulted from her "private" relationships with people who had given her a job and given her positive press became public. Given that these sources all pass RS, I again have to question what the problem is. People are complaining but refusing to even state what they're complaining about. When the text is put up to try and mold into an article for consensus, it is unilaterally deleted rather than amended, and then they complain when the article is changed without consensus despite deleting any attempts to create consensus in the talk page. It is obstructing our ability to improve the article and it is unacceptable, and is clearly a misinterprestation of WP:BLP as was noted above. The sources in question have editorial staff, they aren't personal blogs; Slate and Kotaku are both fairly prominent websites, and the rest all still meet RS standards.

You're not assuming good faith. Please do so in the future; I know what I'm doing. It is just a bit frustrating when every attempt to improve the article is blocked and discussion on the matter prevented. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)\

Please explain what in the wide, wide world of sports any of that has to do with Zoe Quinn. And ensure that all of those alleged connections are sourced to something more than "some guy said this on 4chan" or "I read it on a YouTube comment page." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The Slate article you cite calls the accusations "a dirty-laundry double load of drama-laden chats." Not exactly a ringing endorsement of them as suitable for repetition in an encyclopedic format. I believe the current wording is adequate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 07:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Slate is a biased source; it is not unreasonable to use biased sources, and biased sources can be reliable sources. sources need not be unbiased. But you have to take care in what you use them for; in this case, they're being used for a specific purpose where their bias is irrelevant, namely A) noting the press/feminist reaction to the scandal and B) noting that the scandal exists in the first place and the fundamental, basic facts of it (or at least some of them), which are also repeated in other, less biased reliable sources. You can write an article using biased sources, you just need to take care that you don't allow THEIR bias to creep into Wikipedia. Titanium Dragon (talk) 07:11, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Slate isn't "a biased source", which is exactly the point. Slate is a generally-accepted high-quality source, and that source states that the accusations are little more than tabloid trash. We don't republish tabloid trash in the encyclopedia. Hence, if the reliable sources in this matter are calling it tabloid trash, we are well-advised to leave it out. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:04, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There are concerns of neutrality in the coverage of the incident that were raised in the talk page, and these deletions does not address the problem. It's true that BLP applies to talk pages, but Tutelary is right that BLP explicitly allows discussing controversial content there in a general way when it's sourced, letting us to include such claims once; a shotgun approach of "delete everything " even from article history is not the way to protect the neutrality of the article nor the privacy of the person - the reliable sources covering the event in depth are too numerous and varied to simply hide the whole thing just because some aspects of it are gossip and should be left out. Several RSs (including those supportive of Quinn, even the Slate article you found reliable) have linked the episode to ongoing discussion in news sources about the problems of video gaming press as a young medium, in particular with respect to the previous Doritos-gate incident; leaving that side of the story completely out is a problem with WP:BALANCE, as that point of view should be covered in proportion to its due weight as covered by the references. Diego (talk) 09:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Except that at that point, you're basically using this article as a coatrack to discuss alleged problems in gaming journalism. Which isn't going to fly. Zoe Quinn's article is not the place to have a substantive discussion of various claims about video game journalism ethics. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That is not something that you should decide, that judgement should be made by reliable sources like the Slate article. So far, the professional journalists covering the event have decided that the topic is connected to that discussion, and the article should mimic that coverage in the adequate proportion, without editors deciding that one of the points of view expressed and extensively talked by those journalists should be excised. Diego (talk) 09:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it's something we decide. We can decide that something is so thinly and tangentially connected to another thing that significant discussion of it really belongs elsewhere. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When the Slate writes something like "We need to stop focusing on her and focus on the journalists. ... We need to not make this about Zoe... I read many comments like this, and they are absolutely right", it's clear that talking about journalism is not making the article a coatrack. At this point, what you're advocating is that we censor information from the article that you found reliable ten minutes ago just because you disagree with it. Diego (talk) 10:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

No, the Slate piece is literally making the argument I'm making - that the issue relates to games journalism, not to Zoe Quinn's life.

More to the point, Wikipedia is not a compendium of everything ever written anywhere and editorial judgment is not censorship. We make decisions about what to include and what not to include all the time. Crying "censorship" is the weakest of all possible arguments for a piece of information, because it means you can't come up with any more compelling reason to include it. We are editors and yes, that means we make judgments about content inclusion and exclusion. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I made that argument because I had already made the strongest possible argument -that the journalism connection is covered by multiple sources from a variety of points of view- and you ignored it. Editorial judgement is made by consensus from several editors through calm discussion, not by editors single-handedly deciding that linking to sources in order to evaluate them is a policy violation and blowing up large parts of the discussion, which is discouraged both by talk page guidelines and BLP policy (which recommends substituting them with a link to previous discussion, not revdeleting the whole thing). I think this conversation is a good candidate for mediation, given that the way this discussion is being held is way beyond the desirable properties of talking about content and the reliability of each particular reference for each particular claim. Diego (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. Moreover, if some content is excluded for editorial discretion, it wouldn't justify rev-deleting it as it wouldn't be a BLP violation but merely editors agreeing that it's not relevant to the topic. Diego (talk) 12:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It relates to Zoe Quinn because Zoe Quinn is involved in this particular instance of dubious behavior by the press and industry; the fact that it blew up so much is because of her personal hypocrisy, long-standing objections to nepotism and corruption in the gaming press, and issues of biased reporting on gender equality issues in gaming - but that's irrelevant, because it DID blow up and she was involved and her name is all over it. Zoe Quinn is only notable for this and another incident of claimed harassment and counter-claims of nepotism. If you feel that Zoe Quinn is not notable, that's fine, but these incidents are all that is notable about her, and given that attempts at deleting the article have failed, it appears that there is consensus that the various scandals she has been involved in are sufficient for notability. It is not being used as a coatrack in the article, as the whole proposed section directly involves her and her associates and the aftermath of this particular incident. The goal is to document the scandal, not to use it as a prop for going after the video game industry. We cover scandals on Wikipedia all the time without significant issue; this should be no different. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Titanium Dragon:, I suggest that you tone down your posts and in particular that you withhold your personal opinions against Quinn - it's not helping in any way to discuss the thing, it's irrelevant to the discussion, and it's giving reasons to the people who are using extreme editing techniques to prevent reasoned debate. The best thing you can do is limit your posts to neutral claims that have appeared in the sources you want to use, avoiding any kind of judgement of Quinn or the Wikipedia editors, so that we can evaluate each claim on its own merits. I suggest that all editors do the same around here. Diego (talk) 11:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Diego:, I apologize. I'm just a bit frustrated because I'm trying to improve the article and discussion keeps getting shut down and people assume I am out to get them. What bothers me the most about this is that a great deal of the reason that people have gotten so upset about this is because of perceptions of censorship. I felt that the proposed section was fairly neutrally worded and would have been more than happy for people to find things that they felt were bad or wrong and remove or fix them, but instead the whole thing keeps getting deleted, preventing people from even giving much feedback on it - I had a discussion with a couple people about it earlier and it was fairly productive, and then some folks rolled in and deleted it and deleted even the revisions and the discussion to prevent anyone from seeing it and working on it, while refusing to say what their specific issue was so that it could be hashed out and improved or fixed or even removed if a given sentence could not be adequately sourced. And this is precisely the sort of thing which has gotten people incensed - I was told by a friend who hangs out on 4chan that someone there even made a post earlier today calling out censorship on the Wikipedia article, and goodness knows we don't need to get a bunch of POV Warriors from /v/ involved. I want to write something which documents this, not some sort of hit job, and I'd love to work with people on it, but it is very hard when it keeps getting deleted without people suggesting how it might be improved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the sentiment. I had the change to briefly see your additions this morning before they were deleted, and from what I recall I found that some of it were BLP violations that couldn't be accepted, some of it were not neutral claims that would have had to be reworded, and it was too long to be considered as giving due weight to the topic within the biography; but overall it could have been used as the basis for and reshaped into a section which covered the reports from several sources in a neutral way.

I suggest that you start a new section at the talk page where you create a list of sourced facts that you believe should be included in the article, in a general way and with as little detail as possible. Keep each separate fact in its own line of a bulleted list, and add items to the list one edit at a time. This way, if we later decide by consensus that some of the claims are poorly sourced and thus a WP:BLP violation, an administrator^{any editor} will be able to rev-delete only those problematic claims, leaving the rest of your post available to be discussed and archived. Diego (talk) 11:39, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Revdel needs to delete the offending revision and any revisions which subsequently contain the text. So if the BLP violations are in the first edit, the entire list still needs to be deleted, along with any subsequent discussion. Either way, it doesn't seem like a good approach to encourage posting BLP violations on the grounds that they then can be deleted later.

I should add that the problem isn't simply sourcing - yes, there were unreliable sources with the problematic text, but there were also sourced claims that were BLP violations, either because the source doesn't work to the same rules we do, or the source didn't contain them as written. - Bilby (talk) 12:15, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Bilby, the whole point is that (general, non-specific) content in a Talk page about a living person is not a BLP violation if it's referenced, as BLP allows that kind of content. If the claim in the talk page does not match what the reference says, or if there's previous consensus that the source is unreliable, then yes, it's outside what BLPTALK allows. But tell me, how could such consensus possibly be formed if the discussion is removed on sight, without other editors being given a chance to evaluate it for reliability? Diego (talk) 12:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but what you suggested was to post sourced "facts" for discussion, and use revdel if consensus is that they were BLP violations. That's simply not going to work. - Bilby (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been reviewing the relevant policy, and in truth sourced facts are actually not subject to revdel. Only "slurs, smears, and grossly offensive material" needs to be hidden from sight, but explicitly not to mere factual statements, and not "ordinary" incivility, personal attacks or conduct accusations; if those are found to be BLP violations, it's enough to remove them from the page with a regular edit and it's OK to leave them available at history. So I see no problem in posting factual claims that are backed up by references and later removing them if found problematic. You're right with respect to content that should be revdeleted, but that is not the kind of material that is being handled at this article and talk page. I've updated my previous post to reflect this new understanding of policy that wasn't clear for me. Diego (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in following your advice, Titanium Dragon has done exactly what I feared would happen, with more negative unsourced or poorly sourced claims about living people being posted. If we decide we need to revdel we'll need to kill the discussion as a whole, so it is probably better doing it earlier rather than later if it amounts to that. - Bilby (talk) 04:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I kind of did the reverse of this; I'll see about redoing it tomorrow when I'm less tired and cranky. Or maybe I'm lying and I'll do it tonight, who knows?

Regarding weight, I think a big part of the problem is that Zoe Quinn isn't actually especially notable; as I noted in the talk page for it, she's really only "notable" for three things, potentially: a brief burst of coverage when she claimed to be harassed, wherein pretty much all of the coverage ultimately derived from statements made by Quinn herself - harassment which may well not have actually occurred, as is presently alleged, which is precisely why we try to avoid such sourcing. A very small burst of coverage when the Game Jam she was involved in went down, and unfortunately one of the main articles about that was written by Grayson, which runs into conflict of interest problems (indeed, it is a part of the present scandal). And the present nonsense. She doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, which doesn't mean she isn't notable but does mean that she doesn't really have a whole lot to be said about her as a creator. "She made a game, had sex with a reporter, and got in fights on the internet" isn't much of a Wikipedia article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 12:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Why is the talk page for Zoe Quinn protected? I was interested in being a part of the discussion but an administrator set it to protected until September 13. Can this be undone? I don't understand the purpose of protecting a talk page, not an article itself. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You can create an account an make a few constructive edits at other places for a few days - that will grant you autoconfirmed status, which will allow you to edit semi-protected pages. Meanwhile, if there's some comment you want to add to conversation, you can leave it at my talk page and I will post it in your behalf.

I have to say I agree with this IP request - page protection is a measure against extreme vandalism, but this is not what is going around the talk page. If there are BLP violations from IP editors, they can be by overseen and handled by the editors actively watching the talk page. Diego (talk) 11:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The page is semi-protected for good reason, as there is a significant history of IP harassment, trolling and sockpuppetry. That's what we do when that happens. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:46, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

There is? Where is that history documented? (honest question). Diego (talk) 16:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm an IP and I haven't harassed or sockpuppeted anybody. I haven't seen anyone else do this, either. Locking an entire talk page seems like a disproportionate reaction, when you can just deal with the problem editors individually.72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, do some research. The protection log says a request was made at RFPP. I'm guessing there were a lot of bad IP edits the day the news broke, and it's been protected ever since. Check the edits made during that time of you're really that concerned. Sergecross73 msg me 17:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it normal practice to semi-protect a talk page? 72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

When the subject is a woman in the gaming industry who is on the receiving end of misogynist insults and harassment from angry male 18-35 gamers (a group that greatly overlaps with the Wikipedia crowd), the yea, unusual and extra page protection may be called for. Tarc (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see anything like that on the talk page. Isn't it borderline uncivil to accuse editors of being misogynists?72.89.93.110 (talk) 18:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because a lot of the worst offending comments have been deleted out of the page history. You literally can't see it anymore. Sergecross73 msg me 19:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73, thanks for the pointer. I've reviewed WP:RFPP's history and could only find this, but I couldn't find anything about protecting the talk page. Are you sure that point has been debated? It also doesn't mention anything about sock puppets. Diego (talk) 21:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• [69], which has appeared today, is possibly relevant. Black Kite (talk) 18:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If we can return to actually discussing the WP page, that Guardian article, like the majority of the mainstream coverage, doesn't refer to the harassment campaign as 'alleged', or 'reported' - it states unequivicolly that it happened. Wikipedia articles reflect the sources, not the opinions of editors, and as such the harassment needs to be described as having happened in the article.Euchrid (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Euchrid:, that very same point was already raised at the talk page, and the current wording is the result of consensus addressing it. Please read the previous talk, and you can discuss it there if you have some new argument. Diego (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Missing the forest for the trees

This situation brings up a more general problem. The BLP policy relies heavily on the idea that any negative or potentially controversial content about a living person must be referenced to a reliable source. However, it happens frequently with women in gaming (and women in politics) that BLP violations are committed by the reliable sources themselves. What then? I'm not sure this can be solved at ANI, but it's particularly relevant here... Bobby Tables (talk) 14:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It should go without telling, but external sources are not subject to Wikipedia's policy. The relevant policies in such case are WP:DUE WEIGHT and WP:NOTCENSORED: if the sources are indeed reliable, including their claims in the article in a neutral way would not be a violation of BLP policy because it allows for well-referenced content - it only forbids poorly referenced one. (If the reference is poorly written, it doesn't count as reliable. See also WP:CONTEXTMATTERS).

This doesn't mean that the content need to be used, but it can be used to write the BLP article. Whether to include them in that case is then subject to editorial discretion, in the form of consensus between editors that the content is relevant to the topic and is given due weight with respect to the article's state. Diego (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Material should be simultaneously compliant with both BLP and WP:V. It's not one or the other. Sometimes generally reliable sources communicate material we think would be non-compliant with BLP policy. In that case we don't use it. (For instance, sometimes B-grade celebrities have the names of their kids mentioned in an RS; we usually wouldn't use it. The WP:BLP1E is another example of the principle where BLP policy discourages the use of material even when it shows up in a reliable source). "Being in a reliable source" isn't enough by itself, although it's required for what we do decide to put in the article.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

'Intrepreting' a source is not something we should be doing (and is, in fact against policy). If a source is reliable, it's reliable and, therefore, meets BLP; if it isn't, it doesn't. How much of the source is used is not a issue of the source complying with BLP or not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Being "reliable" according to WP:V does not mean a source automatically meets other policies like WP:BLP or WP:NPOV for everything it says. That's clear from general practice and explicitly written in the policies themselves. It's not "if reliable, then must be fine with BLP in every case". We can't interpret the material to say something it didn't say, but of course we have to interpret whether we find a source reliable or whether we find material from a source policy compliant.__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:09, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal threat- Alextaylor 8 unblock request

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

---

Resolved

 – Talk page access removed

Alextaylor 8 has made an unblock request that says "I did nothing but tell the people what they want to know and confirm the rumours that Pete price is a reptilian humanoid as David Icke suggested. I was snitched up by Mattythewhite as he has nothing better to do with his life. Please unblock my IP address so I do not feel excluded or I will sue both Wikipedia and Mattythewhite as they both are inconsiderate arseholes. Good day". He has made a legal threat. Is there anything that can be done regarding this situation? You may look at the talk page User talk:Alextaylor 8. 1999sportsfan (talk) 02:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention, however, this is is not a legal threat as being an inconsiderate arsehole is not an actionable claim, except in Louisiana and Quebec. DocumentError (talk) 03:00, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have declined that request. I suggest that another such request and access to his talk page be revoked. Daniel Case (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

However frivolous the claim, "I will sue" is, in fact, a legal threat (and a rather explicit one). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, "I will sue" is a legal threat, even if the basis of the legal threat is not sound. We are not lawyers(perhaps some of us are). Secondly I have removed the talk page access of this user on the basis that they were using it for personal attacks. It really does not matter if it is a legal threat, the unblock request deserves the removal of talk page access either way. Chillum 16:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

And I just blanked it due to the BLP problems there. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 15:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Mac22203

Centerplate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Mac22203, a WP:SPA with no edits other than on the Centerplate article (concerning a food and beverage company), is intent on turning the article into a coatrack for negative material concerning an incident where the CEO of the company kicked a dog - an incident which clearly has nothing to do with the company's business concerns. Given that Mac22203 had repeatedly added grossly undue and non-neutral material on this incident, [70], and had refused to listen to the advice of contributors concerning the matter (see the article talk page and User talk:Mac22203) I removed the material entirely. Sadly, Mac22203 has chosen to edit-war over this, [71][72] despite being warned previously. Since it seems that Mac22203 is unwilling to comply, and is instead intent on abusing the article as a means to put the world to rights concerning the unfortunate dog, I would have to suggest that a block is necessary, at least until such time as Mac22203 accepts Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week per WP:EDITWAR. I've also left a reasonable offer on his talk page. I (or any other admin) can unblock him early if he pledges to use the article talk page, make his case, and build consensus rather than repeatedly try to add the same information over and over against consensus. As always, my admin actions are open for review, and if anyone thinks I incorrectly blocked this user, insofar as they should be allowed to continue their actions, feel free to unblock them and let them go about their business. --Jayron32 04:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good work, Jayron32. DocumentError (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Unreasonably long block for a new user. Grump gave a one-sided explanation of the facts. New users did not have the opportunity to defend himself. I observed that New User made an attempt to comply with Wikipedia policies while Grump baited him into a revert-rule violation (a favorite tactic of long-time editors). Grump did not seek let alone receive concensus for removing all mention of the Des Hague scandal from the article. But yeah, good work.Brmull (talk) 04:53, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, what? How exactly does repeatedly adding material against a clear consensus 'comply with Wikipedia policies'? Mac22203 had been repeatedly advised to discuss this on the talk page - to which his sole response was to accuse all and sundry of 'bias' and 'censorship'. The simple facts of the matter are that 'man kicks dog' is unlikely to merit a Wikipedia article, and that accordingly an article on a business was being used as a coatrack to get the incident into Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:01, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It should probably be noted that User:Brmull isn't uninvolved here - and had in fact added further content [73] to a list of 'Venue Partners' that Mac22203 originally added to the article with a clear intent of advancing a boycott on the company.[74] AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Some minds "think alike", so to speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:28, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Good block. In addition to edit-warring, he also came close to making a legal threat. If the incident is widely known, it could merit maybe one sentence with citation. Otherwise, as you said, it's mostly about that guy, who currently has a redlink for an article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it merits anything despite being very widely known in Canada due to the CBC carrying the story on the national news. It still has nothing to do with the company, just its (now ex-) CEO. --NellieBly (talk) 09:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

If the CEO resigned over this, then that merits a one-line mention with a proper citation link. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Note We now have new (or 'new') contributors adding similar material to the article. [75][76] AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:43, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• Havana Reggie is an obvious sockpuppet and I have blocked as such. Will watch the other editor. GB fan 11:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mac22203 on the 3 new editors that have shown up with similar content. GB fan 12:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

You may want to include Michael Cornelius (talk · contribs), who turned up after a 7-year absence just to comment on this. And likewise include Brmull (talk · contribs), who didn't ask, but demanded that the "undue weight" tag be removed. If neither prove to be socks, then fine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:31, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

• SPI says technically unrelated, but I smell meatpuppetry. Also note that the editor/s pushing this have stooped to PAs on the talk page: "I'm not sure you're working with a full deck of cards" is disgusting. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It does look like meatpuppetry at the least. 74.96.240.216 and 90.221.136.227 should also have been added to the sockpuppet investigation. Edward321 (talk) 00:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Enigma8

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

---

Resolved

Warnings at User talk:Enigma8 have been ignored, and the latest edit by Enigma8 is to remove an {{Afd}} template from Gabriel de Saint Nicholas (please see discussion page at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gabriel de Saint Nicholas), at the same time again deleting a number of citation-needed tags, &c. Enigma8 appears to be one identity of the IP 46.107.174.107. Can someone please revert the last edit to Gabriel de Saint Nicholas to reinstate the {{Afd}} template and also consider blocking Enigma8? Thank you! Moonraker (talk) 10:03, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I have restored the tag, issued a 3rr warning, and asked the primary account to identify any alternates. DrKiernan (talk) 10:35, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I've just found Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/NYCsociety/Archive. Looks like another sock farm from the same editor. DrKiernan (talk) 10:51, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

The only response was to continue edit-warring, so I've blocked and tagged the accounts. Moonraker, in future please remember to notify any user that you mention at ANI. Thanks. DrKiernan (talk) 11:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz

This editor and I have had several conversation both on Talk:Kevin Sorbo and on User talk:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz‎, which are documented below. His style seems to be largely bluster and insult wherever he goes, treating just about everyone without any civility whatsoever. I have a pretty thick skin, and was going to let this go, until I decided I'd have a look at his editing work where it seems like there might be some gaming WP:Game going on. While he does make some constructive edits, most of his are destructive and insulting. He issues personal attacks via edit summaries [77] ("absolute blithering idiocy", "claptrap", "outright phony claim"). Nor does he seem to post warnings on users pages (helpful when we're fighting vandalism). While he might be "right" about the edits he makes, it does not give him license to insult all other editors while he's doing it. His 800-section Talk Page (preserved in its entirety here in case it gets cleaned up) [78] is littered with arguments between him and others based on personal attacks.

When he's called on it (as noted in talk page history and through my own experience below), his typical behavior is to immediately turn the tables and call the criticism "offensive". Speed and efficiency are great, but effectiveness is also important and this style of editing and reviewing does not foster individual's learning how to better edit the encyclopedia. It only creates turmoil, resentment and resistance.

Normally, I'd just walk away, and I'm fully aware that this submission will result in an ad hominem attack by this user. However, this individual is doing more damage to the project than he is good. I request a warning be issued and if behavior does not improve, further action be taken.

Background and Conversations

I received a bot messages asking for feedback at the Talk:Kevin Sorbo Page. When I arrived at that talk page, here's the "discussion" that had taken place thus far: [79]

Then, in an effort to provide focus, I posted a message asking if the purpose of the RFC was to call people names or discuss the content suggested for the article. The remainder of the "conversation", including my first entry is here: [80]

Now, User:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz might have been correct about the sock issue. And I wanted to afford him every benefit of the doubt, but also wanted to handle it per WP process and policy, I left the following message on this individual's talk page: [81]

And got this reply: [82]

And I responded so (even though I might should not have): [83]

Which he reverted.

To which I wrote: [84]

Which he reverted again, claiming it was "unwanted and offensive".

Thank you for your attention and consideration. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 14:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment

Just my 2 cents, but IMO this is just "par for the course" for interaction with HW even when someone interacts with him with a measure of logic and civility. Granted, he is an active and staunch editor of BLP articles, but I would also say that he is greatly prone to hyperbole at the very least with Edit Summaries such as "Gov. Christie, your opinions are not an appropriate substitute for independent, reliable sources!"[85], "still unsupported/unsourced, obvious sockpuppetry"[86], "clean up, yet another porn-related list deserving evisceration"[87], and my personal favorite "another gross BLP violation"[88] (you have to look at the dif to get why I find it so humorous) when relatively minor edits or changes are made including the removal of sourced content that he seemingly does not like. This hyperbole is also applied to Editors that seemingly do not unabashedly agree with his edits and methods. He will of course accuse me of the same in his defense, but that does not explain or justify his actions. Furthermore, lately he does seem to want to control conversations (or the impression of them at least) on his Tolstoy-ishly long (and desperately in need of archiving) Talk page. For example we recently had this exchange. HW kept deleting my comments [89][90][91][92] when I challenged him on his racism accusation. I'm not entirely sure if his actions amount to a Talk page policy violation (and don't care), but in my experience its par for this User. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:37, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

"'par for the course' for interaction with HW even when someone interacts with him with a measure of civility"? I haven't worked with HW enough to have an opinion about her/his civility, but I have with you, and your edit summary [93] in reply to one of his recent edits is incivil: "Undid revision 623630303 by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz Useless, lazy Editor refuses to AGF and check references on their own, prefers own personal knowledge of porn." Lightbreather (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The diff of Scalhotrid complaining that HW doesn't assume good faith while showing his own bad faith by not declaring, as Lightbreather has noted, that he was not posting with clean hands is quite breathtaking. Scalhotrod appear sto have conveniently missed the beam in their own eye whilst complaining about a speck elsewhere and their history with HW is such that I am not the slightest bit surprised that he doesn't want to respond to their comments. And yes, I also have a history with this user and have no problem declaring that so other users can weigh my comment correctly. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

guerillero, chillum, dreadstar lying to own a page

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

---

Guerillero has now admitted, checkuser shows that I'm a thousand miles from the people from texas they were claiming I am, but they keep blocking and harassing any editor not a member of their pro-woo groups at Vani Hari. It's so obvious they are abusing when they accuse people of being "sockpuppets", vani hari followers think everyone is a "monsanto shill" or something else. You need better admins who are capable of honesty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.12 (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Range block, anyone? Ansh666 19:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

maybe you admins should be made to follow the rules instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.100.12 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

What rules, sire? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 21:27, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Reevaluation of topic ban

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

---

I have been topic banned on the subject of vaccines, because of disruptive editing on September 2, 2013. The main reason was a link addition, to the website GreenMedInfo.com in regards to vaccine research, with a scope on adverse effects. The related discussion can be accessed here. I understand now that this link, or similar links may caused disruption, because it presented a narrow few on vaccine research, and it wasn't in accordance with Wikipedia's reliable sources policy or MEDRS. I belief the ban should be lifted now because i have positively contributed in the past year to many topics, including medical research, and a broad range of scientific subjects, without related incidents, and understand today the implications of editing such topics. I've not received a ban since then. Thus, i'm asking the community to lift my ban, thank you. Ping, John, AndyTheGrump, Nyttend, John Carter--prokaryotes (talk) 21:07, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not at this moment opposed to the idea. I do want to wait and see what others more familiar with the situation have to say before I support it though. Chillum 22:08, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Prokaryotes asked here for this ban to be lifted less than three months ago - with the following argument:

"In September 2013, admin John topic banned me (vaccination). However, i believe the judgement was in error since i did not engaged in an edit war, got no warning and didn't acted disruptive. After a group of users through the fringe notice board begun to look into my related edits they concluded i post fringe material or lack competence. The archived heated discussion can be found here, where i complained at ANI about subsequent actions from a few users. Most accusations from these users were unfounded and as pointed out i do not think the incident amounted to a topic ban, since it doesn't fit with WP:DE. There was a single source mentioned which is not compatible with WP:MEDRS. I did no attempt to re-add criticized content and i have no plans at this time to edit any of these topics in the future. In my edits i used a wide range of sources, most of them were from government entities (CDC or from the FDA and from science journals)- the exact opposite of what has been suggested. I did not looked into this until yesterday and after a brief discussion with John today i conclude that he rushed his decision. I ask here for someone not involved to re-evaluate my topic ban status, because i feel it was enforced wrongly. If this isn't the right place for such an inquiry point me to one, Thank You. prokaryotes (talk) 20:24, 19 June 2014 (UTC) [94] (see full thread here [95])

As the original ANI threads (note that the discussion in August/September 1913 continued below the first thread linked above) made clear this was never just about a single edit - it was about a pattern of editing and battleground behaviour, and note also that it was Prokaryotes who started the thread that led to the topic ban - by accusing multiple editors of "framing me as a potential fringe and making allegations". Given that Prokaryotes still fails above to acknowledge the wider concerns about his behaviour, I have serious doubts about the wisdom of lifting the topic ban. However, I was heavily involved in the original debate, and it might be best for less-involved contributors to make the final decision. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

However, i have finally acknowledged the wider concerns, as outlined in today's request. It would be constructive/helpful if you could be more precise - point out exactly what you describe as "Prokaryotes still fails" in your response, and acknowledge my edit behavior of the past twelve months, which is opposite to your conclusions. For instance i acknowledged above that the ban was based on one particular link which was initially discussed and lead to the ANI request in 2013, additionally i mentioned "similar links" (emphasis added). --prokaryotes (talk) 00:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It is also worth to point out that AndyTheGrump has an extensive block history for edit warring, personal attacks and legal threats, and since he does not provide accurate explanation of his reasoning, i wonder about his qualification to judge bans of other editors. --prokaryotes (talk) 01:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for AtG and didn't take part in the earlier discussions. But I find it unlikely an extensive topic ban was put in place "main reason was a link addition, to the website GreenMedInfo.com". Amongst other things, in such a case I would more likely expect simply a ban from you using the source. It seems far more likely the topic ban was due to problematic behaviour that indicated you shouldn't be editing the topic area, of which using the GMI website is only one component. A quick glance at the discussion seems to confirm this guess. Promising not to use similar links doesn't really convey an understanding of the reasons for the block, even more so since it doesn't seem to be just about using unsuitable sources. Even for unsuitable sources, it's not just about using them but what your use of them and your comments in defence of them suggest about you understanding of how to handle this topic area. (Your comment explaining why they shouldn't be used does address this to some extent but I'm not sure it indicates a real understanding.) No comment on lifting the ban however. Nil Einne (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I acknowledged that the sources discussed do not met WP standards and my behavior in relation to the incident amounted to disruptive editing - which was the the main reason given for my ban, i pointed out my edit behavior since, i acknowledged the implications. If there is something missing, as has been suggested by ATG, i want to know exactly what it was, instead of vague assumptions, so that im able to respond accordingly. --prokaryotes (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have slightly clarified my comment unfortunately I got an EC. I won't be commenting further since I've already spent more time on this than I care to so can't give a fair reply. I will just say your comment here combined with my reading of the original discussion does seem to re-enforce the view you don't really understand the reasons for your topicban. Mendaliv sums up my thoughts on another matter below. Nil Einne (talk) 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In August 2013, i was still fairly new to Wikipedia editing and made a lot of bad and poor decisions during content disputes. I understand today what was lacking and what amounted to disruptive editing and subsequently the topic ban and a two week blocking, because some edits and follow up discussions were not in accordance with community editing. I understand what amounted to my community ban at the time. I also understand that posting about user edits at the fringe noticeboard, does not necessarily imply that a user is supporting fringe theories, which i mistakenly thought at the time. --prokaryotes (talk) 04:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• No opinion on the topic ban, but I question the wisdom of pointing out another commenter's unrelated history in a discussion like this. If your intent, Prokaryotes, is to inspire the community to see you as willing to work collaboratively and follow our standards, you have a funny way of doing so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:20, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I think my edit history speaks for itself. --prokaryotes (talk) 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but I think those opposing the lifting of your topic ban would agree with that sentiment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, vague assumptions. --prokaryotes (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Based on Prokaryotes' responses to this thread only, I oppose lifting the topic ban. I'm sorry, but it's clear you either do not understand the reason for your topic ban, or are deflecting any valid criticism of your behavior. The combative nature of your responses particularly makes it clear, though I should specify that my opposition is not because of Prokaryotes' responses to me. Instead it's due to the dredging up of Andy's block log, plus the responses to other commentators below. In particular, I note that Andy makes a valid point above, that the topic ban was due to a pattern of behavior outside of inserting a link to a fringe science website, and that Prokaryotes' request for lifting the topic ban did not address this. Instead of addressing the past pattern of behavior mentioned in that response, Prokaryotes claims that Andy's response does not specify where the problem lies. I'm sorry, but that's just not good enough. Even without the subsequent needless mention of the past block log, that's enough to make me uncomfortable about this user. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You confuse responding to user input with various other things, exactly what remains unclear though. Apparently this only happens with this particular ANI discussion.--prokaryotes (talk) 13:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Having reviewed the original discussion and this thread I am weakly against the ban being lifted. Nevertheless if there is a consensus for it, per WP:ROPE I have no objection to the ban being lifted. Prokaryotes, you need to internalise that the ban was not simply for inserting that link, it was for advocating for bad science on Wikipedia. If you go back to your bad old ways you will be subject to escalating blocks. The ban was to protect you (and the project) from this disruption. Without the ban unless you radically change your approach this won't end well. Are you sure you want to go there? --John (talk) 06:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confident that i can now competent edit the subject of vaccines, and i think my edits on medical topics prove that. There haven't been a single related incident in regards to my edits of medical topics since the topic ban was declared. There have been minor issues, such as section sorting. See my contributions on HIV/AIDS research, ZMapp, Microcystin or 2014 West Africa Ebola virus outbreak. This ban is now interfering with further edits on topics briefly mentioning vaccines. I have no intention to contribute to the articles which have been mentioned during the 2013 ANI incident. I do not plan to heavily edit vaccine topics at all. But i need to be able to make edits which mention vaccines on various related pages. Also if someone is still not convinced i ask to honor my entire contributions, not only focus on a handful of bad edits, or the related discussion. Since August 2013, i made like +4000 edits. --prokaryotes (talk) 06:54, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The grammatical errors in your above post do not lead me to believe you "can now competent edit the subject of vaccines". Yikes. Doc talk 06:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Competence doesn't require perfection. --prokaryotes (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It does, however, require competence so that outsiders can read an article and get some understanding from it. MarnetteD|Talk 07:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue you raise was never a center point of my edits, and grammatical errors during my edits can be considered minor.--prokaryotes (talk) 07:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Eukaryotes vs. procaryotes? Doc talk 07:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a symbiosis. --prokaryotes (talk) 07:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Also if someone is still not convinced i ask to honor my entire contributions". You do understand the absurdity of this "test", yes? Doc talk 08:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You can browse user contributions, look up what you deem relevant, or pick from examples i have provided above. At least that's what i would do when judging user contributions, which is part of an appeal. --prokaryotes (talk) 09:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Decline First, the editor admits they "have finally acknowledged the wider concerns, as outlined in today's request". Excellent - prove that to us over the next 6 months of editing. Second, bringing up the absolutely unrelated block log of another editor is proof of a combative/battleground nature. Medical articles have enough of that bullshit already, and re-releasing someone who has such a mentality back into that area is a worse idea than strapping on metal underpants and standing on a hilltop during a lightning storm. the panda ₯’ 10:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I frequently edit medical articles without your alleged battleground behavior. The only time some raised concerns in those regards were in response to the ANI discussed here. --prokaryotes (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

... and your badgering of every respondent is yet further proof. Thanks for doing so. the panda ₯’ 10:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

You cherry picked one comment, disregarded the explanation and then wrongly claimed that i would show battleground behavior on medical topics. Btw, in the ANI discussion from 2013, other users pointed out the behavior of AndyTheGrump, and since he mentioned a heated discussion above, it appeared relevant to mention his log as well. This might be off-topic but is by no means a battleground behavior. --prokaryotes (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Keep digging that hole the panda ₯’ 11:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIV, and if you make suggestions, provide difs where i battle at medical topics. Further stay civil and respect me responding and taking part here, which is not battling or badgering. --prokaryotes (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have to concur with my colleague DangerousPanda. You're just digging yourself deeper. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 12:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Unless I'm missing something ATG never mentioned any heated discussion above. Are you getting confused by their first comment? The mention of a heated discussion there is not from ATG. ATG simply quoted your older comments at ANI. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've collapsed this comment to avoid detracting from the request. Youl should still feel free to reply if necessary. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

(EC) Generally speaking, when discussing the possibility of imposing sanctions or otherwise taking action to protect wikipedia (such as protecting pages) AN//I, it's acceptable to mention relevant behavioural issues of all participants of whatever dispute. This may also apply when discussing lifting sanctions, although mostly only in cases when the sanctions are related to multiple parties (e.g. interaction bans). However, when you asking for lifting of a topic ban, it's almost definitely a bad idea for you to be the one bring up unconnected behavioural issues of other editors, regardless of their involvement in your original topic ban (which ATG had already acknowledged anyway) or their opposition to its lifting. In fact, in a case like this, the behavioural issues you mentioned are basically unimportant. (The only likely relevant behavioural issues would be if an editor was known for persistent disagreements and problems interacting with you.) It's also acceptable to offer some level of defence of your actions or behaviour. But you have to be careful this doesn't go too far such that it seems that you're badgering respondents. As for your contributions, I had a brief look earlier. I didn't see any obvious problems but it wasn't enough for me to comment further. A point which you seem to be missing is that however good your contributions may have been, you're going to have difficulty getting others to evaluate them if they're seeing stuff from you here which leads them to believe it's not a good idea to lift your topic ban, or at least that it's not worth their time examining whether there is merit. (Remember that even if you have excellent contributions to other related areas, you can still contribute poorly to a certain area, perhaps because of strong personal feelings or whatever. So you can always override the trust earned by excellent contributions.) Personally, I feel your original request here wasn't brillant, but I wouldn't say it's enough to dismiss your request (unlike your older request). Unfortunately, your responses did begin to push it in that direction. If you want to continue with this request, I suggest you consider your responses carefully since clearly I'm not the only one who feels they aren't helping your case. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• I reviewed the June 2014 ANI discussion and the above and can see no indication that any benefit would result from a change in the topic ban. Johnuniq (talk) 11:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Now review my actual article contributions. --prokaryotes (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Conclusion - I just decided to retire from Wikipedia. Im tired of this BS here, either judge my contributions to actual articles or STFU:) ROFL --prokaryotes (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it)

• petitions.whitehouse.gov: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• petitiononline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

The URL petitions.whitehouse.gov, the White House We the People website is currently blocked by the spam blacklist, because "petition" anywhere in a URL is blocked. (Previous discussions here and here. Changes made here in 2008 and here in 2009)

I made a request to have petitions.whitehouse.gov removed from the blacklist here becuase there was no consensus to pre-emptively blacklist every URL containing the string "petition" in the first place, nor was there ever a consensus to blacklist petitions.whitehouse.gov. My request was rebuffed. When I asked about previous, consensus, I was directed to a search results page which failed to show any consensus for blacklisting the URL.

The admin instructions for blacklisting instructs "Evidence- There should be clear evidence of disruption, persistent spamming or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines:" This seems to be a case of pre-emptive blacklisting. The consensus process was apparently not followed, and it has caused collateral effects. I request that either "petition" be removed from the blacklist, or that petitions.whitehouse.gov and sub pages be added to the whitelist, until such time as there is evidence of persistent spamming. Thank you. - MrX 01:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely agree with MrX. Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Nitpick: the entry is \bpetition(?:online|s)?\b, which I think blocks anything beginning with "petitiononline" or "petitions". This is the actual addition. test --NE2 03:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Has the filter gotten in the way of any proper encyclopedic use since 2008? I don't understand why the whitelist simply cannot be used when there is a legitimate purpose. Chillum 03:40, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No opinion on the blacklisting, but WP:ELNO #4 applies. Currently they list 102 petitions. Are all of them acceptable? Some? Are such petitions encyclopedic? Let's follow the guidance and minimize such links. – S. Rich (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: Nobody is going to go beg for a whitelist entry just to add a citation to an article. The URL should not be blacklisted, unless there is evidence that it has been persistently spammed.

@Srich32977: The need that I encountered was to use a URL in a citation. Using such an URL in an external link would indeed be inadvisable per ELNO.- MrX 04:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have to agree with the OP. It seems insane to block petitions.whitehouse.gov. There is no need to whitelist anything. You just need to fix the regular expression that is causing the problem. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The regex should be removed and individual sites blacklisted on an as need basis. AGF applies.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I cannot imagine many situations when a link to an online petition would be a reliable source. If anything you would need a source that interprets the raw data to avoid drawing our own interpretations. Chillum 04:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And for citing that a petition exists and garnered Y votes is unreliable despite being on the originating site? You seem unaware of what a reliable source is. Also the White House response to these petitions is also blacklisted. That is certainly a reliable source for what it says. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Remove the blacklist, AGF applies and making whitelist exceptions on a case by case seems to go against normal procedures. It makes an unnecessary burden on editors. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• AGF is for editors, not websites. I agree with Chillum. Why do we need to link to promotional websites like this? It's infinitely better to link to secondary sources that discuss the petition. If we blanket allow this – or, even worse, all – petition sites, we'll be inundated with external links and citations to petitions. I for one don't want to chase down all these links, and I think people should use the whitelist. There really isn't any legitimate reason to link directly to a petition. If I saw someone do so, I would instantly revert it on principle; unless reliable, third party sources discuss the petition, it's undue to add it to an article. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Umm, has anyone got a proposal for something that would help the encyclopedia? What external link should be added to what article? Johnuniq (talk) 05:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring that this request is close to forum shopping / asking the other parent. Petition sites got persistently abused - not spammed by one single user (most highly visible porn sites have never been spammed, they get however, still, constantly abused by single users, not through a campaign - and to stop that abuse the items are blacklisted - does WP:AGF apply to all the editors that replace their school website by redtube.com?).

Regularly there were statements added along the lines of 'Please sign the petition here!'. That is soapboxing, not allowed per our pillars (WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). Allowing petition sites allows that soapboxing. Does WP:AGF apply when an editor wants to stack votes for their good cause? Because that is the abuse that is being stopped.

Moreover, the specific petitions are not notable for mentioning on Wikipedia until someone else writes about it (it is a reliable source that the petition exists, but there is no reason to write about it until it gets picked up by mainstream journalism or similar). That someone else wrote about it is a secondary source, which trumps the need for the primary source. When the result is out, the situation is the same, if someone else mentioned it, that secondary source trumps the primary source - the primary source is not needed. Now, there are exceptions where the primary source is needed, or where there is other information that needs to be primary sourced ('the president signed it!!' - though if that is notable, others will have picked up that fact as well). Those requests can be whitelisted. Same goes for specific petitions that gain notability in their own (where it would be an WP:ELOFFICIAL) - whitelisting can and has been done. I hence oppose removal of these rules. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff, diff and diff are examples of the type of soapboxing encountered with petition sites (petitiononline.com). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Since below we are !voting, making clear that this is an oppose to removal, also noted in my decline of the request to de-blacklist.  Defer to Whitelist is the solution. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam gets deleted all the time by recent changes patrollers and editors with watchlists. Using a blacklist so broadly to suppress usable citations, or to enforce notability guidelines, strikes me as an extreme overreaction and contrary to the purpose of free and open encyclopedia. There is a very big difference between using a White House petition URL in a citation and using it as an external link to soapbox for a cause. Could you please provide evidence that the URL under discussion has been repeatedly spammed?- MrX 14:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Re that Wikipedia is a "free and open encyclopedia" - There are clear self-imposed limits Wikipedia has set for itself regarding what kind of content is appropriate, see WP:NOT. Wikipedia expressly forbids its use for such things as advertising or advocacy. Therefore we have lots of rules in place for what kinds of things are not appropriate for inclusion, and lots of processes in place for enforcing those rules. We also have limited volunteer time to patrol our pages. Blacklists and spam filters free up volunteer time to work on more productive things. This is all perfectly in line with Wikipedia's purposes. Zad68 15:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Spam, yes. But this is not spam, this is abuse of links. As I said elsewhere, the 'respectable' porn websites have NEVER been spammed, they are however constantly abused (and attempts at that are still made) and only have one place. Also, the blacklist is NOT used to suppress usable citations, the blacklist is not used to enforce notability guidelines, it is used to stop soapboxing. And although I do not have data at hand for the whitehouse petitions, there is no reason to expect that the whitehouse petitions are any different from ipetitions or petitiononline, or any other petition site. In fact, maybe someone should go critically through the last 100 additions of petition sites which are not closed, and see how many of those are mentioning open petitions (soapboxing), or are referencing petitions that have no reliable secondary sources (so, no-one else cared, except for the #### voters out of ######## citicens?). I hope you are aware that our policies and guidelines do not prohibit the use of primary sources, but that they should be used with care, and that, even for reliable primary sources (which petitions sites itself are not), secondary sources are preferred. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Unless a real example of an encyclopedic article that would benefit from adding a *petitition* site is provided I am strongly against removing the rule from the blacklist. Soapboxing with petition sites used to be quite common at this project Alex Bakharev (talk) 12:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Although this content matter has little to do with this issue, for those curious, here is the edit that brought this my attention. The source is important for two reasons: Updating the number of signers, and documenting the response from the administration. Of course, that is a distraction from the core question: Where is the clear evidence that petitions.whitehouse.gov, which postdates the blacklist entry by more than 2½ years, has been a source of disruption, persistent spamming or or otherwise simply violates Wikipedia's policies or guidelines? - MrX 14:41, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If the petition is notable then there should be secondary sources covering it. We should not be interpreting primary sources to get our own data before a secondary source covers it. Original research is a concern when we attempt to directly interpret raw data.

Counting signatures is particularly problematic as a secondary source may vet this information to see if there are any dubious signatures. We are not in a position to judge the value of the raw data, we need to cite a reliable sources interpretation. Chillum 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

"Interpret" never entered the equation. Primary sources are perfectly acceptable for plain documented facts. For example, Alexa data is even used in featured articles to update website popularity.- MrX 15:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but we are not reading the web logs and making our own determination. A secondary party has looked at the raw data and given us a report. Online petitions are inherently unreliable as they are open to vote stacking through sock puppetry, before they are ever presented to any power they wish to influence they need to vet them.

Pretty much any website that anyone can go up to and choose to change is not a reliable source of information, not until a reliable source talk about it at least. Chillum 15:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw the blacklist hit, did not see that it was mentioned here. Exactly, you have a secondary source which verifies the number of votes, you do understand that that secondary source is preferred over any primary source. You could add the primary source as well, and no-one is stopping you to request a whitelist for that petition (I'll let commenting/decision to editors who have not expressed their opinion here or on the de-listing request). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum: I guess you also advocate blacklisting facebook.com, MySpace.com, Instagram.com, twitter.com, discogs.com, linkedin.com, IMDB.com, and the hundreds of other websites that are routinely used as references in tens of thousands of articles. Please let me know if I misunderstood your reasoning.- MrX 16:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose Dirk Beetstra nailed it. Anyone can create a petition (it doesn't take much browsing on the site to find a number of ridiculous petitions with over a hundred signatures). Movements with petitions that achieve notability will have plenty of solid reliable sources to establish that a petition with strong support exists, without having to rely on a primary source. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:52, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Ohnoitsjamie: if the petition merits coverage, we use a secondary source. There might be room for an extremely limited whitelist (i.e., such that we can link to the main site and any uncontroversial primary sources on that site, such as a site history), but petitions themselves should not be linked directly via Wikipedia, either as sources or external links. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per the above. I can think of very few instances where we would actually want to link to an online petition directly. At the same time, history has shown that online petitions are frequently spammed. The blacklisting is fine as is, and selective whitelisting can be utilized where appropriate. Resolute 14:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per above, indeed, Reolute has pretty much summed up my thoughts on this matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:34, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per what others have said. Discussion of a petition should not require citation to the petition itself, but to reliable third party sources that also discuss it. Anything else is original research.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as OP. We shouldn't use ICBMs to swat at flies. The appropriate and guideline-based solution is to blacklist specific URLs that have a documented history of being spammed.- MrX 15:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose removal and Whitelist well-argued exclusions on a case-by-case basis per above policy-based arguments. And this should NOT be here at ANI anyway. Zad68 15:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There are very few real uses for a such a url and there is a history of abuse of such online petition sites for promotion. Secondary sources are generally needed to cite a petition. The only case I could imagine it needed is in the external link section of an article about the petition. We have the whitelist for that case. Chillum 15:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Petitions that get picked up by secondary sources potentially should be included in articles, using the secondary article as a source. Ravensfire (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support There's absolutely no prohibition against citing both primary and secondary sources on Wikipedia. Indeed, primary sources can sometimes be the most reliable sources for what a source states. Saying that we can't cite primary sources flies in the face of WP:V which explicitly allows citing primary sources. The diffs provided by Dirk Beetstra span a 9 day period from 7 years ago (November 7, 2007, November 16, 2007 22:46, November 16, 2007 22:55) and none of which involve the subject of this discussion, petitions.whitehouse.gov. In fact, the subject of this discussion didn't even exist 7 years ago. After that many years, I think that it's time to re-examine the prohibition. How about lifting the ban against petitions.whitehouse.gov (if only temporarily)? If it turns out to be a problem, we can always restate the prohibition. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

  First, no-one said that there was prohibition against citing both primary and secondary sources. The point is however, the 'both' .. in by far most of the cases, people do not cite both the primary and secondary source, because secondary source(s) does not exist. Also, that is not the purpose of the blacklisting (it is never the purpose of blacklisting, the purpose is to stop the abuse). And as said, if you have the secondary source, then you can easily make a good case for the primary source to be whitelisted (though, although it is allowed, why would you: "While specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred."; WP:WPNOTRS). The examples that I gave were exactly that: examples. These were particularly strong cases of soapboxing, many others are of the type 'there is currently a petition going on to stop a to do b (but no-one particularly cares about it except for the, whohoo, 300-but-still-growing, people who already signed it). Unfortunately it is difficult to find who tried to add what, the Wikipedia software does not record that, and I do not have the records so far back. I have however no reason to expect that the additions of the whitehouse petitions follow any other pattern than ipetitions or petitiononline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Convert to edit filter. This is far too broad and we don't know what possibilities we are keeping out by not even reducing it to a specific domain. It would be better to use an edit filter set to warn, with periodic checks of the log to prevent abuse. (If it gets to be a big problem, there's always warn+disallow, which is better than a blacklist since their attempt at least gets logged and a trusted user can make the edit on their behalf if it is valid.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is a blacklist log, but unfortunately it is rather useless (MV is more important,, I guess). I'll adapt the rule to make it clearer what is going on. Then we know how often this rule hits on the whitehouse site. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:49, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Chillum. The worth/importance/notability of online petitions can only be judged in light of third party reliable reporting on them ex post. Even petitions with clearly defined thresholds, like the White House one, is meaningless because the outcome is not binding on whoever is in the Oval Office. By citing online petitions (dynamic primary sources) we encourage unencyclopaedic edits by definition. There was a huge barney when the petition was launched on the site (and on another much less credible site) for Edward Snowden which created flurries of recentist updates for no truly encyclopaedic purpose than to update the petitioner numbers. Best left alone until petitions are closed and reliable sources report on the outcome. -- Ohc ^¡digame! 01:28, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question What are people opposing/supporting? Removal of the filter entirely, or the whitehouse.gov petition?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Both/either. No petition sites should be used as sources or external links without a clear consensus that it's necessary and there's no secondary source that gives the same information. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That seems to be the opinion of a few people, but unfortunately, it's not grounded in policy. We should never globally blacklist potential sources. Editorial judgement at the article level is the appropriate filter.- MrX 15:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You are now suggesting we get rid of the spam blacklist entirely? You're welcome to propose that at one of the Village Pumps, I guess... Zad68 15:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Indeed, this request and discussion goes well beyond the scope of something ANI can deal with. And Zad68 is quite correct that MrX's suggestion is tantamount to calling for the abolition of the spam blacklist. Any number of spammed websites that have been blacklisted can arguably be used as sources; petition sites are no different. Any reasonable balancing of likelihood of being a good sources versus likelihood of being illegitimately spammed in order to attract clicks would come out on the side of blacklisting petition sites. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Oh come on, you know that's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that it should be used selectively, in cases where there's no possibility of a website being useful as a source (for example, redtube). I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to explain why there such a disconnect between the admin instructions for the blacklist and the actual functioning of the blacklist.- MrX 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It may not be what you intend to say, but it's the effect of what you're suggesting. By your own argument, why would there there be no possibility of RedTube being useful as a source? The comment section of a particular video would be no less reliable than the signatures on a petition. But I digress: Is there a particular situation you envisage where referencing a petition directly rather than referencing a secondary source that discusses the petition would be useful? The only one I can think of is to get a live signature count... which I would argue is of debatable relevance (I believe it would be much more encyclopedic to say "As of [date], a web petition had [number of signatures]", referenced to a secondary source). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing the encyclopedic value of information on a US Government website to information on a porn video website? I hope you're just being facetious. Yes, a signature count would be a relevant piece of information to update in an article, assuming that the petition was already covered in a secondary sources. News sources don't typically update such information.- MrX 18:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a GREAT argument to bring to the WT:WHITELIST discussion regarding the Whitelisting of the use of the link to that one petition on the article that can make use of that information, given the context you are describing. Zad68 18:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The URL is not supposed to be blacklisted. It unnecessarily encumbers editing. The default is that URLs are allowed unless they have been used for persistent spamming.- MrX 18:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I understand that's your strong belief. The other side of it is that spammers unencumbered by NOT having the entry in the blacklist would cause more damage than the inconvenience caused to those good-faith editors who have to go to WT:WHITELIST and make their case to have the entry whitelisted. This is a simple cost/benefit analysis. Zad68 19:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes I am. I'm seriously comparing the encyclopedic value of user-created content on a porn site to user-created content on a government-hosted website. Is there a problem? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

And that comparison, Mendaliv, is totally valid. Sites are not blacklisted because they are unreliable sources, sites are not not blacklisted because they are useful as a reliable source (EVERY website can be used as a reliable source). petitiononline.com was blacklisted because it was abused, ipetition.com followed and others. They were not blacklisted because they were unreliable sources (that is your argument, MrX, but that was not made, that is not what I said in my decline and oppose messages, your reading of my argument is completely wrong there - again: reliability has nothing to do with it).

It is in the nature of petition sites, and I have seen no argument, and I do not believe that it exists, that petitions.whitehouse.gov will follow a different pattern than all the other petition sites. If anything, the opposite: it is the more visible petition site than the others and is actually more likely to be linked to to gather more votes for your cause. It is being ignorant of what Wikipedia is being used for suggesting that that type of abuse will not happen, MrX. Do you really believe that Wikipedia is not a target for spam, that spammers don't know that having your company on Wikipedia actually pays, do you really believe that editors from Examiner.com will not come here and post their links, hoping for some more visits to their pages and an increase in pay because of those increased incoming hits, and that having your links on Wikipedia will not result in having more people visiting your site. Do you really believe that mentioning the 'Get Justin Bieber out of America'-petition will not gather more votes if it gets prominently mentioned on Wikipedia. And that abuse, that linking to get people to buy your project or support your cause is a more direct violation of what we stand for, a direct violation of our pillars, much, much more than a school-kid trying to change the official link of their school to redtube.com. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember some time ago that I couldn't post a link to this site on my own talk page, I just tried it again and it indeed doesn't work. I think editors should be free to post such links on talk page discussions, their userpages etc. So, this isn't just about this site beign a useful source for Wikipedia articles. The blacklisting is dspruptive for plain communication purposes here on Wikipedia. We could just as well blacklist links to blogspot, facebook, twitter etc. as links to these social media sites are not allowed as reliable sources either. Count Iblis (talk) 17:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Count Iblis: First, you can post the link within nowiki tags, leave off the http:// etc. There are ways of posting on talkpages discussing such links. No problems there, working links are just a convenience that now you have to give up. Userpages .. NO. Userpages are just as big a spam target as mainspace. Having your page in userspace still allows readers to find your page and see your existence. Anyway, this part goes beyond the blacklist, what you are suggesting is a total different way of operating of the blacklist (but MV is more important, I guess - adaptations of the system have been suggested years ago, it is not that the regexes on the blacklist are a sledgehammer to swat a fly, it is the way the blacklist is implemented that is the sledgehammer - an abusefilter-like solution would be better, but that is too heavy on the server for all the rules that could in principle use that solution).

Regarding blogspot, facebook, twitter - you have not understood then why the petition sites were blacklisted. I stand far from the suggestion that links get blacklisted because they are an unreliable source anyway. And again, I have here not said that these sites are unreliable sources, nor has any of the other editors who oppose removal. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism by User:Chealer for month of July, month of August, month of September.

Perisistent vandalism by User:Chealer has returned by that User following full protection expiration at the Wikipedia page. Requesting intervention against persistent vandalism for the Wikipedia page. Three other editors have tried to repair the page against persistent vandalism. The full list of diffs and urls are far too numerous to link all together. This is the list of further deletions of cited material by that editor followed by the re-inserting of citation template requests to provide the deleted material:

Edit history of tag bombing and deletions for July 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
− (cur | prev) 12:58, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,804 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (lead: challenge "fifty policies for quality assurance") − − (cur | prev) 12:48, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,695 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (→‎Rules and laws governing content and editor behavior: Dispute resolution is neither a rule nor a law) − − (cur | prev) 12:29, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,439 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: request reference and partially fix) − − (cur | prev) 12:27, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,431 bytes) (-54)‎ . . (lead: collaboration and expertise are not exclusive. shorten) − − (cur | prev) 12:21, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,485 bytes) (-258)‎ . . (Undid revision 619228137 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) duplication) − − (cur | prev) 01:56, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,266 bytes) (-21)‎ . . (→‎Review of changes) − − (cur | prev) 00:16, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,287 bytes) (-561)‎ . . (lead: restore definitions of "Wikipedia". the lead's content doesn't have to be repeated in the body.) − − (cur | prev) 00:05, 31 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,848 bytes) (-31)‎ . . (Undid revision 619068822 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) the opposite of expert-driven is certainly not "consensus-driven") − − (cur | prev) 23:03, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,879 bytes) (-93)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: structure) − − (cur | prev) 19:58, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,045 bytes) (+28)‎ . . (→‎Automation: restore request for reference for bots blocking accounts or IPs) − − (cur | prev) 19:52, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,017 bytes) (-328)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler: remove duplicate mention of year. remove duplicate mention of BLP.) − − (cur | prev) 02:26, 30 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,126 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (lead: flag unreadable sentence) − − (cur | prev) 04:32, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,617 bytes) (-30)‎ . . (→‎Editing: split subsection "Review of changes") − − (cur | prev) 04:23, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,647 bytes) (+3)‎ . . (→‎Arbitration Committee: these statistics are old, and rates surely didn't stay precisely that way for long) − − (cur | prev) 02:42, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,644 bytes) (-442)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove poorly sourced part on inexperienced editors) − − (cur | prev) 02:33, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,086 bytes) (+40)‎ . . (move (and adapt) Talk page coverage from Editing to Community) − − (cur | prev) 02:05, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,046 bytes) (-225)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: remove paragraph on WikiWarMonitor (off-topic, content-less, poor writing. possibly fits in See also)) − − (cur | prev) 01:36, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,256 bytes) (-14)‎ . . (lead: fix sentence comparing article count with "Britannica") − − (cur | prev) 01:27, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,270 bytes) (+193)‎ . . (lead: move size comparison back where "Britannica" has been introduced) − − (cur | prev) 01:23, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,077 bytes) (-1,364)‎ . . (remove lead's last sentence (unreadable)) − − (cur | prev) 01:08, 29 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,441 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: request clarification of "the majority “weight” of viewpoints") − − (cur | prev) 04:31, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,030 bytes) (-167)‎ . . (→‎Nature) − − (cur | prev) 03:58, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,197 bytes) (-712)‎ . . (merge paragraph on Signpost from "Open collaboration" section to "Internal news publications") − − (cur | prev) 03:36, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,909 bytes) (-39)‎ . . (merge "Organization of article pages" section into "Analysis of content" and "Internal quality control and assessment of importance") − − (cur | prev) 03:31, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,948 bytes) (-121)‎ . . (→‎Organization of article pages: split in 2 paragraphs) − − (cur | prev) 02:59, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,069 bytes) (+165)‎ . . (move paragraph on wikiprojects from "Organization of article pages" to Operation) − − (cur | prev) 02:42, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,904 bytes) (-56)‎ . . (specify that Wikipedia is a wiki in lead) − − (cur | prev) 02:32, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,960 bytes) (-25)‎ . . (lead: remove reference to Alexa (broken)) − − (cur | prev) 02:28, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,985 bytes) (-945)‎ . . (remove poorly sourced parts on Google fueling growth. remove redundant and poorly sourced sentence on popularity) − − (cur | prev) 02:16, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,930 bytes) (-254)‎ . . (remove broken AlexaTop500. move anyone reference where it seems to belong) − − (cur | prev) 02:04, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (217,184 bytes) (+1)‎ . . (move sentence about Time magazine from lead to "Cultural significance". not sure this deserves any treatment here) − − (cur | prev) 02:02, 28 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (217,183 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (update URL for Time2006) − − (cur | prev) 22:24, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,547 bytes) (-7)‎ . . (→‎Open collaboration) − − (cur | prev) 22:20, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,554 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (→‎Nature: User-generated content is not specific to Wikipedia. move "Language editions" section out of Nature (whatever "Nature" means)) − − (cur | prev) 21:31, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,522 bytes) (+31)‎ . . (mark num_users reference as failing verification and request new one) − − (cur | prev) 21:20, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,491 bytes) (+111)‎ . . (lead: give example of usage as common noun. shorten first sentence) − − (cur | prev) 20:58, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Impact: move first paragraph from Cultural significance to Readership) − − (cur | prev) 20:56, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Impact: move Cultural significance just below Readership) − − (cur | prev) 20:45, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,350 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (→‎Cultural significance: flag broken reference (freedom of panorama)) − − (cur | prev) 20:38, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,414 bytes) (+99)‎ . . (→‎Cultural significance: flag BBC reference as broken) − − (cur | prev) 17:30, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,315 bytes) (-232)‎ . . (→‎History: avoid misleading phrasing about February 2014 traffic) − − (cur | prev) 00:26, 27 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,547 bytes) (-415)‎ . . (refactor references to Wikipedia vs the small screen) − − (cur | prev) 23:14, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,962 bytes) (+258)‎ . . (lead: attempt to clear up "Wikipedia"'s ambiguity) − − (cur | prev) 22:25, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,689 bytes) (+18)‎ . . (avoid contradiction on language count in lead, opting for vaguer language. request reference on contradictory language count) − − (cur | prev) 22:20, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,671 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (remove outdated and misleading article count from lead. acknowledge existence of bans) − − (cur | prev) 22:07, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,691 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (lead: clarify the kind of ranking in question) − − (cur | prev) 22:05, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,701 bytes) (-134)‎ . . (shorten lead on popularity and avoid contradiction with the template on rank) − − (cur | prev) 18:11, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,820 bytes) (+80)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: ) − − (cur | prev) 16:17, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,740 bytes) (-9)‎ . . (→‎Internal quality control and assessment of importance: language. shorten) − − (cur | prev) 02:50, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,749 bytes) (-33)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: move Citing Wikipedia inside Accuracy of content. is a subsection warranted?) − − (cur | prev) 02:45, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,782 bytes) (0)‎ . . (→‎Analysis of content: move Medical information from Quality of writing to Accuracy of content. surely a better fit, if not a good one) − − (cur | prev) 02:15, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,707 bytes) (-89)‎ . . (request reference for historical hardware and update) − − (cur | prev) 01:56, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,796 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: request to specify regulations. more encyclopedic tone) − − (cur | prev) 01:48, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (216,799 bytes) (+5)‎ . . (→‎Contributors: oops) − − (cur | prev) 01:45, 26 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,794 bytes) (+43)‎ . . (→‎Contributors: there is more than one Goldman. request reference about edit-a-thons. request clarification of "top 2%-10%") − − (cur | prev) 02:36, 25 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (216,693 bytes) (+49)‎ . . (disambiguate "Wales". flag broken reference. flag reference failing verification and request new one) − − (cur | prev) 04:04, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,499 bytes) (+146)‎ . . (Undid revision 616859409 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) discussion of "weight" is not necessarily discussion of a "majority “weight” of viewpoints") − − (cur | prev) 03:59, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,353 bytes) (-45)‎ . . (lead: remove reference contradicting its statement) − − (cur | prev) 03:55, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,398 bytes) (+76)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism) − − (cur | prev) 02:57, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,277 bytes) (+14)‎ . . (→‎Mobile access: request to clarify "enumerative approach") − − (cur | prev) 02:41, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,263 bytes) (+72)‎ . . (lead: restore request to specify standards for quality assurance) − − (cur | prev) 02:31, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,191 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler: clarify. assistant and assassination are not exclusive.) − − (cur | prev) 02:28, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,252 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: Seigenthaler) − − (cur | prev) 02:15, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,240 bytes) (-15)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: avoid redirect to Wikipedia Seigenthaler biography incident. simplify) − − (cur | prev) 02:05, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,255 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Dispute resolution and arbitration: Dispute resolution != Arbitration Committee) − − (cur | prev) 01:59, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (220,238 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Readership: remove confusing "however") − − (cur | prev) 01:53, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (220,249 bytes) (-913)‎ . . (→‎Automation: request reference about bots blocking edits. shorten by replacing poor and lengthy coverage of so-called incident with expanded description of bot roles) − − (cur | prev) 01:46, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,162 bytes) (+64)‎ . . (→‎Automation: fix WP edit warning bots 1) − − (cur | prev) 01:35, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (221,098 bytes) (+6)‎ . . (→‎Automation: oops) − − (cur | prev) 00:37, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,092 bytes) (-226)‎ . . (→‎Automation: shorten (Lih)) − − (cur | prev) 00:31, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,318 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Editing: structure) − − (cur | prev) 00:28, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (221,283 bytes) (+17)‎ . . (→‎Editing: fix caption) − − (cur | prev) 00:24, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,266 bytes) (-194)‎ . . (→‎Editing: compact) − − (cur | prev) 00:18, 24 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (221,460 bytes) (+22)‎ . . (→‎Editing: miscellaneous reverts/further improvements) − − (cur | prev) 01:58, 14 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,664 bytes) (+74)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: change image caption to describe image) − − (cur | prev) 23:25, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,590 bytes) (+146)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: mark references as failing verification) − − (cur | prev) 23:23, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,444 bytes) (+42)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: mark "Wikipedia experience sparks national debate" reference as dead) − − (cur | prev) 18:54, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (214,372 bytes) (-20)‎ . . (avoid redundant "large body of rules and regulations for editing") − − (cur | prev) 18:51, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,392 bytes) (+73)‎ . . (request to specify vague addition to lead on body of standards for quality assurance) − − (cur | prev) 18:48, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,319 bytes) (+30)‎ . . (→‎Mobile access: request reference about ""All of the above" approach") − − (cur | prev) 18:38, 13 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (214,289 bytes) (-2)‎ . . (Undid revision 615902054 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) restore "similar rate of "serious errors"" instead of merely "comparable") − − (cur | prev) 20:34, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,154 bytes) (+23)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: challenge definition of "majority “weight” of viewpoints") − − (cur | prev) 20:25, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,131 bytes) (-612)‎ . . (Undid revision 615838303 by TakuyaMurata (talk) broken reference, missing context) − − (cur | prev) 20:20, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,743 bytes) (-3)‎ . . (lead: simplify "edited articles". language) − − (cur | prev) 20:17, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,746 bytes) (-64)‎ . . (lead: don't treat NPOV, already covered in body. everyone claims to be "neutral" anyway) − − (cur | prev) 20:12, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,810 bytes) (+1)‎ − − (cur | prev) 20:09, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,809 bytes) (-1)‎ . . (fix parenthesis missing parent sentence) − − (cur | prev) 20:06, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,810 bytes) (+50)‎ . . (lead: clarify comparison with Britannica) − − (cur | prev) 18:32, 6 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,760 bytes) (0)‎ . . (typo) − − (cur | prev) 02:49, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,834 bytes) (-800)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: move paragraph on Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia to Criticism of Wikipedia) − − (cur | prev) 02:43, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (213,634 bytes) (-22)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: shorten further) − − (cur | prev) 02:38, 1 July 2014‎ Chealer (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,656 bytes) (-198)‎ . . (→‎Criticism: shorten new paragraph - few organizations have a size limit on rules, particularly when they're being told to implement one)

Edit history of tag bombing and deletions for August 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
− ::::::(cur | prev) 05:01, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,454 bytes) (+12)‎ . . (→‎Vandalism: avoid suggesting that a single major vandalism case has happened) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 04:08, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,391 bytes) (+52)‎ . . (→‎Community: Failed verification|reason=No mention of a study performed in 2012. request reference about 2010/2012 studies) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 03:57, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,339 bytes) (-141)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove unclear part (statistics)) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:58, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,446 bytes) (+39)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove contradictory "however". language) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:52, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,407 bytes) (-63)‎ . . (→‎Community: request reference on "often with a reference to other Web 2.0 projects such as Digg"... whatever that means) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:45, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,470 bytes) (+107)‎ . . (lead: request clarification of quote) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:42, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ m . . (215,363 bytes) (-10)‎ . . (lead: remove "however") (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:40, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,373 bytes) (+36)‎ . . (→‎Automated editing: restore request reference about bots application for ban enforcement) (undo | thank) − − ::::::(cur | prev) 02:35, 14 August 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (215,337 bytes) (+425)‎ . . (Undid revision 619916164 by LawrencePrincipe (talk) Per Talk) (undo | thank)

Edit history of tag bombing and deletions for September 2014
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
− (cur | prev) 02:11, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,081 bytes) (-124)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: remove Largest Wikipedias/graph (unclear, redundant)) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:59, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (213,045 bytes) (+65)‎ . . (request to clarify lead's last sentence) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:56, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,980 bytes) (+35)‎ . . (→‎Diversity: request clarification of about "the potential of existing editors to nominate more women administrators") (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:53, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,945 bytes) (+53)‎ . . (→‎Wikimedia Foundation and the Wikimedia chapters: request reference on finances) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:48, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,892 bytes) (+27)‎ . . (→‎Diversity: Wales agreed to what?) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:45, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,865 bytes) (+8)‎ . . (→‎Coverage of topics and selection bias: request reference about number of locations covered) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:38, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,857 bytes) (+109)‎ . . (lead: flag dubious figure on Britannica) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:36, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,748 bytes) (+195)‎ . . (→‎Language editions: mark statistics on North America as failing verification) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:31, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,553 bytes) (-144)‎ . . (→‎Community: shorten. amend language) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:28, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,697 bytes) (-61)‎ . . (→‎Community: remove explanation suggested for 60% account desertion, used trying to explain drop of active editros) (undo | thank) − − (cur | prev) 00:18, 2 September 2014‎ Che... (talk | contribs)‎ . . (212,758 bytes) (+60)‎ . . (→‎Community: restore flag on vague parenthesis. flag sentence on "outsider"/"insider" terminology as failing verification and request proper reference) (undo | thank)

This last one is only for September and repeats the same pattern of deleting material over and over, and then marking it as missing with multiple citation templates with the apparent objective of delisting the page for Wikipedia at all costs. Most recent diffs are: [96] [97] [98] [99]. Same pattern in July, same pattern in August, now same pattern in September. User:Mj and User:Forbidden and User:IntelligentGuy have tried to keep up by fixing the tag saturation but this pattern is persistent. Request intervention against persistent vandalism. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:30, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I should note that I found User:Chealer's editing very disruptive and not at all helpful, and tried to reason with him and others about the situation. I would recommend that the page is reverted to a version from a few weeks or months ago, at least for now. Much more has been removed or mangled than has been fixed or improved.--ɱ (talk) 23:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Issues regarding User:PapaJeckloy's behavior

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

---

Based on the latest SPI report against this user, I am formally requesting to ban User:PapaJeckloy on editing here in Wikipedia on the following grounds:

• Disruption at WP:DYK

He started disrupting the nominations in DYK after one of his created articles were featured in the DYK section (more of this on the next section). He began creating "half baked" articles then nominate them immediately to DYK. (see Template:Did you know nominations/Justin Melton and Template:Did you know nominations/Zaccheus Mason) After his first two nominations were rejected, he created more DYK nominations. One of them was approved, but later found out that the approver is PapaJeckloy's sockpuppet, User:Gongon3336 (see the discussion of Template:Did you know nominations/Lyca Gairanod for details) The said user only had a few edits before he approved the Lyca Gairanod DYK nomination. He also used two sockpuppet accounts to approve his DYK nominations: User:Gelkia31 and User:EtitsNgKabayo. Gelkia31 approved the DYK nomination of Isko Salvador (see DYK discussion), while EtitsNgKabayo (a profane username which translates to "horse's penis") approved Juan Karlos Labajo (DYK discussion).

He also approved DYK nominations from other editors and were not thoroughly checked for any grammatical errors or prose.

• Agressive behavior towards other editors

As mentioned above, one of his created articles were featured in DYK (2014 PBA Commissioner's Cup Finals). Although the majority of the edits came from me, I added his name because he created the article. I also keep track of my successful DYK nominations at my user page. When he saw my user page, he posted this to my talk page, saying that I should not "steal" his opportunity. After this incident, he didn't stop in criticizing all of my edits. He accused me of being "biased" because I'm a fan of a PBA team that is a rival of his favorite team (see discussion here).

Another incident involving his aggressive behavior is at the DYK nomination of Juan Karlos Labajo. The creator of the article User:001Jrm and Jeckloy had a very heated discussion on the latter's talk page. (see here). -WayKurat (talk) 15:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would support a ban, at least in the DYK and GAN areas where they have been active and disruptive (see DYK discussion, GAN discussion). They denied socking on their talk page and elsewhere, which has now been confirmed, and have shown no remorse so I don't see their behaviour improving. While being investigated for socking, they stepped up the ante, assembling DYK hook sets and improperly promoting a DYK hook that had not even been reviewed yet. HelenOnline 15:42, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support ban from all content evaluation processes. PapaJeckloy has already used socks to disrupt DYK and cause an article containing a blatant copyvio image to be listed on the main page (see Template:Did you know nominations/Lyca Gairanod, which his sockpuppet Gongon3336 passed). I intend this ban to hit all main page processes (DYK, OTD, ITN, TFA, TFP) as well as other content quality evaluation processes (GA, FA, FP, FL, AFC) and should probably also extend to article assessment as well (see his conduct at Talk:Isko Salvador). The use of socks to get something on the main page is so outrageous that I'm surprised he's not subject to an indefinite block for his socking. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Now that Jeckloy has been indeffed, I suggest that this just be closed as moot. I don't think there's a need for a full-on formal ban at this time. But should Jeckloy return via the standard offer, we should ensure that his participation in these important areas is curtailed. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• After looking into this, I have extended the block on the user to indef due to the disruption and socking. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support indef block This sort of deceptiveness destroys the trust needed in a collaborative environment. I agree there is no need to seek a community ban, a defacto one will do just fine. Chillum 16:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

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

User:STATicVapor

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

---

Is being uncivil and keeps reverting my edits and calls me a sock puppet; BlaccCrab and Scorpion0422 can vouch that STATicVapor has been unpleasant. Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you're at 4RR. That doesn't bode well for you. Good luck. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Opposites Attract ‖ 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Harmony-n-Beatz, you will need to provide diffs(links to the edits that back up your claims) as evidence before this can be processed much further, if you need help adding diffs to this report please see here for guidance. Amortias (T)(C) 21:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

- [100] − [101] − [102] − [103] Harmony-n-Beatz (talk) 21:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Procedural note. Harmony-n-Beatz had not notified STATicVapor of this case on his talk page. I have left a message to make sure he's been notified. —C.Fred (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Harmony-n-Beatz is a sockpuppet of User:MariaJaydHicky, who has been genre warring on 808s & Heartbreak for months. STATic message me! 21:19, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tagged Harmony-n-Beatz's page as a suspected sock by looks of it the other confirmed ones have been checkuser'd. Probably best if everyone leaves the article well alone in the meantime to make everyone else job a bit easier. Amortias (T)(C) 21:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I have blocked Harmony-n-Beatz for the edit warring and as a probable sock and have requested checkuser assistance at the SPI case page. -- Diannaa (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to stay out of this, but I have not been impressed with the way the user has handled criticism. My contact with him was non-existent until today when I noticed he reverted this edit. Now, the IP in question was being rude in the summary and I can see why someone might think he was a vandal. But, his edit was completely in the right. And Static reverted him. One of my absolute pet peeves is autopatrol users who don't make sure that what they are reverting is vandalism. To me they are as bad as vandals because they should be trustable but their lack of caution leads to vandalism being re-added.

Anyway, I informed Static of this and I assumed he would either not respond or promise to be more careful. I was done with the issue and ready to move on. Instead, he went on the defensive, deciding to attack me rather than acknowledge that he made a mistake. There have been more responses, but I think you get the picture. This will probably be dismissed because of the sock allegations, and I can't speak for this editor's long term habits, but from my short-term impressions, the above users aren't that wrong. It would probably be worthwhile to investigate his behavior and habits a little bit more thoroughly. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I hardly see that as an "attack," especially given the condescending tone of your initial comment to STaticVapor. "Warrior" may not be the individual's birthname, but it was their legal name, so without reading the fine print at the top of the table, it's an understandable oversight. That has little to do with this report otherwise, which I suspect will be closed as a WP:BOOMERANG. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I doubt the user even did that much. He probably just saw the profanity and decided to revert. The IPs edit summary says "His birth name is NOT Warrior", so if Static had put even a second of thought into this, he would have realized, "Wait a second... How could someone's birth name be 'Warrior'?" and a quick investigation would have confirmed the accuracy of the edit. People keep getting lost in the red herrings here. My argument is simple: 10 seconds of investigation would have avoided this. This is unacceptable and the fact that the user is not addressing the real issue doesn't help things. True, this doesn't have much to do with the report (though I was asked to comment) but I think it does prove that the user shouldn't be outright dismissed. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 21:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Assuming good faith goes a long way, if you choose to not to, that is your problem. I have known for a long time that his legal name is Warrior, I do not read the page regularly so the fact that we were listing the birth name was easily missed, since when he was inducted his legal name was Warrior. You are complaining over one little revert, calling it unacceptable is just a blatant misappropriation. If anyone should be under discussion, it would be you, for your original uncivil message, followed by your personal attack filled one. STATic message me! 22:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

If I can add my two penny's worth; STATicVapor is in fact a sockpuppet who has used both STATicVapor and STATicVerseatide (see [[talk:X (Chris Brown album)# "Pop Star"|on here, I even agreeded with STATicVerseatides' comment); I try to get on with users and I know this'll sound petty but when I first signed up, I started to work on creating Dina Rae a article and I just submitted my edit to the now disfunct page "The Dina Rae Show" and saw that STATicVapor had requested to have The Dina Rae Show deleted saying it did not meet Wikipedia's guidelines (of course it wouldn't have 10 minutes after it was made, you need to wait awhile to see if there was any action on it); I'm not saying "They're evil for doing that" but I had also editted X's article where it stated Chris Brown said the music would be more soul and R&B and not totally pop, so I included R&B, soul, hip hop (3/5 singles released were hip hop so I included that) and pop and I got a message from STATicVapor on my talk page saying my edit was disrubted and I could be blocked, when I hadn't been a member long, so I do think that STATicVapor comes across hostile and a bit you can edit anything on Wikipedia but apart from anything I've edited as your edits are not welcome in their atittude. Thought I'd comment Bling$Bling$Blang$Blang$ (talk) 11:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Linked accounts, like both static's are not sock puppetry as per here. Murry1975 (talk) 11:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Not even alternative accounts, I changed my user name less than a year ago. STATic message me! 15:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri

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

---

Maharaja Agrasen College, Jagadhri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Concentrated effort by multiple accounts to include content [104] that does not adhere to WP:BLPCRIME. Page is already semi protected. BLP/N discussion  NQ  talk 01:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Seoshaggy is probably a spam account

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

---

User User:Seoshaggy reposted a grammatically deficient, unwikified, unencyclopedic spam article speedy-deleted on August 30th, under a different title. The first article was "Property in Biwadi"; this one is Why_people_shifting_to_bhiwadi. Bkalafut (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat at Talk:Benjamin Wey

• Benjamin Wey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 23.254.107.173 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))

The above IP, claiming to be the article's subject issued this threat at Talk:Benjamin Wey yesterday. For background (and other threats by related editors) see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lyndasim. – Voceditenore (talk) 09:57, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've hardblocked the IP for 2 weeks. Rjd0060 (talk) 10:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Malusia22

Thought of bringing this up here as I was wondering if his gang-related fantasy antics are enough grounds for a community ban. Said user has been repeatedly recreating pages about a supposed "sindikato" in the vein of a mega-gang like the National Crime Syndicate, though people whom I asked assert the contrary, and any allegations to mobster Asiong Salonga founding such a major criminal outfit are an outright fabrication.

Mal's articles were seemingly well-written in that it seemingly evades detection from admins, and it has been so much of a nuisance that I'm proposing a ban and a long-term abuse notice for admins and other users to watch for. Blake Gripling (talk) 11:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm confused, User:Blakegripling ph. This user was blocked last January although he's created numerous socks, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22/Archive. Can you be more specific? Dougweller (talk) 12:48, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He's still active as of now, via his sockpuppets of course. As what's stated on the SPI page, I spotted two socks of his editing on the subjects he frequents, and as it turned out several other sleepers were tagged and blocked. The damage and confusion he brought seemed enough for me to consider this as an issue needing attention. Blake Gripling (talk) 13:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but as they have been blocked, what would you suggest doing next? Put some articles on watchlists? Look for??? Dougweller (talk) 13:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

He's persistent, and resorts to IP-hopping. Any moment from now he'll show up under another account and try to justify his actions, as what he did when I nominated Sindikatu for deletion. Blake Gripling (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, now that I got involved in this mess of Malusia22, can an admin take a look at this AFD? I found two sock user accounts and two sock IP addresses of this guy voted "keep". All of the user accounts have only edited either the AFD page or the articles involved in the AFD. Then this user popped out of nowhere and voted keep after I warned the other account for being a sockpuppet. I think an admin should clean up and monitor the sock votes in this AFD as Malusia22 will continue to create more accounts just to keep his hoax article. -WayKurat (talk) 17:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Abusive, edit-warring IP editor

There's an abusive IP editor, 109.157.151.81 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who is edit warring across a few articles and using abusive edit summaries. In this edit, he continues an edit war despite an attempt to discuss the matter on the talk page. It looks like this edit is also from him, in which he resorts to "fuck you" in the edit summary. On Jade Cole, he has edit warred to include links to Livejournal and Wikipedia mirrors, which he insists must be included to properly reference the article. Can we block this guy for a little while, so that I can fix up the Jade Cole article without being reverted every few minutes? He's going to be back under a different IP address soon, but this one seems to be his main one for now. Alternatively, maybe someone could temporarily semi-protect these articles? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked, and then I saw this. I don't want to go around semi-protecting too much too soon, but please keep us posted. Drmies (talk) 16:43, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy is fimilar to me, 81.170.122.230 he used a BT IP after his block, I think this could be the same editor. Murry1975 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's quite possible. I find it unlikely that people would change their ISP just to get around a block, but the BT IP editor seems to continue edit wars started by the Tiscali IP editor, and both geolocate to London. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Mass copyright violation

Mohammad Waleed (talk · contribs) is single purpose account engaged in mass copyright violation, and is adding images of people who have no connection to Pashtun people in that article. In other words, he's giving people ethnicity based on his own assumption.[105] This is very disruptive, I think indef block is appropriate. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyright image issues are dealt with and the user warned but you need to discuss your assumption that he is making assumptions with him before raising it here. Nthep (talk) 19:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Requesting sysop aid

A user has unilaterally moved Category:War in Donbass to Category:War in Donbas. There is no consensus for this change, and it has been discussed numerous times at the article War in Donbass (which is currently move protected, for good reason). I cannot fix the category now, for some reason, so I'm requesting that a sysop fix it. RGloucester — ☎ 19:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Has been redirected.Looks like it might have been redirected raher than moved should be able to remove the redirect to fix it. Amortias (T)(C) 19:29, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was moved. The edit history is now at Category:War in Donbas. I can't move it back because the user messed with the category page. RGloucester — ☎ 19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The user in question, Антон патріот, is going about disruptively changing transliterations all over the place. I don't know how to stop him/her. I'll notify him of this discussion in a moment. RGloucester — ☎ 19:33, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, theres a redirect on the old category pointing to the new one hence my original assumption, blanking the page prior to move should allow it to be moved back but as its already in a serious state of screwed its probably worth leaving it, an admin should be able to bulk revert the changes if memory serves. Amortias (T)(C) 19:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've moved the category back, and reverted them on War in Donbass. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies:@Amortias: Thank you both for your assistance. RGloucester — ☎ 19:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is nationalistic battleground editing (dead giveaway) and needs a warning or block. Another: [106] the edit summary mean "correcting grammatical errors". Heh. 50.0.205.237 (talk) 22:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Suicidal Comments

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

---

Earlier, User:Dorianluparu threatened suicide on User talk:RHaworth. Any threats of harm to self or others should be met with a block, according to Wikipedia's policy on threats of harm. This seemed like the appropriate place to nominate the blocking of this user. Lord Laitinen (talk) 20:37, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WMF has already been notified and it is currently being handled. Mike V • Talk 20:45, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The correct response to threats of self harm is to notify the foundation, which has been done here. If you know any admin who feels that blocking a user who threatens to harm themselves is a good idea, please direct them to remove their head from their ass. Protonk (talk) 23:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Blocking seems a bit harsh. Do we really have such a hardass approach to threats of self-harm? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's a policy, it needs to be changed. Seriously, someone who's already depressed and thinking of suicide being blocked from a website they contribute on is only going to exacerbate it. Tutelary (talk) 00:50, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not policy. Lord Laitinen generalized poorly. The policy reads, "Threats of violence to others should be met with blocking..." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• First of all, blocking is not overkill in this case. Threats of self-harm are very serious, and if it is not policy to punish them for it yet, it should be. Second, this user was blocked for their actions today, by User:Mike V, and rightfully so! Please do not disrespect my opinions again. Thanks! Lord Laitinen (talk) 01:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Lord Laitinen: First of all, threats of self-harm should rarely, if ever, be met by blocking. I've reverted your block notice on his talk page, because that is undoubtedly not the reason he was blocked. If you restore it, you will be blocked. I won't revert the block, because it's possible there is a suppressed reason for it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

  @Lord Laitinen: "Threats of self-harm are very serious, and if it is not policy to punish them for it yet, it should be." Please do not ever interact with an editor who threatens self-harm. Seriously. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

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

DangerousPanda's latest block of Barney the barney barney

DangerousPanda has blocked Barney the barney barney repeatedly for personal attacks on Bearcat. Today, DangerousPanda ratched the sanctions up again by blocking Barney even from editing his own talk page. Realistically, Barney has not been behaving himself. But it's becoming obvious this did not happen in a vacuum. Bearcat has continued to pick at the scab, obviously gloating over Barney's predicament and doing everything possible to annoy Barney. He should simply walk away. But also, I'm concerned with the growing appearance that DangerousPanda may be too WP:INVOLVED, that it's starting to become personal, a test of wills. When I pointed out my concerns (respectfully, I thought), DangerousPanda's response was as insulting and in the same way as what got Barney blocked from his own home page, questioning whether my brain was working. I don't think I deserved that but I do think it's evidence that DangerousPanda's handling of the situation is no longer helpful. Discussion may be found at User talk:Barney the barney barney#August 2014. Msnicki (talk) 00:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just so others reading this thread don't have to search for them this post full of personal attacks and this post with its threatening wording are being equated to this. IMO there is absolutely no comparison. Again IMO, the two posts by Btbb deserve the removal of talk page privileges. B always has the WP:STANDARDOFFER should they ever want to return to productive editing. MarnetteD|Talk 00:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that DangerousPanda's insulting remarks toward me were worse than Barney's, I am saying DangerousPanda's insults were similarly childish playground material and, more important, completely unprovoked. When you start comparing provoked versus unprovoked insults as if the same standards should apply, aren't you out on rather thin ice? Msnicki (talk) 01:08, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP's remarks were in no way, shape, manner or form like B's. You claimed that DP was somehow "involved" without offering any evidence. That can be seen as childish playground material as well. What is it that you want from admins here? I doubt that they are going to tell DP to stop reasonably explaining any actions taken. MarnetteD|Talk 01:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Not true. I did not claim DangerousPanda was involved. I said there was an appearance developing and that when DP's response to my raising the concern respectfully was to insult me, that that was evidence it might be more than appearance. What I recommend is that another admin step in and that Bearcat be asked to stop stirring the pot. (He's the only admin who's never read WP:STICK and doesn't know to back away when he's already won?) The objective, realistically, the only legitimate objective, is good behavior all around. The continued escalation of sanctions and the continued remarks on Barney's talk page by editors with history of conflict with Barney is not getting us there. Get these other folks with their own axes to grind out of there, back off the talk page ban, tell everyone to get a little thicker skin and I think the situation could be resolved. That's what I want. Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

DP blocked a user who called another editor, repeatedly and at length, names like idiot, liar, and troll, and all over the stunningly insignificant matter of the proposed deletion of an article about an obscure city official. The block was entirely appropriate regardless of how allegedly WP:INVOLVED DP was or was not. I would hope any admin would have done the same. Gamaliel (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

And so why is Bearcat (an admin, for pete's sake!) still stirring the pot on Barney's talk page over this insignificant matter even after Barney was indef'ed? Msnicki (talk) 01:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea what that has to do with DP or the appropriateness of the block, but perhaps it would be appropriate to issue a warning to Bearcat. Gamaliel (talk) 01:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just looked at BBB's talk page again and I don't see any new messages past the 1st from Bearcat., so it looks like any alleged potstirring has passed. Even so, I think it is appropriate to ask Bearcat to drop the matter and stay away from now on, without passing judgement on the appropriateness of previous comments. Gamaliel (talk) 01:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This was Bearcat's last pot-stirring. Barney had already been indef'ed so what exactly was the point of all this except to poke Barney in the eye when he was already down? That's what prompted Barney's response, the one got him blocked even from his own talk page. Frankly, while I don't condone Barney's response, if I'd been Barney, I definitely wouldn't have appreciated Bearcat's boorish behavior. I might have had some choice words as well. I'll say again, the objective here should be good behavior all around. It would be helpful if we can make that outcome the easy one for Barney to accept. Allowing Bearcat to continue stirring the pot is not helping that. Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

BBB had already called Bearcat a liar, a troll, and an idiot many days before this alleged potstirring, so this appears to me that you are blaming the victim for provoking the attacker. Even if we were to accept your reading of the situation, what is your preferred outcome or recommended course of action? The alleged potstirring is days in the past. It's over. No one is continuing to stir the pot except those of us participating in this ANI thread. Gamaliel (talk) 03:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You care a lot more about who started it than I do. I care more about outcomes. My experience of Barney is that he's been a steady and constructive contributor. The outcome I'd like is one where that can continue. Msnicki (talk) 04:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any proof of anyone being involved and you did state that DP was involved..."then yes, I do think you're no longer uninvolved and that you should step back." Please explain this. The only thing that I see Bearcat is guilty of is not archiving his talk page. Are you asking for a proxy block review because DP revoked talk page access or asking for review of admin behavior? Please clarify.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine. Let's not split hairs. I said I thought there was an appearance developing. Every sanction had been applied only by DangerousPanda and it was beginning to look to me like a possible test of wills. When an experienced editor is facing an indef, I expect to see a history of problems where several admins have had to step in and there was none of that. Whether DangerousPanda is or is not really involved may not even be knowable unless someone here is an undisclosed mind-reader able to tell us what motivated his behavior. But when DangerousPanda's response was to insult me, I thought that was actual evidence (not proof) of involvement. My personal opinion is that he is. But either way, I don't think this is a constructive situation conducive to de-escalation. I think it would be useful for another admin to step in to avoid even the appearance of involvement. Does that clarify my position for you? Msnicki (talk) 02:29, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Partially. What would you like admins reading this to do? What action(s) are you looking for?
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 02:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

{ec}Restore talk page access. 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I recommend backing off this latest indef ban even from his own talk page. This serves no purpose except to pour salt in the wound, making the one desirable outcome less likely. Bearcat should be asked to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Barney, especially on Barney's talk page. The condition of lifting Barney's indef should be that he can state how he violated our policy prohibiting personal attacks, that he agree to avoid any further violations and that he also agree to drop the WP:STICK and avoid interaction with Bearcat. He shouldn't have to say he's sorry or that he didn't mean it. He does need to say he won't do it again. It would be helpful if another uninvolved admin could volunteer to monitor the discussion on Barney's talk page and review any unblock request Barney may make. Msnicki (talk) 03:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki, it's common for an administrator who blocked a user to keep monitoring the situation. The fact that Btbb - in the unblock request - basically turned around and lashed out at DP made it so that most admins would have declined and re-sanctioned Btbb. WP is not a bureaucracy*. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 02:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC) Exceptions apply in certain places, but that's besides the point.

• What unblock request?? NE Ent 02:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Unblock request but then he changed it.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• The purpose of dispute resolution volunteers -- including admins -- is (or should be) to resolve conflicts, not administer "justice." Although it's not written down -- because we are not (supposed to be) a bureaucracy -- it's generally understood editors involved in a conflict -- regardless of whether they are "right" or "wrong" -- should not be posting on the talk page of a blocked editor. Had DP addressed that issue first, the situation was much more likely to be resolved. NE Ent 03:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Even if "acceptable", are the actions "helpful"? At this point it seems that the actions on all sides are merely winding the spring tighter and unlikely to help achieve any beneficial outcomes. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikiproject

Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force ("GGTF"), it seems some editors believe that just because they may dislike or actively oppose some views, potential proposals or projects, and/or individuals who are part of a Wikiproject, it is acceptable to disrupt the project. They relentlessly badger individuals on the talk page with questions and criticisms, monopolize discussions, target and nitpick comments of active editors, or bait editors to angry retorts or sloppy mis-statements that invite further criticism.

I haven't seen this allowed on WikiProjects Countering systemic bias, LGBT, Gender Studies, Feminism, Disability or even WikiProjects Israel or Palestine or Islam. Yet it happens repeatedly at GGTF, despite requests by editors and administrators that it be stopped. On September 2 an editor started a thread "Disruption" noting the option of using WP processes. So here I am. Can we perhaps see a closing opinion that these activities are unacceptable per Wikipedia policies?

Also it would be helpful if someone could counsel effectively the three editors below who I believe have been particularly disruptive over the last month or so. (Note to all editors: To avoid off-topic requests for evidence of existence of/importance of gender gap/why women quit, etc., please see the Gender gap task force “Resources” page (draft) listing dozens of relevant research, news, Wikimedia/Wikipedia, etc. links.)

User:Eric Corbett

• Corbett’s views against civility policy were a major topic at this ANI complaint and this Wales talk page. Here Corbett states: "The fundamental error was in adding civility as one of the pillars". He obviously dislikes the GGTF's interest in promoting more civility.
• On Wales talk page Corbett opines there are no problems existing regarding gender gap issues[107],[108]. On his own talk page he opposes allowing "..strident feminists to run riot.."[109] and criticizes someone's alleged "prissy militant feminist friends".[110]
• Given his POV, it is no surprise that at the Wikiproject itself Corbett has, among other things: said "bullocks" about two women's opinions; hectored other editors for opinions; disputed WP:NOTAFORUM comments; presented a strawman argument; hectored some more; made personal attack on Jimmy Wales for promoting the Foundation's goal of increasing the number of women editors.

User:Two kinds of pork

• His first posting at GGTF criticizes someone's proposal as assinine and asks if it's a joke. Later at this diff he wonders if systemic bias exists - in a task force of Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias.
• At this diff he proposes the Foundation pay "high school aged girls in the Philippines" to edit to close the gap. And puts a similar "Pay to play" proposal on the main page. Not sure if he's serious, I revert, and he defends his proposal on the talk GGTF page.
• At this diff he started a derisive thread about a phrase that needed tweaking; SPECIFICO joined the hectoring. ( Whole thread archived here.) See also his response to an editor's complaints about "personal attacks and derailment in these discussions".

User:SPECIFICO

• SPECIFICO has been obsessively harassing/wikihounding me for over a year regarding various political differences: posting on my talk page, following me to articles, reverting me and/or negatively commenting on my edits or talk page comments. See these earlier complaints my warning 6/23/13; my 6/29/13 ANI; my complaint to an admin 10/31/13; SPECIFICO's 11/31/13 block for "interpersonal behavior" against me another editor filed at TPNO ANI; my warning on harassment 1/14/14; my later complaint to admin 1/14/14. See also an uninvolved editor's comment regarding SPECIFICO's harassment of me.
• I have tried to ignore the many more recent incidents; see just April 1-September 3, 2014 Interaction Analyzers Results with examples of his following me to 20 articles or pages he had not edited before and harassing me, sometimes repeatedly.
• Examples of constant and disruptive harassment at GGTF, which also disrupts the project: His first at GGTF supports a visiting editor's criticisms of me based on past disputes; here he criticizes an editor objecting to the two of them airing "grudges" against me; a put down of GGTF; hectoring demands not made of an editor who made similar general statements; dubious accusations of sexism in discussions of women at GGTF.
• On SPECIFICO's talk page last week an editor noted that that last GGTF edit was problematic. An admin asks SPECIFICO to cut me some slack, later to keep the page friendly, and later asks him to "staying away from Carol's posts". He writes "consider me on hiatus". But two days later the first editor again has to comment on new negative SPECIFICO comments at GGTF. And on Sept 3. SPECIFCO hectors me about an obvious joke about recruiting admins and writes "please consider departing the Project".

So the bottom line is, can editors be discouraged from engaging in this type of behavior at the Gender gap task force? There are eight other Wikiprojects related to women, so I think they'd also like to know. Thanks.

• Notifications to GGTF, Wikiprojects Countering Systemic Bias, Gender studies, Feminism and Jimmy Wales talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)