Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:SchroCat and User:Cassianto

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

---

This apparent tag team has turned uncivility into a habit. As they have shadowed and dittoed one another's edits when attacking an editor like me or others, the team label seems appropriate.

They do this primarily on talk pages, and a review of their style of comments will show a continual and long-term misuse of talk pages for making personal attacks, boastfully assuming bad faith, and generally engaging in discussions in an uncivil manner, all of which amount to disruptive editing.

In reviewing, please also note that while PAs, etc. are frequent, there is never a counter-attack or reason to attack an editor to begin with. It's simply their method of discourse which has become so expected that I usually ignore them. However, their most recent comments on Peter Sellers talk has been noted with disgust by a new editor to the article, User:Wordreader, who wrote, "I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude." I personally am embarrassed that WP is shown in such a poor light.

For the record, while I'm posting this issue, I don't expect any censure of any sort against them. Their blatant PAs have appeared on talk pages with hundreds of watchers and many long-term wikipedians also commenting, and most seem to cower and say nothing, effectively giving their PA style tacit approval.

Just a few the diffs from various talk pages.

Peter Sellers talk

1. diff 9/2014
2. diff 9/2014
3. diff 9/2014
4. diff 6/2013
5. diff 7/2013
6. diff 8/2012
7. diff 8/2012

Stanley Kubrick talk

• diff 8/2014

Charlie Chaplin talk

• diff 11/2013

Light show (talk) 06:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightshow, you have engaged in endless sniping during the Sellers re-write—sniping that has lasted from mid-2012 to date—and managed to turn the work on the Sellers article into the most unpleasant editing experience I have experienced on Wiki, and you are the one that has managed to suck the joy out of that process. Your behaviour on the article has been so bad that a topic ban has been mooted here more than once.

This is yet another re-hash of a previous visit to ANI (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive252#Request to censure personal attacks and harassment re: Peter Sellers article which was quickly dismissed, as was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive776#Request review of personal attacks. A trawl through the Sellers talk page will show everything from Lightshow/Wikiwatcher's abuse to passive-aggressive sniping that merits a topic ban on Sellers. Requests for him to take Sellers off his Watchlist have proved fruitless, and a ban might be the best way forward here.

Finally Lightshow, numerous people commenting against you isn't tag teaming: it's people disagreeing with you, based on the fact that you're not a very good editor. – SchroCat (talk) 08:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Dare I say it, but I agree with my fellow tag-teamer. From the moment we touched upon Sellers to this very day, Lightshow has done nothing but condemn, snipe, and criticise all the hard work that we have put into it. We have taken Sellers from the lowly depths of C-class to the heights of FA which Lightshow disagrees with; he/she has done nothing in terms of helping with the articles development. Instead, they keep the article on their watch-list hoping that one day, someone will come along who is as like-minded as they are and join their "this article is shit" gang. Until then, every time a new editor comes to the page with a question, Lightshow seizes upon the opportunity to bad mouth the article and the two of us. Frankly this ANI is pretty wasted, but nothing unusual as this is always how dealing with them ends up. Pathetic! Cassianto^talk 08:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Gentlemen, your PA phrasings and word choices have become so similar and repetitious, I'd like to suggest a new one you can freely use with my full approval: Sucker. When you first started editing Sellers, you both honestly had me going for a while, with Schrocat writing friendly notes like:

"Hi WW, Sorry for taking so long to get back to you - a brief holiday intervened! I think the article is broadly OK, but it doesn't hang together well at the moment—I think because of the alterations of passing editors. The overall structure is also broadly OK, although we need a few tweaks ("Acting technique and preparation" is in the middle of the chronological run through of his life, for example). I suggest that most of what is already there remains and the following structure is used (please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion!)"

I assumed your intentions were positive. That was then, this is now. And now you can freely call me "sucker." --Light show (talk) 09:08, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it was friendly: I always am when there is a receptive editor to deal with. Unfortunately you did not prove to be amenable to the development and improvement of the article, and attempted to block every change, edit warring and running spurious RfCs to hamper every step. The RfCs were largely rejected out of hand, and numerous editors advised you to drop the stick, but all to no avail. After such a campaign of negativity, even a saint's patience would have evaporated by now. - SchroCat (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on. - User:SchroCat 08:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC) That's not cool no matter what the provocation. If you're that angry step away before typing, regardless of whether you think you're "right".__ E L A Q U E A T E 11:22, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Neither is two years of trolling, bitching and sniping, but let's just gloss over that behaviour. FWIW, I stand by every word, as it is true, justified and entirely correct. I'll also add that I wasn't angry at all: it was written while I was extremely calm, and is an honest straightforward appraisal of this editors approach both on the Sellers page and elsewhere. – SchroCat (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This editor appears to be engaged in a form of Wikihounding of those who he either disagrees with or won't let him have his own way, despite rules or consensus. He seems obsessed with the Peter Sellers article and the talk page history shows his many RFCs when that doesn't happen. Here we have one started at Mike Todd over the photo he placed in the infobox. The Sellers obsession is everywhere; up it comes at the Red Skelton talk page.

Those of us who don't agree with him become a Wikimafia in his opinion. From the article sandbox he started: "Obvious problems: You have greatly expanded a clear and brief paragraph into six separate topics, mostly film-related trivia, divided below, all jumbled into one hodge-podge paragraph. Which, btw, is exactly how the demolition of Sellers began. Note also that another editor has joined your team by now tagging the lead image." The infobox photo was a copyvio. He's been unwelome at my talk page since an exchange in March over a Commons-deleted photo ruled to be a copyvio.

As for his complaints about incivility, This comment "BTW, your math is about 3,000% off, since it's closer to 5K at most. Guess math wasn't your favrit subject either, huh doc?" to User:Dr. Blofeld is taunting and rude, yet he's crying about civility. Let's close this misuse of ANI and hope this editor will finally learn how to work congenially with everyone else.We hope (talk) 13:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, in the spirit of congeniality, I'm not sure I ever thanked you for getting me blocked from the Commons, investigated with your CCI, and for tirelessly tagging hundreds of recently uploaded public domain images, currently used for leads or body, with large red warning signs. --Light show (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

To refresh your memory and for the edification of everyone else This is how you got blocked from Commons. We hope (talk) 16:57, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Your off topic Lightshow. Leave others alone and concentrate on trying to get me and my tag-teamer blocked. Cassianto^talk 16:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

It was We hope that decided to join in with his image issues, not me. Nor am I concerned with getting anyone blocked, since you're both obviously immune from even mild censure or criticism. This is a notice board, and it's worth noticing the level of arrogance that has become acceptable. --Light show (talk) 17:11, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I urge an admin to close this thread asap, obviously there is no action to be taken against Schro and Cass in light of the circumstances.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience both users indeed act like a tag team, often together with two other editors. The Banner talk 19:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, my other favourite editor how lovely to see you Banner. Cassianto^talk 20:03, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone co-propose and hopefully support an IBAN here, as I tried to do on Kubrick's talk page? The same three editors, SchroCat, Cassianto, and DrBlofeld, as can be see on Sellers talk, are creating an atmosphere for new editors that does not invite collaboration or goodwill. My proposal to self-impose an IBAN is being ignored. The three editors, I've already pointed out, blitz-edit, comment, and perpetuate uncivililty in an identical team manner, and mock what they know is unacceptable talk page behavior, for example. We don't need to turn away more new editors, we need to attract them. --Light show (talk) 17:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The behavior of SchroCat and Cassianto really sucks. Caden ^cool 01:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: Ban User:Light show from editing at the Peter Sellers article

Some of the above comments look pretty bad taken out of context, but entirely understandable when this haranguing has been going on for two years and I think this situation needs some resolution. After SchroCat and Cassianto put considerable effort into taking this article to FA standard (which they successfully steered through an FA review), Light show (under a previous user name) proposed junking all their effort and putting the article back to its C-class version: Talk:Peter Sellers/Archive 2#Is this "Feature Article" incomprehensible?. Now, I think it's fair to say that anyone who sincerely believes that junking an FA rated article is in the best interests of that article probably has nothing more to contribute in a positive way. Therefore I propose an article-ban for Light show: the article, SchroCat, Cassianto and Light show himself would all be better off if they didn't interact any more at that particular article. SchroCat and Cassianto are the ones that got the article promoted so they are best placed to stay and maintain it. Betty Logan (talk) 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. 19:38, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Non-issue: As Schro-Cass has/have prevented me from adding so much as a comma over the last few years, putting up a no-trespassing sign when the article is already ringed with barbed wire, will add nothing. As the proposer has, in their comment at the link above, accused me of somehow reprogramming Wikimedia and gaming user feedback, I'm not sure their good faith is clear in their proposal. --Light show (talk) 19:51, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Betty. It's not just the Peter Sellers article though Light show has kicked up a fuss about, it's other articles on film biographies any one of us has been involved with. But all were motivated by the Sellers vendetta he has and it is indeed the Sellers article which creates the bulk of his comments still. An interaction ban banning Light show from editing or discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass would be more appropriate. I support of course, but I fear a ban on just Sellers will prompt petty responses on other articles. I 'd suggest a full interaction ban.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support What Dr. Blofeld has said. The insult difs above took place on the Stanley Kubrick talk page and the sandbox the editor started. While the basis for this is the Peter Sellers article, that rancor has been spread around by him. We hope (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Lightshow, to say anyone has stopped you changing a comma is an untruth. It's also an untruth for you to say that Betty Logan has accused you of anything: she provided you with an explanation regarding the feedback, not accused you of anything. Sadly the two untruths here are just the latest in a string of mud-throwing from you, where you a unable to accept that anyone who disagrees with you on Sellers is part of some massive tag-team. It's time for the community to stop your interaction on the Sellers talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 20:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, needless to say. Lightshow has shown himself to be a thoroughly difficult editor to work with. I'm sure he does some good somewhere, so for that reason I think a full on block is not justified, but I think the ban as proposed above is a great comprise. Lightshow needs to let this one go and accept that the C-class Sellers is a long and distant memory. He also made things difficult for the FA nominator's on Charles Chaplin, but that is a different article altogether. Move on with your wiki-life, for god's sake! Cassianto^talk 21:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban on this article and a broader one one should anyone propose it. A read of the relevant talk pages shows a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality that makes editing by other members of the community an unpleasant task to say the least. MarnetteD|Talk 21:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think waiting for some neutral editors to review and comment is required, since the editors above, excluding MarnetteD, have in some way, repeatedly attacked the editor, his edits, comments or uploads. There is no way to assume their neutrality. It's also worth noting how the original ANI against their PAs has digressed and been hijacked so easily into blocking the complaining editor. The message is that guidelines about civility, including not using PAs, can be ignored. --Light show (talk) 21:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

this-"I'm glad you found a buddy to cover for you, but this will go to ANI if you can't get over your erroneous edits." and this-"Before posting there, let me know if you've used or are using different usernames, since socks are an exemption to 3RR, and your arrogant style of discourse and warring methods are too similar to previous events." is civility? We hope (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The request, yet unanswered, was reasonable. Unlike this comment, from one of the above team members. And my mentioning his soliciting support there, was also fine. --Light show (talk) 21:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Although I would expand this to include the talk page, as that's where much of the conflict between the three has happened. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – I concur with Crisco 1492 and the earlier editors supporting the proposed ban. I have not previously encountered Lightshow, but the evidence above and in the pages linked to makes it clear that such a ban is in the interests of good editing and collaborative conduct. Tim riley talk 09:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support – and, yes, it should be extended to the talk page as per Crisco's suggestion; hopefully the dissent will not continue to spill over into the other articles. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment This is looking a bit kangaroo here. Looking at the article history, Lightshow hasn't edited the article for about six months. If you look at the history there is a clear pattern of SchroCat reverting all changes made by many other editors to the article during that time. It looks like all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included. Not a very welcoming environment. Dr. Blofield's comment is telling here, wanting to ban someone from discussing any film biographical article primarily written by myself, Schro or Cass. It's hard to read that as anything but a demand for uncontested ownership of certain articles. __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: Frankly I'm sick of your sanctimonious uninformed comments here. You have no experience of what we've had to put up with for two years and it is rather annoying for some holier than thou individual to make judgements. Butt out, please.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Elaqueate, and you are? Cassianto^talk 17:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh! Do you have to be someone to comment here? How is this attitude supposed to convince other uninvolved editors that others weren't similarly "welcomed" on pages you edit? Is this a "closed" !vote? Are we somehow not at AN/I anymore?__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't, no, just stop commenting on things you know bugger all about. Lightshow has a very long history of making snide comments on talk pages of articles, Peter Sellers mainly, but his vendetta has surfaced in article talk pages as diverse as Charlie Chaplin and Stanley Kubrick. It is incredibly annoying to have somebody who has not had to deal with this for the last two years turning up and telling people to be civil or accusing people of OWN. That several very experienced administrators support a topic ban should tell you that this has gone on so long it's time for something to be done about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just asking who you were, that's all. No need to swing your handbag at me, if anybody has an "attitude" it is you sir. Oh, and FWIW, I'm not here to convince anyone. Cassianto^talk 18:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

You were just collegially asking me for my papers, got it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have got the shitty end of the stick. I didn't know in what capacity you were commenting from; bystander, admin, etc.. But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. Cassianto^talk 18:46, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Classy argument.__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

and one it appears, you have no business in. Cassianto^talk 19:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I should keep talking to someone who just called me shit?__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Who would that be, because I haven't called you anything. Are you having trouble understanding, or are you only reading what you want to see? Cassianto^talk 20:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want to descend into personal attacks it reflects on you more than me. It doesn't improve anything here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, I'll add another question to my a answered "Who would that be?" What personal attacks? Cassianto^talk 20:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks for the smear, especially as it is catastrophically wrong: I have not reverted "all changes made by many other editors". I have reverted the introduction of errors (grammatical, factual, or use of the wrong ENGVAR elements), which is entirely acceptable, I believe. If I am wrong on that point, please let me know. You are also very wrong to say that "all edits require SchoCat's explicit approval to be included": that utter tripe. It's also not a question of ownership either: it's a question of having to deal with the behaviour of one disruptive editor who has been sniping and trolling on the talk page, not within the article, as well as on other talk pages. – SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Elaqueate: In my experience it is very normal for all the but the highest quality edits to be reverted on a featured article. The standards are very high on those pages. Chillum 14:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@Chillum:, you are right that changes to a quality FA should be made conservatively and that most proposed changes should demonstrate they meet that higher standard. I was only commenting that it seemed to be an individual editor that was ultimately judging that quality over a very long period, and that struck me as a bit of a warning flag for possible POV bias, conscious or not. FA doesn't mean perfect or finished.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really. If I had not reverted the poor edits, someone else would have done. I have not reverted any improvements to the article, and it have explained my edits when I have reverted. - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm sure you find your own edits reasonable and necessary. Thanks for sharing that opinion.__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:59, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not, however, find your smears and untruths to be reasonable or necessary, but you seem to have skated by that. Thanks for sharing and smearing. - SchroCat (talk) 18:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussed editor hasn't edited the article in six months, and the talk page currently only has a total of seven comments. No recent diffs were given in this proposal, but that hasn't stopped people from !voting on it. I can't see that any uninvolved editors have been given any actual evidence, other than being told to "butt out". The only diff given in the proposal is two years old and the user had a different user name (what's the deal with that? Is that public?) __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:08, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The change has always been noted at the top of my user page. --Light show (talk) 19:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• As I noted above, it's even worse than a kangaroo court, as I came before this body with diffs to show a lack of civility and habitual flinging of PAs. Yet that original reason has been hijacked into a digressed topic of banning the complaining editor with almost no mention of the original complaint or its validity.

For a current example of how and why Schro-Cass resort to simple name-calling over calmly discussing things, visit the current Sellers talk page, where a new editor, User:MrBalham2, who is trying to point out exactly what I did years ago, is already being badgered and seems to be leaving in disgust. A quick link to what he observes in the article was first pointed out by me here, and the result of that was later pointed out here, which supports his and my observation. But this is not about Sellers, it's about the near total unconcern and ready acceptance of uncivility by this board.--Light show (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And for the benefit of anyone appreciating some ironic humor, note SchroCat's first reply to the new editor: in the future, please comment on issues, not editors. and his most recent one, I have asked you not to dip into uncivil comments about other editors . . . not just insults to others, when in fact that editor was extra civil. --Light show (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have considered your own actions before rushing to ANI and posting this hastily added report. As for MrBalham2, they came to Sellers asserting their own POV which has been opposed by SchroCat and I. Their edits are not an improvement, and like you they can't accept that. It's just a coincidence that they are complaining about the same thing as you and they have an unhealthy interest in Sellers. Oh, and they came at the same time as this ANI having never expressed an interest in Sellers before; a bit iffy if you ask me. Cassianto^talk 17:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An example of iffy is when a new editor, SchroCat, starts working on Peter Sellers, and 5 minutes later, you, another new editor, join in supporting his every edit, comment, and PA from then on. That's what may be called iffy, IMHO. And noting such things can get one banned from a talk page, it seems. --Light show (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor? I have been here since 2010, SchroCat possibly longer. It sounds like you feel aggrieved at us "new" editors coming along and making your shit C-class version into an FA. Careful, your pal Elaqueate may accuse you of ownership if your not careful... Cassianto^talk 18:44, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

New editors to Peter Sellers article, in case anyone wasn't clear about it.--Light show (talk) 18:57, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support: Light show's edits and talk page postings at Peter Sellers (and other film biography articles) have been entirely disruptive over a very long period of time, and their behavior is not collaborative, but rather intended to upset other editors and make it so unpleasant for them that they will not challenge his/her edits. I also support the broader interaction ban. -- Ssilvers (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is difficult enough to bring an article to FA without someone stepping on your shoes the whole way. Light should contribute to areas completely unrelated to Mr. Sellers. I am not sure about a wider ban, though I think as long as Sellers is not mentioned it may be okay. Repeat performances would likely result in quick consensus for widening the scope. Upon further reading I support a wider ban cover Kubrick and such. Chillum 14:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support and we should probably look at Stanley Kubrick as well. This is a talented and potentially productive editor but needs to learn to work better with others. Over-quoting is a defining and annoying fault, and doggedly defending the over-quoting starts to make other editors think about walking away. --John (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Having seen the present issue spill over to Stanley Kubrick, and judging by other interactions I've had with Light Show which, by no means the same degree that would require any type of action, do point towards a battlefield mentality they hold when they don't get their way. --MASEM (t) 19:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I've made 517 edits to improve Kubrick, vs. 0 for you. Thanks for your support. I'll also note that Kubrick is a more honest example of how I, and other editors, should collaborate. For instance User:WickerGuy, the primary contributor, began his edits a year and a half before I started editing it. We, and other editors, including MarnetteD, had many discussions during the 8 months or so that it was heavily improved. There was never a heated discussion, no PAs, no uncivility by anyone. After much of the article was improved, WickerGuy even added some positive comments to my talk page. I know how to collaborate and work with other editors. You will not find any accusations about uncivility anywhere since I started editing 7 years ago.--Light show (talk) 20:05, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's your talk page behavior, eg [1], clearly pitting yourself as one side against Dr. Blofelt and SchroCat, specifically bringing up the Sellers article issues here. --MASEM (t) 20:30, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

An odd example, since you agreed with me that he was adding trivia. And under your watchful eye, you've let Blofeld do to Kubrick's personal life material, namely turn it into a choppy hodge-podge, of short, disconnected factoids, exactly as Schro-Cass-Blofeld did to Sellers. Blofeld did that to Kubrick, cutting out 75% of his personal life material, about 2,000 words, under your protection, all in a matter of minutes! All three(?) of those editors use the exact same editing style, and unsurprisingly they all use the same uncivil PA style of discourse in protecting their demolitions. Their comments above prove the point. Nuff said. Kubrick should have stayed in NY.--Light show (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, and I'm sure @John: would agree on this, no personal life section needs to be well over 2000 words!!! I cut it by 75% because it needed such a drastic cut. I haven't got around to writing a decent personal life section yet so obviously it's still not going to read wonderfully well. You're absolutely clueless how to write encyclopedia articles and don't just get that bloat and excess quotes are just not good. An actor dies and there you are adding excess quotes and bloating it out..♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:08, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Dr. Blofeld—are you really responding to User:Light show? They pointed out that this was all done "in a matter of minutes". Incremental edits are conducive to collaboration. Bus stop (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, the primary editor on Sellers had also thanked me: You added a lot of valuable detail and also some good sources that the article needs—very well done. --Light show (talk) 02:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not helping your case by maintaining the battleground attitude here, trying to drag me into this when the only reason I have the Kubrick page on my watchlist was from NFC issues years ago. Yes, some of what Blofeld added was not really well suited, but note the difference between suggesting that trivia be cut down for improvements and holding a grudge from a different article. The ban from editing the Sellers article seems well merited until you can drop this attitude and work cooperatively. --MASEM (t) 21:54, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The ban from editing Sellers has been in effect for about two years. Every attempt to change punctuation or almost any other minor change by me or anyone else, has gotten reverted often without the courtesy of a rationale. A new editor tried to make some change yesterday, calmly discussed it, and still got pulverized with uncivility immediately. Maybe we should add the new editor to the proposed ban, just to make sure he doesn't try to improve things again. I do make comments on the Sellers talk page, but banning that kind of activity by a civil editor would amount to eliminating freedom of speech, not something I'm used to on this side of the pond. I do not use uncivil language, which is a bit tricky when pounced on by the PA team. --Light show (talk) 22:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a lie to say there has been a ban on editing the page. Numerous people have improved the article and their edits stand. Those who introduce errors, change spellings (and punctuation) to AmEng variants, or introduce unsupported information or delete sourced information may be reverted, with an explanation. The editor yesterday (with whom the discussion continues) was not "pulverised" with anything, although he has been requested not to make personal remarks about other editors (he is extremely new and has not yet learnt the ropes here). You manage to turn up to pretty much every thread, and will bitch about the article, linking back to one of the many, many RfCs you started during the re-write (which the community decided against your opinion on nearly every one). Your negativity on the Sellers page has been seen in comments on threads on Chaplin, Kubrick, and I think one or two others, and I sincerely hope this will bring an end to it. – SchroCat (talk) 22:33, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We haven't banned you, we have disagreed with your attempts to try and "improve" the article. Your edits were not an improvement and went against everything which seemingly passed the strict reviewers at peer review, GAN and FAC. But somehow, you think you're above all that and when you were rebuffed, you snipe at the "state of the article". Two years...of that! Cassianto^talk 22:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Should anyone need an example of the exact opposite, note comments by another new editor to Sellers, who also had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I chimed in with a link to a similar issue from an earlier discussion. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, also hasn't returned. That's the kind if banning I'm referring to, the psyop kind. Very effective. --Light show (talk) 23:00, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming that as soon a someone makes a comment you "chime in" with the same old comment that links to one of the pointless threads you implemented during the least enjoyable editing experience I suffered on Wikipedia. As to Wordreader, I agreed with his comment, and less than an hour after he had posted his comment, I edited the article to overcome his issue, and commented appropriately in the talk page. All you did was bitch and moan. Can you not see a) just how annoying and depressing it is for others for you to constantly bitching about the same topic, and b) why this thread has been proposed by a third party with no axe to grind here? As to saying Wordreader hasn't returned because of the comments, I find that so dubious to be laughable. – SchroCat (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Why not ask him? And that third party proposer, out of the blue, accused me of gaming user ratings, so your editing team wouldn't be too embarrassed, I presume. Oddly, all user ratings disappeared from WP soon after. --Light show (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

And note that the above discussion in the link, whereby I was immediately attacked, took place just a few months after the team began their editing of Sellers. Back then, SchroCat made comments like: Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section and this is now actually smaller than the previous version and a lot tighter than it was: I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before. or . I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers -, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! Within a few weeks, his comments took on a different tone, I've got a few other books knocking around, including a largely unread copy of the Lewis book (how much bile and hatred in one book can there be?!) so I hope we can get something fairly special out of it. Cheers And a few weeks later, he stopped using "Cheers" to sign off. And Sellers, IMO, is now in the cellar. Cheers.--Light show (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Those of us who support a ban are more than tired of being served Wikiwatcher/Light show WP:SOUP regardless of the type. This is the Skelton talk page, yet your inane nattering about the Sellers article found its way there. If there wasn't an agenda, this wouldn't have been posted there by you. We hope (talk) 23:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If any neutral editor read those comments, they'd have a hard time calling it anything but totally logical and inherently beneficial to discuss. So I'm glad that was the best you could find.--Light show (talk) 23:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:SOUP's on again! We hope (talk) 00:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Improvements? Says who? Cassianto^talk 20:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment – re-reading the exchanges above, I wonder is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? It looks rather as though this is an interested user flying a flag of convenience (a sock-puppet, I think is the WP term). Is it possible for Elaqueate to identify him/herself as a separate entity, please? – Tim riley talk 20:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Give me a break. This: is it normal for a new user to register a username solely for the purpose of intervening at a discussion such as this? is completely fabricated. What is wrong with you?__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a break, then log off and log back in as Light show... Cassianto^talk 20:34, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that Elaqueate, a user who has been editing here since Aug 2013, is a sock of Light Show. Such an accusation would need significant evidence. Chillum 20:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Chillum: see Elaqueate, that's all you needed to say in response to my first question to you. Now all Elaqueate has to do is show me "the personal attacks" I have made against them and who called him/her shit? Cassianto^talk 20:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually if you are interested in that then go to their talk page. This is not the appropriate place for you two to bicker. Chillum 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's appropriate inasmuch that it was a question which he/she failed to answer. If he/she had of told me their interest in the case to start with then we wouldn't be here now. Their failure to answer even prompted someone else to ask. My original question was a civil, pertinent and innocent question to ask which was ignored. That is why we are here now. Anyway, moving on... Cassianto^talk 21:06, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Chillum, I don't want an editor who just accused me of sock puppetry without proof and said But thanks for showing your true colours which owing to the aforementioned shitty stick, is now brown I see. anywhere near my talk page. I think I've been pretty patient after being told my true colors are shit brown, but I don't need to deal with more of it. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:14, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't care if you two go to one of your talk pages or not. Do not engage in back and forth bickering about each other in a topic about another user. The noise being added to this discussion is not helpful. Rule of thumb, if you are talking about someone other than Light Show then you are posting in the wrong place. Chillum 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as Light show, I'm beginning to see why there are only "Supports" here, even though I can see that various editors supported some of Light show's suggestions on the concerned talk pages at times. Whatever Light show's behavior, it seems to have been met with some pretty nasty business in return. I didn't even cast a !vote and I was told to "butt out", asked to identify myself twice, was told my true color is shit brown, and had a sock puppet accusation as a "new user". I wonder how much filth I would have gotten if I'd actually !voted. Something's off here but it looks more entrenched than anything I'd want to spend too much time on. It doesn't look exactly one-sided to someone outside of whatever bubble people are editing in. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

The real rule of thumb, practiced by the team, is "The best defense is a good offense." Hence, an editor going to ANI about uncivility by a tag team, turns into a proposal to ban the complaining editor. Forget the rampant uncivility. Or when some new editor calmly suggests changes on a Sellers talk page, notice how the new editor is set upon immediately by the team. Very sobering and discouraging stuff. You would have been amazed at seeing how the team jumped on some other editors who were also criticizing Sellers at its peer review. --Light show (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

* Oppose. At least on the Peter Sellers Talk page some of the above have presented a caustic environment for those that disagreed with them. I disagreed with some of the above folks and User:Light show disagreed with some of the above folks. I don't think these comments are proper for Talk page use:

• "Why is it the same people turning up time and time again here? A couple of times it's easy to assume good faith but this sort of thing seems to happen every few weeks."

• "And, once again, it's trivial shit by someone who never met of knew either man."

• ""The reader may want to know why Sellers' was attracted to playing the role of Wingate. -- Then again, they may not give a toss. Now move along, there is nothing to see here! "

• "These are trolls, pure a simple. Let's stop feeding them."

• "THIS IS NOT OUR FUCKING OPINION, IT IS THE VIEW OF THE AUTHOR OF THE BOOK! Dr. B has addressed that. Now for gods sake move on!"

Just my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

So you "oppose" here based on our comments? Sorry, I thought it was Light show on offer here because of his behaviour? This is not a valid vote as you have missed the point of this proposal entirely. If I remember rightly, you accused the article and us of anti-semitism? Cassianto^talk

There has been some incivility, I don't think anyone supporting this proposal would deny that, but what do you really expect when someone has sustained a 2-year campaign to junk other people's work? The problem isn't really the incivility, that's just a symptom; the problem—and it's a fundamental one—is that you have an editor who is committed to a vastly inferior version of the article and who won't let go. The reason I proposed an article ban (and I did intend for that to include talk page input) is that I simply don't see how to resolve Light year's continued involvement in the article with maintaining its quality. You can see from the tone of this discussion just how much bad blood there is, and if it isn't ended here then it will almost certianly continue back at the article. Do SchroCat and Cassianto have another two years of this haranguing to put up with? What happens if they get so sick of it they withdraw and let Light year do what he wants to the article? The truth is it's a great article and it wouldn't be out of place in a professional encyclopedia, so the community should take action to safeguard articles of that quality. Betty Logan (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment

Hello All

I'm a "newbie" so please treat me well. Please excuse typos and bad grammar, formatting etc. I think there are a lot of experienced editors here. Some of you have done some great work and rightly some of your articles have been promoted to FA status.

However, with your experience a little arrogance has crept in, and with that you've forgotten that anyone can edit these articles regardless of experience. This is the golden rule and the overriding principle.

Any disputes are discussed on talk pages. However, I've come across something that is worse than vandalism on these pages.

Some of these articles have over 300 notes and references. A majority of these pointing to a handful of books and their page numbers. But also sophisticated named ref tags as well. Deleting lines also means deleting these named tags. There is a lot of hard work put into them. The people who have created them have read all these books and created these references.

These editors have done some painstaking research. In this pursuit they have become quite experienced and are aware of all the rules and coding. However, this is where the arrogance creeps in, and worse still, they have become "experts". They then start forgetting the Wikipedian principles and become corrupted in their overzealousness.

If you look at my experience, as an example, on the "Peter Sellers" Talk page you can see that a group of editors who have clubbed together and built FAs are commenting. Some of the FAs are very good...and here's the problem....some of them are not.

1. When the editors are challenged and and it becomes one editor vs another "separate" editor and it is merely a difference of opinion. If the "separate editor" stands their ground, another editor from the club steps in and sides with their fellow FA editor.

2. At this points the consensus principle is abused.

3. Here's where the sophistication comes in. A third editor steps in and becomes disparaging and also sides with their fellow FA editor. Opening statements are also confrontational. A distraction to anger/wind-up the "separate" editor from the original argument which gets lost into, and deteriorates, into mudslinging. Since all three club members have the consensus there is no chance for dissent or objectivity on FAs.

This "ganging up" tactic is worse than vandalism. It's perfectly good editors who have become corrupt and forgotten the Wikipedia golden rule is (and in the words of Brian Cohen) is that "we are all individuals". This "gang"/club consensus should be avoided.

Light show is quite passionate and annoying to some of you, but they are on their own fighting their own point of view. They are entitled to be as challenging as they want. You can't shrug the principle because you don't like someone.

If you choose to block this editor from the "Sellers" article, then equally, SchroCat, Cassianto and Dr. Blofeld need to be banned/blocked from this article too. I believe Tim riley is part of the same club as well, and should also be blocked. If there are others, please point them out.

It'll be a painful object lesson for them all, however, they need to realise that "gang mentality" or bullying is unacceptable on Wikipedia.

Administrators please investigate this more widely. If there are already existing rules regarding "editor clubs" please make those on this thread aware. If there is not, then I have highlighted a policy problem.

Newcomers to Wikipedia will be put off by this type of hostility. Wikipedia is one of the great achievements of the net neutral internet. Please don't wreck it with bad behaviour and the arrogant assumption that you are the true "experts".

Please note I am not a sock puppet for Light show.

Good luck all and happy editing! MrBalham2 (talk) 08:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have explained to you previously, having people disagree with you isn’t "ganging-up": it's part of the way things are discussed and agreed upon here, and once you have been editing for more than ten days you will come to appreciate that. In other words, people joining in discussions is how we reach a consensus, and is to be encouraged: just because people disagreed with you, does not mean that anyone has been "ganging up" on you. This has all been explained to you before, and you have not taken it on board, just as you did not seem to take on board explanations in the talk page. WP:ICANTHEARYOU is not a good way to start your Wiki life, and I sincerely hope that you read and take on board other people's comments, both in talk and forums such as this. - SchroCat (talk) 08:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've let it go on on the "Sellers" talk page. Don't worry! That discussion is closed. I'm illustrating your process of consensus here.

I've already highlighted your method and how I think the consensus process can be abused, so have other editors. Administrators can decide on whether that process was fair and whether you and your Wiki colleagues should be blocked from that article. I'm merely highlighting your methods in discussions. I'm entitled give my views and experience of that process. Your tactics are under scrutiny. MrBalham2 (talk) 10:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Putting forward a reasonable opinion on a talk page about edits isn't a "tactic": it's how wiki works, and I am not sure that with your ten-days experience here that you've fully grasped that. Additionally, just because other editors disagree with you, doesn't mean there is anything underhand about it: that's how we build a consensus, and how the consenus changes. - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm clear about the consensus process. It is you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I hope you concur. MrBalham2 (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you are not clear about consensus on Wiki, given your comments here and at the Sellers talk page, and that you are still in WP:ICANTHEARYOU territory here. I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you. As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page. - SchroCat (talk) 11:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Administrators need to get the whole picture. This will include Light show's grievances. Light show has used my case as an illustration on this thread. This includes you and your Wiki colleagues' approach to that process with any editor (not just me) that is also under scrutiny on this page. It is up to Administrators to decide whether that process was fair. I'm entitled to express my views. Thanks. MrBalham2 (talk) 12:52, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Reality check: Earth calling Balham – how would a ban on editing the Peter Sellers article make any difference to an editor (me) whose total contribution to it was correcting three typos in August the year before last? – Tim riley talk 13:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're innocent then there's nothing to worry about! I think you work with the aforementioned Wiki colleague on other FAs. Administrators need to be aware if FAs are becoming "no go" editing areas apart from a select few.i.e. if an FA editor is having difficulty with a another "unfamiliar editor" standing their ground then other Wiki colleagues swoop in to help out by applying a consensus. I think it's a practice that should be stamped out. It goes against Wikipedia principles. MrBalham2 (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

A "no-go" editing area like this edit, which was made and is still present on the page? Or are you just complaining because when you deleted half a paragraph of pertinent information it was reverted? There is absolutely nothing "no go" about editing on the article, as the evidence of one of your extant edits shows. - SchroCat (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was content with both edits. Including your reversion. My attempt was to transfer the information to its correct area and reduce a overlong para I accepted your revert. It was when I suggested a reasonable alternative is when the "team" swooped in with the tactics I mentioned earlier. I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues. The Administrators need to be aware that this happens. If there isn't a policy then there should be one to stamp the practice out. Wikipedia is for all (even the one's who make your editing life hell) and not and for a select few "gatekeepers". MrBalham2 (talk) 15:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC).

MrBalham2 wrote (emphasis added): "I have now been made aware by other editors that this is common practice with you and your like-minded colleagues." Sorry to "swoop in", but this page is on my watchlist, as indeed is "Peter Sellers", and I couldn't help picking up this discussion. So who has told you this "now", and where? Your claim about "common practice" does not seem at all evident to me in this discussion you've had with a third party, where you have been told quite clearly that "you need to be careful about editing featured articles since featured articles are the highest standard of quality there is"; and "The fact that the editors you are in conflict with are all quite experienced. You are free to request a FAR; however, you must be prepared to have a result that you are not quite happy with." Alfietucker (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That has also struck me, and I have asked MrBalham on his talk page about this. - SchroCat (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what the others were implying? The link to the third party discussion is a very good example on how you make new editors feel after such an experience of “being ganged up” on. Yes I am aware of FAR suggestion. Thanks for pointing it out. I was made “aware" by reading Light show’s exmaples further up this thread. I didn’t need need to be “told” by anyone.MrBalham2 (talk) 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah, the beauty of private email! Cassianto^talk 15:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure MrBalham2 is aware that there are already policies related to tag teams. Luckily, he seems to understand the common sense policies of civility, which is one of the pillars supporting WP, and probably civilization itself. But, like me, is taken aback that that a basic pillar can be ignored and overturned so easily by so many. Hence, the original ANI against two boastfully uncivil editors, even to other editors on this page, is immediately hijacked into a proposal to ban the complainant, who no one has shown to have ever made uncivil comments.

Regarding accusations that I've created a "battlefield atmosphere" on the talk page, I can assure your the exact opposite is the case. A quick example can be seen here, where the alleged team, shortly after coming to the Sellers article begins to demolish it without discussion, attacks every editor commenting, and gains the immediate support of teammates: Local editor being SchroCat. It is he who has single handedly turned this article's fortunes around and made it a serious future contender for FAC for which he should be applauded not villified. Recall that those two editors began their editing blitz on Sellers shortly before, and 5 minutes apart. And of course a quick look at the Sellers talk page over the last few days proves that the battlefield mentality is created against any editors, and by only one group: the team. --Light show (talk) 17:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the support Light show. I don't entirely agree with you about the Peter Sellers article but SchroCat is a great editor...although too stubborn for me, Good luck to you both on the outcome. MrBalham2 (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment. I have no previous experience of the Peter Sellers or related articles. I was on this page because of an unrelated matter. But I think the responses to MrBalham2's politely phrased comment more than adequately illustrate the problems with these editors' attitude and behavior. "I'm sure that your ten-days of in-depth experience here has provided you with a vast amount of knowledge of how this all works, but you're just not taking on board what is being explained to you", "Reality check: Earth calling Balham", "Ah, the beauty of private email!" Whether or not these editors liked what the editor had to say, these are not reasoned or reasonable responses. Just looking at the current revision of the talk page, I see what I would consider intolerable rudeness to Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) by SchroCat, with Cassianto chipping in at the end with "I can't work out if your niceness is masking a patronising and flippant overtone, or if you are actually being pleasant. I will AGF and assume the latter." And the reader is expected to assume the assumption of good faith. SchroCat wrote above, "As to what is under scrutiny on this thread, it is not my approach, but a proposal as to whether Light show should be banned from editing on the Sellers page and talk page." Actually, no. The Light show ban is just a sub-section; the thread is about the behavior of SchroCat and Cassianto. (Note: all of this is without prejudice as to the outcome concerning Light show). Scolaire (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's all well and good if you ignore the fact that Norton was edit warring, breaking citations, introducing errors and cutting across cited material by trying to force a citation that didn't support the information he claimed it did. You can ignore the degradation of a quality article if you want, but I'm not sure it's the most sensible approach to article development, do you? – SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think it's clear that some people, including Scolaire, would rather read a shite article which is littered with POV, mistakes, bad prose and dodgy referencing just so long as everyone who contributes are lovely to one another. This, it seems, is more favourable than reading a featured article and having to - although not needing to - read a few "rude and disparaging" comments from those who are protecting the article from slipping into the gutter. In an ideal world everybody would get on famously on featured talk pages, but this is not an ideal world. If it was, I would be shacked up with Jennifer Lawrence! Cassianto^talk 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you both for illustrating my point so well. I needn't say more; it would be just gilding the lily. Scolaire (talk) 07:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• How odd: there is nothing illustrated here, except the fact you did not look into the reasons behind the interaction properly, or you would have seen that Norton was warring and ignoring all requests to use the talk page; while he was warring he introduced errors. You still have not answered the question of how you think this is a sensible way to approach article development. - SchroCat (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Wouldn't this be an issue to take to WP:DRN? Anyway, it would be good if Light show, and Cassianto and SchroCat, avoid talking to each other in regards to the article anywhere, not just on the article talk page. It may be that Light may have some useful comments, given the above exchanges, and that Cass's and Schro's comments, while justifiably angry because they've worked so hard to get this to Featured status, come out as too harsh. So, I'm not voting either way, but I think a topic ban doesn't resolve many problems if there are some useful suggestions, at least. In fact, an interaction ban would be more appropriate if considered. Epicgenius (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've tried avoiding interacting with them as much as possible. My few recent comments on Sellers' talk were to other editors who had some suggestions. They were logical ones, so I naturally chimed in to help. I was speaking to the new editor, User:Wordreader, yet the team members came charging over the hill like a bolt of lightning, with swords out:

Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. . . .

Needless to say, that editor, who later wrote: I find the comments of SchroCat and Cassianto to be disparaging and rude, hasn't returned. And the following talk editor has also left for good. The team should simply be banned from ever interacting with me or discussing me, everything would go fine. I have no desire to talk with them again, ever since I realized I'd been conned:

Hi Wikiwatcher. I've finished my major overhaul of the "Personal life" section . . . I hope that you'll agree this is much more balanced than it was before, or I'll be starting shortly on updating various bits, but any thoughts or suggestions are always welcome! Cheers, or please let me know if you have any better ideas—this is just an initial suggestion! --Light show (talk) 21:37, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If anyone wants any more examples of why this proposal has been made, Light show's most recent edit should provide enough reason of what people have had to put up with over the last two years:

You can be 100% certain that Blofeld knows exactly what he/they are again doing. The same as they successfully did to Sellers, ie. make it "incomprehensible", by making it unreadable. He/they quickly moved in with chain-saws and earth-movers to demolished 2,000, well-written, fully descriptive words of clear prose about his personal life. They turned it into a pile of rubble, as anyone can read here. The writing quality is enough to embarrass a twelve-year old. And that's probably the idea, IMO. The primary editor of that article had thanked me for improving the personal life material, after months of research and using numerous key sources. Blofeld is now beginning to demolish it like his team did to Sellers. I wonder what Kubrick and Sellers had in common? --20:21, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Enough is enough of this obsession with the Sellers article, with the constant sniping and complaining, and with continuing to spread this nonsense onto the Chaplin and Kubrick talk pages. DRN? I think we're way beyond that with Light show's approach. – SchroCat (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

So, no DRN then? Maybe an IBAN is better, as described above. Epicgenius (talk) 20:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

@SchroCat. Then maybe next time an editor goes to ANI about a general issue of uncivility, everywhere, you and your team don't hijack it into a proposal to ban that complainant from so much as talking on Peter Sellers. --Light show (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Most of what you say is wrong and a hinderance to the article, so maybe next time you will learn to think before you type. Cassianto^talk 21:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• For someone who claims never to be uncivil, you do an awful lot of uncivil accusations. There is no "team": there are individual editors who are making their own value judgements. As for something turning back on the complainant, it's called WP:PETARD, and it is the community that is discussing things here in an open forum! no "team" of anyone's. - SchroCat (talk) 20:59, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support It is not right or fair that editors who come here in good faith to work on this encyclopaedia should have to endure this sort of disruptive treatment, and for as long as as they have had to endure it. If individual editors cannot work on an article collegially then they should not be allowed to work on it at all. Jack1956 (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• I make 16 supports to 2 oppose a consensus to have Light show switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin etc including talk pages. Are their any admins looking in who can close this pantomime now? Cassianto^talk 21:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

You refer to having User:Light show "switched off on Sellers, Kubrick, Chaplin". Are you gloating? Bus stop (talk) 00:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If that makes you happy to call it that then yes. Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

You are referring to having "Light show switched off". Are you trivializing another editor? Bus stop (talk) 00:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question about speed editing: How does an editor, ie. SchroCat, manage to make 19 fairly complex edits to Sellers over a 1-minute period, which is 3 seconds per edit? When I use the term "blitz," I mean it literally. The three editors in question have somehow managed that feat a number of times. Here's some of SchroCats earliest edits. This is a compilation of those 1-minute changes That miraculous feat was immediately followed by DrBlofeld, who could do about the same number of (not-minor) edits in 1 minute. Not to be left out Cassianto was nearly as fast, doing 13 in 1 minute. Should Cassianto take a speed-typing class to help keep up? --Light show (talk) 01:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• They look like good edits. If made quickly all the better. Chillum 01:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not getting your point Light show? Cassianto^talk 04:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Much though I would like to be able to be that fast, the 17 (not 19) changes were over the course of an hour (16:11 to 17:11), not a minute. The same is true for Cassianto and Blofeld's edits. Whether a minute or an hour, I'm still not sure of either the problem, or the relevance here? - SchroCat (talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

My mistake. I've been used to looking at my clock up top with the seconds on the right. The relevance was that with such rapid-fire editing by three editors, there's less ability for anyone to check things or make corrections. Looking back, with up to hundreds of edits a day, the article was totally changed without little chance for previous editors to comment, proof, check facts, or edit the prose. Your're right, whether it's 19 a minute or 19 edits an hour, makes little difference. This happened on Kubrick recently. My understanding of the guidelines was that incremental editing for such major changes was recommended to allow other editors to review or comment. That opportunity was mostly eliminated. When established primary editors wake up and there's 100's of edits to review, the consensus-based editing system fails.--Light show (talk) 07:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that it made featured article seems to indicate that the changes were good. It is good when an article is racially improved over a short period of time, we give out barnstars for that sort of thing. The history is always there so that you can take your time reviewing changes and always find old versions. And yes it makes a very big difference if it is hours or minutes. Chillum 07:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained in an essay on tag teams, "it's a controversial form of meatpuppetry in which editors coordinate their actions to circumvent the normal process of consensus." Had the team acted in accord with consensus guidelines, this whole issue would not exist. A good early example of what kind of blitz editing led to this dispute. All very avoidable. --Light show (talk) 07:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When people gang up to improve the encyclopedia it is a good thing. Chillum 07:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that's an essay, rather than a guideline, let alone a policy, there is no tag team here. Try to WP:AGF and think that perhaps very active editors are working on an article to re-write an essay. That's not tag-teaming or meat-puppetry: that is how articles can be re-developed. They can, of course drift for a few years with no-one attempting to do much, which explains the parlous state in whch the Sellers article was before the re-write. - SchroCat (talk) 08:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I had to rub my eyes: Try to WP:AGF. Was that meant as a joke? I couldn't count the times you boldly interjected yourself into talk pages, where I'm talking to another editor, to make comments such as in Chaplin:

More bad faith silliness from LightShow? What a surprise! He's always in a state of shock if someone doesn't cast a celebrity in a glowing light and gloss over everything in a private life! - SchroCat.

I have never accused you and the others of BF. And like your other ABFs, they usually have almost nothing to do with the context of the discussion, but are made simply to PA a GF editor. I can find dozens of times you and the others, who edit and comment exactly alike, have started your responses, to me and others, with the BF label. I've come to ignore them long ago. Sadly, as this ANI implies, so have your 16 supporters. --Light show (talk) 16:44, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, no? Talk:Mike Todd ":No need to ABF by implying hidden agendas. My only agenda is to improve lead images that IMO need improving. That's why I didn't bother changing an image you chose for Red Skelton's lead, even though I also uploaded a different one last year. Yours was fine, even though it was much smaller. Lighten up." And the reply: Mike Todd talk page "If we're going to mix apples and oranges on Todd's talk page, let's set the facts straight re: your claim of not changing the infobox photo at Skelton: (add different image) (The original image is better in quality. Maybe a discussion should be started.) If the number of edits you've made to the Todd article and what they were are BF, then so be it." We hope (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

BTW, as I once tried to show, the article before your blitz re-write, went from a reader rating of 3.5 (very good) for "Readability" to 1, (incomprehensibe). And went from "neutral and balanced," to "heavily biased," according to the first 39 people who, amazingly, managed to read through it, and kindly took the time to give their objective opinions. It took me hours to remove the mud and battle scars when I returned after making that simple observation. --Light show (talk) 17:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly Drmies looked at your comment, and then at the article, and wrote of your behaviour that "These allegations, besides ridiculously untrue, are disruptive and I believe they are made in bad faith, a result of sour grapes." Just thought I'd remind you of that further example of WP:PETARD. - SchroCat (talk) 17:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Point being? You know that I asked him what "allegations" he was talking about, since I only noted reader's ratings, and neither they nor anyone responded. Although it was just another blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment, so thanks for noting it. --Light show (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Errrmmm.... Drmies is an experienced and well-respected admin, so I'm not sure I would class their judgement on editor interaction as a "blatant, irrelevant, uncivil comment", to be honest! - SchroCat (talk) 18:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume you concur with Cassianto's latest expression of civility. De ja vu all over again. WP's pillars are being mocked. --Light show (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

...again, your point is? Your being your usual, disruptive best on the talk page. Like I say, as long as the edits are constructive, any editor can edit anywhere and at any time they like? It's how the encyclopaedia is built believe it or not. Cassianto^talk 20:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Light Show has attacked Dr. Blofeld's changes that he has done over at Stanley Kubrick. (Here is Light Show's addition to the talk page today). He is calling Blofeld's 50-odd edits over a 4 month period (in brief bursts) as problematic rapid fire editing and a problem because Blofeld had never edited Kubrick's article before. Clearly part of this same battlefield mentality to try to get their way in the clear face of opposition, maintaining the battlefield mentality. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a better link to the full discussion, as it shows who creates the battlefield and how the pillar of civility is mocked. --Light show (talk) 22:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering this discussion has been open for 2-3 days now and a clear consensus seems to have emerged it would be nice if an uninvolved admin could close this. Chillum 07:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• I agree. Are there any uninvolved admins? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I am no fan of Light show/Wikiwatcher's editing, particularly with regard to their very problematic uploads of nonfree images claimed as free. However, this free-fire zone fails basic tests. Blocks and similar sanctions are intended to be preventive, not punitive. A topic ban on an article the user has not edited for months should go nowhere, and the poorly defined/justified extension to other articles is procedurally incoherent. This is exactly the situation where a well-structured user RFC is called for, and would be useful; I would hope whichever admin closes this discussion would take no action here and direct the complainants to file such an RFC if they wish to proceed further. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• The ban should cover the talk page, which is where the main disruption occurs. Comments such as this on other pages (in this case the Kubrick talk page) are symptomatic of the approach of this editor to the Sellers article—and seemingly to article re-writes—not just on the Sellers talk page, but others too. Hopefully the closing admin will take this ongoing widespread disruption into account when closing. - SchroCat (talk) 15:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

c. 1,400 administrators, and never one around to close when you need them - even after a four day wait. I've dragged this out of the archive in the hope that one of 1,400 can bring this to a formal closure before it is archived again. – SchroCat (talk) 06:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

I guess I'll step in, as an uninvolved admin. The consensus here is pretty clear. The talk page seems to be the main issue, and pretty much everyone who has opposed has failed to get that. I have not separately examined the facts, I am simply looking at the consensus of the discussion above. User:Light show, from what I can tell, you've done some excellent work elsewhere, but you are seen as going way against consensus on Sellers; consider yourself banned from working on matters related to Sellers, but your contributions on other topics remain welcome. - Jmabel | Talk 15:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Understood. I noticed, BTW, that these comments were deleted from this discussion, with no reason, and was wondering if that's acceptable. Apparently, I'm the only one who just noticed. --Light show (talk) 17:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering the timestamps, and the fact that RGloucester was replying on another thread, it looks like it was an edit conflict. It is not uncommon for this to happen without flagging up a warning to either party. - SchroCat (talk) 17:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think it would be an injustice to ban @Light show: from the Peter Sellers Talk page. I think that describing another editor in demeaning language is what WP:CIVIL is all about: "Troll elsewhere:your endless bitching and sniping is deep in the territory of tedium, and your toxic rumblings have done nothing positive to this article. You are too bitter about your ownership being swamped by losing in nearly every single RfC you started to ever see anything positive here, and you make yourself look more and more ridiculous every time you post another of your pointless messages, so do yourself a favour and take this off your Watchlist and move on." The above is abrasive, nonconstructive, and not at all conducive to collaborative editing. I think @SchroCat: needs to be informed as to what is expected in respectful communication. Bus stop (talk) 02:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

@Bus stop:, please feel free to start a separate complaint about User:SchroCat if you think his conduct rises to the level of an issue, but it does not change anything about User:Light show. The consensus here is pretty strong, and the sanction quite light. - Jmabel | Talk 02:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Wikipediocracy doxxing

Wikipediocracy doxxed a couple users, including myself (though who I am is no secret) and a minor. REDACTED NAMES PER ADMIN REQUEST. I'm not sure if they're Wikipedia editors, but if they are, their actions are wholly unacceptable. Is there any way to find out if these folks are Wikipedia editors? If so, I'd like to see action taken against them. Titanium Dragon (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not believe that any of them are current Wikipedia users. The Wikipediocracy is an external website not under the jurisdiction of the Wikipedia in any manner. More often than not though, as in this situation, their editorial 100% nails it, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, given that you've insulted everyone who was editing that article and trying to include information about the issue as misogynists, I'm not terribly surprised you agree with them. But your ill behavior is not at issue here. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm terribly sorry that misogynists feel insulted. Tarc (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Interestingly, one other thing we have in common is that, unlike the other users involved in the editing of those pages, we both specifically warned @NorthBySouthBaranof: about his/her behavior. Not sure if it is related. Do you know who these people are, North? Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:35, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I would warn you about your behavior in attempting to smear living people on the encyclopedia, but that's already been done numerous times by administrators who have had to repeatedly revision-delete your scurrilous nonsense about Zoe Quinn and Anita Sarkeesian. Given your penchant for making unfounded accusations about them, I'm not surprised that you're making unfounded insinuations about me. The answer is no, by the way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:39, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty serious allegation, or at least implication. You are understandably upset about what happened, but maybe step back and think about what you are saying, and reserve your anger for the four individuals at Wikipediocracy, one of whom is already indef blocked. Gamaliel (talk) 21:42, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know (or care) who the other three are, but if any of them are still active editors here, I'd support blocks for them. The fact that we cannot regulate what happens at other websites does not mean that we have to put up with the consequences of those happenings, here. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:04, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually not upset, more... grimly amused? I mean, I've never been doxxed before. Its like a rite of passage! People really hate me! Rather than the casual hatred they reserved for me in the past. I suppose I am somewhat annoyed at them on the other user's behalf, because, well, I'm an adult and used to such people on the internet, but they're a potentially vulnerable minority minor who now has their picture posted for the world to see in conjunction with their user name and some other personal information which could potentially lead to identification in real life (as opposed to the Internet, though it becomes more and more real every day, I suppose). I apologize for the implication; I just noticed it off-handedly while browsing user talk pages of people who were involved, in case the folk in question were users who had been on the page. Some people list their real life names on their Wikipedia profiles, or link to where they work or whatever. I'm glad to hear you weren't involved, North; thanks for your input, and I'm sorry I came off as accusatory. I have noticed you have been more civil recently, and I appreciate that. Titanium Dragon (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

On this whole bit, since I am one of the individuals who was supposedly 'doxxed' in this article. It's not all that surprising that people--instead of wishing to conflate or actually dissent with actual arguments, have to refer to finding all the personal information about it. It's a bit weird of an obsession, honestly. I am a real person, you can talk to me, I'm not some robot being inputted some commands by some 'higher up' person, so why wouldn't they fight with an actual idea, a post on my talk page, 'Why did you do X' or 'Y' or 'Z' on this page, and get my real thoughts on it. Instead, they have to use bully tactics, doxxing me and posting information about me. That said, it's obviously more safe for me to not comment about the validity of the information posted, for my safety of course. Tutelary (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action can be taken here. Wikipedia cannot regulate offwiki attacks, per WP:NPA#Off-wiki attacks. KonveyorBelt 22:49, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• We can certainly block them here if they aren't already blocked, but unless someone is going to propose a specific on-wiki action, we should close this thread. Gamaliel (talk) 23:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Then I propose that we block the ones who aren't already blocked, and then close this thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:26, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

That was all the action I could really expect/hope for. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't get the logic of people who do stuff like this. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wow. People write My Little Pony fiction? Drmies (talk) 00:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Lots of them. FIMFiction has north of a billion (yes, with a b) words of pony fanfiction on it. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• A link to some explanation of what the hell you all mean by "doxxing" would be helpful for those unfamiliar with this neologism. See Doxing. Otherwise we might assume it was related to "becoming a Doxy:" Floozy, prostitute, mistress. Edison (talk) 00:56, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Don't be such a luddite, Edison, with your old-fashioned "dictionary" full of dead, stupid words. Besides, you're wrong: a "doxy" is clearly a more economical version of User:Roxy the dog, with some metathesis or sumpin' thrown in for good measure. Drmies (talk) 01:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Isn't a doxy a little winged creature that Mrs. Weasley was cleaning out of Sirius' house? Btw, @Tryptofish:, you reverted my attempt to wrap this up nicely, so care to explain what you hope to accomplish by keeping this open? Tarc (talk) 01:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I trust that is no longer a serious question. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Why isn't it a serious question? What administrative action are you seeking here? Tarc (talk) 22:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well, it's obvious to me. Take a look at my 23:26 comment. If you wanted to wrap it up, I wonder why you have continued to comment afterwards, and in any case, you were more than a wee bit "involved". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hey, I resemble that remark. -Doxy the rog™ (resonate) 03:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• One of the editors involved in the GamerGate article dispute, Tarc, apparently commented this doxxing article in an edit summary when reverting one of the editors allegedly doxxed: "rv: Good for you to get together some editors who apparently squeezed a non-existent thing out of non-existent sources. It doesn't make t any more real, and it looks like outside eyes are finally getting in on this." I can't interpret that other than an endorsement or approval of the doxxing. Are these kind of shots at the editors mentioned in the article acceptable? --Pudeo' 03:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm pretty sure he's just talking about other editors looking at the article; people often refer to getting "other eyes" on stuff. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Though it should be noted that Tarc deliberately said (On Wikipediocracy, with the same name) I had fun on Wikipediocracy for awhile pretending to be a black conservative. Can’t really say why or when it started, it just kind of came about during some discussion or other, that it’d be fun to be something else and argue as if that was important. So I rolled with it. “As a black man…” can be quite an argument-buster if wielded correctly.

We can smell our own; Tutelary is complexly, Grade-A full of shit.

As for the rest of the rabble at the Zoe Quinn and related articles, it’s a continuation of the original harassment she endured; the overlap of white, single 18-35 yr olds who are both gamers and Wikipedians is sizable. Since Tarc is a Wikipedia editor, can anything be done about this comment? Tutelary (talk) 10:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that that wasn't someone who used Tarc's name to get him into trouble on Wikipedia? If we rely on Wikipediocracy comments to block Wikipedia users then Reddit comments are grounds for blocking as well. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 10:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that someone made a point about this by imposing as me on Wikipediocracy and commenting about my blocks, and even calling Drmies a 'nutjob' and such and complaining about an apparent 'feminist dominance' on here. This is growing to be quick harassment, only thing that's missing is the harassing phone calls. Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem with the anonymous comment section of a blog; anyone can be anyone, identity is not provable. Perhaps this will be one of those proverbial "teachable moments", and going forward you will be less dismissive of the harassment endured by Quinn, Sarkeesian, et al... Tarc (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 17:38, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I call BS. Every intentional violation of BLP is an act of harassment, as far as I'm concerned. Ask around about what Qworty was doing: it was harassment. Drmies (talk) 18:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

... and Qworty's little game was exposed by Wikipediocracy and its so-called "doxxing," I remind everyone. Then Qworty acknowledged the accuracy of this on-wiki and only then was the community capable of doing anything. So-called doxxing has its place and Wikipediocracy doesn't engage in it either frequently or lightly. Carrite (talk) 14:20, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Evidence suggests, TD, that you were outed because you attracted attention by behaving badly in public and by leaving a trail which made it easy to tie your behavior, good or bad, into a single identity with a real-world name. That's your fault, and in the real world, pointing over at Wikipediocracy and bellowing "they outed me!" is either a sign that you don't really care that they did that, or an act of colossal stupidity. Either way, the revenge you seek here is a childishness which should be disregarded in favor of a consideration of your sins at the articles in question, where you apparently are pursuing some sort of vendetta. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously blaming him for getting doxed? Tutelary (talk) 13:18, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why, yes, I am. People who don't act like that don't motivate others to find out why they are acting that way, and those who are so promiscuous with their identity do not find such curiosity so easily satisfied. Mangoe (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's an interesting moral quandary, isn't it? On the one hand, WP:OUTING is strongly forbidden by site policy, and it causes people significant distress. Some "outings" appear to have served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer. On the other hand, Wikipediocracy contributors have also successfully identified several cases of serious abuse of Wikipedia, where repellent behavior would have continued indefinitely if not for Wikipediocracy's "outing" (the cases I have in mind are those of Qworty (talk · contribs) and Little green rosetta (talk · contribs), although the latter seems to be active again now with an alternate account). We actually owe Wikipediocracy a debt of gratitude for calling attention to those cases, because these "outings" served a constructive purpose and likely reduced the real-life harm these individuals had caused. So... like most real-life ethical questions, it's not as black-and-white as one would like to believe. MastCell ^Talk 17:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

As someone who got doxxed for "behaving badly" by having opinions about BLPs, you can fuck right off with that. The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar. Protonk (talk) 19:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this is a response to me (based on the indenting, I'm guessing it's not), but in any case I'd put your "outing" firmly in the category of "served no greater purpose than satisfying the sadism or vindictiveness of some obsessive grudge-bearer." I'm sorry if I implied otherwise. MastCell ^Talk 19:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not directed at you. I was torn between just indenting for threading or pinging, but I figured it was less justifiable to "ping" someone and tell them to fuck off than it would be to just say it. Protonk (talk) 19:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

To respond to your comments that it isn't always black and white, that is true but in a really unpelasant way. To the person doing the doxxing, it's often completely black and white. Back in the day BLP apostasy was exactly that in the eyes of folks at WR and other places. BLPs were a struggle for the heart of the project and represented a real potential damage to humans based on anonymous work. We can look at them and say that this manichean view was unfounded, but they don't feel that way. The folks at Wikipediocracy are likewise concerned over sexism and harassment getting "justified" in the encyclopedia. Their concern "looks" better to us (after all, the gamer gate stuff is disgusting, but that's a story for another time), so we might be more inclined to view the outing as a necessary journalistic evil. But I don't think we need to dig too far into the piece to see that characterization as strained. The run down on TD from that article is basically "look at this fucking loser", which is par for the course with outing articles. Protonk (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

It's disappointing that nothing besides a lot of talk is going to come of this, but "The real world is the real world, but doxxing isn't some proportionate punishment meted out for sins, real or imagined. It's cowardly bullshit designed to chill speech and heap scorn on people from afar." I couldn't put it any better than that. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that none of you are meant to be speechifying in relation to BLPs, either in articles or talkpages, then chilling of such speech would seem to be a good thing and in accordance with this site's principles. John lilburne (talk) 23:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I'm sorry, but what are you talking about? Protonk (talk) 23:12, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:BLPN is that-a-way. Doxxing people is not the way to correct BLP problems. In fact, the spirit of WP:BLP is that living persons should be treated with respect, and even Wikipedia editors are living persons. meta:Privacy is another of this site's principles. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to BLPs no one should be engaging in any form of agenda pushing. The talk page of Quinn is an object lesson in agenda pushing, attempts to get inappropriate sources accepted, character assassination, and wearisome arguing. Such speech has, according to the rules, no place here. If no one here will get the house in order and freeze it out don't complain when outside forces do the job for you all. John lilburne (talk) 23:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@John lilburne: I was outed for being an admin and having the "wrong" opinion on wikipedia BLP policy and expressing that opinion in RfCs and on project talk pages. Not discussing subjects or whatever else. My point above was about the entirely bullshit notion that getting doxxed by some random person with an axe to grind is karmic punishment for "bad" behavior. If it is, it is only so accidentally. The main function is to make the outed person look small and feel vulnerable. Protonk (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act. It sounds like your situation was done to you out of vengefulness and spite, which isn't cool at all, and I sympathize if you were doing something good here. There are other situations, e.g. Qworty, where the revelation of an editor's identity was a good thing, as it unmasked some rather nefarious deeds. The right to privacy here isn't quite the same as a right to anonymity. Tarc (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

>Well like most anything n the world, it isn't simply black or simply white; "doxxing" itself isn't an inherently evil act.

It kind of is. If you have a specific criticism on someone, make that criticism. But doxxing is dumping a huge amount of info for the purposes of humiliation or intimidation. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 00:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it kind of isn't. Per my example above, Qworty was rightly shamed and driven from the project. That was about a textbook example of "good doxxing" as one can find. Tarc (talk) 01:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Qworty was, but if he was being criticized for a specific set of behaviors that's not doxxing. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that it is my contention that anyone editing BLP content ought not to be anonymous, that at the very least they should have there contact details held on file by the WMF I'm hardly going to be sympathetic about the doxxing of an admin. Sometimes it might be karmic punishment, sometimes revenge, sometimes simply for the LOLZ, it makes no difference. People put controversial things online under their own name all the time without any ill consequences. You deal with any harassment as it happens and the WMF should protect those that are targeted, but having the RL identity of a WP administrator or participant in BLPs isn't harrassment. You are relying on security by obscurity, that is really the wrong way of doing it. Al most all of you can be doxxed by a determined set of people. John lilburne (talk) 09:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mangoe:: The real concern with it is A) it is against the rules, B) chilling effects, and C) that they doxxed someone else who, according to them, was underaged and (possibly) transgendered. As I noted, I don't actually care that they doxxed me in the abstract, but if they were Wikipedia users who were engaging in conversation with me on the article (they weren't) and they wrote an outside hit piece on me, that would obviously be an issue, no? Especially if they were willing to do it against people who, you know, did care. The allegations in the article were false in any event; indeed, it was noted that several of the revdels were done in error, because they were, in fact, sourced and thus probably weren't necessary. A couple of them were probably necessary, but they were not done maliciously, and we discussed it on the talk page. The rest of their accusations were... what, exactly? That I was fat and jealous of Zoe Quinn, despite not even working on video game development? Given that the discussions can be seen over on the talk pages for Zoe Quinn and GamerGate, you should really look there to see whether they're, well, just plain old wrong. As they are. They're angry more or less because their POV is that it is all sexist misogyny; they are fanatics. The reality is that the reliable sources paint a much more complicated picture, with claims of misogyny being only one side of the story - the other side being that it is about something else. Actually, it is really about five or six different stories at this point, because the reality is that more or less Zoe Quinn was the ignition point for a lot of pre-existing conflicts in the gaming community, regarding corruption, nepotism, misogyny, the so-called "social justice warriors", insulting gamers, general toxicity of the community, and several other things. It is kind of stupid. But, well, I edit stuff about current events sometimes. It just so happens that this is a particularly dumb one which ended up becoming huge thanks to early attempts at censorship causing the Streisand Effect. At this point, it is being noted by the Taiwanese press as being worrisome because they're afraid that if people don't make nice by the holiday season, it might negatively affect console sales because people will see the nastiness and choose not to buy consoles (whose components are sourced in Taiwan), and instead buy tablets (which are mostly made in China). All this, over a dumb fight on the internet. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the Wikipediocracy blog piece that gave rise to this ANI thread. I'm no fan of insults to women's dignity, and I think that a lot of what is in the piece does a positive service (as indeed many of the blog pieces there do, in my opinion, because anything as big as Wikipedia can do with some skeptical watching). However, I think a useful thought experiment is to read the piece while mentally deleting all of the actual naming of editors. Go ahead, say someone is such-and-such years old, and they previously claimed to be such-and-such a gender, and so forth – but just leave out the personally identifying information. In terms of investigative journalism, the beneficial effect would have been exactly the same. But the addition of actually identifying private individuals (I wonder if someone could sue Wikipediocracy for defamation?) just makes it look like 4chan. Maybe the people at Wikipediocracy think that they are big impressive defenders of integrity who put Wikipedia's house in order, but to me the naming just makes them look like a couple of teenage bullies. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This whole conversation almost makes me glad I didn't know better than to use my real name when registered 8 years ago, instead of User:MsSmartyPants or something appropriate. Of course it also makes me wonder what to do when such information is revealed and an editor is being disruptive or POV pushing to the max. I guess nothing, except some how or other let them know that you know? Hmmmmm... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Pudeo?

Um, regarding this edit, which some unknown "Pudeo" decided to harp on...you have it wrong. "outside eyes are finally getting in on this" referred to other Wikipedians who had never been a part of older discussions at 2014 Isla Vista killings, not anyone off-site. It has nothing to do with "doxxing", and doesn't even have a connection to the Gamergate stuff we're talking about here. Tarc (talk) 12:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. Titanium Dragon already corrected me on that. And heh, don't be so confused if "unknown" editors comment here - that's the reason why issues are posted to ANI in the first place. --Pudeo' 14:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

A question

If such an issue reveals that a Wikipedia user, through looking at their contributions to an external site, has a conflict of interest or other viewpoint that makes them incompatible with editing certain Wikipedia articles, is that sufficient reason to take action here? I'm not entirely sure if this has occurred before, but I'm sure it probably has. Black Kite (talk) 18:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

you're not sure but you're sure? Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted. Typing at the same time as being harassed by daughter#1 to help with her Maths homework. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't want to ping/link and dredge up old drama, but yea, a year or so ago, Arbcom banned a user for edits made to Encyclopedia Dramatica regarding another Wikipedian. BTW, file an ANI on your kid for harassment, they'll send her to bed without supper. (in case there'a any confusion, yes, that is a joke) Tarc (talk) 19:40, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011, a user was indef blocked for canvassing on the men's rights site antimisandry.com and for using WP:Socks. The SPI was inconclusive but the off-wiki canvassing was too obvious to ignore. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Much as this sort of thing makes me uncomfortable, if the allegations that certain editors are pursuing an agenda against a BLP subject are true (I haven't evaluated the allegations beyond skimming the WO blog post), then I would say we most certainly should take action here. Most of us are here to build a neutral reference work. We get very hot under the collar about "paid editing" or "paid advocacy" but the corporate spammers are usually quite easy to spot and block. It seems to me that we should get much hotter under the collar about subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality, especially when it is directed at subjects who are real people whose lives and personal and professional reputations could be affected by a slanted Wikipedia article. Or do we have to wait for another Seigenthaler incident and a knee-jerk reaction to adverse publicity? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

While that sounds wonderful, if we really go after all the subtle, insidious campaigning which undermines our values of neutrality in addition to the more obvious examples then there will be few editors left to contribute to this site.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a start to restrict BLP editing to editors who have demonstrated that they can edit biographies responsibly. (This could be a separate user right.) As it is, Wikipedia is throwing BLPs to the vultures to pick and fight over. Andreas JN466 03:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we take a binding vote on this right now? Also, could WP administrators please start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy? In my eight years here I don't think I've ever seen ad admin step up and openly enforce that policy. Cla68 (talk) 05:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, could that BLP user right be proposed somewhere? We could extend it to all BLPs (though it would stop mistakes from being fixed, including by the subject), or use it as a new layer of protection for any BLP deemed problematic. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Found your proposal on the mailing list, March 2011. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

An intriguing idea. How does someone demonstrate that they can edit biographies responsibly when they're not allowed to edit them until they've demonstrated it? GoldenRing (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Submission of responsibly written and appropriately sourced biographies through AfC, for example, or solid research contributions to BLP talk pages. Andreas JN466 12:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm, it still smells a lot like the established BLP club marking their turf. How is this consistent with the third pillar? GoldenRing (talk) 00:56, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not about marking turf; it's about making use of the flexibility demanded by the fifth pillar in order not to have fucked-up biographies that make a mockery of the second pillar and aren't consistent with anything in the Foundation's charitable mission. Andreas JN466 06:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You can get in trouble for your behavior off-site, and I think that's absolutely okay. And if you admit to being paid or whatever to edit articles, or otherwise engaging in behavior against the rules, using off-site posting as evidence is perfectly acceptable. That being said, we should not be barring people from articles simply because they have some sort of point of view; editors are allowed to have points of view. You have points of view, I have points of view, we all have points of view. That's fine. What is a problem is when it affects Wikipedia. The reality is that the people most likely to edit articles are people who are most interested in them, which is going to inevitably and invariably mean that they have a point of view on them. The problem comes when they're unable to act as responsible editors of Wikipedia. As long as they are WP:CIVIL, maintain a WP:NPOV in the articles (remember, editors can have points of view, but articles cannot), and otherwise behave within the rules, there's no reason to ban them. In any case, it would benefit people for making false aliases for the sole purpose of editing Wikipedia to make it impossible to trace back their opinions and thus result in such bans, which is highly undesirable - having traceability is both useful and worthwhile. Frankly, if you conduct yourself poorly on Wikipedia and you have an obvious point of view, we can deal with it easily enough - and indeed, more easily than if we institute such a thing.

It also would encourage people to write attack pieces like this if they were "rewarded" by getting revenge on people they didn't like, which would be extremely bad. You don't want to encourage negative behavior.

The fact that Tarc commented on that article approvingly, for instance, should not be grounds for banning him from editing those articles - but repeatedly calling people misogynists on the talk page and elsewhere would warrant action, because at that point, he'd be breaking actual rules (namely, against civility on Wikipedia). I don't care if he is pro-social justice, and neither should anyone else; the problem comes when it results in edit wars, incivility, excessive POV pushing, ect. which are all actions on Wikipedia.

We have rules against outing people and suchlike for a reason, and we definitely should not encourage people to do so. Titanium Dragon (talk) 05:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

When editors actively push an agenda that could reasonably be construed as misogynistic, in tone or intent, said editors do not get to hide behind civility shields, I'm afraid. Tarc (talk) 12:22, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of anyone's agenda, WP:CIVIL is one of the Five Pillars and those who violate it are violating policy, I'm afraid. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What if an editor admits to hacking into others computers? I'd be wary opening links posted by an editor like that, I think it puts other Wikipedia editors at risk --81.129.126.66 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

If someone is admitting to engaging in illegal activity, at that point the police should be involved and I would recommend contacting the police/FBI/whatever agency is relevant in whatever country the user is from. People who post malicious/harmful links on Wikipedia tend to get banned rather quickly; reporting such incidents to admins is very important. Incidentally, if you are referring to the user who I think you're referring to with this, you can relax; the person who claims to be a hacker who uses the same username on various messageboards started using it back in 2007, while the Wikipedia user used a different handle until 2014, and they aren't the same gender; they're almost certainly different people, especially given the Wikipedia user's supposed age. A lot of people happen to have the same usernames on the internet; I may be the most prominent Titanium Dragon, for instance, but Titanium-Dragon (with the hyphen) on tumblr is not me, and there is a WoW clan which uses my name which I am unrelated to, having never even played the game. I've actually spoken to several folks who use my name over the years, making jokes with them about who the real one was. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:28, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Your name consists of two common words, however. When someone's shared handle consists of a non-English word and exactly the same 3-digit number, and they have clearly the same interests (right down to individual people) on more than one website, then I can think we can pretty much assume they're the same person. Not to mention there has been further links posted off-wiki, which I won't repeat but are 100% convincing. Black Kite (talk) 19:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite:: While I've been ignoring this because the issue has been resolved (and because I've been busy doing other, much more enjoyable things than argue with folks on Wikipedia), I will note that someone sent me a private message on Twitter which more or less confirms that said user is the same person. However, it also confirms that they're telling the truth on their profile; they identify as female, and have done so elsewhere since as of at least March of this year, using the same name and everything. As long as they're behaving themselves on Wikipedia, I don't really care who they "really are" and what they self identify as. If someone says that they're a lobster, I'm fine with that, as long as they don't try and edit all the articles about seafood to complain about the terrors of cooking their people alive and try to put seafood boil into Category:Genocide. Titanium Dragon (talk) 06:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're sure of that? [2] --81.129.126.66 (talk) 21:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

A new game and a suggestion

Anyone want to guess who User:PseudoSomething is? Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah, I know it's not difficult. Can I suggest, apart from the full protection and RD2 that is covering those four articles now, we simply indef any "new" editor who heads straight for those articles and starts with the misogynistic crap. There's only two possible reasons for it; they're a sock of another editor, or they're a meatpuppet. In neither case do I see that we're losing anything here. Black Kite (talk) 18:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Who am I supposed to be? Honestly? This is the first time I have ever made an account on Wikipedia. That is why I haven't even tried to touch the edit button on an article. I am trying to speak on behalf of the GG side because of a lot of the crap that has been said about us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 18:36, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, of course. Familiarity with Wikipedia (i.e. linking, indenting, reliable sources) whilst claiming you don't really know how it works, and then heading straight for another editor with the same criticisms as other accounts. Oh, and a user page that says "I'm New". Please don't take us to be stupid people. Black Kite (talk) 18:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I still have no idea who you think I am. I link to things because you kinda need proof behind it. I indent because I see everyone else doing it, and you add 1 : on each time you want to post under someone. Its just formatting, and every site has different formatting. Why should I post if I am going to fuck up the formatting of a ton of other people? I said my say to Tarc because he was pushing a biased POV and North (I think that is their name), because of my concerns. I put "I am New" in my user profile because I thought you needed to have that made for you to have a talk page, in case anyone needed to post something on there. Your calling me out for studying the formatting of the site before posting, for linking proof behind what I say, and for something I made to try to make sure I am within the confides of communications. PseudoSomething (talk) 18:49, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Just another sock/meatpuppet arrived to try to ram the "angry gamer POV" into the articles in question, showing up with an instant familiarity with both the Wikipedia and who's who in discussions that precede his alleged "new" arrival. WP:RBI and keep an eye out for the next one. Tarc (talk) 19:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

So far, yall have called me a misogynist, a sockpuppet/meatpuppet (I dont even know what the hell a meat pupper is), have said my learning the protocols of Wikipedia before posting were bad, I havent even edited an article and didn't plan on it, and your trying to silence me. Wikipedia can do IP's right? Since you would only find this account on my home IP. Is this how all Wikipedia users are, or just a minority? I would think a minority, because the admin on the GamerGate page actually talked to me last night (or was it the night before), and listened to my say on things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PseudoSomething (talk • contribs) 19:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Meatpuppet: (noun). A person or persons canvassed offsite in an attempt to sway consensus in the meatpuppeteer's favor. Etymology: a sockpuppet made of meat. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

What, you knew what all these things about Wikipedia were straight away (to which we can add "pushing a biased POV" and a clear knowledge of Checkuser), but you didn't know what a meatpuppet was? That's poor research. Black Kite (talk) 19:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew what a biased POV is because I talked about biased POV when others try to explain about GamerGate without providing the right info. Its a Point of View that is biased. What is wrong with that? PseudoSomething (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I will note that while PS's contributions are likely from the push from outside WP to try to balance the article (eg a bit of meatpuppetry), they have not tried to edit war , haven't put BLP in the talk page, and are provided some food for thought when the article gets unlocked, which I'm happy to listen to and consider. Yes, some of the behavior is consistent with socks but without other evidence and signs of disruption, we can't do much either. --MASEM (t) 19:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping Masem, I felt incredibly alarmed when this happened and didn't know what to do, honestly. I am trying to see how I can help balance the article, and I didn't even want to edit the article because of me being on the other side. So thank you for helping, it kinda calmed my nerves on this whole thing. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Holy shit guys, this is the reason why Wikipedia becomes a closed garden of old boys and can't get new editors. Am I now supposed to roll my eyes every time the Wikipedia Signpost complains that new editor statistics are going the wrong way? The moment someone new comes along to a controversial topic that's obviously making internet headlines, people are quick to jump on them, use disparaging epithets like "angry gamer" (thanks Tarc), and accuse them of being the neckbeard nazis. Assume good faith, you have no idea whether or not they are a genuine editor or an agenda troll; if they really are new, lead them to the right path (you guys were once newcomers to Wikipedia as well, stop pretending you guys were born with the knowledge of how Wikipedia works), and if they really are trolls, then give them enough rope to let them hang themselves. What I'm seeing here is sickening. --benlisquare_T•C•E 19:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, AGF only goes so far. When a brand new editor comes to a - let's face it - in the scheme of things fairly obscure article, displays obvious knowledge of Wikipedia, and takes up a theme of righting great wrongs exactly where another editor hsas left it - to the point of attacking exactly the same people for exactly the same things - then you have to say, either this is the same person, or there is meatpuppetry going on. There is AGF, and then there is naivete. Black Kite (talk) 20:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't call me naïve, and don't spin the situation to make it look like what people here are doing is completely justified. The #GamerGate hashtag was the top trending tag on Twitter for a significant period of time, until it was dwarfed by the #Destiny hashtag for a day (albeit still remaining active, and still has been ever since Adam Baldwin started the trend). Everyone interested in videogames and their dog knows about GamerGate, it's hardly a niche topic. For a scandal of proportions like this, it's a no brainer that people with opinions will come to Wikipedia, create new accounts, and make posts on the talk page about their opinions on the matter. People are using the boogeyman tactic because it's a convenient one. AGF is your responsibility, as a member of this community. --benlisquare_T•C•E 09:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

And those people will immediately pick one of the other contributing editors out (who hasn't actually contributed since their account was created) and start attacking them in exactly the same way as previous accounts, will they? OK then, that's clearly a total coincidence. Silly me. Black Kite (talk) 17:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you benlisquare. I really came to try to have the voice of the other side heard because it was a controversial issue, but I didn't even think of editing the article because I am on the other side of the topic. I felt extremely alarmed and kinda felt like crap since I was being told I was a misogynist, sock puppet, and meat puppet days after I created an account, the mocking from them didn't help either. I gonna do my best to get up on the WP guidelines though and see what I can do. Thank you. PseudoSomething (talk) 20:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI, between the actual doxxing, and the reporting of said doxxing, there might be a bunch of newbies on the article. So try not to WP:BITE the newbies. They're very likely to perceive it as censorship/harassment, seeing as that is the mentality they're likely coming from. If they don't understand stuff, be gentle. Dunno about this particular user, but people should try to be nice in general. Incidentally, the idea of the point of view and the neutral point of view being important are actually fairly well understood by many random folks on the internet who are completely unrelated to Wikipedia; they teach about it in school in the US. Indeed, one of the reasons that many of the gamers are so upset is precisely because they feel that many articles written by the gaming press do not adopt a neutral point of view. Just an FYI; familiarity with the NPOV is hardly surprising amongst this bunch. We may also see an influx of SJW types, who should be treated the same way as we treat the gamers. Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Titanium. I actually came before the doxxing, but wanted to make my voice heard about the other side, I didn't even think of editing the article. Your right though, Bias was just easily seen, and it was happening in the article. I didn't even want to edit it because I have bias on the other spectrum. I just wanted to provide the counter point of view.PseudoSomething (talk) 20:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose we site-ban Tutelary, Titanium Dragon and anyone else trying to smear the defamation of Quinn over this encyclopedia. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 11:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Add PseudoSomething to that list. I've just read through Talk:GamerGate. How much more time of genuine encyclopedia-builders is going to be consumed by these POV-pushers? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I propose that you stop proposing site bans for people who have committed the crime of commenting on a talk page. —Xezbeth (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You say that like I propose site bans all the time. I'm pretty sure it's the second time in 8 years I've ever made such a proposal. And I'm proposing they be banned because they're here trying to defame one of our BLP subjects. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd oppose such draconian bans. You're essentially silencing anyone who wishes to question the current state of the article, under the guise of "defamation". Exactly what defaming posts have these people made on the talk page? Above, there have been allegations by Black Kite that these users spew, quote, "misogynistic crap". Where exactly is this misogynistic crap on the talk page? I don't see it. I haven't seen any hate speech against women at all by these individuals; sure, they may have opinions that differ from other people, but that is not misogyny. I'd like to see you directly address and explain exactly what part of these editors' posts are so defamatory. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:01, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Not their defamation, the defamation and invasion of privacy that is the the root of this piece of misogynistic shit. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

"misogynistic shit" - again, you're throwing buzzwords at me, instead of explaining your position properly. What words have these editors said that justify a ban? Where have women been attacked? These editors are here because they believe that the page is imbalanced, and are trying to tell their personal opinions on the matter. Discussion is the core aspect of any constructive negotiation, you need to understand what they think while they need to understand what you think. Conveniently silencing them instead of addressing their points and refuting them is one of the most underhanded things you can do. Picture this: You are debating with an Armenian genocide denialist. Would you rather have a rational discussion with him, addressing each others' points, or would you prefer that he screams "AMERICAN IMPERIALIST DOG! TURKISH HISTORY NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS!" at you over and over again? Because that is exactly what's going on here. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:19, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

There is zero problem if the editors have a clear agenda, one that if they spelled it out, would be completely against BLP, but their behavior on wiki is all within the lines of BLP and they are not being disruptive or the like. If they are trying to back up what they think personally with claims from usable RS that support part of what they think and avoid delving into FRINGE, what is wrong with that? So far, save for a few IPs that were dealth with quickly, while I can easily read who is on what side and point out things we have to be careful with, there's no statements on the talk page against BLP, nor anyone being disruptive. AGF has to apply unless there's clearer evidence of a problem. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean like restoring BLP violations on the Anita Sarkeesian page and IP gossip at Talk:Zoe Quinn or adding hearsay about the suicide of Amanda Todd or defending statements like this one about Amanda Filipacchi? I'm not sure if you consider the Journal of New Male Studies for Michael Kimmel's BLP or the ex-boyfriend's blog for Zoe Quinn's BLP "usable" sources, but Tutelary doesn't consider the sources unusable in those BLP contexts just because they're biased. Or how about the Men's Rights Agency? And that's not taking the information about the editor into consideration that would get me accused of "outing" them. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I support a siteban for Tutelary per NOTHERE (in fact I was hoping the thread above would produce a consensus as to whether the off-wiki evidence can be used to justify a block). At most, I'd support a page/topic ban for Titanium Dragon because he seems to have an interest n contribution to Wikipedia beyond their slightly unhealthy fixation on this topic (though asking them to walk away voluntarily might have the same effect). I'm inclined to AGF (for now) on PseudoSomething (unless somebody wants to present more evidence), and I suggest we semi-protect all the pages (including talk pages) involved until this nonsense dies down an that admins closely monitor them and be prepared to sanction any editor who does not conduct themselves appropriately on those pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Talk pages should never be semi-protected if the mainspace article is protected. A good faith IP editor wants to fix a spelling error, but can't use {{edit semi-protected}}. What then? Wikipedia is supposed to be the free encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to, not your secret club of elite brothers. The administrative team is more than capable enough in dealing with troublemakers should they pop their heads out of the woodwork, blocking drive-by IP offenders who post any BLP-violating material on the relevant pages should be effective enough. --benlisquare_T•C•E 14:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• My secret club of elite brothers? If I was running a secret club of elite brothers, I'd have one of my secret elite brothers secretly and elitely remove you from the secret, elite club and secretly and elitely oversight that comment so that I could secretly and elitely get my way. Oh, and they'd go to WP:RFED to ask a member of the secret club of elite brothers to secretly and elitely make the edit for them. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Looking at both Tutelary's and Titanium Dragon's long-term edit history, they are not at all limited to this topic and especially in the case of Titanium Dragon I can't see he has even edited this topic before. Calling that an "unhealthy fixation" is simply false and incivil. I might add that one editor, who was in the other POV camp than Tutelary, did almost 500 edits related to Zoe Quinn/GamerGate in a few days. You're not calling him NOTHERE and fixated because...? It is also a bit nasty that doxxing is not taken with due seriousness and the thread is tried to turn into a boomerang just because you seem to personally disagree with their position in a content dispute. Get a grip, HJ Mitchell. --Pudeo' 15:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• What makes you think I gave a flying fuck about anyone's position in a content dispute? Editors should conduct themselves properly, both with regard to other editors and with regard to the subjects of articles, and if they don't, I have no qualms about sanctioning them. Oh, and in the case of Tutelary, pretending to be somebody else so you can push your POV is despicable and (in my opinion) ample grounds for a siteban. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have -not- impersonated anyone else, my name is Danielle and I am a woman, and you referring to me by male pronouns is especially offensive given that the only institution to express that view is Wikipediocracy, the institution which doxed me. Please don't do it again. Oh, and how is expressing a different opinion 'POV pushing'? Do you have any on-site proof of this at all? Period? Tutelary (talk) 15:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Where have I referred to you using male pronouns? If I have, it was unintentional—I try to make a point of using gender-neutral pronouns except where I know somebody has a preference. As to "on-site proof", that is precisely the point of this discussion, isn't it? If there was sufficient on-wiki evidence, you'd be indef'd right now; we're currently discussing whether the off-wiki evidence is sufficient presents grounds to ban you. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking into account benlinsquare's sage advice, I'll now support the very wise HJ Mitchell's more modest suggestion (minus the talk page semi-protection, per benlinsquare, again). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You're going to support site banning me? If anything other than doxxing me and harassing me, what did the Wikipediocracy state? They looked into where I edited the most. That's -nothing- in support of a sanction. I'm sure that a good amount of people have tons of edits to Barrack Obama's article, yet unless there is any problems with those edits, they should absolutely not be sanctioned for merely being active on those pages. Expressing a different opinion than other editors on an article/talk page is also not a crime that is punishable by death. Obvious oppose by me. Tutelary (talk) 15:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that you posting on the hacking forum? What is the risk that you might hack other editors here and steal their bank details in that case? --109.148.125.244 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary

• Given the extremely convincing evidence posted elsewhere, Tutelary needs, at the very least, a topic ban from any BLP. Frankly a site ban would be easier, but this is a minimum. I do not see an urgent issue with Titanium Dragon at this moment - they have moved away from the problems which led to their previous edits being rev-deleted. If you respond to this with a Support, please identify your preferred sanction. Thanks. Black Kite (talk) 17:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)m

What is the 'extremely convincing evidence' which you seem to have not posted? There needs to be extremely convincing evidence to justify sanctions against me, and I have not seen a single argument presented or a single set of diffs that I am disruptive in any way shape or form. There needs to be -evidence- and there is an extreme lack there of to justify sanctions. Obvious oppose. Tutelary (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban with urging to edit somewhere less controversial. KonveyorBelt 17:41, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support siteban/indefinite block (as above). If and only if that's not possible, I'd support a BLP ban, though it's woefully inadequate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose What an awesome bandwagon. Something that is posted "elsewhere" but is not linked to from here cannot be used as justification here. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Wrong, per precedent. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose insufficient evidence, has a very short block log (one short block that was good-faith unblocked). Just because someone has edited BLP articles and some of that information has been removed on BLP grounds (you know many living persons are controversial, right?) there's no reason and even so there is no pattern here. It is also disturbing that somehow this ANI thread (that wasn't even started by Tutelary) has become an absurd boomerang with no protection for those who were the targets of the doxxing, even using the doxxing article alleged information for borderline-harrassment. Exactly what related to GamerGate would warrant the topic here? How is this vote related to this ANI thread? --Pudeo' 19:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban. Knowing full well that this will probably only mean they'll be back with another account tomorrow. (Will support BLP topic ban if and only if site ban does not pass.) Andreas JN466 19:54, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• What evidence or implications there are that this user has been involved in sockpuppeting or would do so? --Pudeo' 20:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Anything to pry one of the misogynist warriors away from the battleground is a good move, as this user is clearly here to see that their anti-Quinn/Sarkeesian, etc... point-of-view is represented in their respective WP:BLP]]s. Tarc (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

  "One of the misogynist warriors"? You have been already asked to remain civil in this ANI thread by Titanium Dragon and by Drmies but now you have moved into direct personal attacks. Perhaps it's you who needs a cooldown. --Pudeo' 20:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• This Drmies sees no personal attack here. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I personally find the off-wiki evidence intriguing but ultimately circumstantial. That being said, Tutelary's on-wiki behavior has been unacceptable, as mentioned by User:Sonicyouth86 above. With defamatory edits like this and even taking someone to ANI for removing similar edits, she clearly shouldn't be editing BLP articles. And her pushing of unreliable sources shows she probably shouldn't be editing at all. Woodroar (talk) 21:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Your first diff was posted by an IP, not by me and the ANI was to make sure that the administrator was within his right to remove the section, and I closed it myself because it ultimately was. I don't see how that is ultimately disruptive to the project and deserving an indefinite BLP topic ban. Tutelary (talk) 21:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Defamatory material was removed on BLP grounds and you chose to restore it, which is no different from adding it yourself. That you had to take it to ANI rather than read WP:BLP is disruption to the project. Woodroar (talk) 21:20, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

This is rather weak. Coming to ANI for clarification and accepting the decision should not be considered disruption. If it were, any administrative action review which gets upheld would be considered disruption and would lead to sanctions for the person bringing up the review. --Kyohyi (talk) 21:23, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI shouldn't be a "is this really policy?" Get Out of Jail Free card, though it often works as a final reminder for editors willing to change. That ANI was in July. Restoring the defamatory material was in August. This is now a recurring issue. Woodroar (talk) 22:53, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Opposed. WP:HARASS 72.89.93.110 (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban for the reasons stated here. I think that a minimum of trust is required for interactions among editors and I don't know how the community is supposed to react when Tutelary edits particular BLPs and articles about websites like Reddit or when they write about what they – as a woman – were able to "shrug off". Feigning collective ignorance can't be the desired solution. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 21:33, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per HJMitchell. I'd prefer an indef block/site ban but in the very least a BLP ban for Tutelary needs to brought into effect--Cailil ^talk 21:44, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose The evidence brought here seems to be about good faith disagreements mostly. No evidence is presented of actual editing of articles in an inappropriate fashion. Just say no to lynch mobs.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question. I want to ask for the exact evidence for this proposal. There are editors whose judgment I respect who are supporting here, and I have no use for people who intentionally defame BLP subjects or edit in a misogynistic manner, so I am not (yet) arguing against the proposal. But, somewhat per the subsection just below, I'm unclear as to the reasons. First of all, I oppose enacting any sanctions on the basis of "evidence" posted elsewhere. If Wikipediocracy presents evidence of disruption on Wikipedia, please show the diffs here. Beyond that, it seems to me that editors are citing diffs presented by Sonicyouth86, including: [3], which does strike me as containing some BLP violation, but it's the only diff like that that I've seen so far, and by itself it isn't enough for sanctions. The other links provided go either to edits where I don't see a problem (but I might be missing something), or to discussions where I might disagree with Tutelary, but I do not see evidence of working against consensus, just of expressing dissenting opinions. This is a real question, and again, I haven't prejudged this, but I'd like the editors who support bans to provide the exact evidence. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It is likely there are many more, but they have been revdeled. KonveyorBelt 22:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point, but please at least point to edit histories where that has happened. If I were to see a whole bunch of edits by Tutelary that were revdeled, I'd AGF that the revdels were appropriate, and that would be evidence that would convince me. But the statement that it is "likely" needs to be backed up. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

The page history of Talk:Zoe Quinn, for example, from 11:05, August 23, 2014‎ to 12:18, August 23, 2014‎ was revdeled. KonveyorBelt 22:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I have just examined the entire edit histories of Zoe Quinn and Talk:Zoe Quinn, from the creation of the page up to the present. There are depressingly many revdeled edits by other editors, which makes me wonder why we aren't looking at some of them (and of course I cannot know about anything that was suppressed/oversighted). On the page, zero of the many revdeled edits were by Tutelary. On the talk page, three of the many revdeled edits were by Tutelary, and in all three cases, the revdeled sequence begins with an edit by someone else, so I cannot see whether Tutelary's edits worsened the situation or not; in one case, I see Tutelary reverting Mr. Stradivarius, so that might have been restoring objectionable material, but I do not know that for sure. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:56, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It occurs to me that I ought to ask: Mr. Stradivarius, what do you recollect about that revdeled edit? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: It was a proposed section for the article entitled "Scandal", five paragraphs long, written by Titanium Dragon. It was mostly well sourced and mostly neutral, but, in my opinion, some of the key phrases about Quinn were not neutral, and some of the sources used were not reliable. I thought that the problems were enough that it should be removed from the talk page. It was not so problematic that I would consider it as a base for any sanctions proposed here, though. I did think that removing it would be seen as being heavy-handed - and I was right - but I thought that it should be removed anyway. The edit itself was revdelled, not oversighted, so I can still access it. I can email it to you so that you can look at it yourself, if you like. (I see that you haven't set email in your preferences, but if you email me, I can email you back with the section.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 05:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Strad, thanks so much. That explanation is very helpful to me. And is it any wonder, in this context, why I don't enable e-mail and I take so many other precautions about my privacy?! No, there's no need to e-mail it to me. I'm seeing a very consistent pattern here, of Tutelary reacting to edits on talk pages by other editors. The other editors make what I think are helpful edits, reverting content that might violate BLP or reverting images that might be offensive, or closing discussions. Tutelary repeatedly objects to those things, and reverts them. If one looks at the incidences in which Tutelary has actually done something objectionable (in my opinion, at least), it always involves reverting someone else in talk space. Always. The obnoxious or BLP-violating material always starts with another editor, and sometimes that other editor is Titanium Dragon. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tryptofish: Are you satisfied with Mr. Strad's explanation of what was removed? Nothing which got revdeled from me was posted in bad faith, and all of it was sourced (though, as he noted, he didn't like some of the sources - and at the time, which was fairly early on in the whole thing, the selection of sources was fairly mediocre). It wasn't me randomly attacking Zoe Quinn; it was an attempt at improving the article, and it was all done in good faith. I've reviewed the WP:BLPNAME policy and other related policies since and I think we've all been doing a lot better on it. If you aren't aware, a lot of the problem is that the whole thing started out with Zoe Quinn's ex making a very angry blog post about her being involved with other people, but who she was involved with ended up triggering a bunch of very angry gamers to accuse her and those she was involved with of being corrupt (which actually ended up getting an official response from Kotaku, who employed one of the people involved - several sites also later went on to change their ethics policies to address some of the other issues which ended up being raised). Obviously the whole thing is rife with WP:BLP issues, seeing as it is about living people, and a lot of the really nasty stuff is fundamentally a stupid fight on the internet which ended up blowing up to the point of being noted by the wider press due to some attempts at censorship triggering the Streisand Effect, but given that the inciting incident is important to understanding the issue, it is hard to discuss the whole thing without mentioning it. It is obviously a sensitive subject and is a lot of "fun" to word right, but is also attested in dozens if not hundreds of potential sources at this point, and is noted as being the trigger for the whole thing, which probably helps us now as we can cite Forbes instead of a semi-obscure gaming website. Strad felt some of it wasn't neutrally worded and might be a BLP violation and revdeled it; we've since dealt with things a bit better, I think, and managed to see how to discuss said material on the talk page without issues with BLP. It probably also helps that it ended up in a LOT more sources after the initial discussion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, those are certainly arguments that I am open to considering, especially because I think that accusations are being thrown around carelessly and I don't want to see anyone get railroaded here. I'm at a disadvantage, because I'm not an admin and I cannot see the revdeled edits, so I certainly think that there is room for more discussion. At the same time, I didn't base what I said on a single incident. In looking over edit histories (and initially looking in terms of Tutelary), I kept seeing you getting revdeled again and again. It's been happening a lot. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

That was about Titanium Dragon's suggestions, which were based on some reliable sources, though some were questioned. He just did not provide the sources in the initial suggestion and so the section got removed.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell there was an incident that was about someone other than Tutelary where Tutelary just happened to be caught in the middle. The only other instance seems to have been a rapid Huggle reverting of unexplained blanking by an IP on a non-BLP article where the blanking did have a legitimate BLP basis, albeit not explained. Nothing I have seen suggests the kind of editing warranting such severe sanctions. I actually see one instance of Tutelary reverting alleged BLP violations on Quinn's page. None of this suggests a strong case for sanctions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban. Tutelary joined the gender gap task force, then sought to represent a woman's perspective in discussions on various pages (invariably posting against women's interests – e.g. "Fellow female editor here ... People here are getting mad that a woman's breast is depicted and I'm not sure why." [4]), while posting misogynist material offwiki. (This can be deduced from his contributions history and early account name.) If a white editor were to join a group on WP aimed at increasing racial diversity, maintain he was black himself, act disruptively around BLPs about black people, and post racism elsewhere, he'd be site-banned. (But if a siteban doesn't go through, then I support a BLP topic ban.) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:05, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• We don't ban people for telling a few off-color jokes on Reddit.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I find the comment at Jimbo's talkpage offensive, myself. Here are all the edits made by Tutelary at the task force: [5]. I've gone through every one of them, and I don't see problems there, although there seems to be a lot of objecting to closing of discussion threads. I think we have to be careful about basing bans on posts supposedly made at other websites. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban per the evidence given, to be fair here a topic ban is not forever if the editor in question can win back the trust of the community over time then I see no reason why it couldn't be lifted in the future. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
• About that evidence, what I see so far is [6] and [7]. Is there anything else? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:31, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Before the ANI, there was pushing to include gossip at Talk:Suicide of Amanda Todd. And before that, it was the statement that it's only a BLP violation if it happens on the BLP page. Woodroar (talk) 00:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done a lot of editing at "Suicide of..." pages. I looked at the Amanda Todd talk page, and although I do see some indication of edit warring, it looks to me like what you call gossip was based on some British news sources saying that the cause of death was hanging, and there was a content dispute about whether the page should include the possible cause of death, or leave it out. And the diff about BLP violation does not actually say what you attribute to it, and seems to me to be more nuanced than that. Again, I still have an open mind, and I am interested in whether I'm simply missing something. And based on the Zoe Quinn page history, I wonder why we aren't looking at sanctions against other editors, because there sure were a lot of revdeled edits there. But each time I ask for evidence, and only get weak stuff like this, I become increasingly concerned that the evidence is pretty thin. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Per the Private Manning precedent, if this user wants to identify as a woman named "Danielle," then this editor is a woman named Danielle, QED — at least that's the majority view of the nature of gender according to participants in that debate. Not my own perspective of gender but hey, majority: As ye sow, etc. As for the specifics of this incident, based on a diff cited above from the Zoe Quinn talk page, I favor a very narrow ban of this user from the Zoe Quinn biography. The call for a site ban by SlimVirgin above seems a gross overreaction — straight to the death penalty. Carrite (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I said this above, and had an edit conflict, but I'll repeat it here: And based on the Zoe Quinn page history, I wonder why we aren't looking at sanctions against other editors, because there sure were a lot of revdeled edits there. Really, there's another editor whose name came up earlier in this ANI thread, who has had a lot of edits revdeled at the Zoe Quinn page. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

As far as I know, the rev-del was done because the statements about the controversy on talk were not directly sourced, even though numerous sources existed to back the statements. So, if that is the case, then I don't think any action is really warranted.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose- basically, per Tryptofish. Those clamoring for a ban have simply not provided any evidence that this is necessary, despite several requests. I think the grounds for a ban are very flimsy, and appear to be based on a personal dislike for Tutelary and their political opinions rather than any actual misbehaviour, and I oppose at this time. Reyk _YO! 01:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support' topic ban for Tutelary, Titanium Dragon, Puedo. Most of the time on this page we have a problem with people who are alleged to be good content creators but cannot be civil or collaborative. Here we have editors who, at least in their dealings with me, have been respectful and civil but are unable to create content within the bounds of the rules of Wikipedia. Editors on this talk page have advocated edits that run counter to fundamental rules of the encyclopedia like RS and BLP. They have challenged first-rate sources like The New Yorker and Time using arguments that amount to conspiracy theories based on Tweets while advocating the use of poor sources, blogs, and forum posts. While, to their credit, they have expressed a desire to conform to our rules, an article involving a vulnerable target of harassment and the focus of intense media attention is too important and sensitive to serve as a learning space for editors struggling to grasp our basic policies. It is a mistake to frame this in a legalistic way, as a "conviction" for bad behavior where editors produce or challenge the "evidence" of their "crime" This is just a way of saying "you aren't ready for this article yet, please edit something else while you get the hang of how things work." Gamaliel (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

In the edit history for Zoe Quinn, Tutelary has made a lot of edits, and none of them has been revdeled (I'm not talking about the talk page here). Titanium Dragon has also made a lot of edits, and over and over, they do get revdeled. Puedo has not edited the page. I'm still trying to fully understand this, but it seems to me that Titanium Dragon has been the problem. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think I may have confused Puedo with someone else. Striking until I have time to review the relevant articles fully. You should also look at GamerGate and related articles. Gamaliel (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

What Trytofish said is true, I haven't edited either the talk or article pages of Zoe Quinn/GamerGate at all. I have been commenting things related to feminism/MRM, but very rarely done actual article space edits. To be honest, you probably just support bans for editors whose point-of-view you disagree with. I think it's evident from some of the other support-votes too. --Pudeo' 12:55, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for mistakenly including you, but one mistaken, unsupported allegation does not justify you making another evidence-free claim. You should step away from this issue if you cannot refrain from making broad, unsupported claims about the motives of numerous other editors. WP:AGF, please. Gamaliel (talk) 14:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Gamaliel. If there is something specific you'd like me to see at GamerGate, please provide a diff. I went through the entire edit history of the page and the talk page, and looked for revdeled edits. Although Tutelary made many edits, none of them appear to have been revdeled (again, I don't know about suppression/oversight). But, again, I do see Titanium Dragon having been revdeled. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Claiming to be a woman while posting misogynist comments. [8] Edit warring to restore inappropriate misogynist image. [9] then joining gender gap group. —Neotarf (talk) 01:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Cleavage is not misogynistic and . . . wasn't the whole discussion about the image? Seems like it was put there by a critic literally illustrating the problem with a ridiculously tactless decision by a Signpost writer.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I do not know if this person identifies as trans-sexual so it is best to be careful here, if they don't though which the editor in question gave no indication in this case then I understand why it would cause others to be upset. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

About those two diffs, [10] does not seem to be a problem to me, but [11] does. For me, that makes a third problematic diff. And I've already pointed out that there does not really seem to be a problem at the gender gap page – although I am starting to think that there may be an issue with talk page reverts. Perhaps there should be an editing restriction against reverting in talk space, other than self-reverts. --Tryptofish (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The person who started the thread on Jimbo's talk and posted the image did it to criticize the usage of the image here. I don't think that is a serious problem.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You don't, TDA? At this point, I deeply regret supporting your bid for Arbcom. I won't make that mistake again. —Neotarf (talk) 05:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You are suggesting a site ban because someone restored an image of boobs in a discussion that was about said image of boobs and claiming the image of boobs was misogynistic. I find that more silly than serious.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

You should read that whole thread, TDA, there's a lot more to it. But of course we won't be able to discourage women from joining the project by just posting a link to a disputed thumbnail image. In order to convince them that Wikipedia is just a bunch of predatory neckbeards who want to interact with them with only one hand on the keyboard, you have to actually re-post the image at a larger size, on a talk page with 3,169 page watchers, and make locker room comments about it. And above all, just keep arguing and reverting, after the image has been removed multiple times by multiple editors. —Neotarf (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess locker room talk has gotten a lot more tactful than I remember . . .--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Didn't read the edit summaries, didja. Or the in-line comments you can only see in edit mode. Hmm, I see you have typed the word "boobs" three times...—Neotarf (talk) 21:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I read the summaries and saw the in-line comment too. How many locker room conversations have you heard exactly Neo? Anyway, if you want to continue this discussion of boobs, then perhaps you should go to my talk page. There you can feel free to talk with me about boobs all day.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose So we can't out anyone here but if someone else does the dirty work we'll take it at face value and ban people on the say-so of someone who has a blog about wikipedia. Why not just hand the editors over there the mop? If you want to ban someone do it on the merits, not some low rent horseshit from some random website. Protonk (talk) 02:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually the administrators over there have been handing in their mops lately, interpret that as you will. Carrite (talk) 04:54, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support BLP ban only. At an article I was helping help build, Tutelary removed well-sourced content. In my experience, that is one of the clearest indicators of activist editing (please take note of this, administrators, so you can start enforcing the WP:NPOV policy). However, when I opined on the talk page that I thought the section was fine, Tutelary ceased objecting to it. So, I think it's ok for her to continue editing the topics she takes an interest in, EXCEPT for BLPs, because with BLPs there is just no room for activist editing. People's lives are at stake. Cla68 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Weak Oppose Tutelary does have a problem on talk pages with NPOV can affect her interpretation of sources. That said, I've not seen anything bad faith and I've not seen an active agenda pushing on mainspace. A short BLP topic ban may let her cool her boots but I think a civil explanation of what she's doing wrong, why its wrong and how to do it right would go a lot further to solving the problem. SPACKlick (talk) 08:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support With the additions they made to Zoe and Anitas pages, plus Tutelarys support of The Fappening articles, I find it hard to believe that this person respects the women whose articles they edit. I would suggest a BLP ban, or at the very least, one for the articles for women, as this editor seems to have no desire to break WP:BLP for articles with male subjects --109.148.125.223 (talk) 11:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is further evidence that Tutelary understands how WP:BLP works but only chooses to enforce it when it concerns men [12]. I am sure that a BLP ban for the articles of women only would suffice here --109.148.126.200 (talk) 15:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I was holding off posting this but I really think admins should see this link where a user called Tutelary acknowledges hacking a persons computer and stealing information [13] - you can read one of the images linked here [14]. Tutelary themselves has wrote an article on this website here [15], so I would say it's likely they are the same Tutelary. This is pretty crucial, as often editors email each other using links provided in the user space, a medium which would allow a user to spread malware through email attachments. For an editor who edits in politically charged areas, this could cause problems in the future --109.148.126.200 (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Hardly any evidence, people are often wrong in BLP, they happen to add just anything. I would just hope that this proposal would enforce Tutelary to learn some more. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong oppose on site ban. People calling for her to be banned for editing based on political beliefs is absurd. Anyone is allowed to freely edit as long as they don't force their views upon other editors and be disruptive. I support a short topic ban on BLP per SPACKlick's proposal above. Wikipedia isn't a political arena. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 18:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Support per SlimVirgin. Her analogy is apt, and appropriate. Site ban massively preferred. Topic ban (from everything BLP related, not just BLP articles) at the very least. Begoon ^talk 18:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban, per precedent of the Essjay controversy. In case you don't recall, Essjay was a highly trusted user that pretended to be a professor of theology to gain advantage in editing arguments. I have been convinced by the evidence presented by Nw on Wikipediocracy that our User:Tutelary is a male pretending to be a female to gain advantage in a "war against the feminists" on Wikipedia. I can't link to the evidence myself (an earlier support was removed by Tutelary and later oversighted on request from Tutelary although it didn't link to any personal information) but it is convincing that our Tutelary is the same Tutelary who writes about being "a guy" pretending to be a "a girl" in order to insert RATs, specifically Darkcomet. Our Tutelary added information about Darkcomet to our Remote administration software article.[16] It is convincing that our Tutelary, former User:Ging287 is the same Ging287 who complains about the "gyrocentric POV" on Wikipedia. Our Tutelary then claims to be a woman to defend posting a large bosom on the main page.[17] Nothing wrong with holding political beliefs, but per the Essjay precedent, pretending to be a woman to gain advantage in editing disputes is ban worthy. --GRuban (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment for anyone a bit confused at what happened there, Tutelary removed a post which linked to his activities on Reddit and elsewhere. If that's not allowed, I'll just quote this one (bear in mind that he is still pretending to be female on Wikipedia) "The exploit ONLY works for Yahoo messenger, sorry I didn’t mention that. But it’s good for pretending to be a girl, all it takes is, “Hey, wanna see me naked? <3" and you've got another slave.". Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Black Kite:, I am a female and I consider it harassment to continue to refer to me by male pronouns. I am a girl, and I'm going to respectfully ask that you refer to me as such. And where did you get that quote? I'm a bit confused by it, namely the terms of 'slaves' and 'exploits and are you supposing I said it somewhere? Tutelary (talk) 19:15, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK - to be clear, are you clearly stating that you are not the person on those two external sites with exactly the same username as your previous one here, and who is interested in exactly the same issues, with exactly the same viewpoints, on those forums as you are on here? If so, how do you explain that astonishing coincidence? I will be quite happy to apologise and withdraw if you can do that. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't answer if you don't provide the names of the sites. But please don't link them here, but say their names. I can do my own sleuthing to find the account links. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Since the title of this section is "Wikipediocracy doxxing", perhaps I can suggest you read their article and the comments on it? Oh hang on, I can see from the above postings that you have actually read it. Which means you do know the names of the sites. Here's a fact for you - we're not idiots here Black Kite (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I have not read the comments since the first day because they were all constantly making salacious and offensive comments about me and my supposed off site connections. Plus, as I mentioned within the 'it should be noted' section my heart pressure was spiked and my heart was pacing every single time I thought about it. It's still bad right now, but manageable. I figured that if I continued looking at the article and subsequent comments I would have panic attacks. So I didn't. I did know about Reddit but not the bit about Hackforums. I have accounts on neither. Also, Is that why everybody is getting their pitchforks? Because there's somebody with the same name as me on Hackforums and Reddit and think it's me? Oh, and because I had that sandbox article? Well I think I can cut this straight right now. I began to write that article because Hackforums is one of those 'underground' hacker forums that constantly gets well-deserved flak when actually written about in RS, yet hasn't had an article as of yet. I also found it somewhat stupid that people would register on it and brag about their illegal activities, and they deserve what they get coming to them. Anywho, I never actually submitted it because I talked to the protecting administrator (who fully protected the title because members of the site were subsequently spamming the site which was obviously not notable at the time on Wikipedia) who said the article was not up to par. The only reason it was on my radar even is because Miss Teen America got hacked by a member from the forum and googling 'Hackforums wikipedia' came up nothing so I wantd to write the article. Tutelary (talk) 20:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Reddit user Ging287 discussed this revert on Reddit 5 months ago with another Redditor, who complained that that edit reverted an addition he had made. Redditor Ging287 said: "Hello. I was the one who reverted your edit. It was due to the specific wording that you attempted to use." At the time, Ging287 was Tutelary's user name here. More such parallels between Ging287's discussions of Wikipedia on Reddit and Ging287's/Tutelary's edits here can easily be found. Andreas JN466 20:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that this Reddit post, where Redditor Ging287 claimed ownership of Tutelary's edit here, has now been deleted on Reddit (though an archive copy is available). This seems like another remarkable coincidence, and I do not believe Tutelary's comment above, "I have accounts on neither", was truthful. There has been some discussion of this on my user talk page. Andreas JN466 19:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously baiting editors to restore the diff link for the quote so that you can have their answer oversighted again and maybe have them blocked? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 19:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a loaded question, like 'Have you stopped beating your wife?' I've done nothing of the sort, but it appears that since Black Kite is the one that proposed this whole thing, it should be a given that I should understand their position, including where I supposedly said something. Tutelary (talk) 19:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the two accounts was on Hackforums. You know, the one you're writing a sandbox article about. User:Tutelary/sandbox/Hackforums. By complete coincidence. --GRuban (talk) 19:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary, you deleted the comment that contained the diff for the quote. Then you had the comment and the diff oversighted. And now you innocently request that someone tell you where you said that stuff about pretending to be a woman. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 20:28, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're confused by the term 'slaves', User:Tutelary, you should read the excellent explanation of that term added to Wikipedia by User:Tutelary here. Andreas JN466 20:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I really just forgot about the article since talking to the protecting admin and just let it be. I don't remember things forever, especially things I wrote 3 and a half months ago. Tutelary (talk) 20:14, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I see you write above your first name is Danielle? The user Tutelary on Hackforums actually uses the same name in one thread. Not the thread he writes "I am a guy" in. Uses the last name and everything. The same last name you use in an account on a Wikipedia-related site that I guess you will admit is you. Weird coincidence, huh? --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, I had asked for clarification, so thank you for expanding on it here. At this point, I can pretty much see what is going on here. I don't know if what it says at Wikipediocracy is true or not, but I'd speculate that the odds are greater than 50% that it more or less is true. What neither Black Kite nor anyone else has been able to provide are diffs of Tutelary actually adding BLP-violating material to mainspace pages. So, for the sake of conversation, let's just suppose that Tutelary is, hypothetically, a horrible person in the real world. When people who are horrible people in the real world come to Wikipedia and act disruptively, we sanction them for the disruption. But if we were to ban every Wikipedia editor who is a messed-up person in real life, based on who they are in real life and not on something that can be documented by diffs here, well, there would be a lot fewer longtime editors here. And if we ban them for not being who they claim to be, well, I claim to be a fish, but I don't make disruptive edits. I do see some things that Tutelary has done that merit some kind of action, but I don't want to base it on WP:ASPERSIONS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not Black Kite, but for me, I'm not asking Tutelary be banned for being a horrible person in the real world, just on Wikipedia. I'm asking Tutelary be banned for writing "as a woman I say X", multiple times, in editing discussions where being a woman clearly gave cachet, when it seems Tutelary's not a woman ... (and was expressing an opinion counter to that of most women in the discussion). That's basic disruption of Wikipedia, and it's what Essjay controversy was about. Women have it tough enough on Wikipedia, that having "a guy" pretend to be one of them to disrupt discussion is pretty bad. --GRuban (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

^^^This. We want to remove the gender gap? Well, remove people playing juvenile impersonation games to undermine those efforts. Simple. Begoon ^talk 20:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

GRuban, you raise an issue that I care about very much. But if I parse what you said, you object to Tutelary gaining cachet based on what may well be a false persona, and to a lesser extent to Tutelary "expressing an opinion counter to that of most women in the discussion". I hope that it's obvious that we shouldn't ban editors for expressing unpopular opinions, with respect to that last part. As for the main part of your concern, I'm in favor of some editing restrictions in talk space, but I think that there is little likelihood of "cachet" going forward, and "cachet" is in the eye of the beholder anyway. Editors are free, going forward, to assign Tutelary's opinions the same value they might give to a male editor's opinions, instead of a female editor's opinions – and I hope that you can see the pitfalls of even treating those opinions differently in the first place. But, again, I do note that there are talk space problems, noting also that everything cited below by Cúchullain is also in talk space. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's like saying that someone who is known to use sock puppets to comment 5 times in a discussion under different names shouldn't be banned because from this point forward editors would be free to ignore 4 of them. We should and do ban people for Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, and we did ban Essjay for pretending to be a professor of theology in arguments where that matters, and we should ban Tutelary for pretending to be a woman in arguments where that matters. Discussion is very valuable for us. I have nothing against someone expressing an unpopular opinion, (you'll notice I didn't weigh in on the bosom discussion!) but when that someone says "I'm a member of group X, so my opinion is extra valuable", and they're not, that's just as fundamental disruption as WP:SOCK: "attempts to deceive or mislead other editors, disrupt discussions, distort consensus". It's just the same if they wrote their opinion 5 times under different names, or if they claimed to be a professor of theology in a topic where that would matter. It's a ban-worthy offense. --GRuban (talk) 21:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that your analogy is flawed. A sock-er gains multiple !votes, and that's very disruptive. Someone who says "I'm a member of group X, so my opinion is extra valuable", is only disruptive to the extent that other editors accept as true that claim of extra value. I edit, for example, many neuroscience pages and it just so happens (so I claim!) that I've been a neuroscience professor in real life. But, even though I just said that here, I never say that in talk page discussions on those pages (except one time when I declined a request to comment because of a COI). That's because I don't care if some editor is a Nobel Laureate – if they make a bad edit, I'll revert it. And if a schoolchild makes a good edit, I'll support it. This isn't the same thing as Essjay, because Essjay parlayed the misrepresentation into advanced permissions. And, in fact, you haven't really proved that Tutelary isn't a trans woman. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

!votes? There was no !voting in the bosom photos discussion, there was merely a decision - should we have a photo of a bosom on the main page? And since arguably the main issue there was "is it offensive to women?" - the voice of someone who said they were a woman was easily worth 5 who said they weren't. Same for joining the Gender Gap project - the voice of an editor claiming to be a woman is easily more valuable in getting more women to join than any number of people who don't claim to be women. Sure, we haven't "proved" Tutelary isn't a trans woman; but we can hardly do a DNA analysis. We have proven she's a troll, who happily claims to be "a girl" to install RATs, then says she's "a guy". I think that's plenty indicative she's a similar troll who claims to be "a girl" (this time quoting her above!) to disrupt Wikipedia. See SlimVirgin's analogy of someone claiming to be black when joining a racial diversity project. --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the analogy is WP:ASPERSIONS. If it makes you feel any better about my position, I do support restrictions on Tutelary in talk space. Sincerely, I really do care about making Wikipedia a more welcoming place, but I think that you and I are going to have to agree to disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban (or a fallback to feminism and BLP ban) per Essjay controversy. Pretending to be someone who you are not for the benefit of winning debates and pushing an anti-feminist POV does not engender trust. Although oversighted, the evidence is fairly clear. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC) Per a request by Tutelary, I will edit my comment to say that I find this user highly untrustworthy due to off-site behavior. This behavior has manifested itself on Wikipedia as POV-pushing and disruption, some of which is plainly in this thread itself. Continued, stubborn insistence of innocence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is perplexing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 18:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Given the seriousness of BLP articles here on Wikipedia is there a way of matching up the IP address used on the other sites with the one used here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban or site ban for Tutelary. Here are all of the diffs that have been presented in this wall-of-text in which Tutelary has added BLP-violating material to Wikipedia articles: there aren't any. But I would support a BLP topic ban for Titanium Dragon, who has made enough such edits to justify the sanction. And, I would support an editing restriction on Tutelary, forbidding reverts (except self-reverts) in talk page space, because everything where Tutelary has edited badly really consists of that. And I think we should also caution some of the supporters in this discussion about WP:ASPERSIONS. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support ban. Edits like this BLP violation are just symptoms of a much wider pattern of inserting, or advocating for inserting, poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of living women. Though individual edits and comments generally avoid violating the letter of BLP, discussions like these[18][19][20] show a clear tendency toward inserting negative material about living people based on questionable or unusable sources. Even if we assume good faith about Tutelary's intentions (which is a big assumption at this point), they clearly lack the competence expected of editors dealing with highly sensitive BLP topics, and they take up a considerable amount of other editors' time and energy. It simply shouldn't be so difficult for Wikipedia to channel problematic editors away from topics where they can cause serious damage, whether it's towards topics where they can be productive (through a topic ban), or toward another hobby altogether. On another note, it's also time to look into sanctions for Titanium Dragon and editors who have been disrupting these articles recently.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:52, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that I shouldn't have the obligation nor the will to report another administrator's decisions up for review? Are you saying that in the terms of that I think wider input should be sought, I should not do a RfC? And to the fact that I 'lack competence', I do not, and that is plainly a personal attack. CIR is cited often when a user does not learn after an incessant amount of guidance, help, among other things, that is not the case here. The two that you cite are months and months old and appear to be only be useful in this discussion because there is shant a shred of recent evidence that I've been disruptive other than that misinterpreted diff. It's plainly obvious of that when you have to cite a RfC that was done when the dispute was still fresh, and a review of an administrator's authority and BLP policy. The diff of me restoring the talk page comment was actually a misinterpreted; I had the impression that NeinL had a problem with specific portions of the comment and that it was salvageable overall. I reverted only once. Indeed, in the next diff, you can see that I removed what I thought NeiNL thought was objectionable and then NeinL reverted again with further clarification and I did not revert again because it was evident that it was not salvageable. Tutelary (talk) 21:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Making a few problem edits and comments and then improving is one thing. Making the same problem edits again and again, over the course of months, and across multiple articles and forums, as you've been doing, is a serious problem. This is incompetence at best, if not outright intentional tendentious editing. In neither case should you come anywhere near a biography of a living person again.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cuchullain: - Please note that we actually can go back two revs and see what the content in question was (why it wasn't revdeled, I can't say, but only that particular edit was); the content did not originate with Tutelary, and the content in question was an post about being censored and about how the main gaming journalism websites were biased in their own favor from a third party. The post was probably not the best thing in the universe, but the problem was that some folks had been reverting every attempt to discuss some of the issues involved, which have been, at this point, reliably sourced. Banning them over revving back to something someone else posted, especially given that their reason was "delete the BLP violating information and leave the rest", isn't something I would consider a bannable offense at all. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Restoring some's flagrant BLP violation by edit warring is equally as bad as making the violation yourself. Especially when it's part of a larger pattern of BLP issues such as I linked to. What you "consider" carries no weight given your own various BLP violations. Neither of you should be editing BLPs.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose site or topic ban for Tutelary; though i have the highest respect for Black Kite and others who have commented or opined here, it simply isn't reasonable, in my view, to say, "Oh, there's evidence, but i'm not showing it to you, just take my word for it". Perhaps there is, perhaps there isn't, but if i cannot see it (and, no thank you, i don't care to go searching off-site for it), it isn't convincing to me. Cheers, Lindsay^Hello 22:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  Er - it's been posted, deleted, and oversighted. What do you suggest, Lindsay? How shall we show it to you? --GRuban (talk) 22:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  • (edit conflict) Lindsay, we can't show you the evidence because every time someone presents any it gets oversighted away (Tutelary's adherence to policy improves remarkably when it suits Tutelary). The evidence that Tutelary has behaved inappropriately on BLPs is all above and in Tutelary's contributions. The evidence that Tutelary is an agenda-driven POV warier rather than a misguided newbie relies on analysis of their comments elsewhere on the web, and the evidence that they are not who they say they are was posted by third parties to Wikipediocracy. It's not difficult to find, but people who don't care to explain themselves to us mere mortals won't allow it to be posted on the wiki. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

HJ Mitchell, are you really doubting the oversight team here? Oversight is important to the wiki as personal information should just be left to be discovered via page history or even be left on the page itself. Oh, and I've heard of administrators who today only use their administrative actions to read revdeletions, make a post a month to keep their mop, and Oversight even protects against those snooping eyes as well. If you have a complaint, you can address it to Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Audit_Subcommittee. But do read WP:OVERSIGHT, in which one of its purposes is to protect privacy. Tutelary (talk) 23:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with both those processes. You forget, I was elected as an administrator to protect this project form people like you long before you created your account. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:18, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • I've done a bunch of revision deleting on those pages, and I don't have oversight powers, so those revisions are still accessible by mere mortal administrators like ourselves. Gamaliel (talk) 02:16, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. So, the police have found that a person's behavior may be problematic, but the police is not the prosecutor and the prosecutor is not the judge. Based on the evidence so far, first make a strong case that Wikipedia has been edited in an inpropriate way, if this is found to be the case let's discuss with the editor to make sure this won't continue. If this fails, one can start to think about sanctions to protect Wikipedia from problematic editing by the editor. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose a community site ban based only on evidence provided on Wikipediocracy. Wikipediocracy should not be considered a reliable source. If there is non-public information available that User:Tutelary has in fact engaged in gender misrepresentation, then ArbCom is the appropriate authority to impose the ban. To repeat, I oppose any action based solely on information posted by an unreliable web site whose purpose is to attack the Wikipedia community. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Robert McClenon, the information is quite public. It consists in public posts, made by what is evidently the same individual, on hackforums.net and Reddit. There is no need to involve Wikipediocracy at all. Andreas JN466 23:09, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - I agree that gender misrepresentation does deserve a ban. I just don't see that the evidence of gender misrepresentation is satisfactory. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - It appears that the main BLP issue has to do with Zoe Quinn. So many of the edits to Zoe Quinn have been either redacted or suppressed (a non-admin cannot tell the difference) that it is difficult to determine who the offenders were. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert, as one non-admin to another, you can see somewhere above where I went through all the edits at Zoe Quinn, and (at the page, not the talk page), none of the revdeled edits were by Tutelary, but quite a few were by Titanium Dragon. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support siteban per SlimVirgin. Lightbreather (talk) 22:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose for a number of reasons, but mostly per Tryptofish's analysis of the situation. First, temporarily ignore all of the accusations of Tutelary being a man and pretending to be a woman, and look at their contributions to Wikipedia. If another editor had the same set of contributions to Wikipedia, without any of the gender impersonation issues, would you be supporting a BLP ban or a site ban for them, based on those contributions alone? Probably not. I haven't seen diffs of anything so extreme that a ban is required. Second, the gender impersonation issues aren't provable, nor are they a valid reason to ban anyone, even if they were proven to be true. There is no Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from misrepresenting their gender, therefore there is no policy-based rationale to block someone for it. It's certainly not something that I would do myself, nor would I encourage others to do it, but that doesn't mean that I need to force my beliefs/principles/values on other people. If you get off on telling people that you're an 89-year-old blind albino Icelandic princess when in reality you're a 23-year-old dude living in your parents' basement, then go for it. This is the internet; there is never a reason to trust someone's claims about themselves. Finally, I oppose a ban based on off-wiki evidence that can't be posted on-wiki because the evidence itself violates Wikipedia policies. Such a ban would be a reward to those individuals who spend their time scouring the internet to expose the personal information and identity of Wikipedia editors with whom they disagree, and it would only encourage them to continue doxing other editors (maybe it'll be you next time). Doxing someone can be potentially traumatic and can potentially affect the target’s life, their family, and damage their livelihood. It should not be tolerated on- or off-wiki, and it cannot be rewarded. Exposing someone’s private information is an extremely disproportionate reaction to the transgressions that Tutelary is accused of. I believe that Tutelary has gone through enough, and I believe that this event is likely more than enough to cause Tutelary to behave in an appropriate manner, should they choose to continue editing here. ‑Scottywong| yak _ 23:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

  "There is no Wikipedia policy that forbids an editor from misrepresenting their gender [...] If you get off on telling people that you're an 89-year-old blind albino Icelandic princess when in reality you're a 23-year-old dude living in your parents' basement, then go for it. This is the internet; there is never a reason to trust someone's claims about themselves." Wikipedia "is an entertainment, an annoyance, a distraction, a put-on, a reading experience, a performance, a series of ironies, an inversion that you do or do not get. At times you might read excerpts from these texts in the news and you might take them—at your own peril—at surface value. Which any college English freshman would warn you not to do. And which any graduate student in literature would laugh at you for doing. Ever onward, mate. Andreas JN466 00:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

  I had never seen that before, but it is quite apt and I enjoyed it immensely. "Wikipedia is not reality and nothing happening on Wikipedia—or 'behind the scenes at Wikipedia'—is real. So get the fuck over it." Thanks ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 14:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm glad it amuses you, Scotty--but what Qworty is saying, of course, is that we should wipe our asses with the BLP policy. "Not real": we're talking about someone who for years abused Wikipedia to settle old scores. Ask those people how not real it was. I would hope that an administrator here would take these matters a bit more seriously, since BLP violations, unlike what that "writer" had to tell us on his soapboxy userpage, are not victimless crimes. Andreas, your point is well taken. Drmies (talk) 15:15, 13 September 2014‎ (UTC)

• Support siteban pr Jayen466 and SlimVirgin, Huldra (talk) 23:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - have not seen demonstration of any strong problems with editing by Tutelary. Claiming real life credentials for something that the users are not including gender, occupation, degrees, race, ethnicity, age, residence, etc. is wrong but it is hardly a bannable offence (maybe deserves a warning). Wiki rules are specifically designed to avoid reliance on editor's claims and the case may be a good reminder for this. Alex Bakharev (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• I don't know if I'm ready to vote for a ban on anything--but I find Tutelary's editing incredibly problematic. Right now I really doubt their competence, and this after teasing out a couple of diffs on Cunt and some chatter on the talkpage, including quite insulting remarks and an attempt to evade--Gobonobo knows what I'm talking about. Drmies (talk) 04:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see a competence issue there. That thread is a perfect example of what Tutelary and Tutelary's mates have been doing with considerable success at the gender gap task force: transparently specious "argument" and unfounded opposition to frustrate and demoralise genuine editors. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose especially per Count Iblis's comment below, and those by Alex Bakharev, Tryptofish, Robert McClenon, and Scotty Wong above. Some folks here clearly wish to silence (via bans/blocks) or WP:Censor editors with whom they strongly disagree (the underlying motivation here). Some are willing to blatantly ignore WP policies to achieve that end. That intolerance of intellectual diversity, and efforts to curb free and open discussion, reveals WP:NOTHERE. This is not what WP is about. WP has never been about who someone is, it is about what they have contributed to the project. Memills (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean your kind of "intellectual diversity" and the editing that got you topic banned indefinitely from all men's rights related pages and discussions? Haven't you been arguing that those your consider "gender feminists" and supposedly "feminist" sources should be excluded as RS? Tutelary defended your contributions in that topic area like your problematic BLP edits in Michael Kimmel's BLP where you kept adding negative commentary to the page based on an opinion piece in an unreliable men's rights journal. Don't get me started on the role Tutelary played in enabling disruptive, POV driven editors in the men's rights topic area. By the way, please let me know when that ArbCom case you and Tutelary discussed is on the way. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 11:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

As usual, it is stunning to watch you misrepresent facts, eschew accuracy, and lob ad hominems in an agenda to silence editors that challenge your POV. Exemplifies the very point. And, it is not lost on the editors here who ask: "Where are the diffs? They're aren't any." Memills (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I fail to see any evidence of disruption here on WP, where are the DIFFS supporting a similar request? Unconvinced there is a problem, sorry. And banning on the basis of a wikipediocracy article investigating the off-wiki identity of an editor would be a terrible precedent. Cavarrone 13:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
• Are you crazy? No. Strongest possible oppose. I don't see a single diff of any disruption. We're going to start banning people for someone at wikipediocracy posting something about her? Cheers, Thanks, L235-Talk Ping when replying 14:50, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The difs in question are oversighted on Quinns page --109.148.126.200 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Incredibly strong oppose to this discussion as if let's say that she DID pretend to be female, that shouldn't be even able to be used to gain any sort of advantage in a content dispute or any dispute. If I said "As a woman I think my opinions are more important", I don't get how that even boosts my hypothetical actual position on anything. You can't BAN people based on Wikipediocracy postings! IT'S A BLOG! If a blog isn't a reliable source for articles, how is it a reliable source for a site ban? You can't ban people based on off-wiki issues! The points in question is "fraudulently claiming to be a woman" (claimed by an UNRELIABLE source), "off-wiki activities", and "BLP disputes". Correct me if I'm wrong, but "fraudulently claiming to be a woman" can't be in any way, shape, or form, a BANNABLE offence at this time! Who determines that he's a woman? A blog on the internet? Or Tutelary herself? Plus, the arguments advanced in favour of using this as a bannable offence state that she used her position as a woman to get advantages in discussions. How is that possible? The fact that you are a woman shouldn't have any bearing on any discussion, so the point is moot, unless somebody else took that into account in closing discussions, in which it is that person's fault. Off-wiki activities can't have a bearing on your contributions, as you should only be judged in a discussion by whether your position is backed up with reliable sources. She could be a militant feminist advancing the killing of all men off-wiki and I'd be fine with her complying with all policies and being consensus forming in discussions. The so-called "BLP disputes" are disputed themselves, by other editors on this page. The only way there could possible be grounds for a ban is in the area of BLP disputes. That should be the discussion we're having, and according to the strongest arguments, Tutelary is in the right. Other people just call her a misogynist and expect that to win on the sheer number of !support votes. Too bad that Wikipedia isn't a vote. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 17:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess if Tutelary got banned for his involvement with misogynistic Reddit discussions, you might be the next one looking at a ban. Oh, no, I guess not because you deleted your account last week, didn't you? Did you think no one would notice? Kaletony (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose both site and BLP ban at this time, mostly per Tryptofish. We should not be using what may or may not have happened on other sites as fodder for bans here. I.e., If an editor is a good candidate for a ban, then the appropriate evidence must come from Wikipedia diffs. I also suggest that this thread be closed before it wastes anymore of the community's resources. (This has been going back and forth for more than five days now, and no clear consensus will emerge from this thread) Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• My problem is with what Tutelary has been doing on this site. But I agree, there isn't a concise, coherent and persuasive argument supporting that position in this page - It's there if you follow the right links, I suppose. But I've got promises to keep and don't have time for whak-a-mole right now. So, unless something comes out of left field in the next day or so, I'll support closing this as unresolved. (And maybe setting up a broad RfC on anti-women behaviour here. But later.)

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 05:13, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Take it to Arbcom As it appears there is "private information" (in the Wikipedia sense) and there appears to be more than one off-site kefluffle going [21] that maybe further being pursued on wikipedia, Arbcom is the place to sort this out. Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:22, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Protonk. On the Internet, nobody knows that you're a dog, or a male. Any statement concerning themselves by anonymous editors should be taken with a grain of salt. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban - Tutelary's obvious dissembling should make it clear to anyone with a clue that he has been playing you all along. If I were him, I would be more concerned by the very real prospect of the police knocking on his door than with continuing this charade on Wikipedia. Kaletony (talk) 00:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• lol: there's an old interwebs adage: "don't feed the trolls". If you don't know who's feeding the trolls in this situation, it's probably you ;-). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 01:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban , else BLP topic ban. (revised - nah, site ban it should be) More than justified. Volunteer Marek  07:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As @Mr. Stradivarius: and @Tryptofish: noted above, none of the article space revdels were by Tutelary. Of my own, as Strad noted, they weren't made in bad faith, were indeed sourced (though some folks weren't happy with some of the sources - we had a discussion about them on the talk page, as was recommended by one of the ANIs about the article), and were written "mostly" neutrally (I did my best, but no one is perfect :P I thought it was alright. I have a copy of it still, if anyone is interested, though I'm not sure how to link to stuff like that easily). It wasn't, as noted, a hit piece on Zoe Quinn, but an overview of what was going on; the central issue is more or less that Zoe's ex outed her as being involved with several people involved in the gaming industry, and all of them got accused of being corrupt and promoting each other and attacking each others' enemies by very angry gamers. At this point, we have far better sources thanks to much better coverage.

I can't speak for all the revdels on the talk page, but a previous ANI noted that they probably were a little bit overboard and probably didn't all need to happen. It is water under the bridge at this point, though, and the concerns were over BLP issues which I think have since been satisfied via discussion on the talk page once some folks (NOT the admins) stopped deleting all attempts at discussion. And I'm sure at least some of the revdels were people being angry on the talk page; given Tutelary's general behavior, though, if they restored any of those (and given the ones that I have seen restored, weren't exceptionally bad, and frankly I see worse every day elsewhere on the encyclopedia) I'm not really worried about it. There were concerns about censorship of the talk page by several folks, and eventually that quieted down after the ANI agreed that discussing these things wasn't a BLP vio because of all the sourcing.

As for the rest of it - Tutelary hasn't seemed overly hostile, and has been quite civil compared to many of the other people who have been involved in editing that article. I don't care what gender they are and have actually been sent stuff which pretty much confirms their identification via Twitter (and then had to explain to said person why, exactly, posting that information was a bad idea, because some folks don't understand the concept of "the problem was the violation of privacy, and that is going to further violate their privacy"). I think they've been trying to improve Wikipedia. I haven't seen evidence of any poor behavior ON Wikipedia. If someone has evidence of actual poor behavior, I'm more than happy to look at it, but I'm not seeing anything all that exciting. Certainly nothing warranting a ban. Titanium Dragon (talk) 08:33, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support site ban. Tutelary has demonstrated that he/she is not here to build an encyclopedia, but rather to enact an anti-feminist agenda that includes trolling the editors at the gender gap task force and making tendentious edits to BLPs and women-related topics. Tutelary's actions fit the mold of a broader campaign of disruptive editing waged by MRAs that reddit, A Voice for Men, 4chan, and the like send our way. Women editors and efforts to address the gender gap are just targets for 'lulz'. This noticeboard's ongoing inability to do anything about it or take action against the editors who engage in this behavior is discouraging. gobonobo ^{+ c} 14:20, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support site ban - +1,000 btc to Gobonobo for being blunt. The fact that too many admins and editors here are naive enough to fall for the 'lulz' and disruption is beyond discouraging. Tutelary should have been indeffed as soon as the information became known. Any editor that has any clue at all can see what's going on here. It's a pity that we continue to allow this silliness to escalate, like fools. Just the disruption and BLP violations can be pointed to for the admins and editors who don't know what 4chan is. Sigh...... Dave Dial (talk) 15:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question to editors who support a site ban or topic ban: I think that you can see that opinions in this discussion are divided, and it is becoming unlikely that such bans will get consensus (unless new evidence comes out of the sockpuppet investigation). I earlier proposed an editing restriction in which Tutelary would be restricted against making reverts (other than self-reverts) in talk space. If you look closely, all of Tutelary's edits that have come under the greatest concern are reverts of that sort. If the bans cannot be agreed to, would you find the editing restriction helpful, or would you consider it inadequate? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think admins would regret not making the decision for at least a topic ban, it's not like Quinn's harassers have been receiving good press and Wikipedia already has a pretty bad reputation for being misogynistic. It was Tutelary who added the information about the incident to the article against consensus to wait, with plenty of "allegedly"'s for the harassment she received but none for her supposed "sex for coverage". I don't think some people here realise how serious it is to add information about this to a WP:BLP --5.81.51.98 (talk) 20:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Admins block, but the community bans. Plenty of us understand how serious BLP is, but we don't ban people because of outside press concerns. I've been asking and asking for diffs of Tutelary adding BLP-violating material to the page (not the talk page), and I'm still waiting. But there clearly are problematic reverts on talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:38, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

BLP covers certain talk page edits. It's not "anything goes" just because it's not in article space.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I never said "anything goes" – and that's why I'm proposing an editing restriction. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Strongly Oppose. It has been ridiculous to see the Wikipedia gang up on a doxxing victim like this. If you're worried about a misogynistic reputation, then I suggest not going on witchhunts against underage female editors. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 20:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• • Pshhh. What does it matter? If this goes by without admin action, it just shows how clueless admins are. So why would anyone who does have a clue care about more bureaucratic bullshit? Dave Dial (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: no diffs have been provided that clearly show our blocking policy's definition of disruption. As far as misrepresenting one's identity goes, if that were blockable then a huge portion of our users should be banned. By stating that misrepresenting one's identity is a bannable offense, you will be rewarding people for doxxing wiki editors they don't like in order to get them banned. I am sure there are large numbers of editors who misaffiliate their sex, race, qualifications, probably even people in this thread, and I don't want to see witchhunts becoming standard procedures. As always wikipedia should focus on the edit's, and the arguments of editors, and not on their stated qualifications. This isn't Citizendium.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment So, all of the egregious diffs that were provided have been revdel-ed, and now some people are basing oppose !votes on the idea that no refs were provided? People seem to be opposing based on basic ignorance of the situation in more recent comments. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We can still see that diffs have been revedeled (not the same as suppressed/oversighted), and none of them in mainspace have been by Tutelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there a "non-mainspace" exemption for problematic BLP edits? If they're using the site to spread damaging claims about BLP subjects, it doesn't matter where they do it, talk page, noticeboard, wikiproject, whatever.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

In such cases people can sometimes cross the line due to heated discussions, the proper way to put a stop to that is by first issueing a warning that BLP must be respected also outside the editing of articles. In principle, we are here to help editors stick to the rules we have here and if that doesn't work within the margins of errors we can tolerate, we need to impose restrictions. If people say that they can already tell that this editor is up to no good, then we don't need to preemptively act on that assessment, the outcome of the normal process to deal with editors who misbehave and continue to do so despite warmings will yield the same outcome anyway. So, no need to build a Guantanamo Bay detention facility, the regular justice system is good enough. Count Iblis (talk) 22:01, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like it's post-warnings, post-admin-block. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

"all of the egregious diffs that were provided have been revdel-ed,"

I have no idea if a diff is egregious without seeing it. I don't trust the judgement of a site where saying things like "So-and-so has been subjected to misogynist harassment" qualifies as "an egregious BLP violation"...AioftheStorm (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak Support site-ban. Tutelary and I have been debating about Skyler Page, where ironically he has been removing information about Page's sexual assault accusations. It seems a little strange that he took the the total opposite side on this debate then he did with Zoe Quinn. What bothers me is not that he disagreed with me, but the way he went about it. I reverted the page twice in 24 hours and said that it was the last time I will revert it. He reverts it 3 times and then has the nerve to warn me for edit warring. I am not saying that I wasn't edit warring, but he was just as guilty of edit warring as me, if not more guilty. I only reverted it twice and said I was stopping there while he reverted it three times. Also he bought up discussions he claimed showed that there was consensus to not include the accusations on Skyler Page; however both discussions were about not including it on Clarence (2014 TV series) and one of them only involved him and one other user. Overall, this seems to be a case of WP:NOTHERE. JDDJS (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

JDDJS, while I don't think the material in question should be added to Skylar Page, it is indeed distressing to see Tutelary fighting so hard to keep it out, considering his devotion to adding much more poorly supported negative material into articles of women.[22][23][24]--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. As someone who was active at the Zoe Quinn article during the time that most of the revision-deletion happened, I didn't find Tutelary to be disruptive. I may not have agreed with their opinion, but for the most part they were good about not violating the BLP policy. The only two lapses[25][26] (admin-only links) were restorations of comments by others on the talk page. I would say that these restorations were problematic, but not problematic enough that they couldn't be addressed by discussion.

  As for other evidence, the revert at Jimbo's talk page was maybe not in very good taste, but it wasn't a BLP violation, and I don't think it violated the talk page guidelines either. Above, Cuchullain claims that Tutelary shows a pattern of inserting, or advocating for inserting, poorly supported disparaging material into the biographies of living women. I think that the links that Cuchullain uses to back that statement up ([27][28][29]) show that Tutelary has, in the past, advocated for inserting such material. However, I don't see any actual insertion of problematic material in article space, and in my recent interactions with Tutelary on the Zoe Quinn page they have been a better judge of what constitutes a source acceptable for a BLP than is evident in those earlier discussions.

  Based on the evidence I have linked to in this post, I think that site-banning or topic-banning Tutelary would be an overreaction. I have more sympathy for Tryptofish's proposed talk-page restriction, but I personally doubt that it is necessary. Just the fact that this discussion has occurred will likely make Tutelary be more careful about talk page reverts in the future.

  Now, of course, there is off-wiki evidence involved in this incident as well, but we aren't well-equipped to deal with that kind of evidence here on ANI. The outing policy prevents us from linking much of the evidence directly or from discussing it in detail, so it can never be all that clear what the evidence is that we are talking about. And when we can't be sure that we are all on the same page about what is supposed to have happened, it's hard to say that we can find a meaningful consensus about it. If off-wiki evidence is going to be taken into account, it would be much better to bring this to ArbCom, as they have procedures for dealing with material that could violate people's privacy. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 03:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that that's an excellent analysis of the situation. I'm inclined to be persuaded that my suggestion of an editing restriction is not necessary, especially since the editors who are (metaphorically, not literally) calling for Tutelary's head on a plate are making it clear that they will settle for either the head, or nothing less. At this time, a checkuser has indicated that the SPI investigation is going to take a while, and I'm still keeping an open mind in case the results might force a reevaluation. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Concern. Tutelary's behavior as I've seen it and others have described it has been questionable and I figured it was a matter of time before that alone resulted in a ban, so I did not think it necessary to comment. However, in the last day or so I've had a growing concern about the larger issue of their allegedly being a minor who works on sexual topic articles and discusses sex online with adults. According to a 2011 Village Pump discussion - Wikiproject Pornography and Minors: Proposals and Discussion - that sort of thing is against Florida law, and maybe more states (and countries) by now.

It's one thing to not know someone is a minor. It's another to have a strong allegation that someone is a minor being widely discussed. Individuals, no matter how unknowing, who later engage in discussions about sex with that minor might be put in jeopardy. Allowing that alleged minor to post really starts setting Wikipedia up for federal/police surveillance and a federal/police sting. (Consider all those ambitious prosecutors out for big head line busts.) And then one has to deal with the snitches from on or off Wikipedia who might be looking for evidence of such 'crime'. Just something to think about. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• • You are using a failed proposal to disallow minors of editing pages related to the Pornography project, as a concern about someone discussing about sex. Please don't mix the two concepts. It is not illegal to have a discussion with minors about sex. Please also be careful in your wording, things like "engage in discussions about sex with that minor" have a completely different possible meaning than what I hope you are trying to say. But in any case, you may be concerned as much as you like, but please don't use unrelated (and failed) proposals to support your concern. Fram (talk) 11:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tell that to a backwoods Florida grand jury... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Next time you believe something violates Florida law, don't pretend that your believe is something supported by a Village Pump discussion. Combining scare-mongering and false arguments to authority are not a good recipe to come across as a genuinely concerned editor. Fram (talk) 12:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Geez, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? Frankly, I have no idea when discussions of sex with a minor become obscenity or child abuse or child pornography in the law of what state or the federal government. And I bet a lot of others don't either. Obscenity#Child_pornography has a definition sufficiently broad to make one wonder. Child_pornography#Sexting might be broad enough to include words and not just images. Maybe this is an area that needs more coverage on Wikipedia and in some relevant Wikipedia guidelines. I bet a few people here have to think back to interchanges they had with Tutelary that might be questionable in some government officials eyes. Maybe I even do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did find Online predator had a bit more. "Chat rooms, instant messaging, Internet forums, social networking sites, cell phones, and even video game consoles have all attracted online predators." So I guess the issue would be proving one was not an online predator looking to have sexual discussions with a person known to be a minor who discusses sexual content on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your replies indicate that on the contrary, I wasn't harsh enough by far. Your links to "child pornography" and "sexting" indicate that you really have no idea what you are talking about here (or that you do know and are trolling). It would be in your own best interest if you withdrew and dropped this whole line of reasoning completely. Fram (talk) 13:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I freely admit ignorance of the issue. Feel free to tell me and anyone else who might be confused the best place on Wikipedia to get guidance. WP:Editor assistance? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Everywhere but a topic ban discussion on an individual editor for unrelated reasons. You can try WP:VPP. Considering that the proposal you linked to, which was much more focused than sexuality in general, was soundly rejected by the community, I don't think you will get much support, certainly not when you continue to mix "discussing an article about sexuality" where minors may be joining the discussion, with "child pornography", "sexting", and "online predators". If you have any evidence (or strong indications) of actual online predating happening, you can best take the advice you may find in Wikipedia:Child protection. Fram (talk) 13:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose Per Tryptofish. Whatever Tutelary is in real life, or whatever political or social opinion he/she holds is irrelevant. I have not seen any evidence presented of bad edits which warrant such a sanction. I have read the Essjay controversy page and that does not seem to apply here, by a long shot. Nobody has accused the editor of lying their way to a paid position. And of course, the use of off-site material to convict people here is troublesome. In any case, I am sure a bunch of people will be watching Tutelary's edits like a hawk from now on. Kingsindian (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I am agnostic on the underlying issue, but I wanted to point out that if this person is banned, we're setting a precedent applicable to other situations. In the discussions on COI guidelines and the new Terms of Use on paid editing it is often pointed out that editors cannot engage in precisely this kind of sleuthing to ferret out COI. If this Tutelary is banned, we would be saying that it is OK to ban a person based on sleuthing, which implies that it is OK to identify paid editors and COI editors through similar methodology. Are you sure you want to do that? Coretheapple (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• My feelings are nearly the same as GRuban. In particular, I would emphasise that I don't care how Tutelary identifies, nor do I say there's anything wrong with them identifying in one place in one manner and identifying in another place in another manner. The problem begins when it appears their identification is intended solely to game the system rather than for other reasons (e.g. genuinely feel that way, to protect their privacy) and that when this combined with all the other evidence both here and elsewhere suggests they're not here to build an encyclopaedia. However while I internally support a site-ban or any other sanctions proposed, I'm not willing to do so here because I'm uncomfortable sanctioning an editor based on material (no matter how strong) that we cannot discuss, and they would have to allow open discussion to repond to. For this reason, I feel the case needs to go to arbcom. As much as I dislike wikipediocracy and such doxing, it's difficult to ignore the implication I raised earlier in a case as significant as this. Nil Einne (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted

That the people voting for 'support' have -not- substantiated their claims of my apparently disruptive behavior nor other allegations. Yet they keep mentioning it as if something -did- happen. Yes, I got doxxed, and I got a less than pleasant response, some of the people commenting here on this very noticeboard even implicating that I deserved it. The apparent 'disruptive' behavior (along with gross doxxing) was pointed out at Wikipediocracy...with exactly no diffs at all. The only thing that came close was the link to my user activity, which cites that my highly edited pages are evidence of 'dispruptive' editing. Again, there are no diffs or other on site evidence that points to such. Additionally, the people commenting here have not substantiated their claims either, indeed, Black Kite even stated Given the extremely convincing evidence posted elsewhere which implies that he/she knows there's no onsite proof that I've been disruptive. Tutelary (talk) 20:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't be disingenuous. You'd be whining even harder if somebody posted the evidence on the wiki, and then we'd have to oversight it all and waste even more of everyone's time. If I was in your position right now, I'd go and write a beautiful, properly sourced, neutral article that had absolutely nothing to do with Zoe Quinn/GamerGate to prove that I could be trusted to edit in keeping with the values of this project. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

But that's not what's happening here. You !voted to support the topic BLP ban without a single shred of a diff or evidence on wiki that I've been disruptive. Are you basing your !vote on Wikipediocracy's post where they freakin' doxxed me? And I really wish I could, my heart has been on pace for a couple days now and my blood pressure has spiked, I've been crying and getting emotional as of late and it's plainly obvious that it's Wikipedia that's causing it; even exacerbated by you attributing my concerns to just 'whining', and probably a violation of WP:CIVIL. Tutelary (talk) 21:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps this should be a lesson learned; do not wage campaigns against BLP subjects via a pseudonymous Wikipedia account, or else external forces may act to strip that pseudonymity away. Tarc (talk) 22:03, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You've been exposed, elsewhere, for the liar and misogynist that you are. You just don't belong here. Sorry if that doesn't fit neatly enough into the wikirules for you. As for: "Uh, it is all explained offwiki. What happens offwiki stays offwiki." No. Not in Qworty's case. Not in yours. Why don't you just try to preserve a shred of dignity and go away. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Please be civil. WP:UNCIVIL 72.89.93.110 (talk) 02:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be hilarious were it not so embarrassing that we're entertaining a ban proposal on the basis of evidence which, if placed on wiki, would be oversighted away. Can someone just remove the fig leaf and post the article here? Otherwise I'm forced to ask (as a good citizen) what evidence do we have that Tutelary has misrepresented their identity? Obvious you know what the evidence is and I know what the evidence is, but how on earth am I to take a ban proposal seriously where posting the incipient piece of evidence would lead me to have my contributions oversighted or my account blocked? Protonk (talk) 13:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, that is a shortcoming in the Wikipedia bureaucracy...similar to how identifying conflict-of-interest editors can rub against outing concerns...but one that shouldn't prevent the project from doing the right thing if need be. "I can't link it here, therefore I cannot consider it" is hardly a compelling defense. Tarc (talk) 13:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It just makes the whole thing asinine. To be clear, I think someone should cowboy up and actually link the piece so we're not just salaciously suggesting that editors google correctly to find a blog that most of the participants in the discussion have already read. And I think the nature of the topic can lead us to forget just how fucking malicious the article actually is. Read the Excrement will happen section and tell me that's anything besides shitting on someone for not leading an appropriate public life. Questions about Tutelary aside (and I think there's an unfortunate parallel to the specious claims from assholes about how "Gamergate is just about journalistic integrity" to our claim that we're all just so worried that Tutelary passed as a woman), there's no defence for that shit. None. And we shouldn't be supporting it here. That's not some bureaucratic inconvenience, it's an expectation that you should be able to write articles on wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymously without some shitheel telling everyone your name, location and how much you like MLP fan fiction. As I mentioned above, I was outed because like TD I wasn't careful with the use of "protonk" between disparate forums and because WR didn't like my opinions about the BLP policy. We can reassure ourselves that there's a stronger "journalistic" imperative at work than merely pissing off some person with time on their hands and an axe to grind about wikipedia, but we're not making a strong case for that by laundering those claims in service of a site ban. Protonk (talk) 14:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

First, anyone that knows how to search on the interwebs can find the pages in question. One would think in order to be a prolific Wikipedia editor, searching the internet is 2nd nature. Second, we should have a policy based on cases like this, and the many that have came before it. Trolling or pretending to be someone you're not is not new on the webs. BBS boards and Usenet were/are full of that sort crap. Editors should ask themselves if they want that type of behavior to become prolific on this project, without any consequences, because of some circular reasoning about rules. Lastly, of course the editor should be topic banned at the very least, and probably site banned. I would like to see better rules on this project in dealing with this type of situation, no matter who the editor is. But until we do, I guess ad hoc reasoning and common sense should overrule circular reasoning and being forced to look the other way because of ....tongue in cheek pointing to rules. We aren't stupid, are we? Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 14:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but the thing is, I think the notion of "writing articles on wikipedia anonymously or pseudonymously" is getting to be a bit of an outmoded ideal. For a lot of years that has shield a lot of nefarious deeds in this project. Let's put it this way; if a journalist at a reliable source pens a piece on GamerGate or Zoe Quinn or Anna Sarkeesian, that piece has a byline. An actual person has attached an actual identity to their words, and if there is something factually wrong or controversial or anything, Quinn et al can at least point to that journalist and say "hey, that's not right" and offer a rebuttal to a living, identifiable person. What recourse does Zoe Quinn have when someone known only as "Tutelary" accuses her of infidelity and ethics violations? Or "Titanium Dragon", whose contributions to the Quinn article were so egregious that dozens of his edits had to be oversighted. IMO, people like these two speak as they do about others because they do so under a fake name, just a handle on an internet forum. Strip that away, and have them post something that can be traced back to them personally, by name, just like any media journalist, and you may find that they will choose their words with a bit more care. I'm sorry that you yourself got doxxed by the old WR, but that crew, while there is some overlap with WO, was a very different and very nasty beast that attacked people they simply didn't like. WO is more of a vigilante, an Oliver Queen of the Wiki-sphere. The "Excrement" sub-section was a bit of a low-blow, but y'know, when adults are obsessed with tv shows written for 10yr-old girls, I really don't have a lot of sympathy. Being a teased Brony isn't a civil rights issue. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

About using information from other sites: there have been precedents with the Arbcom I believe, with the Phil Sandifer situation, and with the Ironholds and Keifer Wolfowitz case, that off-wiki evidence could be considered in Arbcom cases, but anything with identifying information had to be presented by email. I also seem to remember some kind of policy, which I can't seem to find at the moment, that prohibits posting something that can damage someone's computer. If someone is claiming off-wiki that they are posing as a woman in order to convince users to download something that will introduce a trojan virus into their computer in order to get access to any porn images they may have stored in their cellphones, at the very least, someone should examine that individual's contributions to see if they are safe to leave up. —Neotarf (talk) 17:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

While several people supporting the ban have posted diffs I do think they should have been presented when the ban was proposed. One of the key features of evidence is that it should be evident. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There are a few diffs [redact, has dox links] --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the key features of a ban proposal is that people who are likely to be interested should be notified. Has the gender gap project been notified? I believe Tutelary and Titanium Dragon have both paid them a visit. What about the other talk pages where they have been editing? ——Neotarf (talk) 05:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Notified Gender Gap project. --GRuban (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm noticing my two edits are being rev-deleted yet my comment on here remains? Can anybody explain why revisions are being deleted (mine in particular), or is it an effort to get rid of dox links like Anthony had stated above? Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:00, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm not sure why this is being called "doxxing". Tutelary's real name has not been mentioned aither here or elsewhere, merely posting made by him at Reddit and hackforums. This, as far as I am aware, is not either doxxing or outing. Black Kite (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm just curious as to what's up with all the rev-deletions. Citation Needed | He cites it for free. 19:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

So am I, and I've asked the admin concerned for an explanation. What was rev-del'd was simply links to comments made on external sites. No personal information was mentioned. Black Kite (talk) 19:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Doxxing: "publishing personally identifiable information about an individual". You don't consider posting (atleast a supposed) picture of a Wikipedia editor personally identifiable information (and studying place)? --Pudeo' 20:17, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

"... although our standards of publishing prevent us from releasing certain personally identifying information about potentially underage persons." By your own definition, what Wikipediocracy did with Tutelary is not "doxxing". --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 12:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't pretend to be silly, a picture clearly showing one's face is personally identifiable, especially given that the university name was released. ("Does anyone know this student?"...) As stated on Mike_V's talk page, the oversight was reviewed and approved by two different oversighters. If you disagree, you should email AudCom. --Pudeo' 19:41, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be hallucinating. There is not and never has been any mention of a university or the name of any other institute of learning on that page, and the page does not and never did contain such an image as you describe (see the editor's note). Andreas JN466 19:55, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You are right about the school, it was just on state level. However, it did contain a personally identifiable picture. The editor's note in fact states they removed the picture. --Pudeo' 20:14, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's just be accurate about this. The post did not contain a picture. The editor's note says, "An earlier version of this post contained a link to publicly viewable photographs (mirror selfies) of Ging287, which he uploaded to an image sharing site five years ago when a teenager. The link was removed upon request by a Twitter user." Andreas JN466 20:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Earlier versions did contain photos, they have removed it. I have an archive link from when they did. I also am sickened by the fact that they still consider me a male, when I've made it quite freakin' clear that I am not. It's insulting and harassment. Also, it wouldn't be able to be linked anywho for it contains dox information of another Wiki editor. Tutelary (talk) 20:39, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Come on, we all saw the post. There was a link to a photo page, but not the photos themselves. Andreas JN466 21:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please double- or triple-check that, Andreas? I read the article fairly soon after it was posted and saw no photo of Ging, but perhaps it was taken down early. Tutelary, could you please email me the archive link? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:57, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

100% positive on that. Andreas JN466 22:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary just emailed me the archived version of the Wikipediocracy blog post and it did not contain the photo/s in question. It contained a link to another site that hosted photos. That link has since been removed. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 22:31, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Anthonyhcole. For your own safety, I would suggest you check your computer for trojans, as there is a user Tutelary on hackforums.net who uses the same name and surname that Tutelary has used on Wikimedia sites, and who explains at some length there how he installs Remote Access Trojans on users' computers by getting them to click on links, open e-mail attachments and so forth. Better safe than sorry. Andreas JN466 00:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You're kidding. Link? (I will run a malware scan. Thanks.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

He is definitely not kidding, and you better use an updated version of Malware Bytes. At the very least. PS: I moved your post so as to keep the thread continuous. Dave Dial (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh Lord. I just saw the IP post #above. Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 00:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Dave Dial or Andreas, I've just re-read the links in the IP's post #above and can't see any corroboration for the claim that "Tutelary acknowledges hacking a persons computer and stealing information." I admit I'm very technically ignorant and may well be missing something, but could one of you please explain what those linked pages say about breach of privacy? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Try this link, they explain in detail how they do it [30] --5.81.51.98 (talk) 02:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks 5.81. I think I'm getting it now. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 02:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• For the record, I just indef'd Doxelary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Whether it's Tutleary or someone pretending to be, I offer no opinion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Would a possible sock check be worth looking into? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd say yes. If a checkuser were to determine that it was really Tutelary making that post on Jimbo's talk page, that would change me to supporting a site ban. But it could also easily be a so-called Joe job. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 12 September 2014 (UTC) And it would be worse because Tutelary welcomed Doxelary on talk. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

The welcoming is less a matter of me welcoming a sock (I only have one Wikipedia account) but more a fact of some minor OCD going off. Two red links in a row just annoys me so I welcome them; I get rid of that annoying feeling and I welcome a new contributor to Wikipedia. Win win. Tutelary (talk) 23:45, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell:, why did you hardblock the user indefinitely per WP:NOTHERE? What did the user do wrong in any context of disruption? Additionally, you revoked talk page and email access, which is specifically prohibited per WP:HARDBLOCK unless there is evidence of disruption on those avenues; which there doesn't seem to be. Tutelary (talk) 23:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me be clear nobody is saying you have socked but given how it is connected it should be looked into. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point though I see no harm in checking, you are right it could be a wrong tree but it is just another red flag going off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87 is right here. Someone spoofing a user name only to contribute an edit to discuss that user? You (tutelary) don't see how that could be disruptive? When it's your own user name? We don't need pseudo-twotelary's (or knowledgekid88's or knowledgekid89's) running around, I don't think.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I have my assumption of good faith and to the fact that 1. They could be asked to change their username. or 2. I'm not sure of a site wide policy that bans impersonation of very close usernames (in this case I think it was intentional as googling 'Doxelary" doesn't come up with anything, probably lack of good imagination and decided to use my name but change up a letter) and 3. Hardblocking email and talk page when there is no abuse in those avenues is specifically prohibited per WP:HARDBLOCK. I see HJ Mitchell not responding to my query yet editing other pages...admins are to be accountable. Tutelary (talk) 00:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A sock check on Doxelary would be apt given the individual's expressed familiarity with Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy. I highly doubt it is Tutelary. GamerGate people are discussing this all over Twitter, 4chan, and Reddit. One of them, perhaps one who has a past here, could have easily popped in to comment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:20, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Misleading usernames are disruptive and distracting, regardless of origin. If The Devil's Avocado suddenly appeared to participate only in this thread, my opinion would be the same.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:29, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I am tempted to start an SPI on this; I have seen stranger things before than a bad hand account. Even if the account isn't Tulary there is a chance that it is one of the usual suspects --Guerillero | My Talk 04:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

And I was more than just tempted. Please see: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tutelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, this should clear up this loose end if there is any. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Taking note of some editors referring to "the usual suspects", it might perhaps be helpful for them to comment on that at the SPI, but in a specific manner, rather than leaving it for the rest of us to guess about. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:07, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

We should only consider the edits he made to articles here. If assume for argument's sake that all the other allegations are correct, then that's a perfectly acceptable tactic one may use to get a point accross. We can strongly disagree with the point being made, but it's a tactic that has been used many times, often with positive effects. Take e.g. the Sokal affair, or James Randi letting a few of his apprentices pretend to be psychics so that his criticism of the parapsychology field would finally be taken serious (and it indeed worked). If a group of people is right on an issue and Tutelary joins that group, misrepresenting himself and attempting to act as an agent provocateur, then nothing bad can happen. Being right makes the group immune to its positions being debunked. Instead of condemning such actions, we should embrace it. Count Iblis (talk) 03:08, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I made the assumed that Tutelary is a male only for argument's sake without me personally taking a position in this dispute. Since Tutelary has made it clear that she is a female and she did that also personally to me when she objected to me using "himself" to refer to her above , I need to make clear that unless proven otherwise, Tutelary should be considered a female as that's how she identifies herself. She asked me to change "him" into "her" in the above posting, but I don't think I should do that because above I refer to a hypothetical Tutelary who really is male if one assumes that her critics are correct. Count Iblis (talk) 22:28, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's the misogyny that's the problem. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:03, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked you before. Don't call other editors misogynist without good reason. Please be civil. WP:CIVL 72.89.93.110 (talk) 19:59, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you referring to the edit where you said: Nobody on Wikipedia is harassing people. Where do you draw the line between criticism and harassment? Because it's a problem if people are intimidated against calling out shitty/abusive behavior when they see it.? __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:23, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between calling out on abusive behavior and throwing epithets like Joseph McCarthy. --Pudeo' 20:36, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you calling an editor Joe McCarthy? __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:21, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm pointing to the absurdity of Eric Corbett, a total non-misogynist (though frequent equal-opportunity uncivil dick head) being labelled a misogynist and dragged to "arbitration" for frankly speaking his mind at the gender-gap task force, while the seriously misogynist Tutelary and Tutelary's concern-troll mates all-but extinguish the task force by drowning it in their oh-so-civil "men's rights" word-salad. Classic. Just perfect. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 21:47, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

It's better to stick to the on-Wiki problems. Things like editing disputes, tendentious editing, harassment etc. etc. What Tutelary does elsewhere is neither here nor there, it can only be used as supplementary evidence. If I harass Jews on Wikipedia but in some of these cases you could consider that to be borderline cases of harassment, then me posting on Neo-Nazi forums may be relevant evidence in an ArbCom case to bolster the case against me. But you can't turn this around, a Neo-Nazi can in principle be a good contributor to Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 22:46, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? Tutelary and friends with their anti-woman agenda and endless specious crap arguments swamped and trashed the gender gap task force. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:35, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Godwin? But let me use your analogy this once: In principle, yes. But not if they made unconstructive edits in civil rights activists' BLPs and stressed their supposed ethnicity ("fellow black person here") in community discussions about racism. --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 23:42, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know who Eric Corbett is, but take it up with him, not un-related individuals. Peace. 72.89.93.110 (talk) 23:04, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

If disruption at the gender gap task force is the main problem then let's just focus on that problem. Count Iblis (talk) 01:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Just close

Anyone else feel that this all manufactured trolling from 4chan and reddit? All "sides" that have created this appear to benefit from publicity whether it's an obscure indie game developer, washed-up hollywood actor, or single cause advocates looking for attention. I see all the political hot-topic buzzwords being hashtagged with the "controversy" as if they are tied (hint: hacking Apple and privacy violations has no connection to gaming or misogyny or feminism unless your trying to troll those that feel strongly about those topics on 4chan or reddit). Wikipedicracy extended the trolling to WP. Given the reputation of 4chan and reddit and the level of discourse - I'm calling shenanigans and we are all being trolled to pay attention to something that is largely irrelevant to the vast majority of people. Don't feed the trolls. Stop, close and ignore. --DHeyward (talk) 05:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Seriously, dude? If you can't see the connection between misogyny and gaming, you obviously haven't been paying attention because there's been volumes written about it lately. You think that Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian wanted to have misogynist bile endlessly spat at them just so that they could get more publicity? Those "men's rights advocates" on Reddit aren't trolling - they actually seem to believe that vile crap. Editors who hang out in those forums are bringing it here. Wikipediocracy just exposed what has been getting worse for quite a while. This issue has become a festering sore and will only get worse if it isn't dealt with. Kaletony (talk) 15:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

No, "dude", I see a connection between 16-18 y/o boys that define their view of relationships/girls/sex somewhere between Hollywood fantasy and porn - and the industry that caters to it (Hollywood, porn, gaming). They also cater to their views on violence and crime. The boys act it out on reddit and 4chan, and yes, they are trolling (successfully) if you think "men's rights" is anywhere near reddit or 4chan. Nor is there any non-trolling feminist areas on those sites. I also wouldn't use pathological terms like "misogyny" to describe preformed views expressed by adolescents. These "issues" being flung across twitter are akin to the activists that opposed SpongeBob SquarePants on the basis the cartoon sponge was "gay" and the various "debates" that sprung up. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

MeMills is topic banned from all men's rights related pages and discussions. They are neither an adolescent boy nor a troll. SPECIFICO was just handed an interaction ban with a prominent female editor. They are neither an adolescent nor a troll. Even if your opinion were correct, why would we ignore adolescent trolls? Some editors here are trying to maintain neutral articles about these subjects - why should they have to deal with trolls and zealots? And what difference does it make if someone is trolling by taking an extreme postion or if they honestly believe it? It isn't the ideas that are the problem here, it's the actions. And the actions speak for themselves. Troll or not, people like Tutelary need to be shown the door. Kaletony (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You are missing it. Topics whose notability is derived from reddit, 4chan or wikipediocracy are simply not notable. It's trolling. There is a difference between administering editor behavior here vs. giving voice to trolling from over there. The fact that you equate what happens on reddit, 4chan and wikipediocracy as notable discourse on feminism, misogyny or men's rights is rather disturbing. None of the items you mentioned is related to each other. For that reason trolls, who come here to fight for/against Zoe Quinn or Anita Sarkeesian because reddit or 4chan ridiculed them or harassed them is trolling - and unrelated to editor behavior here. Women are harassed all the time and that is a general issue but reddit isn't a particularly different place that deserves special attention. Your local courthouse has public records of every order of protection and it isn't news or noteworthy and they are worse than what goes on at reddit or 4chan or wikipediocracy. Those sites are the adolescent version of IRL harassment and threats. Being on reddit or 4chan or wikipediocracy doesn't add to their claims or notability but if we feed it, it will surely grow. That's all they are known for - adolescent trolling. Conversely, actresses that are already notable that had personal photos stolen is a real issue outside the echo chamber and they had notability prior to the act. If you knew how many photos were stolen from non-celebrities you would realize that the reddit angle is meaningless. In short, editors that bring trolling from those sites in the form of increasing eyeballs to those sites should be dealt with swiftly and the articles dealt with just as swiftly. Editors that behave badly in general are already taken care of. They are unrelated issues as the bringing reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy here is trolling. Your conflation of Specifico/CMDC interaction with anything other than Specifico/CMDC and specifically related to CMDC's gender is a gross mischaracterization and understanding of that interaction ban as well as being unrelated to this discussion. --DHeyward (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. If you think the things they talk about on Reddit, 4chan and Wikipediocracy have no overlap with Wikipedia then you must wear blinders. Both about those sites and about Wikipedia. Maybe you honestly do think that it's just kids playing around. It isn't. Kaletony (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"The things" they talk about are too broad a characterization to say they don't overlap. Your connection of CMDC/Specifico to this discussion are an example of the problem of feeding trolls. It appears from your argument that because reddit speaks like adolescents about women and feminists and that it is therefore simply an extension of WP's discussion regarding women editors and feminists and all discussions regarding women can be framed in terms defined by reddit. That is not the case as reddit has no notable views on women's issues or notable views on wikipedia. CMDC/Specifico isn't even remotely related and you've offered no connection other than an observation that one editor is female. Reddit doxxing is the internet version of writing a girls address and phone number with "for a good time call Jenny 867-5309" on the high school bathroom. It's very disconcerting and serious to the girl and the school and provides plenty of juvenile gossip and drama as well as serious discussions of harassment at the school appropriate for adolescents but is not notable. Stealing personal photo's and publishing them is a crime. The current high-profile theft case in the news is notable for WP because the subjects are notable, not just because they are salacious or prurient. Salacious and prurient photos are stolen/published all the time, even among adolescents that live for salacious and prurient, and are routinely prosecuted/punished without even a whisper in the news or Wikipedia. But adolescents that have not developed their own identity and live in a world defined by idealizations/stereotypes because they have an underdeveloped sense of self and others, as all children do, is not the place to look for adult characterizations on interactions between various groups. A fourteen year old gamer whose only real-life "adult relationship" with a women comes from a torn out and sticky page he got from his older brother is not the starting point for complex adult discussions on misogyny, feminism or women (nor is their strategy for winning battles in violent video games a starting point for foreign policy). And while a 14 y/o may not be able to distinguish his relationship with that torn-out picture and a mature adult relationship (or his fantasy relationship with Katniss Everdeen with an adult relationship), adults can, and should. Those sites offer no real insight into anything other than the minds of juveniles and transferring it here only makes WP more juvenile. --DHeyward (talk) 05:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought we agreed to disagree? Now you're arguing with me about things I haven't even said. Maybe someone else wants to explore your theories about adolescent boys, but I don't. Kaletony (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Dude", I thought so too. And then you started to argue about "what I think" that I've never thought nor written. Apparently you want Wikipedia to document encounters of non-notable trolling by adolescent boys. We don't need to explore or document any of it, even your pet interests. --DHeyward (talk) 22:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• "Ignore" may work for those who can forget about this matter once it disappears from this page, but it won't help the editors and admins who have spent many hours struggling with these articles and the barrage of new editors. I've never had to use revision delete so many times on a single set of articles before, which should give you an idea of the seriousness of this matter. Gamaliel (talk) 15:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@Gamaliel: why have you not used sanctions for "biographical content" problems. The rest of us cannot read what you revdel. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I am considering issuing topic bans against particular editors under these sanctions if the irresponsible behavior continues, especially since the drama mongering on this board makes it unlikely that it will be able to seriously address this issue. I've already blocked one editor for 24 hours and had to warn another. Gamaliel (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I mean "ignore" the topic, as in sanction editors that are flocking here to "cover" reddit, 4chan and now wikipediocracy as if this is the permanent repository of whatever drama they created in those sites. --DHeyward (talk) 17:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I also agree that closing this now wouldn't be productive, 4chan is considered by many to be the cesspool of the internet now that it appears that they are involved some action needs to be taken. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

The EU should impose sanctions on reddit, 4chan, and wikipediocracy for stoking unrest on Wikipedia. Count Iblis (talk) 18:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• As much as it would be very nice if all the nastiness on "teh internets" would pack its childish self up and go away, the obvious reality is that we still have some very serious unresolved issues here on Wikipedia, and consensus has not yet been reached. At the very least, we need to keep this open until the SPI investigation is resolved. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary may be a false flag person created by Wikipediocracy to try to change our policies here

While I'm of the position that we should assume that Tutelary is for real, address her as a woman because she self identifies that way etc. etc., when we consider imposing restrictions we need to consider all the possibilities here including those that when taken seriously may be insulting to Tutelary. There is the real possibility that someone at Wikipediocracy has created an account named "Tutelary" on different forums who behaves in a politically incorrect way, including here at Wikipedia. When that online footprint is made, that person with his regular moniker then starts a discussion about this "Tutelary" on Wikipediocracy, who he claims to have stumbled into and some research he did uncovered that he is not to be trusted, yet Wikipedia looks like tolerating this person. The goal is then to get this person blocked without going through the regular processes here on Wikipedia. A precedent is then set where evidence posted on Wikipediocracy alone is sufficient to ban someone here. The real target may thus not be Tutelary but someone else against whom Wikipediocracy has a weaker case (or just to have the precedent set for the future if this is ever needed). They would then be holding back until Tutelary is banned here. They will then post the evidence about that other case and we may then end up acting on the Tutelary precedent. Count Iblis (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing less plausible than this, is that you were being serious when you said it. moluɐɯ 23:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Tutelary created his account here January 7th 2012. He made no edits until October 27th 2013, but doesn't really start editing regularly until February 2014. Hmmm, no edits for almost two whole years after creating the account? That's kinda odd. When does thsi false Wikipediocracy trail start? Kaletony (talk) 23:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Kaletony (talk) created his/her account on 13 September 2014. But when does Katetony's real trail start? Perhaps this sockpuppet investigation will find out. Memills (talk) 00:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Kaletony has been indefinetly blocked by Drmies for 'obviously using an alternative account.' I don't know what other alternative account(s) Kaletony has used, but it should be interesting if the SPI can find out. Memills (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit. KonveyorBelt 00:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not sure if trolling, or... Tarc (talk) 03:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• In the Manning ArbCom case you demonstrated that this is easy to do. You didn't do what you did to subvert the outcome of the case and you made public what you did after the end of the case, but in principe you could have done that. Any system that is not governed by strict rules and principles where subjective judgements, people's gut feelings etc. play an imporant role is vulnerable to be subverted by agent provocateurs. That's why my point is that we must not deviate from the fundamental principle that people should only be banned based on clear on-Wiki disruption. Whether or not Tutelary is really an agent provacateur isn't the point, just that for all we know, this could be the case. Count Iblis (talk) 16:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  I would like to throw out there that Tutelary is actually the MediaWiki software, having gained sentience. I mean, we don't know this *isn't* the case, so we should consider it just in case. moluɐɯ 22:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Well, we can actually rule this out on theoretical grounds, see e.g. here :). Thing is that on the internet it's child's play to create the cyber equivalent of Operation Northwoods. Count Iblis (talk) 01:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• As long as we're going here, I suppose it's worth pointing out that Count Iblis' argument relies on the controversial claim that Wikipedia and Wikipediocracy aren't both operated by the NSA. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Do'h.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• [31]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have no opinion as to whether this rather convoluted scenario laid out by Count Iblis is correct, but I agree that relying on material posted outside of Wikipedia can be problematic and should be approached with caution. Remember too that if this kind of evidence is to be used to ban people, it can also be used in lesser situations such as COI investigations. Coretheapple (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Indeed. Count Iblis (talk) 01:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• My mind, is blown. What an intense idea! Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 03:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Three ways this can end

1. Tutelary is banned for any of the above offense ad everyone goes on their way.
2. This discussion closes as no consensus in which case editors would either apologize to Tutelary or just ignore all that has happened and move on their way.
3. Tutelary is found to have done no wrong doing in which case editors would apologize (At least I hope) for everything that has happened.

No matter how you look at it based on how much feedback this has gotton I doubt that Tutelary will come out of this unscathed somehow, something to think about regardless of the outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Either an innocent person has been dragged through the mill at Wikipedia ANI because of a blog at an external site or, if information above is to believed, a beginner 'black hat' hacker, with extremely poor 'OpSec' (Operational Security) has been easily doxed and offered up to Feds on a silver platter for alleged use of RATs, and is facing the sharp end of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act because of it. AnonNep (talk) 12:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm saying the following partly in the context of this part of the discussion, and also partly in the context of the subsection above, about the scenario of a false flag. There is a checkuser investigation going on now, and we should let that go ahead and see what it tells us. Until then, I think that we need to keep open minds, and regard offsite accusations with due skepticism. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Which CU investigation do you mean? This one or this one? -Thibbs (talk) 03:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that someone is going around claiming to be female and making use of that deception to gain advantage, if that is what happened. But there are a lot of people who claim erudition, ethnic background and other traits to gain advantages in discussions, and there is no way of verifying what they say unless they provide verifiable personal information. It's one thing for an editor to refer to himself as a female, a physicist or whatever, but people who believe such claims assume the risk that such claims are false or distorted. Perhaps another possible outcome is to educate people on that fact. I don't like the witch hunt atmosphere promoted by this kind of offsite sleuthing, and we have to weigh whether that is more harmful than the misconduct alleged. Tutelary has already been punished by the publicity. Coretheapple (talk) 14:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Anita Sarkeesian, again

Evidently sparked by some YouTube video, disruptive editors are trying to remove[32][33][34] an academic journal as a source from the Anita Sarkeesian article. See also this comment. Semi-protection keeps anons and new accounts from disrupting the article, but JJAB91 is evidently a confirmed account.--Cúchullain ^t/c 02:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is time to impose discretionary sanctions of some kind. The comment in the last diff above is "Hi! Just wanted to say, I hope it's well worth your time keeping criticism off Anita's page, because it's coming whether you like it or not. It is out there, it's not being given attention, and we will not give up until it does. What's the point of what you're doing? Are you going to keep this up forever? Who's paying you?". It is not reasonable to ask a couple of volunteers to cope unassisted with the massive misuse of Wikipedia that many want. Johnuniq (talk) 03:00, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
  • How about putting flagged revisions on that article? Cla68 (talk) 05:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Good idea - endorsed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Two questions. (1) Who is Carpenter, and why do we care about his perspective? If he warrants an appearance by name and a quote, we ought to explain why he's relevant; nuclear physicists and historians of Late Antiquity are also scholars, but we wouldn't pay attention to their comments on Sarkeesian. (2) Why do you say that it's sparked by a YouTube video? I've never heard of this woman before, so maybe it's an obvious answer to someone familiar with her. Nyttend (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
        • I'll answer 2 for you: She is a noted pro-feminist in video game circles who has a series "Tropes vs Women in Video Games" (ETA: The YouTube video series in question) that points out some of her opinions with how games unfairly treat women (She and her series are notable per WP:N, as many game journalists and developers respect her observations). She is very outspoken in this and her opinions, as such , this series has drawn ire from the "broad" class of gamers to the point that she has been given death threats for speaking her opinion. She is also currently now a side of the GamerGate situation for similar reasons. --MASEM (t) 05:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Understood; thank you. Nyttend (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
            • Actually, when the OP says a video "sparked" the edits: a Youtube video specifically called out a part of the article for removal (and it was subsequently removed in the diffs from the OP); that's the central point of the discussion at Talk:Anita_Sarkeesian#Batting_against_.2Aexpunged.2A.27s_most_recent_video -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I support flagged revisions on Antia's article, just to cut down edit warring. I'd also suggest the same at Zoe Quinn and, once it's unprotected and assuming it is kept from its present AFD, GamerGate. All three of these are articles that, because their topics involve opinions from sites like reddit and 4chan, are going to be hot topics for at least a few weeks. --MASEM (t) 05:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I don't see how flagged revisions would help—it will keep ephemeral nonsense off the pages, but the problem is that there are a significant number of active editors who will argue forever that GamerGate must be kept to give the world a lovingly documented list of allegations against two BLP individuals. There needs to be some discretionary sanctions (like WP:MRMPS) so normal procedures are not disrupted. Johnuniq (talk) 06:50, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

        I think discretionary sanctions are (already) available, under the auspices of WP:NEWBLPBAN, if there are admins willing to make judicious use of them. -sche (talk) 07:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

        • Correct, and as a starting point I've placed the BLP/DS notices on this article, as well as Zoe Quinn, Depression Quest and GamerGate. Black Kite (talk) 11:01, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

          • Dreadstar had been active in taking on the disruption, but it seems they're on a break right now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Tropes vs. Women in Video Games is now being hit as well. I'd support flagged revisions at both articles - it won't solve all the problems, but it will help us out on some of the minor ones.--Cúchullain ^t/c 12:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I should point out that there is a push by outside groups to "fix" WP's coverage of the various articles above, so anything that will help in the near future with BLP and other types of disruption would be appreciated even if we have to use 1RR prevention on these. --MASEM (t) 13:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Or just lock them all entirely on WP:THEWRONGVERSION (making sure they're BLP compliant, of course) until this particular teapot's tempest stops whistling. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 14:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually this is a reasonable step, though in the specific cases of some articles, I would even go beyond BLP and remove things that are leading to this offsite push to change the articles due to percieved bias; specifically removing some statements (even those sourced) of opinion on the matters.--MASEM (t) 15:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that we have involved admins lying and violating wikipedia's policies to protect these articles, I can certainly sympathize with why they might think that the coverage needs "fixed".--211.215.156.184 (talk) 00:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• This has now extended to the Video game journalism article - see this and subsequent edits. Some revdel and page protection would be very nice. I can't do it myself, as I'm involved with this by extension of my work at the Zoe Quinn article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:16, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's cool. I just put some GamerGate stuff in with some sauces. That should appease the angry gamer gods, though you should perhaps put a circle of salt around the article with Jack Thompson's still-beating heart at the center to ward off further enraged gaming spirits.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:46, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Protection expired today, could someone re-add semi protection or flagged revisions?--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose a new notability standard: If the article/subject didn't exist until reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy talked about the subject, it should be speedy deleted/salted. It's either trolling or feeding trolls and will be drama magnet. Feminism, gaming, misogyny, privacy violations of celebrities, etc, already exist in the adult versions in other sources. --DHeyward (talk) 02:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:LIKELYVIOLATION. KonveyorBelt 20:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking more like WP:ITEXISTS. I don't mind the vandalism. It's the vandalism and overhead of a subject that has nothing notable beyond being hated/loved by reddit/4chan/wikipediocracy (and you can add tumblr too). It seems we have a rather large cadre of editors that think WP is the repository for every thing ever fought over at those sites. "Let's document every hashtag ever created on Wikipedia." --DHeyward (talk) 01:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Two editors collaborating on biased degrading of Wikipedia articles

I'll keep it as short as possible. Two editors, User:Pincrete and User:Bobrayner are harassing Boris Malagurski-related articles, mostly the article about his film The Weight of Chains. Even though these articles are very well sourced (not many articles on Wikipedia have so many references per sentence), they've expressed their dislike and anti-Malagurski bias very directly several times, and are now ganging up to discourage those who actually want to help contribute to Wikipedia in regards to articles on the matter. For standing up for neutrality, I've been accused of being Boris Malagurski, his friend and on his payroll, accused that I just want to praise him and his work with no criticism, while my main objection is that negative criticism should be well sourced, and that well sourced facts and positive critique shouldn't be removed. In essence, I would like neutrality.

However, whenever I list reputable sources that support any claim, they always jump to say "No consensus!", and thus any serious editing can't be done. Most recently, after I added information and quotes from a review from VICE (magazine), Bobrayner quickly reverted it [35], again citing "clearly no consensus to add this" (not a word dropped on the talk page from him). When I even expanded a review to include more negative criticism of the film, but argued that blog posts can't be considered as reliable sources for criticism, again the screams of "no consensus" to remove the blogger's rants. Pincrete keeps canvassing ([36]) and Bobrayner gladly jumps in whenever needed. This is starting to get very annoying. I've lost my nerve once and engaged in an edit war, I don't want to get into that kind of communication anymore, I would like to see what is it that has to happen so that I can peacefully edit and collaborate with those who didn't come to Malagurski-related articles with an agenda, but with an honest wish to contribute in the spirit of Wikipedia. Editing here was fun when I started, but if I have to argue with people whenever I add reliably sourced content that fulfill Wikipedia criteria, I'm out. If pushing POV, manipulating, canvassing and getting away with it just because some articles are less popular than others is the essence of Wikipedia, please let me know so that I can make my decision on whether to stay. Thanks in advance, --UrbanVillager (talk) 23:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Question from Pincrete, may I ask the time-frame in which this is likely to be heard? I ask as there a very large number of diffs to assemble to answer this properly. Pincrete (talk) 00:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no guarantee that anyone will respond. However, if you keep it brief, you'll have a much better chance. Few people will read an excessively long post that details every minor transgression made by an editor. I would suggest you try to keep it to the length of UrbanVillager's post (or shorter). I skimmed over the article's talk page (and a few others), and I'd suggest that you two could probably benefit from content-related dispute resolution, such as the dispute resolution noticeboard, a third opinion, an RFC, or asking WikiProject Film for unbiased input. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

That's quite a long complaint about a small part of the problem. Let me try to condense the broader story, for the good folk of WP:ANI.

• UrbanVillager is a single-purpose account whose only work is to promote Malagurski, an obscure filmmaker. Tellingly, UrbanVillager writes promotional content about Malagurski's work before information is actually released to the public. Articles on these films have, historically, contained only positive content - and impressive lists of awards (some of which are impossible to reconcile with real-world evidence), and UrbanVillager will automatically revert anyone who tries to fix it. Just look at the history of The Weight of Chains]. Normally I wouldn't bother much with mere spam, but Malagurski's films make some radical claims about recent Balkan history, and UrbanVillager has tweaked content to suit those claims.
• The combination of promotional editing, misuse of sources, and radical views on recent Balkan history, can lead to angry comments by various people, although I've tried to remain civil. In a previous attempt at dispute resolution, UrbanVillager insisted that several editors - the folk he has diligently reverted over the years - are all conspiring to malign Malagurski. It's difficult to reason somebody out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
• The latest problem is about some reviews of The Weight of Chains. UrbanVillager has spent years adding positive wording and removing negative wording and reverting anyone who disagrees; that's his job. In the last few days, two different uninvolved people (Psychonaut (talk · contribs) and EdJohnston (talk · contribs)) had warned UrbanVillager for editwarring and for "making unilateral changes"; UrbanVillager did it again; I made a single revert, because there was clearly no consensus for UrbanVillager's wording; so UrbanVillager tried asking EdJohnston for support, and when EdJohnston disagreed, UrbanVillager started this thread instead.

bobrayner (talk) 08:04, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Response from Pincrete Bobrayner has expressed very succinctly the broader issues, so I will focus on recent events and UrbanVillager's user behaviour, which is, frequently abusive, wilfully perverse, and shows no meaningful engagement with the guidelines or values of Wikipedia (I can provide MANY examples of personal abuse, several of racist abuse many of wilfully perverse behaviour or wilful mis-quoting, but do not do so here for reasons of brevity). I believe this ANI is little more than a smokescreen by UrbanVillager, to hide his own behaviour and to retain WP:Ownership of these pages.

Firstly, I ask that the recent talk page be read (to the extent that you can endure it), here:-[37]. This is talk over less than 2 days (9th-11th Sep) about the 'Criticism' section, of the article. The background is that only 4 days before, both UrbanVillager and myself had been warned against making ANY non-consensus changes to this section of the article (or to one disputed word). On the morning of 11th September, I posted a clear statement that UV's proposed changes did NOT have my consent, and did not appear to be RSs either, here:-[38] nb para 3 of changes panel, 'Where this discussion has got to … 90 minutes later, he replied here:-[39] nb end of para 1 of changes panel 'So, the review goes in the article.' … some 3 minutes later, he made this edit:-[40] which he claims in his edit reason, is 'as per talk page' . This was not ONE controversial edit, but the complete rewriting of the entire section.

When challenged by EdJohnston, later that day, UrbanVillager made the minimum reverts explicitly demanded by EdJohnston, but retaining ALL of the material, which he had sought to insert that morning, some of which - he had every reason to know - was factually wrong about a reviewer whom he wished to disparage, content which he certainly knew did not have consensus. It was at this point that Bobrayner, made the change he did, though I had already approached EdJohnston, asking permission to do so.

UrbanVillager's opening statement contains two - very telling - 'errors', firstly he links to the VICE magazine Wikipedia entry, not to the actual 'review' which I expressed strong reservations about here:-[41], (which one gets to via the VICE site here:- [42] … click on 'details'). Can somebody correct me if this does not appear to be an ad, which is - at best - quoting from a review. Even if I am wrong, was I unreasonable to ask for more than 12 hours overnight between its first suggestion and agreeing to its insertion? Secondly, (on line 4 para 2, line starting 'rants), he says Pincrete 'keeps canvassing ', and he links to HIS lengthy characterisation of the event on the talk page, not to the 'crime' itself here:-[43], (or fuller picture here:-[44]), as for the word 'keeps', I ask UrbanVillager to supply a single other incidence of me making (what could be construed as) inappropriate contact with ANY editor.

I could say much more, the above is a record of only a few days, and not the two years with which I have been (on & off), involved with this page (and to a lesser extent its satellites), any slice of which reveals behaviour by UrbanVillager, which is - at best WP:Wikilawyering and - at worst, intolerable. I am mindful of the need to be brief, so I finish with a simple request, I ask that - as a minimum - UrbanVillager be banned from all Boris Malagurski pages for a period, which will give him the opportunity to prove that his commitment really is to the integrity of Wikipedia, and not to his 'chosen special subject'.Pincrete (talk) 22:07, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• A 'broader' point not made by Bobrayner, is that UrbanVillager also creates and contributes to 'Malagurski' pages on either 3 or 4 other Wikipedia sites, from memory, these include German, Greek and Serbian Wikipedia … I will supply proofs if wished.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, I hope you don't mind, I've inserted my 'Statement' before your post below.Pincrete (talk) 17:59, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I took a look The Weight of Chains 2 (now at AfD) and noted it said that production was continuing into 2013. Turns out that was copyvio from [45] - a page archived 3 days before the article was created with the copyvio. Which led me to look at the creator's talk page - User talk:Kepkke which has number of copyvio warnings on it - editor also never seems to communicate, let alone deal with copyvio warnings. No comment at the moment on UrbanVillager. Dougweller (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I've blocked Kepkke - too much copyvio. Left him/her an explanation of what to do to get unblocked. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Dougweller, what you have spotted is only the 'tip of the iceberg' of copy vio. Almost the entire synopsis of Weight of Chains, is a copy/paste of various versions of the film's website, or press pack, any meaningful attempt to change it has been obstructed for over two years. We have been 'allowed' to correct the more grotesque errors of grammar or meaning (factions, not fractions, critique when criticim is intended, etc.). Little more.Pincrete (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Apart from the copyvio, I have long been concerned about the waves of sockpuppets and meatpuppets editing in this area. For instance, Bormalagurski = TheWriterOfArticles = WikiMB = KOCOBO = Bože pravde. UrbanVillager and Cinéma C both share the same hallmarks of sockpuppets - first edits are made very quickly, first turning their userpage into a bluelink, second turning their talkpage into a bluelink, and a minute later diving into a controversial article to revert somebody. Personally, I'm confident that Bolonium is meatpuppet rather than sockpuppet (although on ja.wiki Bolonium was blocked as a sock of Staka, who is in turn blocked on Commons). Joy set out this sequence of socks:

• Bormalagurski - September 2005 - September 2006
• Bože pravde - September 2006 - March 2009
• Cinéma C - March 2009 - September 2010
• UrbanVillager - September 2010 - today.

But regardless of that ancient history (checkuser would be stale), UrbanVillager's 4 years of promoting Boris Malagurski is a problem in its own right, when it involves article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, and so on. bobrayner (talk) 02:06, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that. If UrbanVillager would just chill out a bit, I don't think it would be such a problem. On the talk page, I saw Pincrete offer to compromise, and UrbanVillager flatly rejected it. I'd say, try an RFC to develop a stronger consensus on the talk page. In the event that someone disregards consensus, come back here and request a topic ban for the offending party. So far, it looks to me that it won't be Pincrete that we see brought here next time. As far as canvassing goes, I'd say that it's best to post an unbiased message on a relevant WikiProject, such as WT:FILM; this avoids the impression of canvassing. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 10:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

BobRayner's FINAL sentence above is the key one for me, 'regardless of ancient history … UrbanVillager's 4 years of promoting Boris Malagurski is a problem in its own right, when it involves article ownership, misuse of sources, edit warring, and so on' . While I understand Bob's frustrations, any evidence of 'puppetry' or COI, is almost inevitably going to be circumstantial (I have no opinion on the matter). However, evidence of abuse of guidelines, personal abuse, and abuse of procedure (of which this ANI case is just an example), is NOT circumstantial. Only yesterday - during a time that UrbanVillager is presenting himself here as the 'victim' - the following interchange took place :-[46]. … note, much of the content of The Weight of Chains 2, was deleted 13th Sept for copy vio, as were several paragraphs from The Weight of Chains main article, for the same reason,- ie almost 4 years after The Weight of Chains received its first copy vio warning here:-[47] Pincrete (talk) 11:48, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• I remain utterly unconvinced that the account UrbanVillager is anything other than an egregious WP:SOCK/WP:MEAT violation, per evidence collected in 2012, but discarded on a number of technicalities. Even if others aren't convinced about all that WP:DUCK material, it still doesn't take a lot of effort to conclude that this account by itself is a single-purpose account that is not here to build an encyclopedia, but instead to engage in a shameless promotion of Boris Malagurski, which in turn is a slippery slope into advocacy, propaganda, furtherance of outside conflicts, and political or ideological struggle. The entire thing has been a humongous waste of time, and this iteration is no different. But thank you for reminding me that something needs to be done - I propose a topic ban for UrbanVillager on the subject of Boris Malagurski, broadly construed. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'comedy' continues … UrbanVillager, who says 'Pincrete keeps canvassing' , had the following interchange yesterday :-[48] (from, where UrbanVillager 'pings' Diannaa, 'Diannaa, would this be OK'). This is such an inept and overt action, by UrbanVillager's standards, that I am puzzled as to his motives. Pincrete (talk) 09:49, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Postdating this so it doesn't get archived into oblivion. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And, speaking of a waste of time - I just noticed Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20140915. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The user Kepkke was blocked a few days ago for copyright violations. This user was previously active in the Balkan topic areas, but I don't recall perceiving him as particularly problematic. Oh well. Anyway, oddly enough, I received an e-mail from an anonymous user today (whom I've never heard from before) telling me that they think that new user RichardWilson78 is Kepkke. The dates seem to roughly match, yet the pattern of editing isn't identical - the new user seems much less timid. It could be an escalation of a grudge because of the block, or it could be an arbitrary accusation, but given the edit warring the new user has been involved in, I'm erring on the side of full disclosure and mentioning it here. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at two recent edits, Bobrayner deleted [49] large areas of text with no justification, giving just the pov assertion "not a reliable source". And here is Somedifferentstuff doing exactly the same, with the same lack of justification [50]. These editors should not have remove referenced content in this way. Their talk page "justifications" are equally weak. There is no need for "consensus" before inserting referenced content. The Vice Raindance Film Festival review and, even more so, the Gregory Elich review that were deleted by Bobrayner, to me seem acceptable as sources. I do not see any properly presented discussion in the talk page about why they should be excluded, all I see is are attempts at productive discussion being hammered by some editors, along with repeated (since almost day one of the article) allegations of sockpuppetry or vested interests, but with never any attempt to take these allegations further (they seem to be there just to disrupt and to close down any discussion). The article's current wording also has a lots of weasel in it, it even has that classic, the unspecified "some critics". Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 21:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, the Elich, which you say is an acceptable source for inclusion in the 'Reviews' section of a film article, 1) is an interview between somebody IN the film and the director, it does not pretend to be a review of the film … … 2) the interview is already used as a reference in the article (inserted by me). So yes, nobody disputes it as a source for what the director and one of the 'cast' say about the filming, they simply don't consider it an independent RS review.

The VICE is currently at RS noticeboard, at the time of writing NO ONE there has come to the conclusion that it is a review, they have all said it is an advert, and it isn't in VICE magazine anyway, it is simply on their website and has no name creditted to it, merely 'VICE STAFF".

There have been NO allegations from me EVER of any editor being a sock - HOWEVER at least twice today UrbanVillager left posts on WoC talk about ME being a sock - bizarrely, I am supposed to be a sock of an editor who has never been banned and who UrbanVillager acknowledges I spent a long time interracting with two years ago when I first started editing (but as bobrayner says earlier, you can't reason someone out of a belief they never reasoned themselves into).

There IS a need for consensus BEFORE inserting material, referenced or not, when the editor in question has been specifically warned the week before against making changes TO THAT SECTION without consensus. The onus for 'properly presented discussion' surely rests firstly with those who wish to insert material, but it is difficult to see what 'properly presented discussion' there COULD be for justifying an interview between two participants in the film as an independent film review.

I don't think we are supposed to turn this ANI into a battlefield, however, I felt obliged to correct your errors. Pincrete (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I am fairly certain that "no consensus" cannot be used to exclude valid content, and issuing "warnings" that anything new in a section first needs consensus is not a position that is sustainable. The issue should be whether the source is an acceptable one, but that sort of discussion seems absent - in the talk page there is too much entrenched absolutism (for example, your own words: "The discussion is over because I say there's nothing more usefull to say"). Saying here that "it is not a film review" is irrelevant: the article section is about critical responses, not film reviews; and the source, Monthly Review, while coming at issues from a predetermined standpoint, is a longstanding publications of some stature. The onus is also on those wanting material removed to justify that removal - just stating "no consensus" in an edit summary is not justification. I didn't say that you had made accusations of sockpuppety, but that such allegations have been thrown around the article's talk page since almost day one. Please accept my apologies if my wording inadvertently implied that you had made such accusations. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 23:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

However, Pincrete, this looks (and rhymes) rather like someone implying sockpuppetry: [51] Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 00:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I believe your first involvement with the 'Weight of Chains' page was yesterday, also (I think) we have never 'met' before. This ANI is looking at allegations (made against bobrayner and myself), of long term behaviour. For these reasons, I hope you will understand why I think it would only 'muddy the waters' for me to respond to you here. I'm sure the ANI will take note of your observations, and if they think them relevant, ask me to comment on them directly. Pincrete (talk) 12:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

New editor...

• Wikicology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I'm caught between WP:BITE and the trail of destruction this editor seems intent on leaving in their wake. Wikicology joined WP a little over 3 months ago and has since made about 1000 edits, 40% of which are to user talk pages where Wikicology likes to provide "expert" guidance and advice to new and established editors alike. I didn't come across them until their most questionable non-admin closure of this deletion discussion. But scanning through their edit history there are some other concerning things like:

• This series of edits to Deb's talk page.
• This equally strange advice to Northamerica1000.
• This doubling-down on WikiDan61's talk page.

I'm all for enthusiasm but attempting to function as a quasi-admin and getting it so consistently wrong is a recipe for disaster. I'm especially concerned about the idea of a non-admin with this sort of AFD track-record closing discussions (and if the currently-open AFD nominations are anything to go by, that record is progressing in the wrong direction). There's an obvious language barrier there (which makes me even less inclined to bring it here) but we're watching a bad situation get worse. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:03, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There's also this on Bobrayner's talk and this on his own. But I've since seen he counts Kelapstick and RHaworth as mentors so in fairness I've pinged them too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since I was pinged on this, I'll throw in my 2¢ worth. My take on Wikicology is that xe is unwilling to accept advice from more experienced editors, and has an unnecessarily belligerent attitude. The fact that xe is active in WP:NPP, and thus interacting with many newbies leads to lots of biting that, on balance, does more harm than good to the project. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• That was a spectacularly bad call in closing the AFD. I'll soon be reverting it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I have given him the benefit of the doubt for this [52] where an article was accepted from AFC in this current state. Admittedly now Wikicology and several others have helped clean up the article significantly, however I still don't feel it should ever have been moved into the mainspace so I took it to AFD. I think a gentle nudge to be more cautious is definitely in order. CaptRik (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I am particularly glad with Stalwart111 report here as this will significantly improve my edit behaviour. Let me start by correcting an impression of WikiDan61 that I don't take advice from experience editors, that's very untrue. Who else will I take an advice from if not an experienced editor? Deb is not a bot she is an admin. and I had made several comment on his talk pages. If she find it offensive, am sure deb would have taken a proactive measure to curb it, perharps report me here. It is true that I had an issue with Bobrayner (talk · contribs) but i tendered an unreserved apology to him and it was settled. I admit the fact that my comment seemed to be hostile at times and that's usually wit spammers because I found it odd to be polite with spammers. I had no intention to bite new editors. Sometimes I don't even see my comment as a bite. It is easy for Stalwart111 to point out my errors and I will take to correction. It will also be easy for others to point out his error because no one is a perfect editor. But sequel to the above allegation, am ready to takes to correction and it will not repeat itself.Wikicology (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikicology: Based on the above, and this advice from an editor, I think it might be best for you to refrain from giving advice to editors, even new editors, for a bit and take some time to observe how editors talk to each other here. Your communication style has been somewhat combative, even if you did not intend for it to be so, and even if you feel like your actions are correct. Speaking from my own experience, there is a lot to learn about Wikipedia even within the first year or two of doing so. It's best to accept that you will make mistakes because you are still learning (as am I, after editing for several years), and that trying to argue every time you are challenged is not going to be productive for you looking ahead. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't recall any particular interaction beyond this, and this shows as much, certainly not enough for me to consider myself a mentor. Thanks for the ping though Stalwart111. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 16:38, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• The edits here and here (noted above) are particularly worrying to me. Lesson 0 of any collaborative project is humility. We don't always know everything and we should all be willing to dial back accusations like those when countered rather than ratcheting them up. For Wikicology, here are some general pointers: When in doubt, don't template people or warn them unnecessarily. There's no need to warn editors that they might be blocked (either directly or via a euphemism) unless you're absolutely sure that A: they will be blocked for that behavior and B: that a warning will potentially deter them from said behavior. This avoids two problems. First, you don't end up biting a new editor and second you avoid having to decide whether or not you have to be "polite to spammers". If someone is spamming a link (especially multiple times) then just revert the edit. If you feel that a revert needs to be explained (and it often has to be), then leave a polite explanation noting the problems with the edit and how to correct them. Next, when someone who is not involved with a particular dispute (e.g. a revert or a comment you've left) raises an issue with your actions, your first step should be to stop and evaluate whether or not they could be correct. There's no prize for being right. You don't need to apologize or promise to correct the error every time someone comments but consider the possibility that they may have a point. Finally, while it is fun to patrol new pages and recent changes sometimes this isn't the best path for everyone. Consider just editing articles or participating in discussions for a while, you'll be amazed at how much perspective you get by merely stepping away from anti-vandalism tools for a while. Protonk (talk) 16:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think one of the problems here is that Wikicology is new, and trying to fit in. In doing so, they are "borrowing" a lot of phraseology and style from those who they see as "role models", such as those folks they list as "mentors". For instance, many of the phrases used are ones which RHaworth commonly uses, and they are listed as a user Wikicology admires. English maybe not being a first language tends to compound this approach. Unfortunately, because they haven't been here as long as those other editors, or gained the experience and respect which those other editors have, they can tend to use those "borrowed" styles in a way that isn't really appropriate. This can then be miscontrued as "talking down" when I'm sure that's not the intention. I have absolutely no doubt that they mean very well indeed, and can make great contributions, in time, but it would, I think, be wise for them to wait until they have listened to, and actively sought, enough advice before being confident in offering so much. A mentor is someone who has agreed to that role, and to whom one should actively go for advice, rather than just copy. They can explain why they do what they do, and at what times it would, or would not, be appropriate for you to do the same, or how you might approach things differently. Begoon ^talk 17:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• From the depth of my heart, i thank all amiable contributors for the useful comments. I appreciates every criticism from Stalwart111. Sincerely I feel victimized by Stalwart111 report here. I see it as a deliberate intention to sabotage my efforts. Protonk, I only issued warning when an editor make an unconstructive edit such as adding unsourced content to BLP, obvious vandalism, test edit, habitual refusal to use the edit summary, unjustifiable remover of content etc. I think am right for doing that. However, I don't see anything controversial in the AfD discussion closure that leads to this report. It seemed controversial to Stalwart111 simply because he reacted to every comments that favours keep. From a NPOV, I don't think his reactions to the comments make the discussion controversial. When he discovered that the discussion was closed as keep, he wasn't satisfied simply because his vote was Delete and he decided to take the advantage of the fact that am not an admin. I think his report is not from a npov. He should have waited for a neutral experienced editor to challenge it, perhaps one of those whose vote reflect Keep or editor that never participated in the discussion. But I have no other choice than to assume good faith. Am pretty sure that this report will help my edit behavior to a very large extent, because I now knew where I got it wrong and I will surely mend my cloth where it torn. But I feel victimized with Stalwart111 report. I feel sad as I type! Wikicology (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, my objection to your closure has nothing to do with the controversy of the topic (it's not controversial). I didn't "take advantage" of anything and my contribution to that discussion is irrelevant. I didn't challenge the result at WP:DRV, I challenged the closure and would have done so if you had closed as "delete" or (really) anything at all. You simply shouldn't be closing discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 21:42, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology, I'm not really convinced you appreciate the criticism because you don't seem to acknowledge the mistakes you have made (which is all that they are to me, mistakes, and they're not a big deal) and instead continue to make accusations about other editors (which is problematic). Maybe it's a language issue, but that's how I read your response. I think the suggestions that Begoon offers above is something you should strongly consider: ...it would, I think, be wise for them to wait until they have listened to, and actively sought, enough advice before being confident in offering so much. Please understand we're not trying to victimize you, but we are trying to lead you down a more productive path because it's clear you have potential and the energy to do good work here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• One very trivial example of Wikicology not getting it, but no harm done either. This Tuesday I set out to create Dzanc Books and was met by a message that it had been previously created and deleted as so much corporate spam. I put off creation for one day, and followed the message's suggested advice, leaving a heads-up with the deleting admin, User:Deb. Wikicology left a pointless message, suggesting I use WP:AFC, apparently one of his pet projects. Choor monster (talk) 19:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

• thank you I JethroBT and Begoon. I will learn from my mistake and I will make use of every useful advice. Thanks to you all.Wikicology (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe you will. Here's some more advice: Don't copy what other people say or do, word for word - develop your own style and way of doing things. If you're not sure what to do, ask someone you trust. In fact, even if you are sure, ask anyway - it can't hurt. If you don't have people to trust, find some by talking to them. There are lots of people who can help you. Take things slow. When you write a message to someone, preview it, and imagine how you would feel if someone had written it to you. Really imagine that - then write it again, better. You'll do fine. Start with basic things - even formatting, I just fixed all your indents here, for instance; see WP:INDENT. It's lots to learn, and it will take a lot of time. Begoon ^talk 20:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that spending too much time on the internet, and Wikipedia in particular, does strange things to you. For example, I just filled up Concetta the Corolla with petrol, and notice that the price was $AU 1.337. ZOMG! I thought, it's leet a litre. (Just thought I'd share that with everyone). Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 05:27, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

• Withdrawal of his Rollback Rights will make him a Better Wikipedian: My first encounter with Wikicology was when I voted that one of his article should be speedily deleted (as I frequently give my opinions on Nigeria related AFDs) His response was very fascinating to me because he carefully twisted Wikipedia policies against me. Although he apologized later but since I gave that vote, he continued to disrupt all my articles on Wikipedia. He went further to issue warnings to me on his talkpage.

I believe rollback rights should be reserved for experienced editors with very good track-record. I see no basis for giving him this right, at least until he gets a basic understanding on how the Wikipedia community works. Even though it might look like it, I am not saying all these because of the rift we had but out of my deep respect for privileged (special powers) users on Wiki and I just think him retaining the right is similar to giving a loaded AK47 to a newborn baby instead of allowing him to mature. Darreg (talk) 04:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that ANI is supposed to be where experienced editors contributes to discussion from a WP:NPOV to correct abnormalities based on facts and not on existing criticism. It is so sad that Darreg comment suggest a conflict of interest centered on the past clash we had, coupled with false accusation and allegations. Darreg had created over 50 articles here on wikipedia. He claimed that I disrupted all his articles. From his statement above ...he continued to disrupt all my articles on Wikipedia. I wonder how wikicology will disrupt over 50 articles (without being blocked long ago). I challenge Darreg to provide links, one-by-one to where I disrupt over 50 articles he created on wikipedia. In addition Rollback is an anti-vandal tool. I am glad to say that am an active patroller of both RC and NPP. Since he has comment on my rollback tool which is even out of point, I challenge Darreg again to provide links one-by-one to where I used my tool to make controversial changes or revert and where I used my tool to engaged in edit warring.I think Stalwart111 and other experienced editors will be interested in that. Having admitted the fact that my tone seemed to be hostile and accepted series of advices from different experienced editors, I expected Darreg to come up with useful and helpful comment rather than criticism based on false accusation and allegations. From a NPOV, I don't think this is expected from an editor who claimed a certain level of experienced.Wikicology (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is my first unpleasantry on Wiki. On or about 31 Aug 2014 User:Serten left a message in German on my user talk page (see: "Jetz aber"). I responded at Sertens user talk page in German (see: E CLAMPUS VITUS, usw).

Wickology placed a template "Speak english" on my user talk page and Sertens. I believed Wickiology was some sort of Wiki-functionary. I responded at my user talk page because I perceived Wickiologys user and talk pages to be unfriendly and contradictory. I never received a reply.

Wickiology then placed template "Not a forum" on my user talk page.

I presume Wickiology followed Serten to my user talk page. Prior to 31 August 2014 I never heard of either of them.

I feel Wickiologys actions are in poor form. I concede English is probably not Wickiologys primary language. After reading all this here, I have cause to surmise there is something behind Wickiologys editing other than presumptive ESL. I wish at this time to keep these opinions to myself, and never want hear from Wickiology again.

Help stop climate change here: [53] Tjlynnjr (talk) 19:08, 14 September 2014 (UTC) .

Tjlynnjr, the fact that you are getting it all wrong is now my headache. Perhaps you felt here is a ground for criticisms. Your basis for criticism is illegitimate because I was right for my action. There is nothing unfriendly on my talk page, maybe because I don't communicate in german or any other foreign language you love. On that memorable day, during my usual RC patrol, I found this on Serten talk page and this on Tjlynnjr talk page. Based on my understanding of policy and Per WP:SPEAKENGLISH I believed it was necessary for editors to communicate in english language on english wikipedia so that comments may be comprehensible to the community at large. To relief me of typing, I templated the both of them. Serten gave a compliment on his talk page. Tjlynnjr apologized that he was not familiar with wikipedia policy. Here is what he said..@Serten: @Wikicology: I apologise. I will also apologise to User:Serten at his page in case he was offended. I have been here at enWiki since March 2008; a fair time, but I am not technically skilled (in this HTML ? stuff, or what ever it is I am doing now) or well versed in Wiki protocol etc. I only discovered the "Ping User" feature a few days ago (August 2014). That is what he said to cut the history short. Serten responded with Wikicology is formal but friendly. Imma mir da Ruah (keep a stiff upper lip ;) Serten (talk) 20:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC). Am totally lost to see the same Tjlynnjr coming here to criticize again. What a life!!! Wikicology (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry for butting in here but I noticed that at much of Microbial growth monitoring techniques that this editor recently created appears to be copied almost word-for-word from this book, starting at "Monitoring microbial growth in culture". I'm still fairly new and I'm not sure what to do about copyright problems like this so I thought I could bring it up here. Thanks. --Ca2james (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you for pointing this out, Ca2james. It is thanks to people like you that Wikipedia continues to exist, because Wikipedia does not (mostly) get copyright complaints or lawsuits. I have tagged the page in question for speedy deletion. I await an explanation from User:Wikicology. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks, Demiurge1000. There are two more articles created by Wikicology with copyright issues: Transcription activators in eukaryotes, on which I've placed a speedy deletion tag, and Molecular tools for gene study, where I've made a note on the Talk page. When the latter article was created it was copied and pasted from another source but it's since been edited by others and appears to no longer have copyright violations. I'm not sure that Wikicology understands copyright issues or why it's not acceptable to copy and paste from other sources to create an article, based on their response to my note on the Talk:Molecular tools for gene study page. --Ca2james (talk) 16:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Further, User:Wikicology, please could you explain why you think that this is your first unpleasantry on the English Wikipedia, when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye already occurred? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 03:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It was not Wikicology experiencing their first unpleasantry on Wikipedia, but user:Tjlynnjr. The indentation used by Wikicology's for their reply to user:Tjlynnjr was insufficient. I changed it for clarity. - Takeaway (talk) 07:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Copyright issues is not a discussion for ANI. It can only be mention or reported here if an editor continues to violate the policy. If an article meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD), it should be tag appropriately and speedily deleted from wikipedia. Thank you so much Demiurge, I respect your ideology. I had decided to be quiet, as a result of blatant criticism and false accusation from certain editors whose comment is not from a NPOV. I can't ignore an editor like you. Regarding your question, that comment was not made by me. It was particularly made by Tjlynnjr above who felt that suggesting him to communicate in english language rather than german is unpleas. As for the AfD/Taofeek Olakunle Ajiboye, I don't have any problem with that because it was obvious that the article fails WP:GNG Thank you Demiurge. Wikicology (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm a bit worried about Wikicology's involvement with this AFC, having declined it as promotional and without sufficient establishment of notability. I don't see either of these issues when I read it myself and after a quick search on Google. - Takeaway (talk) 11:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Takeaway you need not to be worried sir. Am uncertain as to weather you had the opportunity to read the declined version. I want to let you know that the author of the draft has been improving it since on 13, August based on my advice. Infact he has also worked on it in the last few minutes today. I am sure that you only read the recent improved version as suggested by the link you provided above which actually pointed to the most recent improved version, contrary to the older version that was declined by wikicology here. In the older version, the first few lines claimed that the subject appears to be the first person to have obtain both MD and Ph.D in economics from university of pennsylvania, a claimed not supported by the references provided for verification. To save our time. As per the notability, the references you saw might appears much and sufficient to you but the majority of the references are primary sources which is insufficient to established notability. Article on BLP must be well-sourced with independent reliable sources. eventualism does not applies to BLP. In addition, if a submitted draft is decline, the essence of doing that is to improve it and the creator can resubmit it after improvement. If you saw some reliable sources on google as you had claimed, you can help the creator to simply adding it and am sure you will be thanked for doing that. Thank you for your comments. Wikicology (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually did read the declined version. As for primary sources, it is not that it is forbidden to use them per WP rules, it is just advised not to use them to prevent editors here on Wikipedia to engage in original research. As far as I could see, the primary sources used in the proposed article, were used only as proof for such simple statements as "Harris has published widely on smoking and health". The whole list of references after this statement is just a list of articles that Harris had written. In my opinion, knowing a bit about who Harris is, and how influential he has been for the formulation of laws regarding smoking, it was hardly necessary. The problem with a person such as Harris is that he is widely known in academic circles and with policy makers, just not with a wider public. As such, there are no easy-to-find quotable articles about his notability. I found that the article that you declined was sufficient for WP. It doesn't need to be perfect. I'm surprised that the editor hasn't given up. I've hardly seen an article where so much of the content is referenced. - Takeaway (talk) 14:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I just accepted the revised article on Harris; I think there's enough evidence he meets WP:PROF. Naturally, there's room for further improvement, as for all articles. I may of course be wrong, and anyone who disagrees is welcome to question the matter at AFD. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• With respect to copyright, I saw the speedy tag on Transcription activators in eukaryotes, and while checking it, I saw the message Wikicology left on its talk page trying to explain why it should not be deleted: Science related articles are different from other articles. They often follow the same principles. A cell is a cell in any source. This misunderstanding of copyright in my opinion is sufficiently fundamental that I do not think this editor should be reviewing articles or AfCs, or advising new editors. I think the privilege to review AfC should be withdrawn, and there is need for a topic ban on reviewing at NewPage Patrol. He clearly does not know the basics himself. The principle is that Competence is Required. As for copyright, I've given him a level 4 warning for copyvio, and I intend to block him altogether if there is another such violation in the future. DGG ( talk ) 17:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I thank all amiable community members who has made one or more comments, advices and recommendations towards the improvements of my edit behavior. However, I beseech the entire community members to please forgive me and give me a benefit of doubt ( not to sanction me with a topic banned on NPP or withdrawn my privilege to review AFC). I have passion for this project. I joined the community with an intention to improve it and not with a motive for disruption. I had been very active ever since I joined the project with the desire to become an administrator someday. However, I know that my dream will surely come true. Intense sanction may not allow this dream to come true. This discussion has really exposed me to a lot of things and I will make use of all the advices provided above which I have already put into play and I promise to abide and adhere strictly to every policies. On this note I beg you to temper justice with mercy. Wikicology (talk) 20:39, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Wikicology: For Pete's sake, don't even start thinking about being an administrator right now. It's not necessary to be an administrator to be able to effectively contribute to Wikipedia, so please just focus on the advice we are giving you. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you sir. I promise to focus on the advices. Wikicology (talk) 10:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• It would seem that Wikicology has used the reasons for deleting this AfD, an article which he had created, and applied it to his reviewing of the AfC of Jeffrey Harris (Economist, Physician) without truly understanding that a very notable academic is not the same as one non-notable academic. After quickly scanning his contributions list I have also noticed that Wikicology in some instances ([54], [55], [56]) reverts edits without understanding that these reverts were not at all contributing to Wikipedia. Edits such as this one where a whole list of exhibitions and projects by the artist were deleted with the edit summary "Cleanup unneccesary section", and this one do not give me much confidence that this editor actually knows what they are doing. Tagging this edit as vandalism, and also warning the editor, was totally unnecessary, especially in the light that said editor was in the process of improving the article. Adding this article for PROD without giving a valid reason. After Wikicology is warned about their actions by RHaworth, they apologise. Apologising after incorrect actions seems like a constant in their behaviour. It seems to me that this user wants to do too much, and too soon, hoping to become an important editor and administrator here on Wikipedia as quickly as possible. - Takeaway (talk) 13:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• In this thread as well as the past examples Takeaway points out, I only see generic apologies and promises to follow "advice". Not anything specific enough to indicate that they get it and know exactly what they need to stop doing. I've seen this pattern many, many times before with other editors, all of whom may be very well meaning but have no real self-awareness of their limitations nor an inclination to really listen to other editors except when they are threatened with sanctions. So you have someone with only a few months and a thousand edits under their belt thinking they know better than every long time veteran (as evidenced here, as already noted above)... That kind of arrogance rather overrides any good faith intentions to improve the encyclopedia, particularly when it's exacerbated by difficulties with the English language. Really the only thing that makes any difference is topic banning and mentoring, though that typically just limits the damage rather than encouraging actual growth. I just don't see a real prospect for improvement here, just more of the same. And the recently discovered copyright problems should be the last straw. postdlf (talk) 16:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I came across Wikicology a couple of months ago. My thoughts were, this editor has got hold of a copy of "How to become a Wikipedia Administrator in 6 months". This imaginary tome details the successful techniques one must follow to become a guaranteed administrator within 6 months of starting to edit Wikipedia. It instructs editors to choose an impressive screen name, to do as little actual content editing as possible, and do all that content editing on uncontroversial articles (you don't want to get sanctions or be involved in disputes), to regularly create a few articles (obscure and uncontroversial ones of course), to give out lots of advice, including posting things on users pages (new editors are best for this - they don't talk back) and mentioning Wikipedia and "the project" a lot (if you act like an administrator and talk like an administrator, one day you will be one), to frequent areas frequented by administrators so that you get yourself noticed by administrators (you need to find that special one who will one day nominate you), and to do as much non-administrator administrating on Wikipedia as you can (such as AfDs, etc.). And absolutely never be funny / flippant / sarcastic - there is no place for humor on Wikipedia - it's a serious business. I wonder, what has Wikicology done to make it go so wrong? Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They messed up the "new editors are best for this - they don't talk back" part. Anyway, absent a formal proposal for some editing restrictions, we appear to have run out of steam here. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Run out of steam"? Everyone agrees this editor has been a consistent problem across many areas. And it looks like yet another copy and paste copyvio was posted by him today, after User:DGG just warned him yesterday, and his response there is just baffling ("I just detected it too."). If you need it formalized, propose site ban as there is apparently no positive reason to permit Wikicology to continue to edit here in any capacity. Or, at minimum, indef block to be lifted only if someone agrees to mentor him (and Wikicology submits to this) and under the conditions that Wikicology is not to edit any articles until he demonstrates to the mentor's satisfaction that he understands how to respect copyright, and that until a consensus at ANI reverses it he is not to post anything in project space, not to review new articles, not to revert or undo any edits by another editor, and not to warn other editors, tell them what to do, or tell them what policy is or says. postdlf (talk) 22:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The copyvio content was already there before Wikicology started editing the article so indeed it has nothing to with them.

I've read a few suggestions on what actions would be best in this whole matter. I think that User:DGG's proposals here above are sound. I'm not here very often and normally only read this page as a source of amusement (oops) so I have no idea how to proceed with a formal proposal but my advise would be that Wikicology should limit their role here on Wikipedia for the foreseeable future, or be limited, to edit subjects where they they have real expertise instead of trying to be someone who knows everything. After a while, after gaining more knowledge on the inner workings of Wikipedia, they can proceed from there into other fields IF they are so inclined. - Takeaway (talk) 22:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Let us kindly assume that Wikicology will take that recommendation on board (as a suggestion - no AfC reviews, no new page patrolling, no giving advice to others, for a few months), and that DGG will indeed block Wikicology if they see them adding copyvio text again, and that no formal remedies are required. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think before we can assume anything, we need a substantive comment from Wikicology that demonstrates they understand all of this. Not just generic promises and apologies. postdlf (talk) 15:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sandra Bussin

Sandra Bussin was protected from editing by User:Bearcat due to a brief edit war, yet there is no expiry for the protection, and there has been no response to my latest discussion on the talk page. PortugalPepe (talk) 04:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

What's the rush? the panda ₯’ 07:41, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

@DangerousPanda: Don't EW-protected ṕages usually have expiry dates of a week or so? Epicgenius (talk) 13:29, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, oftentimes. It can always be amended, although in this case it might be necessary to keep it locked throughout the upcoming municipal elections. My point is that there's no rush - wait until Bearcat has had a chance to answer - a couple of days won't make a difference the panda ₯’ 18:31, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's not a problem, as DP points out. But I will reiterate my position that indefinite protection for articles (or anything where you don't actually expect the protection to last forever) is not a good practice. If it's expected that an article will need protection for some rough period of time then just guesstimate and set a reasonable expiry date. That way if you take a break or what have you there's no situation where another admin has to interpret your intent and needlessly reverse an admin action. Protonk (talk) 23:05, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

  So by "indefinite protection", "pick an expiry date later" is meant, not "never going to be unlocked". Got it. Epicgenius (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  Sometimes "indefinite" means "never going to be unlocked", see widely used templates as a good example. I just mean that ideally every admin action should be one which does not invite or require a reversal in a reasonable scenario. Meaning if I protect the article on Tulips indefinitely I should only do so if I think that the passage of time is not likely to alter the reason for protection. Otherwise at some point I have to remove or modify the protection or (more likely) someone else is tempted to do the same but has to worry if I'll get upset at the change. In practice we can (and do) resolve this by communicating w/ the admin taking the original action but it's much, much better for the original action to not require that communication or reversal. So instead if I protect Tulips for 2 days odds are after those two days the reason for protection will have diminished and the action will resolve itself on its own. If inside those two days someone feels that the protection should be removed (or extended) then a discussion can happen about that--great, the system works! But indefinite protection requires such a discussion regardless of the underlying circumstances or the passage of time. In an extreme case where I'm not willing to modify the protection someone has to bite the bullet and reverse my action against my will because the alternative (an article being protected forever) is untenable. That's not a wheel war but it's the first step toward one. Our best practices should push us away from that scenario wherever possible. Protonk (talk) 14:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations of "vandalism", and disruptive editing across many articles

This is elevating to the level absurdity, at this point. I'm sure I'm going to boomeranged to pieces, but I'm just upset, so I'll air my grievances. I previously brought a complaint against Niele (talk · contribs) at this forum earlier in the week. That was unproductive, and hence I abandoned it in favour of a WP:DRN case. However, despite this, and despite being warned about the Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, Niele has continued to disruptively edit across Ukrainian crisis-related articles. He constantly reverts edits by accusing people of "vandalism" and "PoV pushing" in edit summaries at every turn.[57][58][59] He previously derided me as a Marxist propaganda monger, which is something one can find out about at the last AN/I thread. He has again accused me of "agenda pushing", this time after I made a request for closure at WP:AN.[60] He has continued to attempt to right great wrongs across many articles, and has not listened to anyone.[61][62] His version of "consensus" appears to rely on whether people agree with him. At this point, no one has. I can frankly say that I believe that Niele is not here to build an encyclopaedia. Even after the last AN/I thread, where he was warned by Mr. Stradivarius not make personal attacks, even after he was warned about Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions, he continued this behaviour. In fact, he has escalated it. I suggest a topic ban, under the banner of the Eastern European discretionary sanctions, from Ukraine-crisis related articles. RGloucester — ☎ 18:56, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

User RGloucester was warned about not starting edit wars, but he dit starts it again. I did not participate or react when he reverts al of my edits. He personaly theatend me with 'Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions' after previous episode. While this was not discussed but his personal choise. The Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions also count's for him and I ask that he is banned instead.

The past day he is completly dissecting the 'Russian military intervention in Ukraine'-page. A page that he doesn't wants to exist, like he didn't want the 'Russo-Ukrainian war'-page and the 'Russian invasian'-page (made by other wikipedia users. Clearing parts of the infobox, removing the internation reactions to a subpage of donbaswar, removing sources Russian unit's, the shelling by Russia over the border into Ukraine,... all in a POV-push to hide the participation of Russia in this war as much as possible and portraying this war as a internal Ukrainian war.

I ask that user RGloucester is banned on basis of Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions. because he is undoing the work of many wikipedians in a constant POV puch to hide sourced info. --Niele (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• I will let this stand, given how absurd it is. I will just say that I love how spinning off International reactions to the war in Donbass is considered a bad thing, given the severe length problems that war in Donbass has. I think Niele should take the advice of another editor. RGloucester — ☎ 19:44, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

From a non-admin/uninvolved user's prospective, RGloucester seems to have acted in good faith, bringing the matter to WP:DRN. In contrast, I concur that Niele has been warned about personal attacks and unfounded claims of vandalism, yet continues to accuse users of vandalism. Now I'm sure both parties have good intentions, but in my (non-admin) opinion, Niele needs to read WP:Vandalism, stop with the unfounded claims of vandalism, and constructively discuss these matters in order to reach consensus in this highly controversial topic rather than unilaterally decide that his way is right. As far as any administrative action that should or shouldn't take place, let the admins and the ArbCom decide that; I'm just a lowly Wikipedian. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 17:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The original two articles (intervention) and (invasion) by Russia from wich the international reactions came, were not about a dombas war but about the military intervention/warconduct by Russia. Now these reactions are stuffed away under a page of the donbas-war claiming that it is only about the month august.--Niele (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

You neutrality is so great that you write about the 'Russian invasion in Ukraine' article (not written by me) things like: "If this article is going to stay, we might as well make it humorous."

As I tried to explaine you in the previous episode, this is disturbing to people and covering up a war is a sensitive thing. A war in wich 900 Ukrainian soldiers and 200-400 Russian soldiers died is not humorous or an absurd something and trying to hide it, is not respectfull to the people who died fighting it.--Niele (talk) 20:06, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a poor venue for this type of complaint. I suggest filing this at WP:AE. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:10, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

I would rather not be forced to carry on across many noticeboards. This is giving me enough of a headache already, and I believe user conduct can be evaluated here as well as it can there. RGloucester — ☎ 20:12, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikihounding

From: WP:WIKIHOUNDING

'Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia.'

(...)

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

I kindly request the admins to have a look at redlink user:Tiptoethrutheminefield's edit history, attitude towards me and the language they use in referring to me in discussions and edit summaries.

I already warned them enough and indeed they believe they are harassed by me and were going to report me (I am taking the trouble in their name) so please also look at my behaviour against them and tell me my faults.

Thank you very much and regards to all. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 21:26, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I am reporting a user for the first time, so I may have made mistakes. Sorry. (I hope I will never again disturb this board.)

While Tiptoe shouldn't have called your warning WP:vandalism, there was zero reason to reverted their removal of your warning which you appear to know they were fully entitled to do by the WP:TPG. At worst, you should have left a simple message on their talk page something similar to in the summary. Nil Einne (talk) 22:27, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have a User Name? has placed multiple "warnings" postings on my talk page: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68]. When I told him that his reverting of material that I had deleted from my talk page amounted to harassment, his response was "challenge accepted"! [69], and those numerous "warnings" he put on my talk page is also a form of harassment (according to WP:HUSH). He posts similar warnings on the pages of other users as well, such has [70], [71], [72], [73]. Rather than try and justify edits through talk page discussion, Why should I have a User Name? trys to silence those who reject his edits by posting these sort of messages on users pages. Of course he is every bit as involved in any on-going editing issues as the recipients of his messages - that is why I called them vandalism, and I think they are a misuse of Wikipedia form messages.

Many of Why should I have a User Name?'s interactions with editors consist of threats of Wikipedia sanctions or insults, he regularly misuses edit summaries to make them the delivery method: take these examples from the last month: "This is your last warning. One more POV edit and you will find yourself before a board defending yourself", "Go to discuss somewhere else and please do not threaten other users; you may get blocked", "Rv disruptive edit by Wikihound troll", "we have a right to expect some seriousness", "You cannot make the articles your own, in WP. Better make your own encyclopedia or participate in a forum where you can act the way you like, here there are rules to obey", "you are stealing the article! Please edit in a resonable and NPOV manner", "Please read our guidelines and try to understand how WP functions", "For User Alessandro57: Actions speak louder than words", "Comment to the 'creator' of the article", "Keep your OR to yourself", "1. First learn to sign your talk. 2. Read my page and review my edits before making stupid images of mine in your head. 3. Please do not come back here", "Read my contributions and TP before I take you somewhere", "You are trying to "own" the article and edit warring. You are trying to make a tailored suit, ignoring WP rules and practice and are about to be reported for disruption. So please stop absurd editing.", "Talk page only for civilized users".

I have been following some of Why should I have a User Name?'s edits because he makes lots of AfD proposals, some of which I feel are unjustified, he regularly deletes material from articles on the grounds that they are unreferenced (rather than posting a fact tag beside that content), and he regularly deletes material that has been fact tagged without ever bothering to find sources. On occasions I have restored content that he has deleted, giving that material new sources, sources that could have been easily found by Why should I have a User Name?, and on occasions I have opposed his AfDs, in most cases successfully. If required, I can provide many diffs illustrating these sort of edits and I don't think they come under wikihounding - they were not done for no overriding reason. I have concerns about this editor's editing style - he seems far to eager to delete and almost never uses article talk pages. This talk page thread shows my very first interaction with this editor [74].Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The case of harassment against me is so clear that I was intending not to comment anything here, but I cannot accept sheer lies like our very first interaction is being postponed five months when, indeed, it may have taken place in April 2014 instead of September 2014 as claimed. Therefore, some user either has a very weak memory or... (Note: I only responded to one simple claim. The only thing I want is to be left alone by this user, and not discussing their other claims.) Regards. --Why should I have a User Name? (talk) 08:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The link I gave was to a July interaction, not a September one. But yes, I had forgotten all about this earlier one. Though I am surprised you brought it up - it shows all of your editing mistakes: you made major content changes without discussing anything on talk pages, you made threats of "reporting" people, you made bad-faith statements against editors, you refused compromises, you continued edit warring. If you want your edits to be left alone, just start to edit more carefully and responsibly. [[[User:Tiptoethrutheminefield|Tiptoethrutheminefield]] (talk) 13:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeating copyright violations

StanTheMan87 (talk · contribs) was warned [75] but he keeps uploading images of Mullah Omar after they get deleted. [76] "Thousands of United States troops scouring Afghanistan for Mullah Mohammad Omar have been looking for the wrong man, according to an Afghan villager who says that it is his face on the CIA's wanted poster and not that of the fugitive Taliban leader." [77] This proves that U.S. government is posting images of people who are not Mullah Omar.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 23:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Krzyhorse22: Can you just link to the file (e.g. [[:File:File Name Here.jpg]]? No need to have an image with a caption on AN/I. Protonk (talk) 23:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
• It's labelled as a non-free file, so it's not okay to display it here. I have converted it to a wikilink. Also, you forgot to notify StanTheMan87 of this thread. I have done that step for you. -- Diannaa (talk) 00:00, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • ...didn't we just have this discussion? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thanks. The guy is determined to upload controversial images and is saying weird stuff on my talk page (i.e. You sound like you have been hired by the Taliban to quell any discussion of its members on the English Wikipedia. You seem to try and find any and every conceivable reason for not allowing anything to be be uploaded. I know you hold a POV on both Taliban and MO. Have you lost someone to Taliban?). [78] File:Mullah Mohammed Omar.png <-- This is obviously not the one-eyed Mullah Omar. It shows an unknown man with both eyes turning to the side so that is clear evidence it is not someone with artificial eye. A person with artificial eye (glass eye) is someone like Peter Falk (Columbo), the fake eye stays looking straight while the non-defective eye moves around. Mullah Omar's right eye is popped (like Popeye). How can I get his latest uploads deleted?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, User:The Bushranger, we did. The Krzyhorse22 account is a single-purpose disruptive account that appears to exist solely for the purpose of filing ANIs against StanTheMan87 (his first three edits after registering his account were ANI filings against StanTheMan87, among a wide variety of other things that have been exhaustively discussed previously). Expect to see this discussion again next week, and the next, and the next … DocumentError (talk) 07:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Firstly before any admins judge my conduct when it comes to uploading images onto Wikipedia, see Krzyhorse22 past reasons and explanations for having the images removed. He lied, claiming that he notified the director of the CIA to prove his point of view, see DocumentError on Krzyhorse22's behavior [79] "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." he dismissed claims that one of the images didn't portray who the source stated it portrayed, without providing any evidence, see [80] "The truth is that's not MO but someone else. There is clear evidence somewhere that proves it is another person. I don't have time to search it." and [81] "The guy shown from the side was interviewed a number of years ago and it was proven to be someone other than Omar." with no proof cited. But the most outrageous of them all was when he accused all Afghans of being too corrupt and called Khalid Hadi, an afghan photographer, a liar again without citing proof. see [82] "An Afghan guy claiming he took photo of Mullah Omar is not proof. Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much." see [83] "Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar". This is ridiculous, and now he is going after meager details in a fair use screenshot from a 1996 clandestinely took documentary clip stating "the men in the image appear to have both eyes." see [84] Note that you cannot see the eyes in the image, but merely two darkened eye sockets. When you loose an eye, you do not loose the socket which encompasses it. Furthermore, his badgering to have [85] removed as it doesn't portray the person it is intended to portray has already been added to the image description in the form of a disclaimer so as to not confuse those who use the article. A disclaimer reading "Photo allegedly portraying Mullah Omar according to the U.S State Department" see [86] has been used, and I have avoided using the image as the image used in the info-box of the article. I have tried to use a conciliatory stance with regards to these uploads, as I had forewarned my intentions of uploading them on his wall see [87], but to no avail it seems. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not about User:StanTheMan87. User:Krzyhorse22 has engaged in an extremely bizarre pattern of behavior during his time on WP that has included, among other things, Talk page harassment of StanTheMan87, repeated nominating of this file for deletion and block-shopping against StanTheMan87 through repeated ANIs. I have previously brought up Krzyhorse's extremely unusual behavior (that was capped by a legal threat that he [KrzyHorse] had been consulting with the director of the CIA about StanTheMan87!) as a possible single-purpose disruptive account in ANI but the thread was archived before an admin commented. It is absolutely unreasonable that StanTheMan87 should be subject to this level of ongoing harassment which appears designed to do nothing more than exhaust him from editing these subjects in order to further a wild conspiracy theory KrzyHrse22 appears to be trying to promote on WP. What is occurring right now is the exact definition of WikiBullying. I'm pinging User:HJ Mitchell and User:Protonkbecause I'm afraid this is going to go unnoticed and archived again until the next ANI against StanTheMan87 that KH22 files. DocumentError (talk) 06:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You have accused others of being single purpose account but you were proven wrong. [88] What's more interesting is that you and StanTheMan87 behave very much the same. For example, in edit summary both of you write "added image". [89] [90] You both upload images the same way. [91] [92] The following two diffs [93] [94] and the fact that you sign the same way, edit once in a blue moon, showing up together in the same discussions, typing similar long text with the same POV (repeating the call to CIA head, and etc.) makes it too obvious that you are abusing multiple accounts. I guess you don't care because you'll just create another account. Tell us, are you abusing multiple accounts? Just say yes or no. If you answer no then I'll file SPI. As for me, I'm not single purpose account. I have no connection or anything to Taliban. I just don't like to see false information and false licenses. I feel the world will be better when there is more truth.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 13:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly the kind of off-kilter, bizarre behavior I'm talking about. Everyone who commented in your last tirade were subject to similarly wild accusations. Here [[95]] - in the last incident your orchestrated - you accused me of being one of the WP:BLP I'd written (after you said to Baseball Bugs "Bugs, you have no idea who I am, meaning I could be a CIA agent and nobody will ever know.")! Now it appears you've abandoned that and are going to throw a new accusation against the wall of me being StanTheMan87 to see if you can get that to stick. (If you think using the phrase "added image" is a smoking gun of sockpuppetry, I very much encourage you to file a SPI case. As I'm sure that's coming next, I recommend you provide the output of the editor interaction tool in your report [[96]], and also request our IPs be geolocated.) Your behavior during your time on WP has been so utterly bizarre that it is simply impossible to AGF your purpose here. DocumentError (talk) 16:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

But you do everything the same. "If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck." I already knew you weren't going to answer yes or no. IP location is not important because everyone these days use proxies.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"IP location is not important because everyone these days use proxies" - your lack of clue is showing. "I feel the world will be better when there is more truth" - Wikipedia is not about truth. Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. It's a long-established if sad fact that accounts that say things about how they are battling on behalf of The Truth are far more often than not WP:NOTHERE. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"I feel the world will be better when there is more truth" is a general statement, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules. Nice try anyway.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Given you said it in a context where it can only mean with regards to Wikipedia, in a discussion about your editing on Wikipedia, trying to claim "it has nothing to do with Wikipedia rules" is extraordinarily disingenious. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. If you think the fact that we have both have used the phrase "image added" in edit summaries when we've added images indicates we're socks, then you should absolutely open a case against us at SPI. While you're at it, just open one against everyone who has called you out [[97]] on your extremely bizarre and disruptive behavior since you joined WP. DocumentError (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You used "added image" and then when StanTheMan87 was created this year he began using it also. Like I said you both do everything the same. I'll wait to see what others suggest.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:04, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Drats, you caught us! DocumentError (talk) 21:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 you're absolutely right, typing "added" image" when adding an image is downright vandalism and just morally outrageous, but typing something like "Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians" [98] to support your claim for an image being unfree is A-OK. I suggest a 12 month IP ban for myself effective immediately for being such an irresponsible and naughty editor. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a reality, see Corruption Perceptions Index. Plus, I spent years in these countries.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That index is for corruption on a government level, hence "the misuse of public power for private benefit.". Your statement is unbelievably stupid, ignorant and generalized, as you have tarred multiple groups of people with the same brush, regardless if you "spent years in these countries". StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

More seriously, if that's the cornerstone of your 'they must be the same' campaign, you need to drop the stick immediately or it will turn into a bent one. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a battleground. As a new editor you should welcome me instead of showing hostility. It would be a lot better if you treat everyone equally and with civility. This is the problem today, everyone acts better than others. I figured you don't like me but you don't have to abuse your admin power just to feel special. If you can't comprehend my simple English that's your personal problem. You're either confused or trying to confuse others. This particular discussion is about StanTheMan87 uploading problematic images and everyone should focus on that. Again, when I said "I feel the world will be better when there is more truth", it was intended as a general statement. There's no need to elaborate on what this meant to you, keep it to yourself. Notice that others didn't comment but only you did. "In Wikipedia, verifiability means that people reading and editing the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." StanTheMan87 failed to show a reliable source that says this image is of the one-eyed Mullah Mohammed Omar. Both eyes are working and moved to the side, that's clear evidence that it's not him. The second issues is that, based on the facts I pointed out, DocumentError and StanTheMan87 are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Why should we be afraid to mention this? Why are you not commenting on that? Do you have proof that they are not the same person or meatpuppeting?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 15:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That's it, I move for Krzyhorse22 to file a SPI against me, he appears willing so I'll welcome it. My only condition is that when it turns out that I am in fact not the same person as DocumentError, that you Krzyhorse22, get permanently banned from Wikipedia for wasting every ones time, unable to spread your malicious nonsense. StanTheMan87 (talk) 06:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you wish for me to be permanently banned? It's silly to speak for others when they don't even know who or what you are. You're unnecessarily replying to comments directed at others so you're wasting your own time with writing lengthy rants and nonsense. --Krzyhorse22 (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know this smh.com is telling the truth while the US government is either being deceptive or ignorant? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The smh.com story was posted in 2002 and after that US government removed this image from its websites, so we're not focusing on that image. The focus here is this image. There is simply no credible source to confirm it is the one-eyed Mullah Omar (spiritual leader of the Taliban). US government is no retard to claim it is him. Show me one US government site that says it is him. It's just speculation and anyone who knows about artificial eye will quickly tell you that the man in the image does not have artificial eye. Ask your self who took that photo when he is hiding and hates being photographed? The real MO could make a passport under a different name and travel anywhere around the world without being detected. In Western countries it may be difficult but in the Afghanistan region it can be done very easily, without even visiting the agency that issues it. That's one of the reasons we don't upload someone else's image and name it MO and then add it in his article. That's helping the real MO evade detection because law enforcement agencies around the world will believe that the image in Wikipedia is the real MO. This is what people these days believe.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Misuse of rollback

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) has misused rollback to revert non-vandalism edits on some 200 articles. Ser Amantio di Nicolao (talk · contribs) used AWB to add Category:American films after a brief discussion at WikiProject Film. While there wasn't much time to develop a consensus as to whether he should use AWB to mass-add the category, the category itself clearly states that it is non-diffusing and should be added. BMK mass-reverted these edits. When I told him to stop using rollback to revert non-vandalism, his response was to ban me from his talk page and tell me to "stuff it" because he has more edits than me. I was going to leave this alone, but he seems to have a fundamental misunderstanding of when to use rollback. These good-faith edits were clearly not vandalism. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Errmmm... In your second contribution to that talk-page you make ANI-threats. Trying to reach consensus does not usually imply acting as if you were the benevolent dictator of Wikipedia. That's Jimbo's job. I can't say your approach is one that engenders any form of consensus and it sure would have antagonized me, too. "Stuff it" seems rather moderate, some terms come to (my) mind that are distinctly less flattering. I don't give a hoot on whether you're "right" or not, but the way you talked to BMK is a surefire way not to get what you want. Next time try asking "What's up, doc?" instead of "telling people" what to do. You may get better results. Kleuske (talk) 07:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, the fundamental misunderstanding seems to be on NRP's part. Rollback is primarily intended to be used for vandalism, but, as stated clearly in WP:ROLLBACK, it is also suitable to be used

To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page

The appropriate explanation is provided on my own talk page.

Having left a comment to User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao on their talk page about their errant AWB edits, the editor responded on my talk page and I replied there as well. There can be no mistaking my response, combined with the rollback-reverts of Ser Anatio di Nicolao's AWB edits, as a clear explanation of what was happening. Certainly Ser Anatio di Nicolao understood, because he stopped making the edits in question almost immediately. It is only NinjaRobotPirate, significantly not one of the two editors actually involved, who seems to have a problem with understanding the use of rollback to undo unwarranted AWB edits.

I do not ask for any sanction against Ser Anatio di Nicolao for the use of AWB for controversial edits (which is not allowed), because I believe that he thought the edits he was making were justified, and I am convinced that he understood completely the point of my rollback-reverts, as he stopped making edits of the type under discussion.

It's worth, I think, talking about the type of edits that I was rolling back. Articles which already were categorized with Category:American Western (genre) films were having Category:American films added to them. It is my understanding that a basic principle of categorization on Wikipedia is that if an article has a child category already on it, a parent category should not be added, and Category:American Western (genre) films is certainly a child of Category:American films.

This is clearly a case of an editor getting poor advice from a Wikiproject and proceeding on that basis to use AWB to make a large number of inappropriate edits, of another editor (me) catching the mistake and using rollback to revert the errant edits, and of a third editor (NinjaPirateRobot) inserting themself into the situation to complicate matters unnecessarily. BMK (talk) 08:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there's any problem with BMK's use of rollback in this situation. There is, though, clearly a WP:CIVIL issue in BMK's responses to NinjaRobotPirate - but Kleuske's comments above regarding NinjaRobotPirate's actions here are also valid; NRP clearly antagonised BMK rather than dealing with the situation calmly. I don't think any admin action is needed here but both editors need to cool down a bit and discuss the issue in a much less aggressive way. WaggersTALK 09:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I note here that Ser Amantio di Nicolao plans to resume making these edits in the morning. If he does, I will be asking for his AWB privileges to be removed, as AWB is very specifically not to be used for controversial edits, and the addition of a parent category to an article which already contains a child category is very clearly "controversial". BMK (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• BMK is correct: it is fine to use rollback "To revert widespread edits... provided that an explanation is supplied". By contrast, it is unacceptable to use AWB to add a pointless category after a discussion with two comments. Yes, BMK should not have been uncivil, but what was expected after the ex cathedra statement that BMK was "especially disruptive"? Johnuniq (talk) 10:57, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll comment only on the use of Rollback: the use of any automated tool, including AWB, carries a much higher standard of quality to the community. As AWB can literally do hundreds of edits over a few minutes, the hazard to the project is greater. Improper edits using AWB (even if well-meaning) are obviously subject to the use of Rollback as a not-quite-as-quick methods of undoing those hundreds of improper edits. the panda ɛˢˡ” 10:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ken has missed the point of a long-standing consensus on this issue. It has been discussed at the Film Project many times (example 1, example 2). In the above text he cites the category Category:American Western (genre) films. This is not a sub-category of Category:American films, but a sub of Category:American films by genre, which is explained clearly in the reply in example two by Betty Logan. Maybe Ken should try and gain a consensus with the Film Project to change this? Until he does, then he should not rollback any edits. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 11:28, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • But Category:American films by genre is itself a child category of Category:American films, so the point still stands, whether we're talking about a child category or a grandchild category. The "consensus" at the film project should not override normal Wikipedia-wide categorization procedures, which is not to add a father (or grandfather) category to an article when a child (or grandchild) cat is already there.

    The point is moot, because Lugnuts has himself used rollback to undo my reverts, and I will not, of course, edit war to restore them, but I do note that having been charged with "disruption" for upholding normal procedures, it seems to me somewhat more disruptive on Lugnuts part to make a mass-reversion when discussion is ongoing here. BMK (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

    • Wrong once again, Ken. Disruption is going against the current consensus. Which is what you were clearly doing. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Wrong, User:Lugnuts, going against current consensus is not necessarily disruptive. Maybe the consensus has changed, or the consensus is not in line with policies or guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No issue with the use of rollback, entirely justified by policy. My question is, why don't we remove AWB before the threatened disruption begins again tomorrow? That is the definition of preventative that underlines our blocking policy itself. Daniel (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are consistent with a long-standing consensus on film categorization, then it is arguably not "disruption". I have no problem with an editor challenging a consensus—that's how we effect change on Wikipedia—but it seems a bit rough to penalize another editor who is editing within the current consensus. If an editor wishes to review or change the way articles are currently categorized then there are several sensible routes: start a discussion at the Film project; start a discussion at the Categorization project; file an RFC at the category itself. However, reverting or preventing editors from normal categorization procedures seems unhelpful at best, and most people would consider disruptive since it makes the categorization inconsistent i.e. the cat should be added to all American films until there is a consensus to remove it from all American films. Betty Logan (talk) 19:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No, User:Betty Logan. One is not adding something when one knows it is discussed, one is not en-masse performing edits to that extend when it is discussed, and one is not reverting removals while it is discussed, it even if a previous consensus (which was a local consensus which seems in conflict with policy and guideline anyway) established that practice. You first re-establish the consensus and check whether that (local) consensus is in line with policy and guideline (or change the consensus there). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

YOU establish that the consensus no longer stands and we will stop adding the category to the film articles. Until that happens it will be business as usual as far as categorization is concerned. Betty Logan (talk) 06:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that that is clear from these discussions: some people have now commented against, which means that the consensus does not stand anymore. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This discussion is primarily about the use of AWB/rollback. So far only a single editor is opposing the current system of categorization at the corresponding discussion at WT:FILM, and the world doesn't stop simply because a single person wants to have a discussion. Since when has filibustering become an acceptable tactic on Wikipedia? I'm quite happy for this to be discussed, and if the consensus is to remove the category or to diffuse it then so be it. Even if the consensus is changed then the catgeory will have to be removed from 20,000 articles, so is it much more of a problem if it has to be removed from 21,000 articles, or 30,000? However, if a discussion goes on for weeks then we could end up with hundreds of articles not correctly categorized one way or the other, and going back to articles and adding a missing category is more difficult than removing a catgeory en masse. Betty Logan (talk) 07:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The AWB additions were in good faith, the mass-revert was because it was deemed in contrast with what we have in policy/guideline (even if that has local consensus). Both those actions were 'correct', but since the addition was challenged (yes, challenging something starts with one person) that indeed needs a re-establishment of consensus (and checking whether the local consensus is actually in line with the global consensus). That makes AWB additions controversial (and I am predicting that AWB removals are equally controversial, per my comments below). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, my original statements were worded way too harshly. I must have been feeling rather irritable at the time. In the future, I'll try to get more than three hours sleep before I write messages on talk pages. Sometimes I agree with Lugnuts, and sometimes we trade insults. This time, I agree with Lugnuts. There is long-standing consensus at WikiProject Film to add this non-diffusing category to articles; the "non-diffusing" tag was added years ago, and it has, to the best of my knowledge, never been challenged. I thought the AWB action was taken a bit hastily, but there had been an existing consensus for them; I do not see how this can be "misguided". However, it seems like I'm on the losing end of this debate. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

"Sometimes I agree with Lugnuts, and sometimes we trade insults." Another line to be engraved onto my tombstone. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

All very well for the folks at the Film Project to agree among themselves to operate counter to Wikipedia's normal categorizarion procedures, except that WikiProjects don't really have the authority to do that. BMK (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS may well be relevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, this seems in conflict with the consensus in our policies and guidelines. Can that please be clarified and`/or put in line before editors (re-)add these categories in places where they are controversial? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is a non-diffusing category. As per WP:DUPCAT: "They provide an exception to the general rule that pages are not placed in both a category and its subcategory: there is no need to take pages out of the parent category purely because of their membership of a non-diffusing subcategory." There is no conflict with policies/guidelines/general practice here. If editors believe it should be diffused then they should start a discussion about that, but obstructing the addition of a non-diffusing category where is clearly applies is disruptive. Betty Logan (talk) 06:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Non-diffusing categories are not rare. Over 20,000 articles are already in Category:American films—as per long-standing consensus to have film articles in wider by-year, by-country, and by-language categories for ease of navigation—so how could it possibly be controversial to add the few remaining ones? —Xezbeth (talk) 06:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that some people have commented against it now shows that it is controversial .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So because some people mistakenly believe the edits are controversial, that justifies threatening to remove AWB from someone with nearly 800,000 non-controversial edits? I see. —Xezbeth (talk) 07:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I said that, nor did I say that that was OK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, User:Betty Logan, note that categories can be both non-diffusing ánd diffusing at the same time - and I believe that here that is the case, and that because of that the inclusion of the Category:American films is unwarranted in many cases, and should be removed. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Admin threat

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Minor misunderstanding clarified. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Would an uninvolved admin please take a look at this edit? User:Andrevan is explicitly threatening using his admin tools in order to enforce his preferred version of an article. This seems like a blatant misuse of admin privileges. StAnselm (talk) 09:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm, that's not what "explicit" means. I didn't use any admin tools nor did I threaten to; I made an oblique reference to means and mechanisms. Note that I have stopped edit warring and slapped an NPOV tag on the article. "Engage in the mechanisms" refers to starting RFCs or coming to noticeboards like these. I would however love if someone would come by and explain WP:RNPOV and WP:RS/AC to these folks. Andrevan@ 10:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You said "I have an argument and the means to pursue the accomplishment of policy-driven goals". That is clearly referring to something I don't have - namely, admin tools. And then you explained that you were, in fact, making a threat: "Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above." Personally, I think that is appalling behavior from an admin, but of course that would be for the community to decide. StAnselm (talk) 10:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The means I have which you lack are primarily that I have a logical argument, familiarity with this system and policies, and the ability to make some noise. Perhaps I left this hanging threat ambiguous, but you know full well I could not follow through on a use of admin tools in this case. The edit warring I've already done is in bad form as it is considering I began as the formal mediator of this dispute. Even assuming I were referring to admin tools, that would be implicit, not explicit. If I were going to block you or protect the article I could have done that already. Andrevan@ 10:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It's not explicity what Andrevan was referring to by "means to pursue" could be admin tools, could be anything else, however would the original edit war and underlying conflict not be better resolved with an RFC? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SPACKlick (talk • contribs)

• Comment To editor Andrevan: - the only "ability to make some noise" that you have and St Anselm doesn't comes from your status as an Admin. As you admit goading St Anselm into edit warring maybe it's time you took a step back, some deep breaths, and came back later when you're a little calmer? DuncanHill (talk) 10:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Andrevan said "If you and your sock/meatpuppets keep this up I will have no choice but to pursue other means. Yes that is a threat - a threat to engage in the mechanisms which enforce policies like those quoted above." "The mechanisms to enforce policies" are as said above RfCs and noticeboards. What I see here is a big lack of good faith on the part of the OP. He has also made it clear that he feels he was and should not have been edit warring - what more could he say? Both parties need to take a deep breath and move on. Dougweller (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• • @StAnselm: While I do understand that the statement could be interpreted as threatening admin tools in fact that is not what it meant. Because Andrevan has been actively involved in editing the article, he is involved and thus precluded from using admin tools. I hope that Andrevan takes a deep breath and approaches this in a calm manner. However the statement essentially says that Andrevan has a lot of experience and knows how to navigate the dispute resolution mechanisms.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: There have been chippy threats to other editors as well. diff I asked Andrevan what hat he is wearing here diff1 and his reply was that he is here to mediate diff2 I pointed out that one person asked him to intervene on their behalf and that is not mediation. diff3 He retaliated by stripping the tags off my talk page.diff4. Andrevan has repeatedly issued talk page warnings and taken actions consistent with an admin enforcing policy. I pointed out on the article talk page that it is considered admin misconduct to advocate for a preferred version of content and wear the admin hat at the same time. diff5 The issue at hand is conduct unbecoming an admin, per expectations of adminship. Ignocrates (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

While not a threat to use admin tools in a dispute it was worded in a way that could cause one to think that. I don't think the OP was unreasonable in their confusion and that Andrevan should be less oblique in his threats. I also think that now that the comment has been clarified that there is nothing actionable against Andrevan. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Novak Djokovic

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

---

Sourced information (quote from Srdjan Djokovic) was added on Novak Djokovic page about the ancestry of his mother. Soundwaweserb is constantly reverting this sourced information claiming to be a nationalist provocation altough he himself made several nationalist statments on my talk page while refusing to accept the provided source-quote. Please advise. Thank you. With regards,--SadarMoritz (talk) 13:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Such information is not a place on the page! That is incorrect information, a newspaper Kurir not a relevant source. I'd like to stop the attacks on nationalists Wikipedia. Please, do not let this behavior of the user SadarMoritz. Thank you. With regards.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 13:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Soundwaweserb, could you explain why you think this newspaper is not a reliable source? (I assume you mean "reliable" when you say "relevant"?) Generally newspapers are considered reliable sources, but there are specific exceptions; can you give clear reasons why this specific newspaper is not reliable? SadarMoritz, I'd like to ask why you believe his mother's ancestry is important. This especially since our policy regarding living persons is fairly clear that we should avoid personal details like ancestry, birthdates, sexual orientation, politics, or religion unless the person himself or herself makes them public. This especially when this information is not related to the individual's notability. We don't need to know his ancestry; he's not the Crown Prince of a monarchy where his ancestry actually affects his notability. --NellieBly (talk) 14:59, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Because newspapers Kurir is frivolous, tabloid without coverage and in Serbia they are not taken seriously, like Politika or Danas. Especially since this particular information is incorrect, never confirmed, he is not a president or a monarch to his perceived origins. He plays tennis and it has no place on the page. Please do not let the problematic users from Croatian Wikipedia to enter incorrect information.--Soundwaweserb (talk) 15:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Can this be handled someplace like WP:RSN? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 20:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Editor ignoring repeated requests

The editor User talk:D47817 consistently ignores my requests to stop reverting formatting changes made to the article DB Schenker Rail (UK) - requests made on the users talk page, and on the article talk page.

There actions are counterproductive - essentially the last 2 or more days I've had to clean up after unneccessary edits to the named article, all of which were reversions to work I had done. Although the editor makes useful contributions, they are ignoring my requests to "play nice" with other peoples work.

Also possible sockpupptettry - the editor keeps reverting to a non standard reference form that ignores the proper title , and reverting to a category formatting that ignores guidelines:

User talk:D47817 A B

User:Bbjet A B

The edits are similar, and the form of replacement is identical. Both editors were requested by me repeated times to stop various counterproductive actions - requests which were ignored.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Same user is now edit warring - on the point of citation titles eg - the editor is replacing the obvious page title in the title field, with an abstract of the page contents. Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Prof.Haddock is getting upset when I replace a dead link with a live one that is not in his/her preferred format. I consider the formatting of cites secondary to including the cites in the first place. Yes some of my posts may inadvertently have overridden his or others work, yet some of his posts have done likewise to my posts. Overall I have taken the number of cites from 60 to 100 on the DB Schenker Rail (UK) article and it appears the editor is unwilling to accept some of these changes. D47817 (talk) 15:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't reverted any of your positive additions. The insinuation that I am acting in bad faith just more low level abuse. The issue is that you keep reverting my work, and have ignored repeated requests not to do so.Prof.Haddock (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There was no insuation that deletions were deliberate, merely an occupational hazard when editing, which I just dealt with without fuss. Guess I should be greatful I wasn't addressed a cunt as Prof.Haddock did when recently addressing another editor.[99] Maybe someone is getting a bit stressed and needs a wikibreak? D47817 (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack campaign being waged on User-page

[100] contains a long paragraph telling the reader exactly where to find me, without mentioning me by name, but very nearly - and telling the reader that I am a Sockpuppet.

"Pass a Method (mainly edits religious and sexual topics, has a significant interest in or preference for LGBT topics); recently caught him after he tried to evade scrutiny. Take note that there is only one UK-based Wikipedia editor interested in politics and Islam who misspells the word grammar (that I'm aware of anyway), and that editor is Pass a Method. Misspelling the word is what this editor recently did, and that editor was blocked as a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet (though for far more than simply misspelling the word grammar). Also take note that because Pass a Method discarded his Pass a Method Wikipedia account by using Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer to enforce a self-imposed WP:Wikibreak until the year 2020, it is a bit trickier reporting him for WP:Sockpuppetry. Either way, editing in the same exact areas as he did before and so soon after his topic ban and WP:Sockpuppetry, while pretending that he is a new editor, is a violation of the WP:Clean start policy; so he can very likely be sanctioned for that. If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet: Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). Editing religious topics in general, including the addition of anything about Pope Francis (whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him). Editing LGBT articles. Editing political articles. Editing sexual articles. Editing medical and/or anatomy articles. Editing science topics such as the Big Bang article, or topics about black holes; the Stellar black hole article, for example, could be a candidate. Visiting the WP:Help desk. Focusing on leads. Focusing on British topics; using British spelling. Using editing summaries that are meant to deceive. Using Urban Dictionary as a source, whether it's at the Erection article, or, for example, the Roach (smoking) article. Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles."

This is the whole paragraph. I was advised, after I tried to delete it myself, to explain very carefully why I "think" it's about me. ([101]) This was after she had attacked me in an edit summary, [102], stating in the edit summary "your edit summary was deceptive...as usual" (which, on her talk page, you can see she apologises for, and admits, finally, I am not the sockpuppet).

Every fact, from "If you find an editor doing several or more of the following things, that editor is very likely a Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppet:" onwards is directly describing me, compiled from going through my edit history no doubt. (Except the bit about the Erection article). I wrote the entire current Boko Haram article. She first confronted me with her allegation over a month ago, while I was still writing it.

• For proof this statement should be sufficient "Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)" especially the part in parentheses. (I wrote the article without the collaboration of any other editors).

• Another reason it is clearly about me: I did indeed use the Urban Dictionary as a source on Roach (smoking).

• Also, I did indeed have Van Gogh's picture of a skeleton smoking a cigarette on my user page, for a month or two, until a couple of days ago.

• "Focussing on leads" - I have done this lately

• "Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing those articles"- yes, I do that.

Clearly, she has checked everything I do, and added it to the description, to make sure that readers find me.

I hope this is detailed enough. It's very long, but I was warned to be very clear. I would have thought it was immediately obvious, but 2 or 3 admins have refused to do anything about it, because it doesn't mention me by name. This is presumably all a big joke to them. I fail to see the humour.

One statement should suffice to prove everything I say: "(I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article)". If you look at the edit history of the BH article, you'll see what I mean. No one has made any substantial edit to that for months (except a couple of editors who insisted on adding a sentence or two to the "name" section).

Another very specific proof, "(whether it's the Pope Francis article or, for example, an addition to the Recreational drug use article about him)". I wrote most of the article and did indeed add a mention of the Pope.

And, as far as the attack being unsubstantiated, she has now finally admitted that she thinks it is "2%" likely that I am the sock. The sock cannot spell (one of the defining characteristics she mentions about him, above), and a quick look at his writing provides evidence of a very shaky grasp of the rules of grammar.

I have no idea why Flyer22 chose to target me in this way. She still claims to be absolutely certain that I have edited WP substantially before this account. As I have repeatedly explained to her, I never even found out how to use references before. But anyway, whatever her mysterious personal antagonism towards me, she has not responded to my requests on her talk page to remove it. The last thing she said (on her talk page, after admins blocked me from deleting the userpage attack myself) was that I am not (or only 2% likely to be) the sockpuppet, and that she apologises for attacking me in an edit summary, and that she has nothing more to say to me.

Clearly, she thinks she should be entitled to attack me, out of personal spite, for however long she sees fit, and the the admins who stopped me from deleting it possibly share her view. So I just thought I'd find out if that is indeed the policy, that long-standing editors can hound new editors out of WP if they see fit, out of personal spite (or other personal reasons, I have no idea). The sockpuppet's inability to follow the rules of grammar or spelling make it obvious at a glance that it's not me. I have now wasted a huge amount of time on this issue. I hope it can be resolved without any more fuss, since it is a crystal clear case of a sustained personal attack (and I have no idea what motivated it). I would like the entire section removed: clearly, she has no ability to track sockpuppets, and would simply use the section to put more "cryptic" clues about what a terrible editor and fraud I am.

I asked the editor who protected her userpage after I tried to delete it to get the stuff about me removed, but he repeatedly claims that it's not about me. This is presumably a private joke which I'm not in on. I am disgusted at the way I've been treated, being hounded over an imbecilic allegation, and told that material attacking me is "not" attacking me, by an administrator.

Please do something to demonstrate that WP isn't the shabby little club ([103], an admin cynically protecting his friend's right to attack me if she wants) that it has now started to appear to me as. On this admins page, another editor has stated that I started editing on Sept 10, I notice. What is that about? Ive been editing for months. It seems like there is a campaign against me for some reason (I would like to know why, but it's not important). zzz (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You deleted the entire page repeatedly [104], [105], [106] and did not respond to Flyer22's offer. [107] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:33, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Theres definetly a whiff of incivility going on along with vandalism on the user page, im starting to hear a soft woosh woosh. Amortias (T)(C) 17:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Posting an accusation against another editor - even in personal Talk space - is not AGF. It is correct that zzz should not edit Flyer22's user page, however, neither should Flyer22 be using her user page to attack other editors. If there is an issue of sockpuppetry, it needs to be raised in SPI. If there's not enough evidence for a SPI case then the matter should be dropped. Everyone should have the ability to defend themselves against insinuation and accusation, that's why we have formal arbitration and remediation processes. Posting these as "scarlet letters" on personal user space creates a situation where the accused has no opportunity for defense. There is no possible good outcome to this; it will inevitably lead to disruption and increasingly heated WP:CIVIL issues between Flyer22 and zzz. It should be addressed and corrected right now, either through voluntary action or a compulsory edit to the section in question. DocumentError (talk) 17:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If you didn't edit as Pass A Method then the information cannot be about you. Your attempt to conflate the issue and say that it is about you is worrying and raises WP:COMPETENCE issues. FWIW shabby little club's are some of my favorite places and I have met some of the nicest people that I have known in them. MarnetteD|Talk 17:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

While that's true, Flyer22 behaving toward zzz in an accusatory fashion in articles they both edit has to be taken into account within the context of the monologue on her Talk page. Saying things like "your edit summary was deceptive...as usual" in edit summaries addressed to zzz, etc., can only be designed to "poison the well" against zzz. If one wants to believe another editor is a sock, that's fine, don't bring it up in public, though, unless you're prepared to make an accusation in SPI. I frequently see this where an editor is (often justifiably) convinced another editor is a sock but, instead of filing SPI, pursues "street justice" against them by making insinuations in public space in apparent attempts to delegitimize the suspect editor's contributions in the eyes of others. There is no outcome from organizing a WikiLynchMob that could possibly be construed as benefiting the content quality of WP; this is only and serially disruptive. DocumentError (talk) 18:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(mec) There is more at Recreational Drug Use, admin only and more advice. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 17:52, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes there is a whiff of incivility, which I am largely wo blame for, and I regret that. The incivility started when Flyer22 attacked me in this edit summary. I went to CBWeather's page to blow off steam, and she followed me there, and raised her accusations of being a sockpuppet, being detrimental to articles, making deceptive edit summaries, and having a history of diruptive editing, and a personal attacks issue. I very strongly disagree with all of the above, and she provides no evidence. She eventually did apologise for the edit summary, after I had discovered and tried to delete the attack page.

Neil, I didnt notice her offer because it was on your page. I left friendly messages on her page, but there was no reply. In any case, I can't take the offer of removing half a dozen words seriously. Oh yes, and I told her why I was deleting the page.

Marnette, the attack piece claims that I am the puppet. I deny the accusation. I guess you think I am being unreasonable somehow. I do not know why you think this though. zzz (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, "attacked me in this edit summary : [108]" zzz (talk) 18:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Either get rid of the lies about me off your page or I will delete it is not "friendly". What are you looking for here? A modification to some text on her user page? if so, I suggest you propose what you want changed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

That was written immediately after I discovered the large attack paragraph. Please read the very polite and fiendly messages after that. zzz (talk) 18:23, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I want the sockpuppet section removed. zzz (talk) 18:25, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The section about Pass a method does seem a bit far stretched and all encompassing. I've touched more than one of those bases as have multiple other editors. Amortias (T)(C) 18:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

As have I. This essentially describes a measurable percentage of editors on WP; not just zzz. The only possible purpose this could serve is for future use as a cudgel during editing disputes. And, in fact, it appears this is how Flyer22 is using it. Everyone who edits WP should do so unarmed. "Armoring up" before editing an article is not in the collaborative spirit of WP. DocumentError (talk) 18:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need to "armor up" in the way that you describe me as doing; if the editor is a WP:Sockpuppet, they shouldn't be editing Wikipedia anyway, unless it's a legitimate use of an alternative account; I won't apologize for keeping a lookout for those editors, publicly letting others know to do so, and/or keeping those editors off Wikipedia. Flyer22 (talk) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that another insinuation that I'm guilty, it sounds a lot like one? And since I'm guilty it serves me right. Or something. zzz (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

So the question becomes, are Wikipedia editors allowed to keep a list of known sockmasters and their editing habits on their user page? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 18:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The sensible answer to that would be "if they know what they are doing". She clearly doesn't (and has caused me a load of grief as a result). zzz (talk) 18:43, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yes would be my emphatic answer. But when the editing habits of sockmasters include visiting the helpdesk and editing articles including sexual or political themes does seem to be stretching good faith a fraction. Amortias (T)(C) 18:48, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Signedzzz, if I didn't know what I was doing, I would not keep catching WP:Sockpuppets, including Pass a Method WP:Sockpuppets; it was made very clear to you at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page that I have caught many WP:Sockpuppets, and can rarely be fooled by any of them.

And, Amortias, touching one or more of those bases is one thing; touching all of those bases is another. And in my several years of editing this site, editing various topics, I have not come around many, several or even a few British, Islamic-focused editors interested in all of those matters and behaving in those specific ways. The fact that I have not is how I have easily identified Pass a Method time and time again. I will not remove the section in question, especially since I believe that it is helpful to editors. But, like I recently noted on my talk page, I have edited it so that it doesn't seemingly point directly at Signedzzz. As for the rest of this discussion, I have no comment. And this will likely be my only post in this section. If I post in it again, it will be one more time and then I'm done with it. Flyer22 (talk) 18:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Its the use of several I feel might be part of the issue. If it was rephrased to lean towards the majority or even most of these things that would seem more accurate from how ive read and interpreted your statement above. Amortias (T)(C) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

(I'm not Islamic focused, by the way) zzz (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2014 (UTC) (For the record, the Erection edit was Passamethod, not me). zzz (talk) 18:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Amortias, the whole second half of the paragraph is basically a list of everything I've done. It's an attack piece, pure and simple. zzz (talk) 20:12, Today (UTC+1)

Flyer22 is at it again? Will she ever learn? Caden ^cool 20:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Caden, to break my "won't reply again" rule, what do you even mean by that? Whatever you mean, you're wrong. Flyer22 (talk) 20:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The list on the user page, User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch, is a clear violation of WP:POLEMIC. There's no indication that this is material that is going to be used in a timely manner, or ever, for a specific dispute resolution. User pages aren't supposed to have Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. It doesn't matter how accurate it is as a list of the worst editors wikipedia has ever seen, it's a list targeting specific editors. I haven't looked closely at the behavior of the OP here, but the enemy list there is clearly a problem no matter what else happened. There is no imminent use here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew that someone was going to bring up the WP:POLEMIC argument; nope, I don't see it as WP:POLEMIC, and won't see it as such. And your calling it an enemy list is simplifying things dramatically. Flyer22 (talk) 20:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course someone was going to bring up WP:POLEMIC. It's a list of editors along with your assessment of their faults, kept for long-term, relating to no-specific-event purposes. It's one of the clearest violations of WP:POLEMIC I could imagine seeing.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you'd kept that junk off-line, then nobody would have to had to deal with this thread right now. That's why this sort of thing shouldn't be on your user page.__ E L A Q U E A T E 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And I don't agree that it is a WP:POLEMIC violation; my opinion on that won't be changing. Flyer22 (talk) 20:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You can be as "I can't hear you" entrenched in your opinion as you want; My guess is that any other editor that compares User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch with WP:POLEMIC will come to a different opinion. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If you "knew that someone was going to bring up the WP:POLEMIC argument" that seems to indicate you were aware that what you were posting was suspect right out of the gate. At this point the only question that remains is why you insist on keeping this clearly divisive information up? DocumentError (talk) 20:49, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22. Yes it is an enemy list that you have on your page. You are not fooling anyone. Caden ^cool 20:51, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Elaqueate, disagreeing with you is not playing WP:I didn't hear that. And as for the section being junk, it is not; it is a section that helps to identify highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, quite the opposite of what I interpret WP:POLEMIC to be. And we are dealing with that section right now because Signedzzz did not like my reply to him in an edit summary and took to obsessively posting at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, and then at my talk page; in other words, he seemingly can't let anything go. Once I made the contents of my user page very clear to him, he sought to remove a section that identifies WP:Sockpuppets, when the section does not mention him. Others have pointed out that the section does not mention him and have stated that the section is fine. I couldn't care in the least that you think I should remove a section about highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, especially since any of the listed WP:Sockpuppets would want that section removed.

DocumentError, I knew that the WP:POLEMIC argument would be made because I have several years of experience at this site and know of some of the flaws in arguments that go on at it, including all sorts of WP:Wikilawyering. I don't believe in your "work with the highly problematic editors" rationale. If they show up at an article with a newly registered account or as an IP address and I easily recognize them as past editors, then, yes, I will want those editors gone. I care not if you see it as me trying to control articles. Those editors were blocked and/or banned for valid reasons, and I should not have to state, "Kumbaya, let us all work together."

Caden, and you are not fooling me as to why you've posted in this section (hint, hint, yes, I remember your ridiculous merge proposal from earlier in the year, and don't remember interacting with you at all before that point, which is why your "Flyer22 is at it again" argument above is as ludicrous as that aforementioned merge proposal). Neither is Elaqueate. But do carry on with your attempts to remove the contents from my user page. Even if the specific users are removed, I will readd a section there about WP:Sockpuppets, how to spot them and some of the articles WP:Sockpuppets frequently visit. Flyer22 (talk) 21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The section all but mentions me by name, right down to every article I've edited, and "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article". the fact that an administrator supported you until I brought the matter here, is a separate issue. zzz (talk) 21:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I already removed the "main/continuous" part; you know that. And more than simply one WP:Administrator has supported me on having that section. Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: That the community ask User:Flyer22 to remove negatively-focussed lists of editors from their user page.

User:Flyer22 is maintaining, at User:Flyer22#WP:Sockpuppet watch, a list of editors they have had disputes with, or who have received blocks but are familiar to Flyer22. It contains notes about editors' perceived habits and flaws. Flyer22 has indicated that they won't change their mind on the matter through further discussion. Flyer22's goal of dealing with editorial disruption is a noble one, but they are going about it in a disruptive way.

User pages can only be used for purposes that are acceptable to the community. In the past, publishing privately-compiled lists of editors on a user-page, when that list is based on previous disputes, sanctions, perceived faults, etc. (even when accurate), has been seen by the community as needlessly disruptive. Under "What may I not have in my user pages?", WP:POLEMIC restricts:

Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws. The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner. Users should generally not maintain in public view negative information related to others without very good reason. Negative evidence, laundry lists of wrongs, collations of diffs and criticisms related to problems, etc., should be removed, blanked, or kept privately (i.e., not on the wiki) if they will not be imminently used, and the same once no longer needed.

Flyer22 is free to keep whatever notes they want privately if it helps them in their encyclopaedic work. Keeping it in Wikipedia space, long-term, without regard to any specific or current dispute, only invites needless disruption. Flyer22's list contains non-banned editors who are blocked, and as everyone knows, no block is necessarily forever. The fact that this thread exists demonstrates that these sorts of user-page lists are disruptive to encyclopaedia work, even when compiled with the best of intentions. A user page list is not the appropriate way of dealing with future problems with sockpuppets, and Flyer22 has indicated they are confident "recognising" problems without it. If some of the material on the user page is considered by the community to rise to the level of "Personal attack" then WP:BLPTALK also applies.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:44, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I told Elaqueate above (my "21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post), "And as for the section being junk, it is not; it is a section that helps to identify highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, quite the opposite of what I interpret WP:POLEMIC to be. And we are dealing with that section right now because Signedzzz did not like my reply to him in an edit summary and took to obsessively posting at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, and then at my talk page; in other words, he seemingly can't let anything go. Once I made the contents of my user page very clear to him, he sought to remove a section that identifies WP:Sockpuppets, when the section does not mention him. Others have pointed out that the section does not mention him and have stated that the section is fine. I couldn't care in the least that you think I should remove a section about highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets, especially since any of the listed WP:Sockpuppets would want that section removed." I also stated above, "Even if the specific users are removed, I will readd a section there about WP:Sockpuppets, how to spot them and some of the articles WP:Sockpuppets frequently visit." Flyer22 (talk) 21:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And WP:Disruptive to have that section? No, not in my opinion. One editor causing a fuss about it because he obsessively posts about matters, so much so that he received a clear warning about that type of posting? No, that doesn't equal WP:Disruptive on my part. But carry on. Flyer22 (talk) 21:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome to post general information. This isn't about whether a single person on your list objects to it; negatively-focussed lists of editors are divisive. This is true regardless of this particular editor and regardless of whether all the editors are "known scoundrels". You have a list that contains more editors than the one currently complaining. And it doesn't sound like you're using the public list to detect sock puppets, because it's based on your private opinions, which you know whether they're on your user page or not. Editors should not be using their user pages as long-standing free-floating personal criminal investigation material.__ E L A Q U E A T E 22:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I am welcome to post what I have posted regarding these highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets until the community deems that I am not allowed to do so. And, no, at the time of this post, I don't see that they have already deemed that...all because of your broad application of WP:POLEMIC. It's broad applications of WP:POLEMIC, like yours, that I see as detrimental to Wikipedia, as if we should not dare publicly speak of highly problematic editors and publicly list ways of identifying them. Yes, I use that list to detect WP:Sockpuppets. And I know of editors who have used it to identify Pass a Method. I already explained in the section immediately above this one why the section is on my user page; I will continue to stand by that. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

No one could catch the sockpuppet Passamethod with your information, because the vast majority of the information you fraudulently supply is specifically about me, including specific edits I have made. Therefore you make it less likely for sockpuppets to be caught, by deliberately spreading disinformation.zzz (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh again. When you get stuck on something, you really get stuck on something, don't you? And then you ignore any suggestion, such as my "23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" suggestion below, to alleviate or remove your concern. Flyer22 (talk) 01:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose with caveat. If the information about those editors is correct and they are not in good standing, then I don't see that it is any different from any entry on WP:LTA. Since three are blocked and one has previous for persistent sockpuppetry, the only one I would remove is Scientiom, who does not appear to be under any sanction. Black Kite (talk) 22:48, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The main one Passamethod, flyer22 has supplied all of my details so as to convince people that it is me (see above). It is this that is the clearest case of personal attack. I am in good standing and not a sockpuppet, by the way. zzz (talk) 23:03, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

This is the crux of the matter. The information on her page is about Pass a method, not you; if that data on the modus operandi of that editor and their sockpuppets is accurate, there is no issue here. Black Kite (talk) 23:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but the information about Passamethod on her page is actually about me. It is therefore not accurate because I am not a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

She stated in Passamethod's description "I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article". How could this not be about me? And there are other examples, above of things she has clearly inserted about me int Passamethod's supposed biography. In the 2nd half of the para, everything is about me, gleaned no doubt from my edit history etc, except the one edit at the Erection article, which was passamethod. I thought that all this had been well-established already. zzz (talk) 23:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Black Kite, the proof that they are master WP:Sockpuppets is on their user pages/user talk pages. And their WP:Sockpuppets show what type of editing they continued to engage in. As for Scientiom, it's partly my fault that he has no current sanctions. Even though he has been blocked multiple times for WP:Sockpuppeting, as that link shows, I am willing to remove any mention of him from my user page. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support removal of Scientiom only - As this editor is under no sanctions the rest appear to be blocked editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2014 (UTC) Changed to support per below - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'm curious. Are you saying you'd be fine with a person keeping a public user-page list of editors they've disagreed with, as long as those editors had received certain blocks? __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:27, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  This isn't that list so your question is irrelevant. This is a list of sockmasters Flyer22 has dealt with. Agreeing or disagreeing with a sock's edits is not the point. They're not supposed to be editing at all. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

  Of course currently sanctioned sockmasters shouldn't be editing. That's a non sequitur. But this seems to imply that an editor could have a list of people they've disagreed with in the past, prominently displayed on their user page, as long as they're otherwise faced some common sanction. This list doesn't seem constructive for more than warning people to be wary of people using British spelling on articles involving British topics. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, warning people to be wary of me, because I am a sockpuppet of Passamethod, apparently.zzz (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

The "list" is in fact disinformation, as far as helping catch sockpuppets, because it is (in the case of Passamethod), simply a list of very specific things I have done and am doing, put next to Passamethod's name. This means people will not spot Passamethod, because they will assume it is me. I cannot understand how anything like that could be considered useful in any way, shape or form.zzz (talk) 00:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The information about Passamethod is all fabricated, since it is in fact simply a list of things about me.zzz (talk) 00:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Specifically, the second half of the para, with all the specifics: "Significantly editing the Boko Haram article and other Islamic articles (I mean any editor who is the current main/continuous editor of the Boko Haram article). " and onwards, with one detail about Passamethod added, the "Erection edit". How is tacking on your enemy's information next to a known sock puppet helpful exactly?zzz (talk) 00:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If people interpret the section as simply "be wary of people using British spelling on articles involving British topics" (and I'm certain that no one will interpret it that way), then they are not reading that section properly. Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

And the "Focusing on British topics; using British spelling." part clearly needs tweaking if it is to stay, since it was not meant to indicate that Pass a Method uses British spelling on British topics, but rather to reiterate that he uses British spelling in general (since he's British). Flyer22 (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you have good motives, I just think that this approach is counter-productive and will only lead to more false positives and avoidable disputes. When sock-puppetry is suspected, file an SPI. If a particularly bad editor has been exposed, file them at LTA. It's cleaner. Publicly profiling editors on your user page may be personally satisfying but I think it's going to burn you and others more times than it will catch anybody. You've also claimed to be almost perfect at detecting subsequent sockpuppets, which somehow promotes less confidence about what you're using these profiles for. Accusing people of sock-puppetry is something that should be done with high levels of active and thoughtful caution, I don't think it should be generalized as fuzzy warning profiles in a user page section. I think you're right to look for sock puppets, but not to risk giving focussed grief to random editors that fit a very general profile. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If I comment on your view any further, it would be me essentially repeating myself. So to spare significant repetition, I will reply this time with "I generally disagree." And regarding "false positives," the only way that a false positive could happen is in the case of Pass a Method, since it is his editing habits that I extensively detailed, and that is only if people don't take the piece on him there into full account. Either way, below (my "23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post), I already offered to remove the part that Signedzzz objects to. Removing the entire section? I reiterate that my opinion on that will not change. Flyer22 (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

She is using the passamethod biography, which she simply took from my edit history and is pretending that it is Passamethod, but in fact 99% of it is about me. She uses this to conduct a personal vendetta against me. That is why I brought this matter here. Is it acceptable for her to continue insinuating with completely fabricated "evidence" that I am a sockpuppet? That seems very incomprehensible to me.zzz (talk) 23:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying a user page could say "A certain editor", name every page he's working on and has recently worked on, specify a few particular edits, " is a sockpuppet, so look out for him"? About any editor such as myself, with no evidence of malfeasance? Because that is exactly what the problem is, and why I brought the matter here.zzz (talk) 23:35, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Signedzzz, the content that you object to indeed concerns Pass a Method. But since that section continues to bother you, would you be fine with me restoring it to the condition it was in before I listed articles/topics that you have in common with Pass a Method? Flyer22 (talk) 23:58, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I have been chased off WP before several years ago by this same accusation. And I am sorely tempted again, both when you first confronted me with doom and a permanent cloud of near-certainty ("I don't have enough proof yet, but" and "No, I am not imagining things" etc) and again recently. I wonder if I get targeted especially. Your level of evidence for causing this grief & aggravation is basically anyone you don't like (who is UK and visits a very vague set of sites). The information about Passamethod doesn't bother me, as long as it's all about him. zzz (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wrong regarding the Pass a Method issue, and anyone familiar with Pass a Method's problematic editing knows that you are wrong on that matter. My evidence on him has caught him time and time again. But I'm tired of repeating myself. You apparently don't get tired of repeating yourself, so continue on as you were then. Flyer22 (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've no idea what the community thinks about this. In my honest opinion, you are a worse problem than sockpuppets. Certainly you are as far as I'm concerned. However, I am not qualified to make any specific suggestions about how the community should most appropriately act.zzz (talk) 01:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I'm "a worse problem than sockpuppets." I'm sure that many editors at this site will agree with you on that. *Laughs* Whatever the case, I have removed the content you objected to. Will I add back some articles that Pass a Method has been known to be problematic at? Perhaps. And if I do, don't come complaining to me about it, especially since it is about Pass a Method, not about you unless you are him. You can head straight here to WP:ANI again and see if you get good support for trying to force me to remove something from my user page that you don't like. Flyer22 (talk) 02:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, as per User:Elaqueate. Since this is a voluntary request of Flyer22, I further move that a Committee of Watch be convened to monitor Flyer22's user space in the event she chooses not to concede to consensus, so as to enable a possible early intervention/mediation into similar future issues before they balloons to the point that an editor feels victimized. DocumentError (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your proposal is laughable; as if I would not adhere to WP:Consensus. Unlike many people at this site who disregard that policy (it's policy, not simply a guideline), I highly respect it and do what I can to uphold it...until new consensus is formed. And as for WP:Administrators or other higher-ups (including WP:CheckUsers) watching my user page, like I told Signedzzz at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page, I have a significant number who do; Barek, who full-protected my user page (see here) due to Signedzzz's WP:Disruption, is one such editor. But if you want more people watching it, bring it on. Flyer22 (talk) 02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Community of Watch". Ha. Orwell would be proud. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

can i make a list of people who i need to keep monitoring as my duty as part of the "Community of Watch"? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Such pages undermine a collegiate atmosphere of mutual respect and support. I recall cases of admins facing sanctions for keeping similar pages in the past - I'd rather not drag up names ets but other longstanding editors will surely remember. If any editor wants to keep a private list of enemies/toerags/wankers, or whatever, then they can either get pen and paper and write them down, or invest in a computer and make such lists on that - not use Wikipedia for them. DuncanHill (talk) 02:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, per User:Elaqueate. The enemy list of Flyer22 is junk and it has to go. Caden ^cool 02:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

We already established your faulty reason for being in this thread, with my "21:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)" post in the section immediately above this one. If insulting your ridiculous WP:Move request (which was not even an official WP:Move request) is all that it takes for you to "vote" against someone one, I will have to remember to insult any other ridiculous WP:Move request you make; certainly is fun watching you take your petty revenge. Flyer22 (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we not turn this into a WP:BATTLEGROUND? Save your personal disputes for the right place as you are not making your case look good here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, please do not threaten to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would not be "disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" if I honestly find the WP:Move request to be ridiculous and state it as such. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. An "enemies list", even disguised as a "sockpuppet watch" list, is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If they're not socks, it's an enemies list; if they are, it's grave-dancing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, any highly disruptive editor that I recognize as highly disruptive is simply an enemy. I could not disagree more. But your opinion is your own. Flyer22 (talk) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You could try writing it down and keep it in a notebook then if you are that truly concerned, names do not have to be presented for the world to see online on some list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why these names should not be listed. None of the rationales for why they should not be are valid to me. I don't think these editors should be protected in any way when it comes to identifying their problematic editing for as many eyes that come across my user page. I made the mistake of shielding Scientiom; I won't be making that mistake, or a similar one, again. Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Problems can be listed at WP:LTA, editing restrictions, SPI, and other community-patrolled pages. And this is only the same sort of "protection" that stops random editors from listing you as a disruptive editor on their talk pages.__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Like NeilN pointed out to you above, this is not the same thing as simply listing editors that one personally finds problematic. This is about listing editors who have been indefinitely blocked (in one cased banned) because of their problematic editing and continue to waste Wikipedia's time. The main thing that I take away from your and some others' arguments in this case is protecting these editors from wider exposure (something I address below in my reply to Davey2010). I could not care in the least if an editor lists me on their user page as problematic; my contributions speak for themselves, and so do what transpired with my block cases. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting you should list the editors "that one personally finds problematic" at WP:LTA, editing restrictions, SPI, and other community-patrolled pages. Quite the opposite. Community pages are the best place to list type of material you're outlining, rather than a personal version run by a single editor.__ E L A Q U E A T E 04:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that you were not suggesting that. You stated, "Community pages are the best place to list type of material you're outlining, rather than a personal version run by a single editor." I cannot agree in this case; and this is due to the reasons I stated to Davey2010 below. All of the support votes in the world won't be changing my mind on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"All of the support votes in the world won't be changing my mind on this topic" - It's good to know you've solemnly sworn not to listen to the community. Food for thought: the general term for somebody who says they will not listen to community consensus is "not here to improve the encyclopedia". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The Bushranger, stating that I won't change my mind on the usefulness of the section in question, which is what I was doing with my "04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above, is not stating that I will not adhere to WP:Consensus to remove the section. I made clear in my "02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above that I always adhere to WP:Consensus, unlike many at this site. You see, the WP:Consensus policy is almost as disregarded/disrespected as the WP:Civil policy, if not more so. And as for me not being here to improve the encyclopedia, yeah, my wanting to keep highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets off Wikipedia shows that exactly. So do my various barnstars and the discussions regarding them. And the over 200 talk page watchers I have? Yeah, they are all there to keep me in line. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of them respect me as a Wikipedian and/or often ask for my help on Wikipedia matters. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support This kind of list goes agains the collaberative spirit of wikipedia. Lists like this belong in the notebook of a middleschooler not on an encyclopedia. If Flyer22 wants to keep a list he should do it without using Wikiedia's resources or time. CombatWombat42 (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There should be no collaborative spirit when it comes to highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets. If you want to ignore them and/or work with them, you are obviously more than free to do so. But I don't see why others should have to be kept in the dark when it comes to that choice. As for "[l]ists like this belong in the notebook of a middleschooler not on an encyclopedia," that's absurd. Like Black Kite stated above, the list is not "any different from any entry on WP:LTA." And as for "using Wiki[p]edia's resources or time"? Just what resources and time are being wasted, other than this silly thread? Flyer22 (talk) 03:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Is a userpage really an appropriate place to list this?, If you wanna keep tabs on people shove it on your desktop or write it down like normal people. –Davey2010 • (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The good ole "You're not normal" insinuation. Thanks. Makes me feel all special. The point of the list, as has already been stated, is to document not only a type of editing that I engage in (identifying WP:Sockpuppets), which is not much different than identifying on my user page what other type of editing I engage in, but further publicizing these problematic WP:Sockpuppets so that others know who they are dealing with when these WP:Sockpuppets reappear. I am one of the main editors of Wikipedia's sexual topics (whether it's sexual activity, sexual orientation, or anatomy), a field that is highly neglected on Wikipedia and can be quite easily significantly disrupted by any of these editors...without much backup; and all of these WP:Sockpuppet masters have been involved in sexual articles. Because I am one of the prominent editors of sexual topics on Wikipedia, many people who edit these articles or visit these articles at random check my user page and/or talk page. Same goes for my getting contacted by journalists because of my editing of these articles. And I find it to be a good thing when [Wikipedia editors] come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for. But if you and others want to protect these problematic editors, which it seems to me that you do, there is clearly not much that I can do about that. User:Acoma Magic should be proud that he has such defenders. Flyer22 (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying you like this list on your user page because it's a good way to share the editor names with journalists? __ E L A Q U E A T E 04:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No, and you've glossed over the main point of that paragraph. I don't care anymore what you think on this subject. Not that I cared much to begin with. Flyer22 (talk) 04:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Since my "journalists" comment can obviously be taken out of context, such as by Signedzzz below, I have amended the wording by adding "[Wikipedia editors]" in place of "they"; the amendment is clear by the brackets. If I had originally put the journalists part in parentheses, it would have been very clear that I mean "Wikipedia editors" by use of "when they come away from my user page." I thought about clarifying the text when you questioned me; now I have. And what I meant by that text is further clarified by the aforementioned link in this paragraph. Flyer22 (talk) 08:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also added "problematic" on to "editors" in the second-to-last sentence of my "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above to clarify what type of editors I am talking about. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Further clarification on the journalists point here. Flyer22 (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

What a headache. This is why editing comments after people have responded only tends to confuse things further. You didn't even change your overall point. You are still saying you have your user page the way it is partly because journalists sometimes visit it. A pretty goofy point to spend this much time on. If the community decides this is an inappropriate way to use your user page, then the possible high visibility of your page only works against you.__ E L A Q U E A T E 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support There is no need for a sock-smeller pursuivant; SPI is thataway GoldenRing (talk) 04:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support The section in question is a waste of bandwidth at best and a blatant and unjustifiable violation of WP:POLEMIC at worst. —Rutebega (talk) 04:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Rutebega, I saw your post soon after you made it, but am only just now replying: Wikipedia is not paper. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Tentatively oppose. For any editors who are blocked, banned, or topic banned, a short description of their editing pattern is appropriate. I choose to keep out of LGBT editing patterns, because I consider MOS:IDENTITY to be put "respect" over accuracy. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Such information on personal user pages will continue to be misused. New editors will continue to leave in disgust. zzz (talk) 06:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose we are getting over protective in wikipedia. If s/he is keeping a list then at least we know they are. It used to be that controlling behaviour was a means to allow good articles to emerge, now it has become an end in itself. No one has to go to his talk page and there is nothing really offence there. Too many cases here are starting to sound like a chorus of demands to bring sinners to the mercy seat in a hell fire and damnation chapel. Black Kite's advise is as far as I would go ----Snowded ^TALK 08:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If Signedzzz is insisting that the MO as outlined by Flyer is in fact about him and not about Pass a Method, then maybe he could point out the bits that don't pertain to Pass a Method? Unless it is explicitly established that Flyer's "sock profile" is indeed about Signedzzz then I cannot support an action compelling her to remove the section. Betty Logan (talk) 08:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes it is well-established. In the second half of the section about Pass a Method, from "current/main editor of Boko Haram" (undeniably me) onwards, (see top of this page), it is a selection of things I've done. I haven't edited Pope Francis or Erection, but everything else was me. Eg, mentioned the Pope in the drugs article [[109]]. No attempt has been made to suggest otherwise. It is absolutely blatant and unsubtle, all the rest is about me. And yet when I asked for it to be removed, here [110] for example where an administrator tells me I have "no cause to delete it", I was told in no uncertain terms that it must stay. Hence the accusations of me being a sock, etc, etc, were guaranteed to continue, to the point where I might start believing them myself. zzz (talk) 15:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Eg also, my use of Urban Dictionary for the definition of Roach (smoking). The edit history shows it was me, and yet Flyer22 listed it, along with my other activities, under the list of things that would prove an editor to be a sockpuppet.zzz (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support If Flyer22 wants to accuse someone of sock puppetree then it needs to go to SPI. This sort of behavior only seeks to reinforce an idea that zzz is a problem, and obviously if you can't pass the duck test or SPI these devolve into PAs. Its time for the old "put up or shut up" portion of DR. Tivanir2 (talk) 13:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Tivanir2, I already "put up"...times over. And as has already been made clear, all of those editors listed are WP:Sockpuppet masters. And they were caught by the WP:Duck test and by WP:CheckUsers times over. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Put up" means prove with evidence that your allegation is true. I see you are continuing your efforts to prove it by insinuation instead.zzz (talk) 20:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Commentary about present and former editors who are suspected of socking and abuse is better kept at WP:LTA and WP:SPI. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Per Elaqueate, DuncanHill, Caden, and The Bushranger. To put a finer point on it, the enemies list seems to make Flyer22's user page into a trophy wall ("caught him") and its edit summaries contrary to WP:ES and WP:NPA ("And, sigh, [username] looks very familiar, but appears to be a sock of an editor currently editing Wikipedia (I might worry about him later.)")[111] Lightbreather (talk) 16:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, people continually referring to the list of highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets as an enemies list are completely oversimplifying the matter. Anyone significantly familiar with these highly problematic editors knows that. You have not seen the type of disruption they are capable of, and neither have a lot of others here voting "support." And that is just one reason that I take your opinions on these matters with a grain of salt. As for my edit summaries in my user page history regarding WP:Sockpuppets, there is nothing wrong with them, in my opinion. It's already clear that I don't agree with your strict interpretation of what a WP:Personal attack is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion doesn't override POLICY. Per the Civility policy re personal attacks and harassment (partial):

Editors are expected to avoid personal attacks and harassment of other Wikipedians. This applies equally to all Wikipedians: it is as unacceptable to attack a user who has a history of foolish or boorish behaviour, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user.

--Lightbreather (talk) 17:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

So are you going to be deleting the multiple pages/sections you have in your user space with lists of diffs and actions from Sue, Scalhotrod and others?Gaijin42 (talk) 17:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, there is no need to cite Wikipedia policy to me as though I need a crash course in it. It's not just my opinion when it comes to your overly strict interpretations of the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies and that is made clear in that aforementioned discussion I linked to when replying to you minutes ago above. Pointing out on my user page that an editor is a WP:Sockpuppet and/or that I caught that editor as a WP:Sockpuppet is not a WP:Civil/WP:Personal attacks issue. And if I wanted an enemies list on my userpage, it would be far longer than the list containing these highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets. Flyer22 (talk) 17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The vote on the aforementioned discussion is about 50/50, so I don't know if you anyone can rightly call my (and others') interpretations overly strict. That's not clear at all. In fact, one might argue just as well that civility isn't given any serious attention on Wikipedia, and a lot of people are tired of being told to ignore it. Lightbreather (talk) 00:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I debated with myself on whether or not I should reply to your latest response; clearly, I've decided to reply: I used the words "my opinion" in my "17:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" response to you above. And I stated that I'm clearly not the only one who feels that your interpretations of the WP:Civil and WP:Personal attacks policies are overly strict; whether it's indicated in the aforementioned above discussion or elsewhere on Wikipedia. And as for the WP:Civil policy being very disrespected/disregarded, I mentioned that to The Bushranger in my "17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" reply above when noting that the WP:Consensus policy is just as, if not more so, disrespected/disregarded as the WP:Civil policy. Because the WP:Civil policy is so disrespected/disregarded, editors here often don't see the point of it. Like I mentioned on my talk page: "The name-calling rolls right off of me, for the most part. Sure, it and other incivility (see WP:Civil), can anger me (the general incivility often does), but it's not often that I'm hurt by any of the words. Being called a bitch, cunt, idiot, etc. is a part of the job here (at least for me). I know that my depression often contributes to me being less than civil (usually when someone is uncivil to me first), but I often try not to be (even when my mindset is simultaneously 'If you are rude to me, then expect me to be rude to you in return.')." Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I see nothing wrong with keeping lists of verified sockpuppets on ones user page. Keeping track of socks is hard enough. Now listing none socks I would see as an issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Lightbreather. Lists of users that you've had disagreements with, socks or not, is simply inappropriate. Ansh666 05:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Confused the nub of this dispute is zzz's perceived treatment by Flyer22. Elaqueate, having looked at Flyer22's page, takes issue with the list, as do some other users. I personally don't think it is covered by polemic. To remind other users, the list only contains 5 users, none of whom is currently active, 3 blocked. Flyer22 in my experience edits in areas that are rife with Sockpuppets, and I think this is reasonable. Flyer22 also shows a great understanding of many WP policies, which is very admirable. That said, Flyer22, I think a compromise position would be something proactive -- such as moving the list to a subpage (where it's even less visible) or moving it to a private venue. Not because the list is in the wrong, but because I think it is a compromise position that allows you to take control of the situation and save face. I don't think there's anything wrong with the list, and if it's maintained off-wiki it still has its useful reference value. Lastly I don't think that we have to operate by the principle 'minimum required by the law', removing is a more harmonious measure, and it's causing disquiet to some other users (even if you disagree), and really whether or not it is present won't change that much in terms of your ability to identify sock puppets. So I think voluntarily removing the list before forced is probably the best option. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in, LT910001 (Tom). It was suggested to me by another Wikipedia editor (via email) that I simply remove the section to reduce drama. I wouldn't see it as so much of saving face, however, considering that it's clear by this thread that my hand is being forced regardless. I might as well stay with this thing until the verdict is handed down. And as for taking the list to a subpage, that would be targeted by misguided WP:Polemic enforcers as well. And as for keeping the list hidden, I noted above that posting it on my user page is about it being there to help other Wikipedia editors know what to be on the lookout for regarding some highly problematic Wikipedia editors. Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. I found The Bushranger's argument to be compelling. He wrote "An 'enemies list', even disguised as a 'sockpuppet watch' list, is against the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. If they're not socks, it's an enemies list; if they are, it's grave-dancing." --Guy Macon (talk) 08:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And you, like others, are oversimplifying the list by reducing it to a mere enemies list; I already addressed that with my "17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above. Same goes for reducing it to mere "grave-dancing." Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - That's an enemies list. Keep that sort of stuff on your computer and out of WP space. Carrite (talk) 12:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

The warning I received was concerning these [112] messages, which, after the unfriendly title, were all very polite and friendly requests to remove the attack stuff. The "warner" had omitted to read them. zzz (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Stating "But I suppose it is just a big joke, and, your going to spin it out as long as you can, or until I give up with WP, as I did years ago when someone was convinced I was a sockpuppet." and "Why is it so important to you to continue hounding me? I am not aware of any interaction between us that sparked off your campaign against me." are not very polite and friendly statements. The aforementioned WP:Administrator likened your repeated postings to my talk page (after I all but stated that I no longer want to converse with you) to WP:Harassment because your obsessive postings are similar to that. You need to do better not to post walls of text, especially rambling walls of text. Compared to how I have interacted with you, and how you have interacted with me, your actions are closer to WP:Hounding; I don't see mine as such at all. I left you alone, more than once, as others have noted. And, quite frankly, I am tired of you trying to get me to reply to you. If I don't want to reply to you, then accept it and move on. Flyer22 (talk) 22:26, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You are quoting from the debate that ensued after you followed me to the admin's talk page where I had gone after your abusive edit summary. The warning was for the messages I later left on your talk page after I had been unable to remove the attack piece, and the admin had failed to read. He was no doubt confused into thinking they were all unfriendly by the first one. zzz (talk) 22:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you are not quoting from me at all. You are making it up and putting words in my mouth for some reason, I strongly suspect. zzz (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh. The words are there on my talk page. But, again, sigh...to all of your arguments. Flyer22 (talk) 22:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

You keep trying to make this about me. No further comment. zzz (talk) 22:42, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

One more comment: I am in good standing, I am not blocked or a sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 22:53, 15 September 2014‎ (UTC)

Wikipedia:Clean_start#Notification_and_permission can you verify that by telling a functionary what the other account was? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Precisely. The allegation eventually becomes "true" until "officially disproved", (despite the fact that even flyer22 has admitted that it is not true), which is why I am resorting to this extreme measure.zzz (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC) Oh, I get it, you are asking a serious question. If and when a functionary asks me to provide evidence, of anything I have said here, I have absolutely no problem doing so. zzz (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Considering how Flyer22 has decided to make this a personal battleground and has explicitly stated over and over - in hisher deciding to tell every person who disagrees with himher how they're wrong - that heshe will not listen to what anyone has to say, at a certain point one has to wonder how suited they are to editing in a collaborative environment. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • She has stated she would adhere to consensus. Unless we're the thought police, you do not have to agree with every consensus decision made on Wikipedia to edit here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 11:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Neil. Like I just told The Bushranger above, "stating that I won't change my mind on the usefulness of the section in question, which is what I was doing with my '04:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above, is not stating that I will not adhere to WP:Consensus to remove the section. I made clear in my '02:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above that I always adhere to WP:Consensus, unlike many at this site. You see, the WP:Consensus policy is almost as disregarded/disrespected as the WP:Civil policy, if not more so. And as for me not being here to improve the encyclopedia, yeah, my wanting to keep highly problematic WP:Sockpuppets off Wikipedia shows that exactly. So do my various barnstars and the discussions regarding them. And the over 200 talk page watchers I have? Yeah, they are all there to keep me in line. It couldn't possibly be that the vast majority of them respect me as a Wikipedian and/or often ask for my help on Wikipedia matters."

As for a battleground, excuse me if I don't take kindly to people making light jabs at me, voting on things against me because of a past dispute, and/or issuing some other kind of flimsy support vote against me. If you jab at me, I will jab back. Often enough anyway (I commonly ignore or don't respond to the drive-by assaults I get to my user page and/or talk page). Flyer22 (talk) 17:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

You used your "list", your supposed "skill at chasing sockpuppets" (backed up by your fraudulent user page section) and your Wikipedian friends such as Niel ([113]), to fraudulently make it appear that I am a sockpuppet, and support your other allegations against me. Surprisingly, I didn't respond by going nuclear (as I am sure you wanted, to get me banned), instead I raised the matter here, so you may be forced to admit wrongdoing at some point. I wonder, how many sockpuppets have you chased, as opposed to people you just don't like? zzz (talk) 17:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your characterization of me continues to be flimsy or false. For example, I didn't get my "Wikipedian friends" to do anything regarding this topic. Nor did I ask them to do anything on it. The vast majority of them (meaning my talk page watchers) have stayed out of this dispute. If they were involved in it, there would be a lot more oppose votes above. Some have emailed me about why they won't comment in this thread. I'm not interested in trying to get them to support me on this matter, especially keeping WP:Canvass in mind. If they want to support me, they will. If they don't want to support me, they won't. And then there are the conflicted ones. And you state that you didn't "[go] nuclear." So your obsessive postings, you obsessing about this topic for hours on end and nothing else, and throwing around shady accusations, is not going nuclear? As for me randomly going after people, that is another unfounded accusation from you. I already told you that it is far too easy for me to spot WP:Sockpupppets; I pointed you to this and this case as examples. Similarly, it was easy to recognize that you've edited Wikipedia before your Signedzzz account. There are various other cases of me spotting WP:Sockpuppets. Some involve me reporting WP:Sockuppets to WP:ArbCom because of violations of the WP:Child protect policy; yes, I stay on the lookout for pedophiles and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors as well. Want to tell WP:ArbCom how I've falsely identified such editors? Go ahead; see if they agree with that assessment. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you fabricate evidence about people you don't like and then falsely allege that they are paedophiles? That would be a serious crime. Can you actually understand why that is, I wonder? zzz (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I have made it perfectly clear all along I have used WP before, several years age, but never found out how to use citations. This does not make me a sockpuppet any more than your other fraudulent evidence does. zzz (talk) 18:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Your comment about pedophiles is asinine, and is why I will now cease replying to you. WP:ArbCom has the resources, WP:CheckUsers and other tools, to identify WP:Sockpuppets of pedophiles, especially since the WP:Child protect policy was created because Wikipedia previously had a very serious, very detrimental pedophile and/or pro-child sexual abuse problem. They don't block such editors unless their is solid evidence, often Wikipedia contributions included, that those editors are pedophiles and/or pro-child sexual abuse editors. And I told you before, at CambridgeBayWeather's talk page: WP:Block is not the same thing as WP:Ban. You keep using the word banned in place of blocked. Flyer22 (talk) 18:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• • • Thank you for the correction, Neil; I apologise for the misaimed pronouns. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Should we be thinking about an interaction ban here? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this would definetly help and would at least reduce the amount of battleground behaviour from both editors that appears to be turning up here. I dont think it would address the issue of the original problem though. Amortias (T)(C) 17:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If I saw a need for a WP:Interaction ban, I would have proposed it. Signedzzz edits in some of the areas I edit in, and my areas of interest are wide-ranging, so I don't see how a WP:Interaction ban would be best at this point. Flyer22 (talk) 17:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had politely asked me to verify my previous account to prove how insignificant it was, on account of my edits being so exceptional, I would have obliged and there would have been no problem. Or if you had at least removed the false insinuations from your page. Or if Neil had agreed with me they should be removed ([114]). It seems strange that I was obliged to come here, which helps no one. I feel I have to assume that the plan was that I just give up with WP - which is why I find it hard to see things from your perspective. zzz (talk) 19:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Keeping a list of indef'd users on one's page might be OK but it tends to "feed the trolls". Keeping a list of not-blocked users online and accusing them of being sockmasters or rules-violators in other ways is NOT appropriate. If the user wants to keep that kind of info, he should keep it on a text document on his PC, and consult it when necessary - NOT post it publicly. Not just because "hit lists" are against the rules, but also because such a list likewise potentially "feeds the trolls". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: six month interaction ban between Flyer22 and zzz

I propose an interaction ban lasting no more than six months between zzz and Flyer22. Given their past interactions and comments on this page, I believe that continuing their current course would be harmful to the encyclopedia. I would also like to have it noted that such an interaction ban implies nothing about who is or is not at fault. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support zzz (talk) 23:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Support as proposer. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: See my posts in the Discussion section below about this proposal; I very much disagree with it, and don't feel the need to state "oppose" in this section. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Support. It's a good idea. Caden ^cool 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And I'm certain that you can't detail why it's a good idea, especially given what I've stated below. Flyer22 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I would support these users not writing on each others talk pages or editing each others user pages. Beyond that however I do not support. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose the point of contention in this debate is what Flyer22 has written on her user page. This issue will be resolved by the outcome of the above discussion i.e. allowing her to retain her comments or by obliging her to remove them. I don't see what an IBAN will accomplish beyond that. Betty Logan (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, Flyer22 has been conducting a smear campaign against me. Secondly, below, she states that she still believes me to be a sockpuppet, still with no evidence. But her beliefs colour her opinions of me and my edits. How does it benefit Wikipedia to have her freely telling other editors her incredibly negative personal opinions about me? Why is it a problem for her, or anyone else, if she leaves me alone?zzz (talk) 10:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have already said, if the above discussion find her comments unwarranted then she will be obliged to take them down. That is not contingent on an IBAN being imposed, however. I also don't think you appreciate the full implications of an IBAN: an IBAN isn't imposed just on Flyer, it is imposed on you too, and you will be effectively barred from editing articles she has heavily edited. Betty Logan (talk) 10:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but I, personally, would be fine with that, as opposed to having her telling editors on any pages I wish to edit about my supposed flaws, as she did in Terminator 2: Judgment Day, in an edit summary, very recently. That sort of thing does not inspire me to edit. And, assuming she is no longer able to conduct her campaign against me on her user page, I expect that, given her opinions about me expressed here, that she intends to pursue me more aggressively, now.zzz (talk) 11:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that your account is 4 months old and Flyers is many years old this makes your response more understandable. One more reason I oppose. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In the Discussion section below about the proposed interaction ban, I make it perfectly clear how little I have sought Signedzzz out; by "sought out," I mean attempted to communicate with him or post obsessively about him to the point that I try to get him to communicate with me. I make it perfectly clear that I am not interested in interacting with Signedzzz in the least. Flyer22 (talk) 11:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose – the dispute is taking place in user namespace, not in main space. If there is any interaction ban, it should be restricted to where the dispute is actually taking place. Boghog (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

(@Guy Macon) Sounds like a plan: I made my point, already. zzz (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

To make it official, you should post a Support nonvote in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I already stated, near the end of the Discussion section above, "If I saw a need for a WP:Interaction ban, I would have proposed it. Signedzzz edits in some of the areas I edit in, and my areas of interest are wide-ranging, so I don't see how a WP:Interaction ban would be best at this point."

If Signedzzz edits any area that I edit, and I see it as problematic, you expect me not to revert him? Not to bring up the matter on the talk page? The interaction ban will benefit him because he can then make any faulty edit knowing that I will be prohibited from reverting him. It has been made explicitly clear that I stayed away from him after my posts to his talk page in August, until he made a faulty edit to the Terminator 2: Judgment Day article on September 13, 2014. Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other? I should post to WP:Film or to WP:Med when he edits a film or a medical article in way that I find problematic? The only interaction ban that I see needed between us at the moment is that he no longer post to my talk page...unless alerting me to a noticeboard discussion. And, I of course, would no longer post to his talk page unless alerting him to a noticeboard discussion. I don't want anything to do with Signedzzz and have ignored him various times, while he has continually sought me out, to the point that CambridgeBayWeather likened it to harassment; when that is pointed out, then Signedzzz goes on about CambridgeBayWeather not having all the facts and what he thinks CambridgeBayWeather meant. Would I like for Signedzzz to leave me alone? Sure. But for that to come at the price of him being able visit the Spree killer article, for example, and make an edit there that I'm not allowed to revert? No. But if WP:Consensus is formed on an interaction ban between us, I will adhere to it. Flyer22 (talk) 22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Continually sought me out". I asked to have the lies about me removed. Then I came here.zzz (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Dif would be useful for "lies about me removed" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Diff:[115]. See "Pass a Method" section. These are uniquely and specifically about me: current/main Boko Haram editor, adding Pope Francis to Recreational drug use, using Urban Dictionary as a source for Roach (smoking). I wrote these three articles in the last couple of months. (Also, "Adding a picture of someone smoking to their user page or talk page. Makes notes on his user page of the articles he's edited, soon after editing them", etc). It has been stated repeatedly, above, that adding my details to a purported description of a sockpuppet is a straightforward attempt to convince other editors that I am undoubtedly the sockpuppet in question. Flyer22 also states, above, that journalists view the user page, "And I find it to be a good thing when they come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for".zzz (talk) 07:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Signedzzz when you quote someone else it is respectfulness for those reading what you write to provide the dif of the person saying it so that we can 1) verify the content 2) look at the context Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Those are the lies, though, as you requested, (apart from the bold quote from this page), that Flyer22 refused to remove from her userpage, until I took the matter here. zzz (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

James, what Signedzzz has mainly done regarding me is obsess over me, mischaracterize me, and twist my words; reminds me of another editor that people sought to impose some kind of interaction ban on regarding me (noted below). My "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above is one instance of Signedzzz misinterpreting what I meant. By "And I find it to be a good thing when they come away from my user page knowing what editors to be on the lookout for" is about Wikipedia editors. Journalists, of course, are not going to stick around Wikipedia to know what to be on the lookout for, unless they are undercover/stealth journalists. Not that I see anything wrong with them knowing of some of Wikipedia's most problematic editors. By mentioning journalists, I meant that I don't mind if, when they contact me, they see my user page and take note of the fact that Wikipedia has had some very serious problematic editors. I will slightly amend my "04:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" comment. Also take note that Signedzzz keeps going on about a portion of my user page that I have since removed. Flyer22 (talk) 08:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You refused to remove it until I compained about it here, so don't pretend otherwise. zzz (talk) 14:44, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Amended. Flyer22 (talk) 08:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think that the following lines are clear: "Because I am one of the prominent editors of sexual topics on Wikipedia, many people who edit these articles or visit these articles at random check my user page and/or talk page. Same goes for my getting contacted by journalists because of my editing of these articles." That was in my original post about journalists and is still there. Flyer22 (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You only removed it after I complained about it here! The only reason I complained about it here is because you refused to remove it, even after you admitted that you don't think I am the sockpuppet. zzz (talk) 08:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note another mischaracterization by Signedzzz: Being far less convinced that he is Pass a Method does not equate to "I no longer believe that he is a WP:Sockpuppet." Flyer22 (talk) 09:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So, it was worth continuing to persuade editors and journalists alike that I am Pass a Method because you think that I am a different sockpuppet, now? zzz (talk) 10:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So you blanked his entire user page 3 times because you had an issue with this one paragraph? Also typing all in bold is not appropriate generally. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Her user page alleged that I was the sockpuppet Pass a Method. I have not read all the rules of Wikipedia, I just assumed that was totally against them, and that anyone would do the same thing. zzz (talk) 12:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22,To make it official, you should post a Oppose nonvote in the section above. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer22, To answer your specific question:

"If Signedzzz edits any area that I edit, and I see it as problematic, you expect me not to revert him? Not to bring up the matter on the talk page? The interaction ban will benefit him because he can then make any faulty edit knowing that I will be prohibited from reverting him ... Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other?"

If my proposal for an interaction ban between the two of you gains sufficient support, that means that the Wikipedia community has decided that you are the wrong person to correct what you believe are faulty edits by zzz, and that zzz is the wrong person to correct what he believes are faulty edits by you. If the proposal passes, you are going to have to realize that nobody is indispensable and trust the other editors to address any faulty edits. As for this "benefiting him", if we assume for the sake of argument that one of you makes faulty edits (I am purposely offering no opinion on that), you should be aware that anyone who gets involved in an ANI discussion naturally undergoes additional scrutiny from administrators and experienced editors afterwords, so it is doubtful that either of you will get away with making faulty edits for long. Again, I am not implying that one or the other of you is or isn't at fault or that one or the other of you is or isn't making faulty edits. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't need an explanation of what a Wikipedia interaction ban is. The point of my "22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)" post above was to indicate the faults with your proposal. All that you have done, in my opinion, with this proposal is make things worse, and all because Signedzzz obsessively posts about me with all kinds of unfounded accusations, and, sure, I have responded to him frustratedly in this thread because of that. I don't have much of a past with Signedzzz beyond that. WP:IBAN states that I can't even mention Signedzzz indirectly. So commenting on a talk page or posting to a WP:WikiProject about a bad edit that he has made to an article that I watch is out of the question, unless it's WP:Vandalism or a WP:BLP violation. If he edits any article that I edit (for example, any article that I have listed on my user page as having improved or significantly improved, including any WP:Good article), I am not allowed to revert, partially revert or even tweak that edit. And you think that is a solution? It isn't. If your proposal passes, you will have given him free reign to show up at any article that I edit and screw around without any worry that I will revert him. I'm certain that that is exactly what he wants, which is why he is supporting the interaction ban. So that he can, for example, go and have his way at the Spree killer article. I don't even see how WP:IBAN follows the rationale that editors can edit the same articles, but can't revert each other. Even a partial revision can count as a revert, depending on one's definition of a revert.

Have I posted obsessively about Signedzzz? No. Am I interested in going and editing any of the articles that Signedzzz is significantly interested in editing? No. But, if your proposal passes, you can guarantee that he will likely start popping up at just about any article that I edit. I've dealt with editors like Signedzzz before, ones I would categorize as having a harassment and disruptive nature. Signedzzz appears to not even know when he is engaging in harassment and/or disruption. Your proposal will render me powerless to challenge any of his edits. You have given no indication that you looked enough into Signedzzz's editing history to see why I have concerns about his editing. I am well aware that "anyone who gets involved in an ANI discussion naturally undergoes additional scrutiny from administrators and experienced editors afterwords." But as for the topics that I edit? In addition to editing well-watched articles, I edit articles that are not well-watched, including the aforementioned Spree killer article. I was lucky to get this backup from Ianmacm in the case of that article regarding an edit that Signedzzz made, but I doubt that I'll be lucky enough to get such backup in various other cases if your proposal passes. Seems that before your proposal gains traction in passing, I should alert WP:Film and WP:Med to this discussion so that they will know that if Signedzzz shows up at a film or medical article that I edit, I will likely need others to review that edit. Flyer22 (talk) 00:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If, as you claim, you don't need an explanation of what a Wikipedia interaction ban is, why then did you ask "Just how is an interaction ban going to work in a case like that? We can both edit the article, but can't revert each other?" WP:IBAN clearly states "Although the editors are generally allowed to edit the same pages or discussions as long as they avoid each other, they are not allowed to interact with each other in any way. For example, if editor X is banned from interacting with editor Y, editor X is not permitted to [...] undo editor Y's edits to any page (whether by use of the revert function or by other means)." --Guy Macon (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With several years of experience editing this site, and having been to WP:ANI more than once, twice or thrice, as putting the name Flyer22 in a search of the WP:ANI archives show (including a case where an interaction ban was suggested between me and an editor before), why would it be a claim that I know how WP:IBAN works? The question I asked clearly aligns with what WP:IBAN states. And I told you above, "The point of my '22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)' post above was to indicate the faults with your proposal." It is indeed a faulty suggestion, in my opinion, to state that we can edit the same articles...but can't revert each other. So there is no need to try really hard to assume that my question was asked in good faith. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Caden voting again, knowing full well that his votes to restrict what I add to my user page or how I otherwise edit are without valid rationale, has urged me to alert WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:Film to this interaction ban discussion, as seen here, here and here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't find the place in Caden's edit history where he urged you to to alert those Wikiprojects. I probably just missed the obvious; could you please show us a diff where he did that? I am not expressing any opinion as to whether alerting the Wikiprojects was or was not appropriate. Or are you saying that the mere fact that he supported a proposal "urged" you in some way? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant that Caden voting again due to a past grudge (a grudge I already pointed to earlier in this big thread) urged me to go ahead and seek input from the WikiProjects that are related to this interaction ban. Flyer22 (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. --Guy Macon (talk) 08:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just so that everyone understands what an interaction ban entails, please review WP:IBAN and WP:BANEX. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 23:19, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comments I am finding concerns with User:Signedzzz edits. They made 7 reverts in 24 hours here on Sept 12th［https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Recreational_drug_use&action=history]. This is not an appropriate picture for the lead of this article [116]. They deleted another users user page 3 times. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

The user talk page which you mention claimed that I am a sockpuppet (see above - the subject of this discussion). User:WarriorLut, a new single-purpose account, kept making changes to Recreational drug use, after I had just spent three weeks writing it. He refused to respond to my repeated requests for him to explain his changes, but simply proceeded to continue deleting all of the new material. I did not know where to report his vandalism, so I reverted it each time. I have since discovered where to report vandalism. Your opinions of any pictures or other material in the article should be explained in the talk page of the article. None of the 2-3000 visitors per day have complained as yet - in fact, the number of viewers seems to have approximately doubled over the past 2-3 weeks - see [117].zzz (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Ps, I see from your angry message in the talk page of Recreational drug use, [118], that you don't like the article. However, you did not explain your POV, or suggest any significant improvements. zzz (talk) 08:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Still not providing the diff I mentioned? You could also provide a direct quote of the claim that made by Flyer that you are a sockpuppet.

I provided the diff under your comment above, where you requested it.zzz (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to viewers doubling look at this [119]

Exactly were is this "angry message" you attribute to me? Can you provide a diff of that to? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

With respect to "He refused to respond to my repeated requests for him to explain his changes". It was you who was making the new changes and thus need to explain them. He responded here [120] and another user raised concerns here [121] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

No, he started deleting the sections after I had finished them. No one said anything while I was writing them. And the other user made a comment, which I replied to, and then never responded after that. zzz (talk) 14:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you check the times of his response, they are after all the reversion. He initially left a message, which I replied to (with three messages), then, instead of replying back, he posted a message about vandalism at the top of the page, and started deleting all the new (referenced) sections, with no explanation. He only later said he thought they were biased, but without explanation.zzz (talk) 12:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I charcterised your message as angry - I misjudged it's tone. I apologise for that. It was just a bit short, and suggested removing the entire lead section, which, as I mentioned, could just as well be added to instead. (And I just noticed that the viewer figures have almost doubled since I added the new stuff to the article, which seems amazing)zzz (talk) 12:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, just saw your diff. Does that mean I'm wrong then? Oh, well. It did seem odd.zzz (talk) 12:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Signedzzz – I think you will come off worse if an IBAN is imposed. An IBAN isn't imposed on one editor, it is imposed on both editors i.e. you will be subject to the same restrictions as Flyer. In this case not only are you forbidden to respond to each other in discussions, you are forbidden to make changes to each other's edits. Since Flyer22 has been here much longer than you it will be very difficult for you to make changes to articles she has heavily edited without compromising any of her edits i.e. you are much more likely to violate the sanctions than she is on articles that come under common interests. Betty Logan (talk) 10:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Yakupyilmaz

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

---

Yakupyilmaz is vandalising the page Authoritarianism after my warnings and possibly a sockpuppet of those ip vandals (see Authoritarianism: Revision history). Also it occurs that he opened his account only for this reason (check his contribs). elmasmelih 19:02, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Place to report vandalism is thisaway. Amortias (T)(C) 19:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Avenger2015 - Third submission

Avenger2015 has twice been blocked for failing to edit per MOS:TV. In these 15 edits they again submit a voice cast list that duplicates content found at List of Generator Rex characters, and include indiscriminately minor characters who would typically not be noteworthy. User has never responded to discussion or warnings and they appear to be here to edit per their own POV. I should also mention that there was a long-term vandal who had similar behaviors, though I have not pursued a SPI case. See Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Voice Cast Vandal Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. All I am trying to do is provide accurate information on the cast list of multiple tv shows like Generator Rex. Could you please explain the issue? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Avenger2015 (talk • contribs) 02:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issues have been explained numerous times in detail on your talk page. You are adding duplicate content against the Manual of Style for Television; the content you are submitting is unsourced; you are adding insignificant characters like Male Parent #1, Child #4, which conflicts with "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information"; you refuse to discuss your edits when they are challenged; you are ignoring consensus and appear to be editing per your own point of view and preference. I find it difficult to believe that you've received numerous warnings, have been blocked twice for this behavior, but are somehow oblivious to what the problem is. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1,300 edits, 5 months, dozens of requests on the user's talk page, two blocks and three AN/I cases are all it took to get a first non-article space edit. Avenger2015, what finally got your attention? - SummerPhD (talk) 02:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User still doesn't acknowledge the full problem. [122] Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

204.17.60.130

This user's edits have all been undone.[123] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gtrbolivar and personal attacks

User:Gtrbolivar has made it a habit of attacking me personally and exhibiting an utter lack of civility. For example, here here here he was warned by an admin Even after the warning, he continued his personal attacks here and here

This is in addition to a continuing battleground mentality expressed overtly here: "I am going to fight this to the end". --Taivo (talk) 03:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support a block for persisting in disruptive behavior at WP:ANEW and elsewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question - The edit warring appears to be within the scope of WP:AE due to WP:ARBMAC. Is it more appropriate to deal with this warring here, or at Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  On my reading of it, yes, this would come under discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC. Given this and the other discussion two topics down, I think there's an issue here that needs to be addressed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

There is no personal attack. It is my point of view, backed-up by evidence. I didn't call any names, I didn't say anything out of line. The ridiculous "battleground mentality" argument is a complete falsehood. He uses my words out of context and with malicious intent. I wrote this to support user Stevepeterson who had been attacked repeatedly with slanders and insults by Taivo and a supporter of his. The same attacks were directed to me also. Taivo has been called a vandal, a sockpuppeter and a biased editor by other users as you can see here Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom). He made this request to you with the sole purpose of silencing me. He wants me out of the picture, so he can sneak his pseudo-historic agenda into our project through the back door. He has commited numerous vandalisms and violations of both WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. For any further and more detailed explanations (about Taivo's behaviour and his false accusations), I am at your disposal. Gtrbolivar (talk) 03:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Actually, Gtrbolivar, you are the one who called me a vandal and User:Stevepeterson's sockpuppetry accusation was proven false. And had you not restarted your personal attacks against me, I would never have brought this problem here. --Taivo (talk) 03:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

What makes Gtrbolivar's behavior frustrating is that I took a couple of days off from the article to collect my thoughts. During that time other editors calmly discussed the issues and started a simple consensus building process to solve the sticky issues. Then Gtrbolivar arrived and completely disrupted the process with a massive attack on myself and the other editors involved in the calm consideration of the article's first sentence. His battleground attitude was on full display as he posted reams of generally irrelevant and definitely repetitive data. --Taivo (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that Taivo initiated the personal attack. Taivo was upset with anyone trying to bring the article in its stable (2+ years) pro Taivo editwar format. I admit (and apologised for) not assuming good faith from him because what I saw is an editor who together with his supporters Luxure and Macedoniarulez was trying to impose Macedonian nationalism and ideas in-line with the ultra-nationalistic United Macedonia concept. Taivo has used insulting language (eg I have problem with Maths) against any users with different opinion, to such an extend that I had decided to quit editting. And regarding sockpupetry, it is not correct that it was proven false. The investigation was closed due to lack of evidence, this is not a proof that Luxure was not your sock-puppet. I can still identify behavioural similarities between you too eg in refactoring edits of other users Stevepeterson (talk) 11:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Regular repeat of EW by User:151.225.63.6 at Sam Parnia

It seems 151.225.63.6 (talk · contribs) is engaged in a long term slow edit war at Sam Parnia. Please see the 3RR NB filing here for a clear example of EW that occurred last month, resulting in the article Sam Parnia being semi-protected for ten days. Note the reinsertion of the same OR on 15 September diff and the repeat of the removal of the same material diff on the same day. Note this behavior began before the 3RR filing: August 1 diff, diff essentially the same edits and August 8 diff, diff. As this editors contributions seem to consist of only these same two edits with comments on two user talk pages diff, diff. No engagement on the talk page of the article. No response on the editor's talk page where multiple notices and warnings have been placed. It seems this editor is not here to improve the encyclopedia. More than one editor feels these edits constitute vandalism and have expressed frustration at dealing with the same actions repeatedly link. Essentially the same edits were made by 151.228.53.231 (talk · contribs) on May 24 and 25 diff, diff, diff. I don't know what the best remedy here is, but I would suggest a topic ban. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:36, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The user never responds to messages. Since the problem has continued for several months I've semiprotected Sam Parnia for a year. EdJohnston (talk) 15:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Gtrbolivar

On the 26th August 2014, I edited the Ancient Macedon article, changing 'ancient Greek kingdom' to 'ancient kingdom'. The reason I made this edit is because there is reasonable doubt relating to the Ancient Macedonians alleged 'Greekness' and the term 'ancient kingdom' was reached by consensus in 2008 and changed to 'ancient Greek Kingdom' in 2012, without consulting or consensus. All I had did was restore the version of the consensus, and much to the horror of User:Gtrbolivar and others, I was suddenly had 'pro-slav' intentions. I was investigated as being a sockpuppet, even though I, and the other user, Taivo, live in radically different timezones and edit different articles (view my contribs, predominately Australian articles)

Who knew that such an inconsequential edit could cause an edit/pov war for 3 weeks?

I recently made this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625639162

Hoping to resolve the issue which has gone on for 3 weeks due to my edit, I invited all concerned editors, presented all possible sides, allowing users to cast their vote to which version they propose (even though consensus was reached between Taivo and Stevepeterson), with User:Gtrbolivar completely ignoring this, shown here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625117854 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625112264 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625101250 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625081744

In blantant violation of WP:3RR, and yet was not blocked.

Even before this, the pro-Macedonian stance editor Macedonia also reverted the edit by Stevepeterson on the consensus, which was reverted by Taivo. This editor did not edit the article again.

He then completely ignored my invitation for a civilised discussion and to obtain a consensus, and subsequently made this edit

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)&oldid=625751938

Starting his own 'new' section for consensus, inviting only editors supporting his cause, with noticeable users (Taivo) absent. I wonder why?

He does not assume good faith, insults me for my somehow POV editing. Quotes below

" Obviously I am not going to comment on Luxure. Everybody who participated in this "dispute" unsterstands his role, his "historical" perception and his agenda. Unfortunately me and many other users lost our time answering to ridiculous things like (quote): "there is reasonable doubt relating to the Ancient Macedonians alleged Greekness. Also, reading through the plethora of text on this page, the version of 'ancient kingdom' was reached by consensus in 2008 and sneakily changed to 'ancient Greek Kingdom' in 2012". Besides his historical ignorance ("Ancient Greece didn't have Kings") and his vehement attempt to sneak his pseudo-historic fairy tales and POV perceptions in wikipedia, he obviously doesn't understand what WP:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources are "

and

" I understand that some people here aren't only biased and historically ignorant, but they are in fact trying desperately to push a FYROM/Skopije pseudo-historic agenda that has no place in an encyclopedia like this "

and, in his response

" I'm not gonna dignify your crap with a response, you are an ignorant who doesn't know the first thing about history ("Ancient Greece didn't have kings"). My advice to you: Go back to the elementary school or try to read Herodotus or Arrian at least. This could work miracles on you, take my word for it. Finally as far as the WP:NPOV is concerned, my English is very good (unlike yours apparently: "it is contrary to the many authors/science which classify Macedonia...", "It seems that your a being biased") and I don't need a "Greek translate". Maybe you need a Slavic translation (or whatever)

Apparently his English is very good (I was born in and live in an English-speaking country) and I need a 'Slavic' translate.

This editor is obviously very biased, does not assume good faith, is very disruptive to Wikipedia and is trying to push his POV with NO compromises.

He is in violation of:

WP:3RR

WP:CON

WP:AGF

WP:COI

WP:VANDAL

and he also insults me and other editors He has also been reported many times in the past few days.

Cheers,

Luxure (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a thread above about the same topic. Epicgenius (talk) 13:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"I edited the Ancient Macedon article, changing 'ancient Greek kingdom' to 'ancient kingdom'. .... Who knew that such an inconsequential edit could cause an edit/pov war for 3 weeks?" - nobody can be that naive! Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 14:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior by EllenCT

This is part of a long string of confrontations with EllenCT mainly in honeybee or pesticide related articles Neonicotinoid and Colony Collapse Disorder. I'll preface this by saying that I hoped as a relatively new editor to never pursue administrator action and be able to resolve disputes and editor behavior issues without, but that does not seem feasible in this case not for lack of trying for some time to work with EllenCT on these behavior issues.

So far, EllenCT has:

[ • ] Accused me of COI without evidence against WP:COI, and continually hounded me with veiled claims of astroturfing. [124], [125], [126], and attributing content I pasted to my sandbox from a problem article as my own content for further COI accusations [127].

[ • ] Refuses to discuss on the article talk page, specifically stating she is assuming bad faith on my part per the continued WP:HOUNDING and failing to drop the stick on COI [128] all because I posted a peer-reviewed literature review as an example of a secondary source. [129] [130] She has since been on a tirade about how the source is biased and unreliable even though we were not proposing content on it. Main discussion here [[131]]

[ • ] Stated her reason for not attempting to use the article talk page before going to RSN for a dispute was her assumption of bad faith [132] , which is counter to WP:AGF throughout the whole talk section. [133]

[ • ] Consistently brings up editor behavior concerns (whether unfounded or not) on the article talk page, and has stated, "I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your pervious [sic] comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit."[134] This is a blatant violation of WP:TPG as she refuses to use user talk pages to discuss editor behavior and has stated she will continue to use the article talk pages.

[ • ]Demonstrated lack of basic knowledge related to the topic from time to time. This was kindly pointed out by another user, but it didn't seem clear that the message got across that she needed to slow down and acknowledge mistakes were made. [135] [136] Being factually incorrect is fine, but the way that has been dealt with (or lack of) does seem like tendentious behavior is potentially affecting her ability to make competent edits. Quite a bit of time was spent trying to alleviate mistakes that she wouldn't back down from.

The main concerning policies or guidelines are WP:COI, WP:AGF, and WP:TPG. These concerns are all rooted our in policy WP:CIVIL. This behavior runs afoul of that policy, especially from WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL that includes personal attacks and "quoting another editor out of context to give the impression they hold views they do not hold, or to malign them". She has continued to claim I am biased and furthering an agenda when all I did was list the source in question as an example of one secondary source, and nothing more.

She continues to post about perceived editor behavior issues on article talk page after being warned multiple times not to:

[ • ] Towards the end of my comment [137]

[ • ] Still kind warning. [138]

[ • ] Warning with a good in-depth explanation, especially on the ground-shifting and avoiding questions by asking new ones without responding to previous ones. [ • ] Explained to her here. [139] [140]

[ • ] Second to last warning. [141]

[ • ] Final warning. [142]

I originally had more of a narrative, but some helpful users guided me on more suitable concise formatting expected for ANI. The more detailed version is below just for posterity (or if someone really wants the details):

Additional background diffs that culminated to this issue.

I recently reverted content with reliable source concerns in mind [143]. EllenCT reverted without addressing those concerns, and immediately went to RSN for the reliability dispute rather than discuss on the talk page first. [144]. The talk page conversation never went towards addressing why I removed the content after repeatedly asking to address those issues, but instead culminated in this statement by EllenCT "Is it an assumption of bad faith on my part that interaction has colored by opinion of your neutrality?"[145] The interaction referenced was me stating what an example of a recent review was (and nothing more from a weight perspective). [146] [147] EllenCT has since been on a tirade about me being biased, COI, etc. because I mentioned a peer-reviewed review article that happened to have industry ties as a general example of what a literature review looks like as an example of one of many we'd need to consider for scientific consensus. I attempted to correct that misconception once she started making wild accusations, but apparently that was never heard.[148][149] After the comment in the above paragraph, she then said, "Note that it was because you claimed authors for which any reasonable person would have abundant reason to suspect bias were the authors of what you considered an example of a neutral review. I strongly object to your implication that I should not refer to that behavior, and I strongly object to your "last warning" threat. I reserve the right to refer to both that issue and your pervious comment here whenever the question of your neutrality arises, as I see fit."[150] That last response is the prime evidence that this user is purposely and disregarding our policies for civility and discussion. She has purposely misrepresented how I was using the source after attempting to correct her multiple times (only resulting in WP:IDHT), accusing me of bias and lack of neutrality throughout the article because of this, and blatantly saying she will not discuss her concerns about editor behavior on user talk pages, but instead on the article talk page, which is violating WP:TPG. This to me was the indication that this user is no longer working towards improving the article by following our civility policies with statements that the user is assuming bad faith on my part. There have been multiple personal attacks on me. She has questioned me on COI without any evidence of one. [151] Not appropriate behavior at this point, but not blatantly outside the lines of civility from my perspective. However, EllenCT continued hounding me on this topic by continuing to claim I was a paid advocate with a COI with no evidence in an edit summary.[152], followed by veiled accusations of astroturfing on top of COI at the end of her response [153]. Again, all for saying the source was an example of a review. She even went to my sandbox where I had just pasted a problem article to work on, she accused me of COI again based on content I never wrote in the article [154] This is all clearly what we are not supposed to do per WP:COI. Here are the other general behavior issues that have not been resolved which have contributed to the above: Lapses in competence EllenCT has demonstrated lack of basic knowledge related to the topic from time to time. She repeatedly called the source we were discussing a primary article instead of a secondary source, and wasn't familiar with some basic insect biology. This was kindly pointed out by another user, but it didn't seem clear that the message got across that she needed to slow down and acknowledge mistakes were made. [155] [156] Being factually incorrect is fine, but the way that has been dealt with (or lack of) does seem like tendentious behavior. Article talk page behavior and discussion EllentCT refuses to discuss on talk page citing assumption of bad faith, consistently brings up editor behavior, and has stated she refuses to discuss it in appropriate areas such as user talk pages as cited previously. She has had issues remaining neutral in starting new talk page sections [157] discussed here [158] and at NPOVN [159] I have also discussed with other users trying to figure out how to shift our conversations back to content on the article talk page [160], with little to no avail due to either EllenCT going off on tangential topics without addressing the topic at hand, or casting aspersions towards me, essentially derailing any discussion and preventing content concerns from being addressed. She also tends to avoid questions by asking questions, resulting functionally in a red herring in discussion (seen throughout Talk:Neonicotinoid). She continues to post about perceived editor behavior issues on article talk page after being warned multiple times not to: [161] [162] [163] [164] [165] EllenCT's behavior has been the topic of previous ANI [166][167]and Arbcom discussions [168] where even my exasperation in a topic unrelated to the Arbcom discussion was noted [169]. No decisions were made on her actions in either case, but the fact that users have felt the need to bring this behavior up is an indication of a history of this problem. She was warned by another user of the seriousness of being a topic of discussion at Arbcom at a conversation on my talk page [170], and her own [171], but shows general disregard for these warnings. (Moved to not make it appear like I'm trying to bring previous disputes and findings into question. This is only meant to document disputes have occurred, and that EllenCT should know to be wary of this behavior. Nothing more) Also, I apologize for the length. There's a lot of history in this issue, which is partly the result of me trying to be patient and work with EllenCT on improving this behavior, which makes concisely showing a single part of an edit difficult. Skimming the Neonicotinoid talk page should give a good overview too. If there is a specific detail that it isn't apparent where I'm pointing it out on a talk page, just let me know.

In conclusion, there are multiple editor behavior issues here. EllenCT has essentially stated she is assuming bad faith on my part, even though I have told her she was vastly mistaken in why I listed the source and she continues to misrepresent what I said. Adding on the use of the article talk page to attack users, we have a number of disruptive editor behaviors that continue through WP:IDHT after repeated warnings. This establishes a series of WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior that alone in a single edit may be tolerable, but accumulated over the course of this summer indicates the inability of this editor to follow Wikipedia's policies on civility, not to mention her stated intention to continue doing so. There is no sign this continued behavior will stop.

I could see this general behavior potentially warranting a site ban given the history, but I'd personally prefer to assume EllenCT has a belly button, and that something just set her off on this tirade in this topic specifically. With that, I'd instead at least suggest a topic ban on bee and pesticide related articles. I've always been open to other solutions to resolve this issue, but there don't appear to be any additional options at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Too long, didn't read. The ArbCom requests that statements be limited to 500 words. Is there any reason that the community should be expected to parse much longer walls of text? Is it possible that EllenCT didn't hear you because your wall of text was too long? Waiting for an intelligible complaint. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I already pointed out that this was long because there's a lot of content that's not easily condensed, and I don't want to make flimsy accusations per WP:BOOMERANG. Do you have any suggestions on what would help? I stated I have not posted at ANI before, so I'd ask for just a little patience at first if there's a convention I missed. The main paragraphs to read would be the first four. I could did collapse most of the remaining as general background so people could read the finer details if they want if that helps focus it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This should be closed before a lot of time and attention is wasted on it. OP's links demonstrate that @EllenCT: has been hounded mercilessly by VictorD7 and was piled on by various other editors. Srich32977 had the good sense to respond to feedback from EllenCT and others by voluntarily withdrawing from interaction with her. Citing previous failed complaints as "evidence" here is more likely to result in a boomerang than in any sanction against EllenCT. I also feel that there has been an element of gender bias in these recurring accusations and tendentious arguments against her. I urge OP to withdraw this thread. SPECIFICO talk 12:23, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I withdrew from interaction with EllenCT for two reasons. One, it looked like an RFC/U was in the offing. Two, because SPECIFICO agreed to my suggestion to undertake providing guidance. (See: User talk:Srich32977/Archive 14#EllenCT for details.) I do not know how much guidance was provided. I do not think "merciless hounding" was ever an issue. Gender bias and tendentiousness was never a factor in anyone's engagement with her. (I am commenting because a notice about this ANI and because my name was specifically mentioned.) – S. Rich (talk) 15:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, my post does not say that Srich was a merciless hounder. There's no question in my mind that Victor, however did engage in such a way. Srich came on too strong, see here: [172] but to his credit, he responded to guidance and withdrew from the problematic interactions. That's quite a different response than to declare that her experience of the interaction is invalid, or much worse, as here, to blame the woman for feeling threatened. SPECIFICO talk 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The history is not there as main evidence. Being brought to the boards is a big deal regardless of outcome. Being involved in similar previous disputes indicates that she should know all the more what is considered improper behavior to keep her nose clean. That is all the history is there to demonstrate since we're primarily focusing on her behavior at Neonicotinoid. The behavior there stands on it's own. I'm well aware there has been drama involving EllenCT in the past and some of it not deserved on her part with some of the hounding you mentioned. However, the validity of her previous actions and disputes are not in question here, nor was I involved in them. This was documentation that there were previous disputes and nothing more. I do agree that there is the potential for previously involved editors to pile on, so that's why I'll ask early on that people remember the focus of this is her behavior at the bee related articles. I have no idea why gender is interjected into this conversation though. That has never been a topic of contention (nor can I see why), so focusing on gender would only be a distraction.

The behavior issues are apparent on their own. I'll let them stand as I laid them out. I've tried to be civil, help with understanding content, and pointed out how she could remedy her behavior so we could have effective discussion at the pages for quite awhile now. I've kept my nose clean in trying to civilly deal with the behavior issues, even in presenting the above evidence that the behavior is intended and will not stop. If I had given up right away when the behavior was an issue, then there could have been boomerang issues, but I'll let my history show I've been trying to work with EllenCT despite the grievances above. That's why a boomerang would be an odd thing to mention if we dig into what's actually been happening at the article. If I have done something that would truly warrant WP:BOOMERANG then I am all ears, but that would be something to discuss elsewhere such as my talk page as no such conversation has taken place as I have not been warned about any issues yet. The topic here is EllenCT's behavior, so we should remember to stay on topic. Kingofaces43 (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I stand by my behavior, and ask for administrators' help and patience as I try Talk:Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing#WP:WEIGHT of new study: "Proximity to Natural Gas Wells and Reported Health Status" (2014). I understand that the mere existence of controversial topics can be disruptive in their own right, through no error on the part of any given editor. Therefore I ask administrators to consider the behavior of all parties to any controversial topic. EllenCT (talk) 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a note specifying that discussion prior to this was before I made edits to simplify the case. The original "narrative" is within the Additional background diffs that culminated to this issue box. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:41, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. On neonic issues, EllenCT is:
  • continually WP:POV-pushing (e.g. here with section header Does your mom know you beat your wife"How should Bayer's efforts to pay for silence be characterized?"),
  • has demonstrated a continued lack of WP:COMPETENCE in pesticide topics (e.g. here)
  • and a lack of competence in WP:PAG (continually conflates WP:INDY and WP:COI and WP:NOPAY in really convoluted ways (see here for example) and doesn't understand WP:RS see this bizarre "analysis" of a source for example);
  • continually engages in personal attacks (see this beauty of a section with the header "Whitewashing resumes in earnest".

I have found her edits and discussion on Talk so axe-grindy and so impenetrably illogical and generally disruptive that I walked away from the page. Kingofaces has been a freaking saint, dealing with her. He provided boatloads of difs above. (yes it was tl/dr but cut him some slack, this his first ANI). The topic would be much better off without her involvement. Jytdog (talk) 03:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Armish Smeetesh Patel - User:Smeetesh Patel

Ok. First things first, an SPI is open here. Ok here is the history:

• User:Smeetesh Patel creates Smeetesh patel
• An AFD is opened
• Smeetesh patel moved to Smeetesh Patel
• AFD closed as Speedy delete - both Smeetesh patel and Smeetesh Patel deleted under G3
• 3 hours later Smeetesh Patel was created by User:Smeetesh Patel
• Smeetesh Patel deleted under G3
• User:Smeetesh Patel blocked for 48 hours
• Smeetesh patel recreated by User:Armish Smeetesh Patel (an account created in December 2013)
• Smeetesh patel deleted - G4
• Smeetesh patel recreated by User:Armish Smeetesh Patel
• SPI opened
• Smeetesh patel - deleted
• Smeetesh patel - SALTed
• User:Armish Smeetesh Patel - blocked for 24 hours

My recommendations:

• SALT Smeetesh patel -  Done by Deb
• SALT Smeetesh Patel  Done
• Indef block User:Smeetesh Patel for block evasion  Done
• Indef block User:Armish Smeetesh Patel as a sockpuppet - come on the SPI result is kinda of obvious  Done
• Do an IP-range block so more socks aren't created of different IPs

-- NickGibson3900 ^Talk 10:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just to confirm your second recommendation probably wants to be SALT Smeetesh Patel. And looks good to me. SPACKlick (talk) 10:31, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yep NickGibson3900 ^Talk 10:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP check will have to be done by a checkuser, obviously - I have done the others. Black Kite (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Quick attention to an edit summary

May I have this edit summary blanked? Thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 13:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Might as well revdel the whole thing since it's an automated edit summary based on a section heading. I'm sure it qualifies for WP:RD2. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

No argument from me! (Though - it may come in handy one day as evidence of the chronic abuse inflicted by this particular editor.) JohnInDC (talk) 13:30, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Delete on the basis that they can't spell "motherfucker"? Kids these days. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked IP and revdel'd two summaries and contents. Naughty kid. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, he's got very bad manners. JohnInDC (talk) 16:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Returning sockpuppet

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

---

That user that likes to post walls of Arabic text is back as User:Naghmerty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), User:Naghmehdkj (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User:Naghmeasx (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). I'd file with SPI, but I can't remember the original name.--Auric talk 14:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked. Easily passes the WP:DUCK test (or make that بطة). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Legal threat and edit warring by User:‪107.133.164.7‬

The IP user ‪107.133.164.7‬ has been edit-warring over the article Art Bell. They were 3RR warned to stop adding unsourced information to the article.[173] They responded on their talk page with a legal threat. [174] --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Now they've gone one further: diff2.--Auric talk 15:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

They were just blocked for a week. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 15:26, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Dusti - and thanks to Stephan Schulz for the quick block. And I see that someone did revert their SEVENTH addition of unsourced information to the Art Bell article. (They claim personal knowledge.) Wikipedia can move quickly when it has to. --MelanieN (talk) 15:28, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd substitute "when it has to" with "sometimes", but in this case, yes. WP:NLT is very clear. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:34, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Rpo.castro

It's not the first time that I clash with that user mainly because he never agrees with my contributions. Note that he is a F.C. Porto supporter and I am a S.L. Benfica supporter. He keeps adding an invalid source (DN is linked fo FC Porto and says FIFA said something without any reference) to List of football clubs in Portugal by major honours won to prevent its deletion. SLBedit (talk) 16:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Note also that there is a dispute in that article regarding the number of "official titles" since Toyota Cup was not "organised by FIFA". SLBedit (talk) 16:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute and should probably be resolved on the article talk page, If I am misunderstanding you, can you clarify? What administrator action would you like taken? CombatWombat42 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that he wrote that I was harrassing him "This is harassment". Warn him about that? SLBedit (talk) 17:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

SLBedit forgot to mention that he is after my editions, reverting them, including my talk page (!). No discussion anywere, just reverting them. This harassment probably because he/she thinks I've some kind of clubistic suporting, wich is not of his own. Please review his/her condute on last 3/4 weeks and the conflicts he/she made.Rpo.castro (talk) 17:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Talk page has nothing to do with this. I reverted in your talk page because I thought specific content should be archived not blanked. Disputing content on Wikipedia is not a personal conflict. SLBedit (talk) 01:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Users can delete pretty much anything they want to from their talk pages. Whether they choose to archive it, or simply delete it, is none of your business. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Npk Twice

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

---

Hello Admins, over the past few days Kasirap (talk · contribs) has been re-creating Npk twice, Npk Twice and now NPK Twice, after an AfD result was to delete despite being told that "there does not seem to be any connection between the statements in the article and the citations to them".. could they all be SALT'ed please? Thanks, JMHamo (talk) 17:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

 Done That plus a 1-week vacation from creating any more inappropriate pages the panda ₯’ 21:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Interaction ban between Carolmooredc and Sitush proposed

Not sure if this has been proposed before, as the conflict between the two users is so depressing to me that I haven't been following it closely, but I feel a standard symmetrical IBAN between Carolmooredc and Sitush is needed. I haven't commented before in the conflict between them, as far as I remember. (Unless you count this post where I called Sitush a cunt to make him feel better.) What's pushed me over the edge into the fray is that Sitush is currently writing a BLP about Carol in his userspace. Carol has put it on MfD, Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore and Sitush's responses in that discussion strongly suggest strongly that he intends it for mainspace. A really terrible idea. Please note that I'm not suggesting Sitush is more at fault than Carol in their dispute in general. That's not my opinion, nor am I interested in depressing myself further by going back through the record and analysing it in depth. There's just too much of it. Both users need to take a handful of chill pills and back off. Our standard IBAN, described here would do well, in my opinion. Admittedly, it doesn't say that you're not allowed to write articles about people you're IBAN'd from interacting with, but common sense will obviously include that detail. Policy writers can't think of everything, nor should they even think of everything. Not to go TLDR here, please see my post here on Sitush's page if you're interested in an argument about how writing a BLP about a wiki-adversary is like writing a BLP about oneself (at least, it's like it in being equally unsuitable).

Note: I can't stop anybody from commenting here nor do I want to, but could the people who have already posted copiously in the conflict and would like to tell the world how much it's all Carol's fault/all Sitush's fault, please avoid swamping the thread with the usual back-and-forth? Leaving most of the space for those uninvolved in the conflict would be productive. Of course we'd all very much like to hear from Carol and Sitush whether or not they're prepared to agree to such a ban. That would make the "consensus" thing moot, which would save a lot of wear and tear on all our nerves. Bishonen | talk 17:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC).

(ec) Do you think the IBAN should have a fixed time frame or be indefinite? I am thinking that a few months may be enough. Indefinite bans have a tendency to fester over time. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• neutral to weak support There is certainly distraction for editors and admins caused by the interactions between the two. I'm not sure it raises to disruption. I note the issue above with Specifico. Normally when there is one editor involved in many disputes with many different editors, its a sign that the element in common may be the issue - however I acknowledge that there may be a larger political dispute in play and its not so much carol herself who is the nexus of the dispute, but the political position she represents (which is a perfectly acceptable position to be in, to be clear). I don't think the evidence is strong enough to show pure WP:HARASS on the part of sitush so in this instance would oppose a one-way. However, if a pattern continues where everyone who ends up on the opposite side of an argument with Carol gets ibanned, its going to make it difficult for Carols efforts to be seen as legitimate when the opposition has been silenced. (Which is not to say that they may not deserve being silenced). Its a difficult quandary. For the record, I think Sitush's article is well sourced, while some may suspect his motives, saying the resulting article is an attack is not shown by the evidence. However, it would be wiser for him to let someone else write it. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support, for the best interest of both these editors. GoodDay (talk) 18:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - I don't see any actual issue with Sitush's recent article creation in his personal userspace. As far as I can tell, he's not flaunted it in her face or even remotely tried to point it out to her (I may be wrong, and if I am then this would obviously change to support). Her wikistalking and hounding of him is what's started this most recent tirade, and it is a waste of everyone's time an energy. Let's say I have an obvious hatred towards... User:GoodDay (just using you since you were the last to post) and I ended up writing a well written, neutral, policy compliant article on you because you did something wonderful and became article worthy and notable - what's the harm? There's no slew of hatred in sight there - nor is there anything within the article to suggest that Sitush dislikes her. Going to the extent of an IBAN is over the top here. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Concerns In this case I am more likely to support it because I have run into Sitush almost exclusively on administrative forums where he comes to criticize me, my talk page when he "forgets" he's banned, and lately Jimbo Wales talk page and gender gap task force. However, the fact he gave me less than 24 hours after the close of the last ANI regarding wikihounding of me before starting an aggressive form of harassment with this "draft bio" does make me worry he'll start following me to article spaces and causing problems there, while still observing the letter of the law (i.e., no replies, no reverts). As I wrote at the MfD:

As posted here the user wrote on their talk page that they were going to be analyzing me, linking to my website. I posted a harassment warning. At the subsequent discussion User_talk:Sitush#WP:Harassment_policy, I noted that in a recent WP:ANI that someone else brought on Wikihounding of me the user emphasized I'd linked to my website (way back in 2007-8)[175][176], urged people to "do some research" on me[177], and even wrote:I might have to start following her around more often myself if these proposals go through because someone has to keep an eye on her."[178]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[179] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[180].

So I leave it up to others' better judgement. (Though I may have to reply to any questionable statements.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I (briefly!) looked over the interaction on Sitush's talk page and don't see any reason for imposing an IBAN that will prevent Sitush from writing and moving an article on Carol Moore to mainspace. The way I see it, the baiting is mostly one way (was the notice that started the whole thing necessary for example?) and this would set a particularly bad precedent. Allowing someone to control who can or cannot write articles on themselves is not a good idea and that's what an IBAN would largely achieve. --regentspark (comment) 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This IBAN discussion is not solely about the article. It's about their overall behavior. If you wish to comment on the article, check out this MfD. Perhaps Bishonen can add more about their behavior to avoid decisions based solely on the article. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Unfortunately it is fairly clear that the main effect of the IBAN will be disallowing Sitush from writing that article. Like I say above, it is a terrible idea to set a precedent where a negative interaction initiated by the subject of the article dictates who can or cannot write the article. --regentspark (comment) 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I neither support nor oppose the notion of an i-ban here, having not explored the history of the two users in detail, but I have to say that the notion of deciding to write a BLP about a person with whom you are actively exchanging vituperative words in project space strikes me as indicative of incredibly poor judgment. I would expect any experienced editor to be aware that writing about someone with whom you are in a dispute is rife with potential BLP issues. That Sitush apparently saw nothing wrong with his handling an intra-editor dispute this way makes me wonder whether, alongside this personality dispute, there are also issues with Sitush's general judgment about BLP policy. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:27, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• The fact that he's writing the BLP could be indicative of poor judgement but that judgement would need to be made when reading the article. As others have stated - there's no issue with the actual article itself. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Well, no. My point is that the questionable judgment is in starting the article in the first place, because either he was not aware of the many ways his (presumed) bias against someone he's fighting with could leak out into the text without him even noticing, or he did not care about the many ways said bias could leak out into the text. If the article turns out to not be a massive BLP violation, that's great, but it doesn't change my feeling of "What were you thinking to start it at all?" A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Is it simply a coincidence that there are now two active IBAN proposals involving Carol on this page? Eric Corbett 18:32, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not really no, users can gang up on other users it has happened in the past here on wiki so I am not surprised. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  So who do you think is ganging up on whom in this instance, and why? Eric Corbett 18:48, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am not going to answer a loaded question and start naming names here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  So basically you're just making it up as you go along. Eric Corbett 19:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• No because I have seen it before here on Wikipedia. Just like real life it isn't always the case where there is one aggressor and one targeted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - General animosity between the two is obvious. Sitush is quite aggressive toward Carolmooredc in his/her comments and the new "BLP" is hounding in my view. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

  Then your view is wrong, as so often in the recent past. Eric Corbett 18:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose; however, move the article to draft space so that anyone neutral can work on it. As User:Anne Delong said at the MfD though, However, I suspect that the number of editors who have not had negative interactions with Carol is declining by the day. Black Kite (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Anne Delong did not say that. Provide a diff or strike the comment. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a serious distortion of my comment at MfD. Is there an emoticon for "indignant"? —Anne Delong (talk) 19:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Apologies, Anne, if you didn't mean that; your comment does however read that way. I have struck my comment about you (although I stand by it in general). Black Kite (talk) 19:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Black Kite, I read my comment again and don't see your interpretation. I try hard to avoid sarcasm and subtle putdowns in my posts. If I'm against something I say so clearly. In any case, I have expanded the comment to avoid any further misunderstanding. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose and move to draft space per Black Kite, I fully understand why Carol is upset she has had a history with Sitush but unless it is actually Harassment there is nothing much that can be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:54, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support before this snowballs into arbcom case.--MONGO 19:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• weak oppose I'm very concerned about what is really starting to look like a psuedo-civil campaign to silence discussion in many quarters here. An interaction ban, especially given the comments focus on one user, would play into that as far as I'm concerned. Intothatdarkness 20:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support per Fluffernutter. Let's do a little thought experiment here, for those who read this page often. Imagine I created User:Demiurge1000/Eric Corbett for the purpose of starting to collect sources about Eric for the purpose of proving his notability (I'm not sure if that's easy or difficult or impossible, I haven't looked) and subsequently writing a mainspace article about him. Given the occasional disagreements Eric and I have had, do you think this would be a bad idea, a very bad idea, or just a really really profoundly stupid idea? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Support indef block I have now come to the conclusion this is simply not what the Wikipedia:Harassment says. It says Sitush should be immediately blocked". I would love to start creating Wikipedia articles on editors I don't get along with, how fun......NOT.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support full two-way interaction ban. Both editors are engaging in hostility toward each other. Sitush is being provocative. Carol's response, while less extreme, is still antagonistic. Carol's argument that she needs to edit the draft is silly. If the draft survives MFD and is moved into mainspace, it becomes the property of the community, not of Sitush, and Carol can then edit it or AFD it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in favor of a 1-way ban imposed on Sitush. This is straight-up harassment and intimidation by one party. Tarc (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc. Comments like this and this in light of this make it clear who is behaving horribly here, with Carol only reacting from my what I have seen. The only option other than a one-way interaction ban that I would consider acceptable would be a lengthy block of Sitush for harassment.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Tarc and The Devil's Advocate. Just three days ago Sitush called CMDC a prat at GGTF.[181] No one should have to choose between ignoring harassment or agreeing to an IBAN when you're harassed. Lightbreather (talk) 23:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't see how IBAN is going to help anyone. There is some exhausted conversations, they can be seen elsewhere. But IBAN is not appropriate for a fresh feud. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support The purpose of an interaction ban is to help the encyclopedia by removing a distraction. There is no need to work out who started it or who is right/wrong—however it happened, the editors concerned are now locked in battle and it is unfair on them that it should continue. This is a no-fault iban to avoid an inevitable escalation with a possible result that an army of socks and misguided my-clan-is-better-than-your-clan editors have failed to pull off. If anyone wants exercise, try pig wrestling. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose There is very little, if any, evidence of hounding. There is some evidence of incivility, but nothing too far beyond the norm. Most of the moderate incivility (like the 'prat' comment and 'idiot' comment) is connected with content disputes, never in isolation. The GGTF talk page is chock-full of far worse behaviour. I have very little experience with policy, but this seems a useless measure to solve the wrong problem. Kingsindian (talk) 11:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Having little experience with policy, maybe you don't know you should prove a point like claiming bad behavior on a wikiproject. I'm sure if he was following you around for a year with such nonsense you'd learn how to come to ANI with diffs real quick. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It is true that I made the overly broad comment about the GGTF talk page without any evidence: I was trying to keep my reply brief: it was my opinion after simply reading the talk page, nothing more. But as someone said, "I'm not the only one": see the comments by Newyorkbrad here. Kingsindian (talk) 13:47, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose one-way interaction ban on Carol Moore (the article)

Should the article survive the Miscellaneous for Deletion process, I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits - and of course report them to BLPN, etc. I don't want to have to run to WMF every day because and Admin thought I should be prevented from commenting on a BLP that has been put together solely to harass me and waste my time. The present poorly sourced and down right silly stuff would not be taken seriously in any real bio. I have lots of WP:RS and material from the last article --'Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer -- that haven't been used or used properly. (Of course that article got AfD.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Opppose You're not going to have your cake and eat it too. Barak Obama doesn't get to dictate what goes in his article, nor will you. If you're notable, you're notable and an article will be created. You're welcome to discuss potential changes and such on any such talk page of any article that you have a COI in - but you don't get to dictate what goes in it. Further, I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits.. just sounds like you're wanting the ability to continue to stalk his edits and WikiHound him. Cut it out Carol! Drop the stick and stop being so damn dramatic! Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Actually I read that as "I would need to be able to comment on it and on any Sitush edits to it", which seems entirely reasonable, and indeed is recommended as the first step in Wikipedia:Contact us - Subjects. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:37, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Weak oppose as there has been significant back-and-forth between the two editors. While the interaction may be lopsided, it's not one-way to begin with and thus a one-way ban does not seem appropriate here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I do find it odd that Carolmooredc should be supplying references for an article she want deleting. J3Mrs (talk) 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because I want it deleted, doesn't mean I'll get it deleted. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question - Is Carol requesting a one-way interaction ban, or a topic ban on Sitush on the article? As noted above, Carol has no need to edit the draft. If the draft is moved into article (main) space, it becomes the property of the community and is not subject to the IBAN. If the article survives the MFD and survives the AFD, it would be reasonable to impose a topic-ban on Sitush from the article, but the time to decide that is if the article survives the MDF. As it is, I don't know what she is asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I actually lost track myself. I knew I couldn't edit, but didn't want to be insulted when I posted refs or made comments on the article, hoping that that would be the only place I'd run into Sitush if there was an interaction ban. It looks like the article will be MfD'd both because of numbers and the obvious rationale. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

To further answer Robert's question and to move my comments out of place I was advised it was inappropriate:

Comment I have no desire to have anything to do with him and never have had. This is the Interaction July 2013-September 2014. This is just from July 2014-Sept 2014. It’s mostly him following me to say nasty things. Besides the nasty "Disruption of Wikiproject" ANI comments linked above in my "Concerns" section, most recently:

• He kept reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement and I had to go to the Wikiproject Disruption closer ScottyWong to get him to stop.
• Here calls me “idiot.”
• Pops up to object (yet again) to my opening thread; guess I need his permission?
• Admits can’t stay away from a thread (where he bashes me again)
• Says I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum
• Follows typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion to accuse me of forum shopping.
• [Added later, missed a big one] - at this diff. As an opponent of the task force, Sitush writes on its talk page: “This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a “goading prat.”

I have no desire to interact with him. Judging from the Gender Gap task force, they can all take care of themselves there if he starts anything and I can just happily ignore his specific comments, though I might comment on any general principles should others get into them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment It is a draft, Carol, You know that, you've been told that. A work in progress. Yet again, you are ignoring what others have said when, presumably, it does not suit your purpose to do otherwise. I've already explained that there are thousands of mentions of you, including ones in the past AfDs. I spent most of yesterday researching and, of course, have been doing so on and off for a long time: I tend not to rush into articles that I create and I tend to finesse them, often actively inviting others to help me out. I've invited you to help me out, actually, but you seem studiously to have ignored that, making accusations that there are inaccuracies but not actually providing any examples when asked. You also seem to have ignored the several instances in the last day or so where you have falsely accused me and/or patently misrepresented your own history here on WP. I urge people to read the thread on my talk page, the MfD and the (far from complete) draft itself. And to have faith in Wikipedia's processes of continuous article development involving the entire community. This stinks, it really does. - Sitush (talk) 00:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: Interaction bans seldom do any good. Either sanction poor behavior or slug it out somewhere. That said, the "article draft" needs to be speedily deleted; Sitush, you should know better; you are making an attack page, no matter how neutral it looks, CMDC is not a person who is going to pass WP:GNG. Montanabw^(talk) 05:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett

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

---

I think a handful of editors have just about had enough here. Most recently these edits here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#Notice of relevant discussion elsewhere. There is no way that his comments I can see as being justified towards Carol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it is justified either. In the past there have been poor results in attempting to respond to this users lack of civility. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Same. Last ANI turned out to nothing but Eric's been given more WP:ROPE and just keeps adding to the pile of examples of incivility and harassment. Frankly I'd like to see a topic ban and an IBAN. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is amazing how editors who consider themselves to be civil can only see incivility in others. I consider that section to be about forum shopping and thought the question asked was valid and the answers less so. J3Mrs (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Intothatdarkness 20:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The only thing that is going to come out of this subsection is another round of "who wants to lose the mop wheel warring over blocking Eric". Unless there is very very strong evidence and consensus, I suggest we nip this in the bud before it just causes another wiki-wide drama explosion. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably so, but there's mounting evidence that Eric is "not here" vis-a-vis the GGTF project. However an IBAN might be more easily sustained. Just wish the arbcom would step in and get this over with. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Corbett is just being Corbett and Carol is being Carol. CMDC does a good job of baiting Corbett and vice versa. They both just need to ignore each other or else go snipe at each other in someone's sandbox or user talk, and not any of the project or article pages. Before we start talking about banning anyone, I think we need to just ignore them both and not let them drag in the rest of us. Montanabw^(talk) 20:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not go out of my wait to disrupt projects and articles he's involved with. It's not my fault if my opinions drive him crazy. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

As it disrupts the entire project, that's kinda hard. An IBAN would solve it. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:22, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Only if it's applied to both of them. Intothatdarkness 20:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

@Intothatdarkness: Though Eric is the more uncivil party, attacking just about anyone and everyone he dislikes (just look above at his comments throughout this ANI), a two-way ban is fine by me. If someone doesn't start a discussion on it by this evening, I'll consider starting my own. Getting sick of this nonsense. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

That and his attitude towards ANI even, asking if I brought his name over to "Win a bet" [182] - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:38, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Coming here/running to mummy is not always a good idea unless you want generate drama. J3Mrs (talk) 20:42, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

There has already been drama, the fact though is that there are some editors here to edit and others who go out of their way to get to others per WP:NOTHERE. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Having read the linked section, I see a personal attack directed at Eric, but no personal attacks issues by Eric. I asked on your talk page why you were opening this section. I'm guessing it isn't to ask for sanctions against those attacking Eric, but if not, why not?--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

"Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you?" is a personal attack. True, for Eric, it is rather mild (!). But it is still unpleasant to be the target of. --GRuban (talk) 21:01, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Sitush interaction ban

Sitush is banned from initiating any interactions with CarolmooreDC.

• Support as proposer. Phrased to neatly avoid the usual concern about one-way interaction bans as Sitush has to initiate the interaction. If Carol goes after him without any form of provocation then the restriction does not apply.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:25, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Support indef block - Policy is clear. This is a blockable offense and nothing anyone has stated has demonstrated this was accidental. Point taken...but for the moment I am supporting both. Although it makes far more sense for this ban than both if one is the instigator and the other mostly the victim (although I hate that term "victim").--Mark Miller (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose - Sitush has done absolutely nothing wrong here. He posted on his talk page that he was going to check out her website, presumably for research for the article that he is creating. His editing skills have been called into question, his ability to remain neutral has been called into question, and his integrity. So much bad faith has been flung at Sitush, all because @Carolmooredc: felt threatened and attacked by a page that has previously existed that she has edited. She's claimed to have been outed, however, that's already been rebuked. The common denominator here is Carol - not Sitush. Anyone who's reasonable can see that the actual article in question is A) in userspace and B) BLP compliant. Everyone needs to chill out and stop making this a bigger deal than it actually is. So much time and server space has been used up that I almost think Carol needs a block. But I'm sure someone else will bring that up later. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 00:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Is it really necessary to say that anyone that doesn't see this the same way is not reasonable? Sitush linked an off wiki site pertaining to another editor purposely to his talk page and that was not OK. His reasoning for the "research" is questionable and the entire situation is not acceptable.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support, obviously necessary and the sooner the better. This is way out of hand now. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Based on replies from others, what Sitush is doing is not ok. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support as a check on harassment now that the question has been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose in the strongest form We are not going to go ban everyone Carol can't get along with. This is not Wikipedia according to Carol. If Carol is having difficulty with so many people, eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions.--v/r - TP 02:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• We already had a discussion about Carol's actions here, the consensus was that she had done no wrongdoing, unless you want to make a topic here and show some diffs that Carol is at fault. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, I didn't see the policy where I had to follow the crowd and !vote accordingly. If you please point me toward that policy, I'll correct my vote ASAP. In fact, now that I think about it, why would we even need this vote if editors are not allowed to dissent? I mean, that's essentially what your argument comes down to.--v/r - TP 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• "eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions" those were your words, and I just asked you to provide these "interactions". yes consensus is not binding and can change. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• [183][184][185]. Carolmooredc is more wiki-litigious than Apple and nearly every complaint has boomeranged on her until now. I don't know why memories are so short on ANI these days.--v/r - TP 03:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Most of those were not filed by Carol and all but one of those that were concerned the Austrian economics dispute, which was settled in an arbitration case. A recent case, concerning the Gender Gap Task Force was filed by her over a week ago and got bumped up to a still-open arbitration request. This ANI case and the one that resulted in Specifico's sanction, were filed by someone other than Carol in response to actions those editors took elsewhere that prompted concern from other editors.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just because someone is repeatedly the subject of attacks does not mean that person is doing something wrong to bring on the attacks. No one has identified anything Carol has done to provoke or instigate Sitush beyond responding during arguments he initiates with her. His actions appear to be retaliation for the sanction against SPECIFICO imposed in a discussion where he publicly expressed the intent to start following Carol around.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Your right, Sitush hasn't done anything wrong and the repeated attackful ANI complaints that CarolmooreDC has brought don't equate to wrongdoing on any of her victim's parts.--v/r - TP 03:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• At least part of the reason for Carol's continued presence on these boards is that she is willing to be publicly involved in Gender Gap project, and as a result has become a lightning rod for anyone with a woman-hating axe to grind. The project was started with the objective of making Wikipedia feel more friendly and welcoming for women. Consider some of Sitush's statements there:

• [186] [Edit summary] stop being an idiot
• [187] ...What a bloody joke. This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present. Why not comment on the substance of the thread instead of acting like a goading prat?
• [188] [edit summary] I've lost track of how many times CMDC has had talk page etiquette explained to her

(not sure what a "prat" is, but pretty sure it's not friendly and welcoming.) —Neotarf (talk) 03:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure that's accurate. Carol joined mid 2013. These issues date back to 2011 per my links above.--v/r - TP 04:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your links show nothing going back to 2011. They show she had ongoing issues with Specifico from other editing areas, which was discussed to death in the recent ANI, which was not initiated by her. They show she made comments on a thread about civility in the Palestine/Israel topic area in 2012. They do not show she was responsible for any incivility in P/I discussions. She may very well be scarier than Darth Vader, but your links don't show that. You may recall that Sitush's recent comments about gender on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. —Neotarf (talk) 05:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not defending Sitush. Nor am I attacking Carol. I'm here to oppose a Iban. Like before, though, I would support a 2-way ban.--v/r - TP 05:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction on Sitush for now. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support with the caveat that either the "BLP" Sitush started on Carol in his user space is immediately removed, or that it be moved to a more neutral space and Carol is allowed to comment on it. Carol has already requested Sitush to stay off her talk page, but this renewed interest on the part of Sitush appears to be related to his public opposition to the Gender Gap project, where Carol is an active participant, which he now characterizes as a practically fascist regime.[189] —Neotarf (talk) 03:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Carol has consistently made misrepresentations pretty much everywhere. Is everyone who challenges her going to be run through the same gauntlet? Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: The "article draft" on CMDC needs to be speedily deleted. Other than that, I disfavor interaction bans in general because they seldom solve anything, either impose temporary blocks on the miscreants (both perhaps) for specific behavior that is a problem for the victim, or else just let them slug it out somewhere. The way I see it, both parties are each clueless about certain aspects of these issues and I see no way this would end well. Montanabw^(talk) 05:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose: That there is bad blood between the two users is indubitable. However, I see no evidence to justify this one-way sanction. The whole GGTF talk page is filled with incivility and shouting. I should add that I have little interaction with either user, though slightly more with Sitush. In all cases, he was civil and reasonable, even when we disagreed. Also, I have little experience in these things, so take my opinion with a truckload of salt. Kingsindian (talk) 06:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose per TP's "Sitush hasn't done anything wrong and the repeated attackful ANI complaints that CarolmooreDC has brought don't equate to wrongdoing on any of her victim's parts", "We are not going to ban everyone Carol can't get along with . . . if Carol is having difficulty with so many people, eyes need to be on what she is contributing to these interactions", and "[she] is more wiki-litigious than Apple..."; TKOP's "Carol has consistently made misrepresentations pretty much everywhere"; and Dusti's "Sitush has done absolutely nothing wrong here." Writegeist (talk) 09:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

So where are the diffs, Writegeist? Do you always cast aspersions without them? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose per TP. The fact that Neotarf appears to believe that any disagreement with CMDC is because she "...has become a lightning rod for anyone with a woman-hating axe to grind." is possibly (a) the biggest load of facile bollocks I've ever read on Wikipedia, and (b) effectively a personal attack on anyone who doesn't agree with her. Frankly, the GGTF would function a lot better if its page wasn't persistently spammed and canvassed with Carol's latest pet peeve of the day; perhaps it could actually get on with doing what it was designed to do, rather that what Carol wants it to do. Black Kite (talk) 11:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where are the diffs, Black Kite, about my latest pet peeve of the day or whatever. Unless you mean complaining that editors opposed to the project keep posting insulting and mocking and harping questions and comments? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Or, in alternative language, "here's some more canvassing to link you to an ANI I started about someone who disagrees with me". Have you not noticed that practically every section started by you is similar to that? I don't see that happening with SlimVirgin, or Montanabw, or indeed anyone else on the GGTF page. Why is that, do you think? Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In case no one has noticed, the gender gap talk page is now dominated by users who oppose the existence of such a project. The project is dead. I have taken it off my watch list and I recommend that everyone else do the same. —Neotarf (talk) 13:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any sanction on Sitush. Carrite (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per reasons above. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 12:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP, who has it exactly right. JohnCD (talk) 12:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP Black Kite and Carrite. J3Mrs (talk) 12:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I find this thread fairly funny because in the SPECIFICO thread, we had people saying Carolmooredc's editing must have problems given the number of complaints and the editor that immediately came to mind was Sitush who's since I spend an unhealthy amount of time at ANI, name I'm even more familiar with (particularly considering the joking Sitush complaint noticeboard). There may me differences here, in particular my impression is a lot of the people complaining about Sitush are new editors. Anyway I think this emphasises a point people have sort of made above even if they are countering each other with it. The existance of a lot of complaints is not itself definite evidence of problems with an editor's behaviour only that it may be worth looking in to. And if evidence of problematic behaviour from one editor is shown, and none from another editor (I'm not saying this is the case here), we should follow the evidence not the number of complaints. Nil Einne (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per comments above. Cassianto^talk 15:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom

I've been out working and am just back home. I'm not agreeing to any IBAN because there is an obvious pile-on here and we've only just been through one. Of the two of us, I'm not the person who keeps getting involved in complicated ANI disputes etc - mine tend to be very one-sided and they are so because I comply with policy. I'm tired and I'm off to bed but as far as I am concerned, this continual hassle needs an ArbCom case. I'm quite happy to submit myself to scrutiny by them but not to submit to this lynch-mob. My reputation for research and for neutrality in article writing is way, way, better than it is for many others. I'll say more tomorrow, elucidating in particular on why this kneejerk reaction (not Bish, but the pile-on) is actually in itself evidence that too many people here have no faith in policy-compliant writing and far too much faith in the power of numbers. And, for the record, I do not "hate" CMDC as someone has said either here or at the MfD (can't be bothered checking right now). She frustrates me sometimes but generally I avoid her and, to be honest, the only person I've ever hated in my adult life has long since moved on and had nothing to do with Wikipedia. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

... as far as you know. Btw, creating a BLP about someone is not a great way of avoiding them. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sitush, your "article" about CMDC pretty much puts you in a bad light. I suggest you just leave her alone; you come across as someone who can't sort out legitimate gender issues from drama-mongering and I can't tell if that is sincere ignorance on your part or if you are baiting CMDC on purpose. So just agree to have that article draft deleted and drop the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 05:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender issues have nothing to do with the BLP. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's face it, this IBAN proposal would not have happened if the draft had not been created. This is, then, really all about that draft and such fundamental encyclopedic issues as notability, POV etc. Many people are not reading what has gone on here. For example, with regard to the draft, Carolmooredc has made a series of accusations but, as is common with her, has failed either to provide evidence to support them or has been shown to be wrong. She has also run around the boards like a headless chicken, trying to find ways to shut things down. That is what she does and that is why an ArbCom case is necessary.

First, she wanted the draft gone, then when the initial views suggested that wouldn't happen, she reversed her stance. Then, when yet more views came in that favoured removal, she reversed it again. She plays this game, time and again but only selectively quotes in diffs when an issue re-arises, skewing the story eg: in this series of claims. The draft is neutral, there have been plenty of offers for her involvement in working on it {eg: in the only section at User_talk:Sitush/Carol_Moore) and the claims that she is not notable seem to have come without people doing much research and without giving the draft a chance to develop (the prior AfDs were split). It has also been said - again, prior to this thread opening - that the thing can be worked upon by anyone even though it is in my userspace. I have no problem with it being moved into the Draft space, although that had not crossed my mind prior to this thread. There has been a massive failure to AGF and a massive assumption about where this thing is going. There seems also to be a massive lack of faith in the communitiy's abilities to improve an article and, frankly, a substantial piling-on. It is noticeable that newcomers to this farrago, such as Peridon and Writegeist, seem to have no problem with it but those who have long supported Carolmooredc do have a problem with it.

The notion that a BLP cannot be written about her because of outing issues would in fact prevent us from writing BLPs about any Wikipedian.

An IBAN in any form would represent, yet again, the stifling of debate and would favour Carolmooredc even if two-way. I do not in fact follow her round (despite her usual claims of hounding) and I don't even read a tremendous amount of what she writes because I've got better things to do, such as improving the mainspace directly. The IBAN etc proposals above are the result of the draft and of little else, given that my involvement with her is actually pretty minimal. While I was agreeing with her - ca. the Austrian Economics thing - she was happy enough but as soon as we disagreed with something in that case, the shutters came down. From my limited experience of her, she never seems to show any willingness to collaborate unless things are going her way: the grudge is there and she repeatedly drags it up, whatever it may be. We've got the wrong target here and her behaviour will be going to ArbCom, IBAN or no IBAN. - Sitush (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush states that Carol Moore's behavior will be going to ArbCom, IBAN or no IBAN. Does he mean that he requests that her behavior go to ArbCom, or does he mean that he has some mechanism for making her behavior go to ArbCom? I suspect that he is not writing as clearly as he says that he does, and that he only means that her behavior should go to ArbCom. If he has some permitted mechanism for forcing her behavior to go to ArbCom, that would be interesting. I think that he does have a non-permitted mechanism for forcing her and his behavior to go to ArbCom, which is to continue a campaign of harassment until ArbCom intervention becomes necessary; I hope that he does not. I think that his rage is causing him to write sloppily, and would ask that he take a complete break from Wikipedia for a few days. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush thinks he can write a bio with my self-published bio and a few crappy diffs. He says he doesn't need the ones from Washington City Paper, Los Angeles Times, Reason Magazine, The Washington Post, Associated Press, Philadelphia Inquirer . And the bio got rejected with them last times. It's a joke. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh, another misrepresentation from you? Please show me the diff where I said I didn't need that stuff. The closest I can find is this, which explains the approach that I was taking. - Sitush (talk) 13:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Where your wrote: Why? I am pretty well known for being a good researcher and there is no point in starting from a base that was rejected. A clean slate seems like a better place to begin although, yes, I may ask someone to provide a copy of the old version at some stage, just as a cross-check. In other words, I don't need credible refs, when I can find crappy ones and leave this on my talk page for months to bug you. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

That's from the diff I gave. You've misunderstood it. FWIW, I don't have access to newspapers.com (Washington Post is there, for example) and cannot see full articles, although I'm aware of them. I was going to pay for a month's sub and have the email from them here if anyone cares to doubt me. I've also asked you for input at the talk page of the draft, given you claim that it is full of inaccuracies etc. You've not responded. Please don't anyone here think that I'm not trying to collaborate etc. - Sitush (talk) 13:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience some editors who think they have enough editor/Admin friends who will cover their asses to pull stunts and push buttons that they are never sanctioned for at ANI and eventually these things have to go to ArbCom where they work to get the people they opposed sanctioned, with lots of foul accusations and an occassional diff. Perhaps the purpose of this bio WAS to get me so pissed off that it would lead to MfD and ANIs that would push ArbCom to reconsider the case. They were about to decline it, but now they are thinking twice. This is insanity. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush just admitted here at ANI request that: Carolmooredc, re: this. You've misunderstood me, again. I'm looking at filing a case about your behaviour generally ...I'm not sure whether ArbCom would prefer to roll all this up or not but my intention was a separate case, which will inevitably also put me and numerous other people under the spotlight. - So he wants to push that to Arbitration using the Biography? Aren't there several lesser venues? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. Yes, prepare an ArbCom case about your behaviour, not "push ArbCom to reconsider the case", which seems to be a reference to this open request. Your are making massive assumptions and conflations, as I think you are doing here also (Dougweller's page is on my watchlist). As for the editor/Admin friends who will cover their asses, I'm honoured to consider Bishonen among my wikifriends. And they brought me here. I bear no grudges for them doing so. - Sitush (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment, immediate block is called for

This seems pretty clear. Carol did not disclose any information on Wikipedia and Sitush attempted to out the editor. This requires an immediate block. This was not accidental and Carol using her real name is no excuse for publishing opposing "research". Opposing can be anything from opposing edits...to opposing the editor. Clear case.

• Block per our policy: Wikipedia:Harassment.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Mark is intentionally misreading WP:OUTING after I've explained to him what the policy says regarding editors editing under their real name. The policy says "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". Dredging up their off line opinions to be used to repeatedly challenge their edits can be a form of harassment, just as doing so regarding their past edits on other Wikipedia articles may be. However, if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted, such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums.". Carol Moore has made her identity known not only with her real name but also identifying herself as an anti-war activist. Sitush has not used this information to challenge her outside of a COI complaint and so it is compliant with WP:OUTING. I explained this quote to Mark, Mark seems to think that despite the policy explicitly stating different rules for editors who identify themselves, the policy for editors editing with a psuedonym apply.--v/r - TP 06:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Also, Mark's interpretation would allow any living person to avoid having an article created about them simply by registering an account.--v/r - TP 06:40, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Carolmooredc posted her website in this edit (admin only) and per WP:OUTING, because she never had it redacted or oversighted, it is available on-wiki. Sitush's edit here cannot be outing because she posted it herself and never had it oversighted.--v/r - TP 06:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • • I can't access that diff, so it looks like it *has* been oversighted. —Neotarf (talk) 12:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Far as I can tell from the user rights log, you're not an administrator so I'm not sure why you expect to see it. Nil Einne (talk) 13:53, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • So if non-admin can't see it, how is a non-admin supposed to know it is there, in order to request deletion? —Neotarf (talk) 15:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Intentionally? No, but clearly this has now begun to piss you off if you are going to start with such claims. Well....so much for assuming good faith. Oh well. I still hold TP in high regard. Sorry, but this has gotten out of hand and my respect for Wikipedia in handling these situations has dropped, but....that is the way the ball bounces I guess. I have done all I intend to do on this subject. This is in the hands of the community but at no time have I accused TParis of intentionally doing anything wrong. I truly believe they feel as strongly about this as I do and we are both unconnected to either editor as far as I know, but if I am to become the new target...there is no since in my continuing this.--Mark Miller (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Clearly, the community cannot handle the simplest of issues, such as admins edit warring or the creation of attack pages. For most rational people, the decision is obvious: block the admin and delete the attack page. But this is not a rational website. Viriditas (talk) 07:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Shows how much research you've done, Viriditas. I'm not an admin. This is an example of the sort of kneejerk reaction that is going on here: people are passing judgement based on hearts, not heads. - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
            • You've made a mistake. My comments weren't about you, they were about an actual admin who has been edit warring, and I was comparing two different situations. I know perfectly well you aren't an admin. If there's a kneejerk reaction here, it's your own. Viriditas (talk) 09:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
              • I see, sorry. That misunderstanding would probably not have happened if you had provided diffs. - Sitush (talk) 10:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Time to close – Sitush made a mistake in creating the draft article. It had some WP:POTENTIAL, and may have some merit as an Ideological Turing Test given its' NPOV. But Sitush would have been better advised to ask for collaboration in drafting it. Given the response to this ANI, it is clear that there is a concern in the community about this interaction as a disruptive influence regardless of which editor is right or wrong. With these thoughts in mind, I recommend giving a warning to Sitush to avoid interaction with CMDC and strongly warn to avoid making any comments that are not clearly in the top two tiers of Stay in the top three sections of this pyramid. – S. Rich (talk) 07:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed.--Mark Miller (talk) 08:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I have mentioned collaboration. Another person who has not done the research? - Sitush (talk) 08:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agree time to close - now that Mark Miller, the editor arguing most strongly for a block, has agreed, then strong warnings should be enough. To both parties. Dougweller (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Doug weller: It may not have been made clear that I posted my website link in 2007-2008. Maybe in 2009 someone accused me of "self promotion" so I took it down. I think I said that explicitly in the Sitush talk page conversation after my harassment notice.

The issue is, is it ok for Sitush to: follow me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages to cast aspersions for more than a year, to do so at the Gender Gap task force after he already stated he thought it should be closed down, to keep reverting my strike of an admitted erroneous talk page statement until I have to get an admin to get him to stop, to call me and “idiot”, to 7 or 8 times harass me cause I started a subsection in a lengthy thread, to say I’m spewing verbal diarrhea for quoting his opposition to the gender gap task force in a relevant forum, to harass me claiming a typical BLPN notice of relevant RSN discussion is forum shopping, to write at the task force page “This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present.” and calls me a “goading prat.” I just want to know if those are Doug Weller's standards of proper behavior. Would that be proper behavior for Carol Moore? There isn't a double standard, is there? Have I been accused of anything as bad as that? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't followed you anywhere, Carolmooredc. I explained that to you on my talk page on 15 Sep but still you persist in making the allegation. Your editor interaction utility diff way, way above would be more useful if you could show that my interaction with you was exceptional. However, I doubt that it is: I contribute perhaps 2000-3000 edits a months and interact often with loads of people across a wide range of articles etc. - Sitush (talk) 12:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as an example, I've been on WT:GGTF with nary a mention of you here. - Sitush (talk) 12:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree. And there is no doubt you relentless cast WP:ASPERSIONS when you do. Like your very first post on the GGTF page which was some stupid nitpicking of me, which you do relentlessly. Quote:It seems that despite all your contributions on Wikipedia, you still do not have a clue how to use talk pages. What's with the "later"? It makes no sense - you should have added that as a subsequent message. This is not a reflection on your gender but rather your complete inability to follow norms, as has been demonstrated on umpteen other noticeboards. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

You have 311 posts on WT:GGTF; I have 9, not all of which relate to you. If that is "following" then it certainly isn't obsessively so. And I got there via, IIRC, something on Jimbo's talk page. I'm fed up of this and am off out. - Sitush (talk) 14:11, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

311 posts on a task force you want abolished? Sounds like you are working hard at accomplishing your aim!!

Of your nine, besides one quote, these six go after me: [190], [191], [192], [193], [194],

[195] Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously you didn't follow me at every diff on Interaction Analyzer; it's a judgement call on which you might or might not have. But there is no doubt that on several pages (Like User talk:Jimbo Wales) you have gone out of your way to attack me with the same nitpicking BS. I'm quite sure you followed me to GTTP after learning of my involvement, even if you deny it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Carol, I think you may have misread that, you have 311 posts, Sitush has 9 SPACKlick (talk) 14:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Those 6 diffs, in TL:DR are, 1 comment on you changing a post after people had responded and a response to a follow up on that from someone else. 3 edits relating to a strikeout you had placed in a comment and a reply to you directly engaging with a thread Sitush started followed by a response to a ping from another user. Not exactly chasing you around the project. SPACKlick (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - One of the most asinine applications of Wikipedia's asinine "outing" policy that I have ever seen. Carrite (talk) 12:28, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Carrite. Considering Carolmooredc has posted information about herself as she has at last admitted here, some might say she has been somewhat disingenuous in allowing editors to suppose she has been outed. J3Mrs (talk) 12:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP. Intothatdarkness 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I have concerns about the implication of TP's comment above namely their suggestion that an editor has to have something they posted oversighted (supressed) after it's been deleted otherwise it's considered available on wiki and can be freely used.

  If something has already been deleted, many are going to assume it's gone and regardless of whether they originally requested deletion, they could easily take it as sufficient removal of info they later regret posting. (Actually we partially saw this confusion above with Neotarf, and this was after TP made it clear it was a deleted page.) Heck, not everyone is everyone going to remember they posted it, and even if they did, they may not remember when so finding it may be difficult and if the editor isn't an admin, will require admin help.

  I don't think WP:outing is intended to suggest oversight is needed before information shouldn't be used. While it does mention oversight a few times, TP themselves quoted the page as having said "redacted". AFAIK, redacted is generally taken to mean simply removing the information yourself sometime after posting it. You don't even need to have the diff deleted let alone oversighted. Since redacting something in a now deleted page isn't easily possible when you're not an admin, deletion should generally be sufficient.

  My reading of WP:OUTING is in the case when the information has been oversighted, mentioning it is clearly outing. In a case where "still-existing, self-disclosed information" is used, it's "not considered outing". I do not believe this was intended to apply to deleted information, even if the editor themselves wasn't the one who requested deletion, for the reasons outlined earlier. In other words, this falls in to a bit of a grey area.

  The other reason why the OUTING page mentions oversight is probably to emphasise to people concerned that they should request oversight/suppression and I'm not disagreeing with this. Particularly in cases where the info isn't widely known, there is always a risk the info may be revealed without someone appreciating the implications & there's also the risk of rogue admins. There's also the risk the page may be undeleted in the future. So to be clear, I'm not disagreeing that oversight is best, simply that we shouldn't consider it as necessary and in a case where the information is in a deleted page, it shouldn't be considered usable on wiki. (And since Carolmooredc apparently does remember they posted it and so it would have probably been better for them to request oversight if they did want the info gone. And actually, it's not clear to me that Carolmooredc does want the website gone, or rather they feel people are using it to harass them which is a related but ultimately different point.)

  However in this particular case, I don't think the website link itself can be considered outing. Not because Carolmooredc posted it since that's too complicated considering the conditions here, but because it's appears Sitush may have been posting the website relating to their plans to write an article (however ill advised that was) rather than in relation to the editor.

  Nil Einne (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  • So if an admin says they deleted something, and you can't see it, how do you know if they did it right? —Neotarf (talk) 15:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - The subject was not 'outed' (given evidence above), the draft article in userspace isn't an attack piece but a draft, and comments such as "Would you like me to copy all the links at the ANI to your your user page? I keep them in a text file anyway, just have to update it a bit"[196] and continual use of User:Sitush's personal name in comments and edit summaries (which I didn't know until it was highlighted by Carolmooredc) suggest this is far from a one-sided case of 'harassment'. AnonNep (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Note: Anyway, I'm off out shortly: got a computer to fix. You know my name - Simon Tushingham - and you or anyone else is welcome to dig around the web for me, although I suspect that you'll find more with the Sitush monicker, including the infamous claims that I'm among those paid by Prince to edit here. - Sitush (talk) 17:17, 16 September 2014 (UTC) from Situs talk page. So I used it a couple times. I don't want to confuse people so won't do with any frequency. The problem with his linking to my web page and saying he was going to do analysis was it was just one more item in a long line of baiting. Yes, I shouldn't take the bait, but it's 24 hours after another ANI. I am only human, aren't I? And isn't it a shame we have to collect diffs on editors so opposed to us that we don't have time to work on articles. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:54, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Carol, I'm not falling for it. AnonNep (talk) 15:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose There are sooooooo many elements at play here, but to start off I will oppose a block (or even an interaction ban from above). Here's my issues, however:

1. Did Carol ever actually self-identify on Wikipedia - the answer appears to be "yes"
2. Is Carol Moore really "notable" enough to warrant even a draft - the answer is "unsure"
3. What was Sitush's reasoning for creating the draft? A real article? To say "I know who you are, so behave" - I'm not sure we'll ever really know the true answer to that
4. We seem to have a longstanding policy about BLP's: if the subject properly self-identifies to the Foundation via OTRS, and they request for no article about them, then we seem to live by that request. If Carol has made such a request, the MFD becomes moot as instant-delete-and-delete-any-future-such-drafts. This has been especially true about borderline-notable people

This really makes resolution pretty simple, if you think about it. the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Canvassing

This looks like another instance of canvassing to me. (I'm not "of" Cambridge University, btw: left there in 1985). - Sitush (talk) 13:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, more canvassing. An uninvolved administrator (i.e. not me) needs to tell Carol very firmly to cut this out, whether it be on the GGTF page or elsewhere (as this one is). Black Kite (talk) 13:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Geez. I'll take off the link. The guy didn't understand WHY many people were saying Sitush's crappy bio that would never survive AfD was just harassment and I don't like to make charges without providing diffs. So I guess I should add all the diffs? Geez. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, add the diffs. Linking to an ongoing discussion in a non-neutral way (which you've got to admit that was) is simply canvassing. Black Kite (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Hm. Even the latest edit summary at that page looks dodgy. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:RPP

There are currently 19 pending requests at WP:RPP. Thanks in advance to the volunteers on mop duty. VQuakr (talk) 18:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Merge against consensus and 1RR violation by User:Epeefleche

• The Beatles (terrorist cell) was created on September 12, 2014.
• One day later it was nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles (terrorist cell).
• Yesterday 2601:7:6880:740:212:17ff:fe94:be5e merged the whole of Jihadi John into The Beatles (terrorist cell) without any discussion; see [197]
• This merge was undone by me earlier today making it clear I objected to the merge.
• I was then reverted by Epeefleche.
• I reverted Epeefleche making it very clear I objected to the merge, and asked him to gain a consensus for the merge.
• I further indicated I opposed the merge at Talk:The Beatles (terrorist cell).
• Epeefleche further reverted me again today.

I would like an admin to look into this, since I believe there have been a number of violations.

1. Wikipedia:Merging clearly states For uncontroversial mergers, no permission is needed to merge; just do it. If your merger is reverted, it's controversial and you need to discuss it. Since I reverted the IP editor, and then Epeefleche, and voiced my concerns on the talk page, it is clear I opposed the merge. It is clear this is a controversial merge (I believe it was mainly done to game the AfD). Epeefleche has twice reverted me now without following the protocols for controversial merges.
2. Secondly, as indicated on the talk page, "Editors are subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction when reverting logged-in users". Epeefleche has twice reverted a registered user in a 24-hour period, violating the 1RR condition.
3. The merge also failed to incorporate any copyright attribution as detailed at WP:MERGETEXT, so the merge also constitutes a copyright violation.

I believe Epeefleche's actions are counter-productive to collaborative editing, disruptive, and also constitute a policy violation. This editor has a history of disruption (see his block log) and he clearly has not modified his behavior. Betty Logan (talk) 18:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• As is standard for these situations, I don't think anyone is behaving particularly well here; I don't have a pony in this race, don't really care whether or not a merge should happen. My solution would be 1) Return all articles to the status quo ante bellum 2) punish or sanction no one, so long as every talks it out and leaves it in that state before making any changes. Fair warning: I did vote in the AFD for one of these articles, but I still don't have any opinion one way or the other on the validity of the merge that is the source of the dispute. I only note that both sides seem to be acting in good faith; one side believes that there should be a merge, one side believes that there shouldn't. The solution is to put everything back where it was, and talk it out. --Jayron32 19:18, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

The issue isn't really about whether it is "right" or "wrong" to merge, the issue is about how the decision to merge is established. The problem is with a single editor, since no-one else has contravened polices or the merge procedures: the IP undertook a bold merge and I reverted it; that is within accepted practice with Wikipedia. The problem is the conduct of a single editor who is clearly not acting in "good faith", since their behavior is completely inconsistent with how controversial merges are carried out i.e. the procedure is to propose the merge, discuss it and then carry it out if necessary. The other party knows this because I have explicitly linked to the Help page on the article talk page, where I give my reason for reverting the merge. This is an editor who has been indefinitely blocked three times already but is yet still permitted to continue disrupting Wikipedia by completely disregarding the standard Wikipedia practises which are there to encourage collegiate editing. Betty Logan (talk) 19:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

• Betty -- you made 3 reverts. Of 2 different editors. There was discussion. And there was editing post-merger by a number of other different editors, without protest to the merge. You arrived later as the lone editor complaining. As the lone protesting editor, you reverted multiple other editors. Three times. Within a short time period. If you do have (or create) consensus support -- in the face of the other editors you are reverting, and the additional editors who have happily edited the article post-merger without disagreeing with the merger (a number of editors actively edit that article) -- reflect that consensus for undoing what multiple other editors have done and others have been editing without any disagreement. Otherwise, please don't edit war with multiple other editors.

Plus -- let's understand what is going on. Material was added to an article about a group, from an article about one of it's members -- regarding that member's actions as part of that group. It's all clearly relevant to the article on the group. Yet that's what you keep on deleting. Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

1. "Betty -- you made 3 reverts" – LIE. I only edited the article twice, to revert the merge. The first time to revert the original merge by the IP editor, the second time to revert you.
2. "There was discussion." – LIE. Where is this "discussion"? Certainly not at Talk:The_Beatles_(terrorist_cell)#Another_fine_mess... or Talk:Jihadi John.

This editor is a pathological liar who has been indefinitely blocked three times already, but somehow keeps getting unblocked. Anyone who gets indefinitely blocked three times is a disruptive presence; I fully support someone being given a second chance if they demonstrate they have mended their ways, but this editor is on his fourth chance now after three indefinite blocks and is disrupting the encylopedia by not adhering to polices and practices he is clearly aware of. Betty Logan (talk) 21:29, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Not commenting on this report per say, but Epeefleche's last block was almost 3 years ago? You are going to have to do better than that it seems. --Malerooster (talk) 23:20, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Betty, I proposed a reasonable solution which avoided assigning blame. You've instead decided to call someone names and use inflammatory language. Your actions here do not act to work towards a solution which is best for the encyclopedia. Instead, your motivation, from your actions in your last two posts, seem to be more about defeating a person rather than working towards a solution. I highly suggest you reconsider how you approach situations like this. If you wish to be involved in the consensus building that leads to whatever final version we arrive at for these articles, it would be best if you actually behaved as though you were interested in article content, and not with defeating another person with whom you may disagree. --Jayron32 01:33, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I stand corrected on 1 point. Betty made 2 reverts; she made precisely the number of reverts she is complaining about me making - her complaint reflected in both her title of this thread, and in the thread itself. In her case (in contrast) she reverted 2 different editors, and then opened this AN/I. As to the discussion, it took place in the AfD, and in edit summaries pointing to the Afd, for example. And nobody -- prior to Betty's revert (of another editor -- not me), had indicated a problem, at the point in time that Betty started her reversions. I've since in addition to that discussion now opened up discussion at the article page itself--since others only reverted, without opening up discussion on that talk page.

I must say, I'm not sure why an editor would incorrectly at a noticeboard call another editor a pathological liar, as Betty did above. But if it is intended to insult, and to discourage communication and participation I get it. I'll not post here on this again unless I see it as necessary, as I don't see why I should have to suffer such hostile and uncivil accusations. Epeefleche (talk) 04:24, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I did the merge, but only after three editors had a long discussion on the AFD for The Beatles (terrorist cell), and I assumed there was concensus. I certainly did not intend to cause ruffled feathers, but I have to say, Epeefleche has been very helpful and direct, kind, and understanding. There was no discussion on any talk page prior to the discussion on the AFD, but I am assuming a global AFD discussion is probably best combined with all the talk page dialouge. The problem was, there was no discussion on the talk pages about this. All the editors who actuall WROTE something in the article rather than paTROLL the article were talking about the merge in the AFD. I hope everyone can come away from this with a solution. Betty seems myopic and her arguments I have reviewed on the talk pages are not logical. Is there a way all of us can be civil and work towards a common goal? Calling people to an AN/I drumhead trial seems extreme when we in fact should be talking about what's best for the content. Thanks 2601:7:6880:740:212:17FF:FE94:BE5E (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

There has been no "long discussion" about merging the articles. As you can see at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Beatles (terrorist cell), a merge was only mooted by two editors prior to the bold merge: the IP who undertook it and Epeefleche who claimed a "consensus". There was no discussion of the merge. An AfD is not the appropriate place to discuss a merge because a merge involves two articles, not one. Those editors who edit Jihadi John had no recourse since the AfD concerned a different article. Secondly WP:MERGE lays out a "civil" framework to "work towards a common goal": the merge procedures are laid down very clearly i.e. when a potential merge requires discussion, what you should do if a bold merge is reverted etc, how a merge discussion should proceed. When editors refuse to observe standard procedures this is invariably where things end up. Epeefleche is a seasoned editor and should be well aware of what is required to merge an article, and even if he is not then a quick read of the link I provided on the talk page would have explained it to him. Instead he chose a disruptive course of action by gaming the system and then misrepresented his actions here. This doesn't really come as a surprise to me, since no-one gets indeffed three times without causing considerable disruption. Fair enough, his last block was three years ago, but all that means is that he hasn't done anything to warrant an indef in that time; it doesn't alter the fact that yet again he wilfully circumvented a procedure intended to build a consensus, not out of ignorance but simply because it didn't suit his own ends. Betty Logan (talk) 16:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:AdamNeira making disruptive edits and threats

AdamNeira is making disruptive edits at the Tekhelet, Eduardo Campos and 2014 Cessna Citation 560 XLS+ crash articles and making threating comments to users who revert him.

Examples of disruptive editing:

At the Tekhelet article, he has been deleting sourced statements and adding material sourced to himself or referring to himself or his website and YouTube channel, such as here: [198], [199] [200]. He has also added his websites address to the heading of a section on the article Talk page here [201].

He is using the article as a platform for his personal views, sometimes adding shorter comments and sometimes long blocks such as here: [202], [203] and as above.

I have not continued to revert him after I both asked him to discuss his issues on the Talk page and warned him not to continue behaving in this vein, as I do not want to get into a slow edit war with him. He continues to revert back to his changes in the article without discussion of the issues, and without providing any reliable sources.

In addition, he has edited using his user name, then using his IP address User:87.91.50.226 to make the same edits that have been challenged by other users. This seems to be skirting, if not outright sock puppetry.

At the Eduardo Campos page, his edits were reverted as unsourced and ‘conspiracy theory’ [204] but he has reverted without discussion or providing any credible sources.

At the Cessna crash page, he has also been twice reverted for removing cited text and replacing it with his own speculations/unsourced opinion: [205].

Threatening other users:

His behavior in response to other editors is verging on harassment. He is misusing the “wikilove” barnstar to add messages such as: [206] and [207] that were separately noticed as inappropriate here [208] by User:Charles Matthews.

He has made direct or indirect threats such as "A warning to you...Be very careful who you cast aspersions on" as here: [209] and [210] and here [211] and on the article talk page: “Not sure who is paying you either. It would be fun to meet you face to face in a bar for a little chat” [212]. He demands “desist from editing my revisions to the "Tekhelet" page" and "Desist forthwith from removing my edits/updates" as if he owns the article [213].

Messages to his IP and user talk page have not met with success and he simply continues to revert to his last version. The display of harassment, demand to reveal identity ("Please tell me your real name and an email address..." [214])and apparent incomprehension of the purpose and functioning of Wikipedia here [215] seems to indicate that he is incapable of working within the Wikipedia framework and I would like to see this user and his IP address be permanently blocked. --Chefallen (talk) 19:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Take your pick from no legal threats or chilling effect but thats looks like some repeated attempts at coercion. Amortias (T)(C) 19:53, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the user has been well warned. Further disruption will most likely result in a block of some sort. Have there been any issues since your warning at 02:59? Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 20:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Almost immediately thereafter (3:03), he reverted to his version again at the Tekhelet article and added his long comments including more implicit threats on both my user page and the article talk page. --Chefallen (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

This one might be worth a look its close to the mark but not sure if its designed to be chilling or just boastful[216].

As an aside you might want to be careful with the templates in future Chefallen, one is normally enough to advise someone of a problem but 5 single notice warningns in the space of 5 minutes is not likely to have a positive effect on their behaviour. Amortias (T)(C) 20:15, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I undertsand what you mean. Fortunately, I have not had to deal with this kind of thing before so I used a template for each type of issue, but in future, if I have to do this again, I'll keep this in mind. --Chefallen (talk) 22:50, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

22:20 Paris Time

As per the message "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page. You may use There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. to do so."

I have sent a message to both "Chillum" and "Amortias" regarding the case. I suggest both of them read the messages I have sent. I am not in the habit of wasting time on trivial matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamNeira (talk • contribs) 20:21, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I've seen the message but am unclear as to what you expect me to do with it or undertake beacuse of it. If you could be clear in your expectations with regards to it it would be helpful. Amortias (T)(C) 20:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I got the same message and could not figure it out either. It looks like it is for someone else. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 22:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

I just read the message, and I wish that I hadn't. He clearly doesn't have a clue about how Wikipedia works, aside from the apparent misposting. As Chefallen notes, it isn't clear whether the message is meant to be chilling or just boastful, probably the former. In any case, he is not here to contribute to Wikipedia, either to building the encyclopedia or to maintaining the encyclopedia. Recommend an indef. He can then explain on his talk page what he wants. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Natg 19 and non admin closures

I stumbled across a questionable non admin closure for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ralph Publicover by Natg 19 (talk · contribs) which I have now sent to deletion review an

but I noticed another questionable closure here d a questionable relisting here.

I would recommend Natg 19 be restricted from performing any admin like functions on AfDs. LibStar (talk) 02:55, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Fixed the notification for ya. Ansh666 03:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this user needs to understand that non admin closures are only to be done in clear cut circumstances. I have been following this and responding to these closures and relistings. With the Liga Bet debate I came to the same conclusion but I don't consider it clear cut. The relisting at MASwings_Flight_3002 was unneeded as there was a clear outcome. The most recent closure of Ralph Publicover was just plain incorrect.

For these reasons I support a restriction on non admin closures for this user. I think this restriction should be removed only once the user demonstrates an understanding and willingness to follow the advice at WP:NAC. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Disclosure - I participated in two of those discussions, will likely now participate at DRV and I left one of the messages on the users talk page. Support but only for as long as it takes for the user to demonstrate they can get it right. They aren't "break the project" sort of mistakes and they are mistakes, not intentional disruption. No need for a topic-ban-style sanction. If they are will willingly take a month or so off from admin-style actions (WP:NACs, relisting, etc) to get up to speed then we should be right. I have no long-term concerns about this editor. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:37, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Amanda Eliasch

Requesting additional eyes on this article. See also prior ANI thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Requesting Admin Assistance with a closed and reopened AfD

I just removed the speedy tags on Amanda Eliasch (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), as it had survived an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amanda Eliasch (2nd nomination) less that two weeks ago. The speedy nomination was by Aromavic (talk · contribs)

When I reviewed the situation over there, I noticed that the user who nominated the article for speedy had also been the originator of the most recent AfD. This user account was created September 3rd, and their sole activity on Wikipedia has been to apply speedy tags on the article on the 3rd and again today, submit an AfD regarding the article, and a sockpuppet case related to several users that posted at AfD (that case is listed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Spikequeen).

The article at Amanda Eliasch has been deleted several times in the past, and has been the subject of sockpuppetry in the past. So there is certainly possibility of further abuse. I'm not sure what's going on; but between the SPIs and the SPAs on both the keep and the delete sides, I believe the article could benefit from additional eyes to help monitor. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:35, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Recommend a final warning that any speedy nominations will result in an indef, and that any AFD nominations without a new reason will probably result in a block, followed by closure of this thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

SPA self-promotional account Mstoneham

Mstoneham (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose account used entirely for the self-promotion of the account holder (Mark Stoneham) on the Game Genie article, even returning after a 7-year hiatus to insert himself into the article again. He does not seem to be particularly notable after doing a web search.

I reported him at WP:COI but it looks like most issues posted there are never responded to and the section went into archive without a response. I'm not sure if there's anywhere but ANI left to discuss the issue. Rather than edit warring with him, I'll just leave it to ANI.

Some guy (talk) 05:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) At the very least there seem to be a few 3RR-issues, the selfpromotion seems to be pretty obvious and the perseverance is impressive. The title 'Game Genie Guru' much less so. The affair does reek of WP:NOTHERE. Kleuske (talk) 09:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

3RR from 2006. Given the lack of edits in the last 5 days this is a bit stale. I would recommend a final warning at this point. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Inexperienced editor needs advice

It all started when ChristineBushMV removed several threads from MV Wilhelm Gustloff amounting to 17,774 bytes as a violation of WP:FORUM. The threads were from 2012 and 2013. I disagreed with her action and reverted. ChristineBushMV then came to my talkpage to tell me to archive the material to my sandbox and to self-revert.

When I refused to do so, she opened a thread at the talkpage of the Gustloff article and after the discussion was a few days old and was contributed to by myself, Jack Upland and ChristineBushMV, she decided to unilaterally remove the whole thread at the same time complaining in her edit-summary that this is quote: (Another example of women's insights not being welcome on Wikipedia.)

I objected to such removal of my contributions and those of Jack Upland and I restored the thread, but as a compromise I collapsed it. ChristineBushMV would have none of this however and reverted again commenting in her edit-summary This topic is irrelevant to the subject of the page. I started the thread. I ended the thread. It never belonged here in the first place. If you wish to archive it, do so elsewhere. Many thanks., as if it is my responsibility to archive threads she opens on talkpages of articles. I find it rather difficult to communicate with this editor under these circumstances. Therefore, I would like someone, perhaps a possible mentor, to please explain to her the basic practices involving talkpage discussions, especially when they involve removal of other editors' comments. Thank you. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 07:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

"Basic practices involving talkpage discussions" include those laid out in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, and specifically in the section entitled 'Discussion forums'. Accordingly, although it might be argued that ChristineBushMV might possibly have handled this better, I have to suggest that she is entirely correct in arguing that the material under discussion did not belong on the article talk page, since it clearly had nothing to do with improving article content. I would suggest that the appropriate course of action would be for someone to archive the material in the normal place (i.e. the archive for Talk:MV Wilhelm Gustloff) and for future contributors to the talk page to adhere to WP:NOTFORUM, rather than engaging in further off-topic debates. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Although I disagree with the statement that the removed comments had nothing to do with improving the article, I am not going to argue this point at this forum for brevity's sake. But I fully agree that the discussions should be archived as opposed to being deleted. But your reply does not address the secondary point which is her insistence for the removal of the thread she initiated at the talkpage of the article regarding the WP:FORUM discussion. Jack Upland and I had replied to her for a few days and then she abruptly decided to delete it and she reverted me when I collapsed it instead of deleting it. She then told me in her edit-summary to go archive it somewhere else. I think she still needs some advice about removing comments of other editors in threads she initiates soliciting these comments. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 08:52, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

In my experience, discussions like those do lead to article improvements. Arguments on "points of order" do not.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree and I have enunciated that much in the thread ChristineBushMV initiated. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 16:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Antisemitism categories

We seem to have got into a bit of a mess here. The main article, Antisemitism, was recently renamed "Anti-Semitism", but following a Move Review was restored to the original name. Meanwhile, in a elated discussion at 3D Test of Antisemitism it was decided not to change the spelling in a further 43 articles by adding a hyphen. In the various discussions, by my count, five editors supported the hyphenated spelling, while 18 supported the unhyphenated spelling.

However, the category which includes all of these articles is itself spelt with a hyphen. I therefore requested that the category be renamed. This seems to have caused some confusion; the request was closed by Fayenatic London with the comment "The result of the discussion was: speedy revert. I listed this for processing this after it had been proposed for two days at wp:CFDS, but should not have done so if I had looked into it, because the speedy renaming criteria exclude controversial cases". I'm not sure what this means, but the upshot is that the page Category:Antisemitism now contains a box stating that "This category is being considered for renaming to Category:Antisemitism" (ie, to itself), while the page Category:Anti-Semitism, to which all of the articles still link, is marked as a redirect and contains a box stating "This category is located at Category:Antisemitism. Note: This category should be empty." Clicking on the "Anti-Semitism" category link at the bottom of the scores of articles and sub-categories takes you to Category:Anti-Semitism, even though that page is marked as a redirect, while the category talk page does redirect to Category talk:Antisemitism.

It looks as though the absence or presence of hyphens has led to some confusion, and possibly to the wrong changes. Whatever the cause, the result is very messy. Could someone help sort this out? RolandR (talk) 10:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I closed the discussion this morning and moved the page, but did not finish implementing the close. I have done so now, and clarified the explanation on the CFD page. Feel free to raise such problems directly with the responsible administrator in future. Anyway, thanks for the reminder. – Fayenatic London 13:18, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Files For Upload

I think User:Gogo212121 is committing vandalism or spam on the FFU page. I keep trying to undo their edits, but it tells me the edit cannot be undone due to conflicting intermediate edits and must be done manually. Ashton 29 (talk) 13:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Unsourced material

An editor Victoryk is constantly adding unsourced material on Kailash Vijayvargiya page. Further, he/she has also indulged in the removal of sourced material. This issue was reported in the chat of community portal and 3 different editors at different time understood the issue and reverted the changes. The editor was notified on his/her Talk page as well as article's Talk page but has not responded. The tone and nature of the content shows that the editor in question may be working on the behalf of the subject. I request senior editors to take a look and help stop the nuisance. Katyaan (talk) 13:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Have I misunderstood what edit warring is all this time?

See Talk:Marsha Garces Williams#Children in infobox.

Winkelvi has told me that B R R is not edit warring (and to stay the fuck off their talk page):

It seems a bit unfair to me as this means the person who makes the first edit gets to do whatever they please (BRR) and anyone tries to stop them (BRRR) will be the only one guilty of edit warring.

Winkelvi is also uncivil to other editors, removing a good faith request from KahnJohn27 on their talk page with the edit summary "take out the trash". HelenOnline 15:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, an isolated instance of not following BRD is not edit warring. BRD is only an essay, though it's a practice followed by a lot of editors. I'm more concerned with the warning to keep off (in line with general concerns with such unilateral demands; see WP:KEEPOFF). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 15:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I think BRD only really kicks in after the second revert (at which point it's obvious there's an edit war looming, and a second revert should usually include a request to respect BRD). The problem is that, as Mendaliv says, BRD is only a essay – unfortunately plenty of editors who should know better (including some admins) use its status as an excuse to continue reverting. Perhaps it's time to consider pushing it to be upgraded to guideline status. Number 57 15:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The above misquotes and takes my comments out of context. The first quote should read, "discuss like an adult or stay the fuck off my talk page"; the second quote was in reference to what KahnJohn wrote, not KahnJohn himself. Rather than coming to my talk page to discuss like the experienced editor she is, Helen left a warning tag. An inappropriately placed warning tag, I might add. Editors have a right to tell others to stay off their talk page. I exercised my right to do so. I guess I could have left a warning tag on her talk page, but that would have been inappropriate. Instead, I opted to make my request as strongly worded as possible to leave an impression. Her response was to further engage in childish behavior by coming here to tattle. This is all a non-issue much ado borne out of disagreement in a content dispute. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 15:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It was your suggestion: "See if an administrator thinks I'm edit warring." If I have misunderstood what edit warring is all this time (and disadvantaged myself a great deal in the process), I would like to rectify that and I will have this thread to support my reverts. HelenOnline 15:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Please confirm I am not edit warring if I now revert Winkelvi's revert of my revert of their edit (BRRR). HelenOnline 16:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I suggested it. After you continued to insist I was edit warring not just on my talk page but at the Marsha Garces Williams talk page and the Robin Williams talk page. Making such accusations against editors all across Wikipedia is hardly collegial and civil. My suggestion was along the lines of "shit or get off the pot". As experienced and long term an editor you are, I never thought you would actually come to a noticeboard. I guess long-term and many, many edits doesn't always equate wisdom. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 16:10, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill Daly and User:Lmwolman

Lmwolman (talk · contribs · count)

Lmwolman, who claims that he works for the NHL, has repeatedly replaced the Bill Daly page with a version that uses a biography copied and pasted mostly from here, despite having already received several warnings. Not only is it a COI and blatant copyright infringement, but it is an unreferenced biography of a living person that reads like a PR piece, and removes categorization/succession boxes too. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Lmwolman (talk · contribs · count) posted the same copyright-violating material to the Help Desk, from where I reverted it. I have given the user a further warning about copyright violation. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)