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

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)

you shouldn't be. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:59, 19 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? [1] --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: [2], 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." [3]), 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: [4]. 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 [5] and [6]. 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. [7] Edit warring to restore inappropriate misogynist image. [8] 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, [9] does not seem to be a problem to me, but [10] 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 [11]. 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 [12] - you can read one of the images linked here [13]. Tutelary themselves has wrote an article on this website here [14], 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.[15] 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.[16] 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[17][18][19] 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 [20] 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) Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:26, 17 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.[21][22][23]--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[24][25] (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 ([26][27][28]) 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)

I'm not sure how many people here really cared about the paid position bit, particularly since it wasn't even WMF or in any way wikipedia related.

The concern here on wikipedia, was IMO (and also how I read the article) primarily that editor concerned used their fictitious claims to support their editing here. While many also felt the claims shouldn't have had an influence, this doesn't negate the fact they may have, and that the person concerned appeared be using them with that intention. That obviously has a serious effect on wikipedia.

There were also some concerns about lying to a reporter. That also affects wikipedia somewhat since it reflects badly on wikipedia and wikipedians, and means people may be reluctant to trust wikipedians; and of course we too may have wrong info if we are relying on reliable sources based on such lies.

The second one obviously doesn't apply here, but the first one does. (To be clear, as I emphasised below I'm not saying the claims are fictitious since these relate to identity issues so are much less clear cut. However I find identifying in a certain way you wouldn't otherwise solely for the purpose of advancing one's position equally troubling.)

Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 17 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)
• Comment 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.

  Oh and while I don't think we should generally penalise people for stuff they do elsewhere, in this particular case there IMO needs to be consideration of the allegations suggesting misusing others computers. While it may be difficult to know if these are simply idle boasts, if they are true this has implications for us due to the risk the same may be tried here.

  However while I personally 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 implications I raised earlier in a case as significant as this.

  Nil Einne (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

  Edit: I've struck out portions of my comment which I'm no longer confident of. I sincerely apologise for any offence cause. I didn't look that well in to the case, since as I mentioned, I do not believe we can come to a conclusion here on wikipedia given that a fair amount of the evidence was outside of wikipedia and not anything Tutelary wishes discussed here. I now appreciate the evidence isn't very clear cut (in particular, I've seen suggestion of identification in cases where it didn't seem to matter before it seemed to be an issue anywhere and other stuff which have given me pause for thought whereas I was previously under the impression the idenfication elsewhere was always clearcut different from here).

  However given the sensitivity of the issue, I should have taken greater care and can only apologise again. I still think that it will be helpful for arbcom to look in to this, particularly given the hacking allegations. (And either way, this is a good example of why. I obviously should have just said to send it to arbcom. Unfortunately, I let my desire to send a clear message about unacceptable behaviour overide that without even properly looking in to the case.) I'm fine with my struck out comments being removed point blank, but suspect it will be more confusing and I don't think I said anything which wasn't unfortunately already mentioned.

  Nil Einne (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Where I differ from you is that I don't believe that an inquiry of this kind conducted behind closed doors as necessarily superior to one that is conducted in the open. If we don't allow doxing, how is it permissible to utilize the fruits of doxing that has taken place outside of Wikipedia? I've seen situations in which people have attempted such sleuthing for COI-identification purposes and been threatened with blocking. Yet here we have the target being considered for banning. Could the COI discussion have been moved off-wiki for identification purposes, and then back on-wiki to take steps against he editor in question? There needs to be a consistent policy on dealing with off-wiki doxing. Coretheapple (talk) 22:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate there are connections, I'm personally not that interested in the COI issue. Frankly, I've never entirely agreed with the far harder line against COI we're taking recently (you must disclose in certain circumstances) and basically stopped following the discussion when it became clear that's where it was headed.

Ultimately, I'm not sure if it's useful to get in to long arguments about whether open or closed discussion is superior. The point is that there are many reasons why a person may not want such open discussions about their personal details. All the evidence suggests Tutelary does not wish for such open discussion in this case. Since we can't discuss this evidence without talking in depth about what it says, and preferably linking to it, and since Tutelary can't reasonably respond without permitting people to do so, an arbcom case would be better here.

As I mentioned, I'm not sure what's going on in the COI space but I presume even there it's recognised that we can't resonably ignore information suggesting a serious problem, no matter our disgust as the process used. In some cases, even if the information was obtained illicitly (e.g. by hacking), if it's serious enough it can't resonably be ignored (as happens in real life). I would also hope there is a recognition of a difference between public doxing, which unfortunately happened here; and privately gathering information which is sent to arbcom where it can then be considered with the person given the opportunity to respond without anyone other than arbcom knowing of it come what may. (As mentioned, the person could chose for this to be a public discussion if they desire, with all the implications thereof. I do recognise arbcom hasn't always been a safe pair of hands with info in the past which is unfortunate, so people may consider that.)

While I'm not saying we should encourage such behaviour, I find it unresonable to suggest people are forbidden from searching for info on a person. It's surely something people do all the time both for editors here, and for others in life. I've been done it on occasion for years, for contributors I admire, contributors I have disagreements with and even contributors I myself have little direct experience with. I usually have sympathy when I find a wikipedicracy thread or encyclopediadramatica or whatever, although sometimes it does seem the person made silly decisions even if this doesn't justify what happened.

Either way, I don't think you'll get consensus that I'm wrong or contributing to the problem by doing these searches for personal interest. And I've never intended to use this information for anything and AFAIK have never done so. However if I did happen to find information suggesting a serious issue from a simple search, I would probably have sent it to arbcom and I'm not going to say (and doubt you'll get consensus) that would be wrong.

In a case where a person needs to do much more careful searching and analysis, like I'm pretty sure was needed for the Tutelary case, I do agree it's concerning, even if the info is only going to be sent to arbcom. But the point is I don't think there's a clear boundary between a simple search for personal interest and an intrusive investigation.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:01, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussions concerning COI policy/paid editing have fizzled out, but when they were active there was much discussion over "sleuthing" of all kinds to uncover COI and a general consensus that it was abhorrent. In fact it was trotted out by paid editing apologists as a reason to not strengthen COI rules (that there would be the very kind of sleuthing we're seeing here). Re offsite sleuthing to uncover COI, I can recall one specific case that came up on one of the noticeboards and backfired badly on the person bringing it. Coretheapple (talk) 13:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but as I mentioned, I'm not, and I'm not sure anyone here is encouraging sleuthing to uncover anything anyway. I'm more interested in what we do when information was discovered, perhaps fairly innocently, perhaps not. As I've mentioned, this is a complicated issue but considering the possibilities, I don't think it's resonable to suggest any off-site search which happens to find something, regardless of the reasons for the search (whether it was a fairly innocent search or it was sleuthing) and how it was handled after this info was discovered, is abhorent. Actually I think we already recognise this to some extent. If someone has posted a link to their website onwiki and it still exists & they haven't removed the info, it's not generally considered outing for someone else to repost it. So no one is likely to sanction an editor for outing for posting the website, even if the editor wasn't even aware it was posted before. They may be reprimanded depending on the case and there could also be sanctions for harassment etc, again depending on the case. There isn't even likely to be any reprimand if the person knew it was posted before, but only found this out after the search. (Again harassment and other issues could still come in to play depending on how the website is used.) Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban - the editor has done nothing to justify a ban. Instead, blocks or final warnings should be issued to transphobic editors who are defending the WP:OUTING of a minor, and are harassing the said minor by dismissing her WP:IDENTITY. --Joshua Issac (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

How do you know that Tutelary is a minor? Do you imply that Tutelary is trans and that everyone who supports a topic/site ban is "transphobic"? What evidence do you have? --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:42, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed if that is the claim I take great offence. While I didn't support a ban here, I did say I personally supported a ban. Yet I went to great pains in my answer precisely to avoid any such implication. Even for those who didn't, it's likely some share similar sentiments they just didn't want such a wordy comment. Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose ban. In addition to my concerns over doxing, I don't see sufficient basis for banning this person for life. Editors that engage in this kind of misconduct should get an opportunity to reform. I don't like the way this originated and I don't like the way people are piling on here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

But who's proposing a ban for life? Nil Einne (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oppose. I don't claim to understand the Quinn story, but if you want somebody banned you should have to come out with clear diffs indicating misbehavior here, not outing/opposition research. I have philosophical problems with the main charges here. To begin with, we have the peculiar situation where many editors are absolutely adamant about rejecting transphobic attitudes that criticize people who pretend to be a different sex by clothing or partial cosmetic surgery (indeed, it is objectionable even to say they are pretending) yet we are supposed to join a veritable lynch-mob when an editor is caught pretending to be another sex through the filter of online conversation. Riddle me that and come back. I also object to what seems like a suggestion by SlimVirgin and others that feminists ought to object to photos of breasts. I think feminists should be free to take on a variety of political positions, especially those compatible with the activities of FEMEN and those of activists in New York and Canada who have won their right to dress (and undress) in public the same way men do. My position on cyberbullying is that the only plausible way to oppose it is to give those subjected to it some extra latitude, bearing in mind that they are under a microscope so we are hearing more than the usual representation of misdeeds. I have seen something like this happen before with Fae, a far better editor subjected to far worse behavior by bullies, and Wikipedia badly failed him; I hope this time we can set a precedent to do better. Wnt (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose If a user is violating BLP, and can't be taught the error of their ways, they will be subject to a topic ban or other sanctions. Off-wiki speculations about an editor and so forth cannot legitimately form the basis of on-wiki sanctions, relating to disruptive editing. Either the editor is being disruptive or not - the rest is hot air. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC).
  
• Support site ban We are here to build an encyclopedia, not look at this rubbish. Op47 (talk) 17:38, 23 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 [29] --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)Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 17 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)Please see #UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 17 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)

  That's not fair. My theory is exactly as plausible as yours. moluɐɯ 20:28, 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)

• [30]. 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)

• In college I smoked so much marijuana one time that I thought David Bowie was god and that he was communicating with earthlings through the track structure of certain greatest hits albums. I encourage those inclined to adopt convoluted theories to keep the hell away from Colorado. Carrite (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• How do you know the chinese aren't really the ones behind this, @Count Iblis:? Intrepid #GamerGate supporters over at the GamerGate wiki have uncovered evidence of wikipediocracy's shadowy connections to a chinese spy ring. 146.185.183.119 (talk) 20:23, 20 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 was unaware of the second one when I wrote that, but now that I am, they are obviously interrelated. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:40, 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)

Well one thing is that the user could stop saying "as a woman..." to win content disputes and start relying more on references --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Even better, to disregard any such statements by anybody unless their real identity is both verifiable and relevant to the discussion. That's just basic Internet common sense. Coretheapple (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you addressing that to? Myself? Other users? Admins? That would be wonderful but it's unlikely to happen. If somebody says "as a woman, I have no issue with a cropped photo of Power Girls breasts being the sole image on her article" then they are clearly using their supposed identity to win the content dispute --5.81.52.138 (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I was making a general comment. The question is not that it's bad to be deceptive, but whether Wikipedia can or should "outsource" investigations to uncover deception, as in effect is happening here. What I'm suggesting is that we should judge what people say by the quality of their ideas and not the unverifiable statements they make about themselves. Coretheapple (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary

The plot thickens.

An SPI concluded that user:Kaletony is a sock of user:Doxelary II, and, possibly user:Doxelary. Diff. User:Kaletony has been indefinitely blocked. How many other sock accounts this person has is anyone's guess. Memills (talk) 18:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

And thickening it even further, please compare [31] and [32]. We obviously have a case of good hand, bad hand socking here, and clear disruption of this ANI discussion. I am about to strike out all of Kaletony's edits here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:13, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, and now that we have that cleared it is looking less likely that Tutelary socked. In the event that Tutelary did not sock the decision I see rests on the other evidence provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:20, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Without getting too WP:BEANSy, there is another possibility, so let's please let the SPI process run its course. But I hope that you are correct, and if that turns out to be the case, a lot of the arguments for a ban are going to look weaker and weaker. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

I thought that all of the original concerns about Tutelary had nothing to do with sock puppetry? That issue was completely tertiary to the discussion. The concerns were about what Tutelary was doing with their single named account vs. what people believed they were doing on completely other sites. The suspicion about a possible sock only developed because a name popped up that was very close to Tutelary's, but that happened after all the arguments for a ban were being discussed. The SPI cleared that one situation, which is nice, but it has nothing to do with the doxxing issues. An SPI can't "clear" Tutelary about anything to do with the original issues. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It can do one of at least two things. It can turn up further reason to be concerned about Tutelary, or it can discredit some of the arguments against Tutelary. (I realize, of course, that there is no way that it can discredit all or even most of those arguments against, although anyone who came to this discussion with good faith concerns about misogyny and who might understandably object to aspersions being cast on their good faith concerns because of a possible SPI result should consider how aspersions arising from an external website might look when the shoe is on the other foot.) I hope that editors who favor a ban, based upon the original issues, realize that a consensus for such a ban, based upon the original issues, has not occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:34, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

But a clean SPI relating to a single sockpuppet case has absolutely nothing to do with the validity or invalidity of the arguments against Tutelary that were discussed. By a light-hearted analogy, if the original charge was "someone stole a cupcake" and then somebody shouted their car keys were missing, and we did a search and found who took the car keys, it doesn't prove or disprove anything whether the person stole the cupcake. __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Isn't that what I said? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to make it bit clearer that any SPI would only help discredit a single specific argument that Tutelary was a particular sockpuppet. That's it. I wouldn't read anything into it beyond that. __ E L A Q U E A T E 01:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

None of this is about the user creating a sockpuppet during the ANI process. How could a user be brought to ANI about something they do during the process. It's about the gaming of the Wiki to promote a sexist ideology and breaking WP:BLP rules --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I guess some of them don't realize that a consensus has not occurred. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Whoever shouts consensus first wins, don't you know how Wikipedia works? --5.81.53.114 (talk) 00:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The two SPI investigations have been closed and archived. Whoever Kaletony/Doxelary was, it was someone who was trying to disrupt this situation, and it definitively was not Tutelary. So I think one thing that is clear is that this entire case has had an awful lot of interference from people outside of Wikipedia, from start to finish, some of it based, apparently, in good-faith concerns about eliminating misogynistic content, but a lot of it just ugly and disruptive. Another thing that is clear, at least to me, is the complete absence of evidence here of Tutelary having added BLP-violating material in article space. This ANI thread might as well be closed now. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:27, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Good points, Tryptofish (talk).

" ...whoever Kaletony/Doxelary was, it was someone who was trying to disrupt this situation..." There is currently a sockpuppet investigation to investigate whether Kaldari was "that someone." Memills (talk) 04:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose any closure until the TBAN/BAN discussion is determined. The focus is on Tutelary, not Kaletony or Titanium Dragon. Tutelary's fate needs to be determined one way or the other before the discussion can be satisfactorily closed. KonveyorBelt 19:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That's what I meant about closure: determine consensus and close. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why? It's obvious too many editors are too naive/ignorant to understand that allowing an anti-feminist MRA advocate pose as transgendered, join a task force, disrupt processes, insert numerous BLP violations, and then use the Chelsea Manning case as a protective coating is very much a net negative to the project. Too many well meaning editors want diffs that can't be provided. Either because of 'outing' or because they have been rev del'd for BLP violations. The process is a joke. Hold on a minute while I look the other way as some dude is yanking my chain. Who did it? There are only two people in the room, but I can't accuse the other guy because he's wearing his Chelsea invisi-cloak. Dave Dial (talk) 17:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am neither naive nor ignorant – nor insensitive to concerns about anti-feminism. It has become abundantly clear that the "diffs that can't be provided" can't be provided because they do not exist, not because they were revdeled. Perhaps too many editors just want to be able to ban editors whom they dislike. I can think of quite a few other editors whom I happen to dislike, in fact. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sigh......smh. Dave Dial (talk) 6:56 pm, Yesterday (UTC−4)

Titanium Dragon's topic ban

• I hesitate to say anything that will delay the bot from archiving this, but I think that it should be noted that Gamaliel has topic banned Titanium Dragon from the Quinn/Gamers pages under the BLP discretionary sanctions (a decision with which I personally agree). I doubt that anything else is going to come of these discussions, and I hope that an uninvolved admin will close this discussion soon. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I just want to point out that I did not start this new sub-section. Someone else added the header later. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hatting inappropriate material. If Devil's Advocate wants to make these serious charges stick, they are encouraged to start a separate thread. Drmies (talk) 01:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Unfortunately, the sanctioning admin, Gamaliel, is WP:INVOLVED up to his nose and shouldn't be issuing any sanctions in that topic area. Seems there is a lot of that going on in the topic area.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC) That is a serious accusation and I ask that you either substantiate that or strike it. Gamaliel (talk) 18:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Being involved purely in an administrative role is entirely in line with policy. Making accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence, on the other hand, is a patent violation of policy.--Cúchullain t/c 18:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'll say two things again. I agree with Gamaliel's sanction, and I hope that this discussion will be closed. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Sure Gamaliel, I mean, I could point out the extensive contributions you have made to discussion (not merely removing comments you consider BLP violations but challenging multiple arguments), but I am sure you would write off some using some mealy-mouthed interpretation of the policy, but there really is no getting around comments such as these: [33] [34] [35] [36]. Gamaliel is taking sides in the dispute and using his admin tools to further the interests of that side.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 19:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC) I'm not sure how you are defining "extensive contributions", but two of those links aren't even to the article talk pages, and the two that are are probably half of the things that I've actually posted there. I spend most of my time on those articles rev deleting and warning, not discussing. These links are me 1) providing two RSes that were being overlooked in the discussion at time 2) objecting to TD's repeated use of an offensive pejorative in talk page discussion and suggesting an alternative wording for him to use 3) thanking a user for his excellent work in attempting to explain and enforce RS and BLP on the talk page, but not for any edits or positions that he has made or taken 4) suggesting that the community topic ban TD for behavior that would continue and escalate, leading to my topic ban. What is missing from these links is any evidence that I am "taking sides in the dispute", unless that side is the one that says Wikipedia articles should say what reliable sources say and that you shouldn't make up shit about living people and post in on the talk page of their article. I don't know a damn thing about gamers and gaming culture so the idea that I would take sides in one of their disputes is silly. Gamaliel (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC) The Devil's Advocate, I gave you a barnstar last night because I believe your thoughtful rewrite of the Gamergate controversy article made a significant improvement on a very thorny article. Does that make me an involved supporter of your POV? NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC) Those are the "extensive contributions"? Talk about grasping at straws.--Cúchullain t/c 21:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) No those are not the extensive contributions to which I was referring, I am just including the things that are clearly suggestive of a POV. I mean, I think actively disputing the reliability of sources and challenging claims disputing the reliability of other sources to the extent that Gamaliel has on the article talk page is problematic overall since it is very hard to separate his actions and comments from that of non-admins engaged in the dispute, but I just singled out the edits that I think are most suggestive of a particular POV on the issue. His statement that "Any discussion of GamerGate supposedly being about 'corruption' should note the reliable sources pointing out the complainers' complete disinterest in actual corruption" is clearly partisan in nature. That he praises an editor on one side while calling to ban some on the other side, including Tutelary whose editing has so far not been seriously challenged as problematic with cited evidence anywhere in this discussion, points to someone with a POV on the issue taking part in the dispute. Admins should not take action in such cases.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 22:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC) First of all, it's absurd to say that Tutelary's editing "has so far not been seriously challenged as problematic" when you are complaining about my post about Tutelary in an ANI thread about Tutelary's problematic editing. Second, I don't believe "actively disputing the reliability of sources and challenging claims disputing the reliability of other sources" is an accurate description of my participation there, which is the occasional chiming in to say things like "Brietbart is a shitty source in any article" and "no, we can't dismiss the entirety of the news media because you think they are biased". In regards to my "corruption" remark, I only pointed out what the reliable sources were saying, I didn't advocate any particular edit or way of using those sources. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, so it's not taking a position on an article to say that we need to take into account what the reliable sources are saying. Were I terribly concerned about the appearance of impropriety, I would have worded my comment about corruption differently, but I'm not terribly concerned about appearances. Mostly my lack of concern stems from knowing that people will accuse you of whatever they've made up their mind about regardless of the actual facts. You seem to have decided long ago that I am untrustworthy, based on your comments on Wikipediocracy and the fact that last year you accused me on this page of deliberate deception because I misremembered what particular Kennedy article I posted a comment about eight years previously. Now you've decided I'm taking sides because of a flippant remark. If we're going to talk about bring a POV to the table, we should talk about yours. Gamaliel (talk) 23:30, 22 September 2014 (UTC) REALLY Gamaliel? Mind if I point you to the the fact you deleted an 1000-word comment on the GamerGate-talk page of mine because an +- 20 word line you didn't like because I referenced an certain hashtag you falsely accused of being 'bashing a certain food chain'? You're up to your neck into POV-editing (I just noticed the closed Delete-talk too). I've got an account here, but because of the verbal abuse I've received from a couple of people here (including a couple of false accusations of being an WP:SPA and wikipedia-talk page stalking) I'm quite hesistant to log into Wikipedia now, especially now I notice the admin noticeboards are populated way too often by the same people who attempt to hijack the GamerGate article (and currently have done so judging by the conspicious lack of some previously used RSes) and other articles. 85.113.249.206 (talk) 02:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC) A "certain hashtag", eh? You mean I wouldn't let people use the talk page to repeat a slut-shaming slur against the subject of the article. I enforced this prohibition with everyone on both sides of the issue, and the evidence is the complaints all over my talk page. Gamaliel (talk) 02:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC) It is not absurd as this whole discussion has been a farce from the outset. No one has presented any evidence against Tutelary that would warrant any action. That you were so quick to get on with the farce, in light of your other comments and actions, strongly suggests you have a vested interest in the outcome of the content dispute in which you have participated and thus are involved.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 03:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC) So my "POV" has now escalated to "vested interest"? Still waiting on the evidence. I suspect in a few days you will accuse me of being one of the guys who slept with Zoe Quinn. Gamaliel (talk) 16:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC) It has not escalated as the whole issue is that you are too involved and I have provided my evidence already. I could point out that you only seem to challenge and threaten people on one side, while people on the other side are showered with praise for their work on the article.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 16:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Again, flatly untrue. My talk page is evidence of bitching at me from both sides, while a single barnstar posted on the talk page of a single editor is your sole piece of evidence for my "showering" of praise for one side. Gamaliel (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC) Gamaliel has contended that he is not involved, but is being impartial. The evidence suggests otherwise. Gamaliel feuding with PseudoSomething over sources: [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44]. Mind you, Pseudo appears to be the third editor Gamaliel was suggesting should be topic-banned. The feuding also concerned Breitbart, which is one of the few major news outlets providing a sympathetic perspective on GamerGate. Gamaliel made some pretty hostile commentary about the outlet, which is not surprising given Gamaliel's admitted Democratic leanings as contrasted with Breitbart's more Republican leanings. Gamaliel's dismissive comments regarding allegations of corruption in gaming journalism as a focus of GamerGate has already been mentioned, but it bears repeating because of the entire context: [45] [46] [47] [48]. You see one of the editors directly challenged Gamaliel's neutrality and an IP editor that challenged his sources by pointing out inaccuracies in the reporting or opinionated dismissal of legitimate concerns regarding conflicts of interest was reverted for "attacking journalists" the IP supposedly disliked. One thing Gamaliel states above is that his talk page shows evidence of both sides criticizing him, but the only evidence I can find of that is this exchange: [49]. Which shows exactly one editor generally seen as unfavorable towards GamerGate and one who was favorable to GamerGate complaining about Gamaliel's actions. However, the complaint concerns numerous edits by Gamaliel removing references to the "Five Guys Burgers and Fries" term that was being used to refer to the allegations about Quinn when there were efforts to suppress discussion of the controversy on various online forums. Gamaliel reverted multiple editors using this term by absurdly calling it a "slur" and a "BLP violation": [50] [51] [52] [53] [54]. Far from being bombarded with hate from both sides, he gets praise and affection from the anti-GamerGate side for banning their opponents: [55] [56] [57]. His actions as both an editor commenting on the talk page and as an administrator using his tools or position have exclusively favored anti-GamerGate positions. That he also offers encouragement and praise to the most active editor in slanting the GamerGate article towards a hostile POV on the subject is just further evidence of his favoritism and his partisan adminning.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:06, 24 September 2014 (UTC) That's because it is a slur. It's a third-grade-level slut-shaming slur which has no place in a serious encyclopedia and Gamaliel should be applauded for his persistence in ensuring its removal. We have no obligation to repeat and amplify anonymous forum gossip and doggerel. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC) You are not the most objective commentator on that matter, which is kind of the point. Please see these mentions in reliable sources: [58] [59]. It isn't slut-shaming or a slur. More of a joking way to discuss something when discussion was not being allowed. The term is a legitimate point of discussion on the talk page and removing it from discussions is not appropriate nor supported by BLP.--The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 00:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic-ban. There is considerable evidence that NPOV of the article is seriously lacking and at least he should contribute on the talk page. There are also serious BLP violations in the article about the portrayal of so-called "gamers" that hasn't generated any redactions. Titanium Dragon's contributions are not disruptive. --DHeyward (talk) 00:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic banned user continuing to edit at Gamergate controversy

User:Titanium Dragon was topic banned by User:Gamaliel two days ago, but he has again started editing the article and Talk page, apparently because "it is going to be appealed". Can something be done about this? Woodroar (talk) 02:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I had assumed that bans were hard-coded. I had spoken to Gamaliel on his talk page about it, and noticed that I still had the ability to edit the article, and had assumed he changed his mind. Apparently I was in error, and such bans simply are not hard coded. The edits have been reverted. I'm sorry, I have little understanding of how such things work mechanically; I had assumed there was a system in place to bar people from editing such articles, but I suppose I can see why that would be difficult now that I think about it, as category tags only go so far. I shan't do it again. Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

user:NeilN has explained things a bit better to me. That being said, I have a question: @Tarc: has been topic banned from things having to do with transgender issues, and part of the whole GamerGate mess is the fight that Zoe Quinn had with The Fine Young Capitalists, the former accusing the later of transphobia. Does that mean he shouldn't be working on those articles as well? Titanium Dragon (talk) 02:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Nice deflection attempt there, but no; that's be like a prohibition on editing Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil just because a person in the book/movie is a drag queen. Quinn's critique of the FYC over their transgender rules does not make this a transgender topic, but I'll refrain from commenting further on that small aspect of this (and to my knowledge I have not) just to be 100% in the clear. Tarc (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Woodroar was correct to bring this violation to the community's attention, but now that Titanium Dragon has corrected his mistake, which appears to have been made in good faith, I see no reason to block and suggest this section be closed lest it get sidetracked into unrelated issues. Gamaliel (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon has violated their topic ban yet again, immediately after acknowledging they know exactly what the ban entails. Enough's enough.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That is from Gamaliel's talk page in discussion of this very ban, because I feel that the ban was made in error because the material in question is found in reliable sources which had been previously noted on that page (several of which are presently or have been used as cites by the article). Surely you can discuss being banned from something with the person who banned you on their talk page? :\ Titanium Dragon (talk) 03:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You are allowed to appeal your ban and it does seem that is what you are doing on Gamaliel's talk page. See WP:BANEX for a list of exceptions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I note that the user in question has once again posted unsupported accusations about living people in the process of appealing their topic ban. I have redacted the claim and strongly suggest that it is counterproductive for you to make unsupported accusations about living people when appealing a topic ban imposed because you made unsupported accusations about living people. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

He was plainly referencing this article in Cinema Blend. It does not explicitly identify Quinn, but she and her associates are the ones they are talking about. This claim of doxxing was apparently made due to Quinn responding to a tweet from her PR rep Maya Kramer that contained the TFYC guy's Facebook account. Although the offending tweet appears to have been nuked you can still find traces of the conversation between Quinn, Kramer, and another individual. This connection to Quinn is made explicit in GameRanx. Suffice to say, TD knew Cinema Blend alluded to the doxxing, but did not remember that they left the identity of the culprit unclear. From what I can tell, this is typically where he runs afoul of BLP. He fills in the blanks with stuff he already knows without realizing the sources do not explicitly state what he is stating. Of course, I don't know what he said in these other instances since the evidence has been shredded by various involved admins.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

So he was misusing and misrepresenting the content of reliable sources to present his personal opinions about living people because he didn't like what was actually found in the reliable sources. Good to know we agree. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying that he filled in the blanks in his head and thought that the sources explicitly said it when he really just knew what they were talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

...which is precisely what is prohibited by WP:SYNTH — we don't allow people to synthesize from multiple reliable sources a new claim not explicitly found in any one of them. The fact that the only reliable source directly addressing the issue intentionally omitted Zoe Quinn's name is significant. It means the only reliable source directly addressing the issue made an editorial decision not to make an explicit claim about Quinn's involvement. If the source didn't make that claim, it is absolutely prohibited to build a chain of primary sources and use them to make inferences about what the reliable source might or might not have said. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am saying any "synth" or "unsourced" statement was inadvertent due to him actually knowing what sources are talking about yet not processing that they did not actually say what they are talking about.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see it as necessary to worry too much here about alleged topic ban violations on Gamaliel's talk page at the moment, unless they're so egregious that they require immediate attention in which case it should only really happen after the material has been oversighted or at least revdeleted (or alternatively by privately alerting an admin). While of course, any admin could block Titanium Dragon for topic ban violations, when they occur in a stated attempt to appeal the topic ban on the issuing admin's talk page and the issuing admin appears to be actively engaged in the discussion, unless said admin asks for help, it's probably best to let them deal with it, notifying them if there's something you think they may have missed. It looks like Gamaliel has already warned TD to be careful in what they post, in particular to focus on the appeal and not in engaging with other contributors. Nil Einne (talk) 12:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Why was he topic banned? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 03:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Because he kept posting material that violated WP:BLP and had to be expunged from the pages' histories.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Flushed down the memory hole? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Because Wikipedia is seen as having some authority, you can't use it to slander living people, or make wild accusations about what may have happened in their private lives. You can, for instance, imagine what would happen if somebody wrote an article about you in the style that editors like Tutelary and Titanium Dragon were hoping to write for Zoe Quinn. Many people would take it seriously, even though the whole GamerGate thing looks like a mad conspiracy from the outside. That is why we have these sanctions --5.81.54.129 (talk) 09:36, 24 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 [60], 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 ([61]) 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:-[62]. 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:-[63] nb para 3 of changes panel, 'Where this discussion has got to … 90 minutes later, he replied here:-[64] nb end of para 1 of changes panel 'So, the review goes in the article.' … some 3 minutes later, he made this edit:-[65] 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:-[66], (which one gets to via the VICE site here:- [67] … 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:-[68], (or fuller picture here:-[69]), 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 [70] - 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 :-[71]. … 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:-[72] 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 :-[73] (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) … … nb minor correction to Diannaa, Diannaa says on the prev. diff that it was Pincrete who removed the 'VICE review', it was actually Bobrayner. added by Pincrete Pincrete (talk) 10:50, 23 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 [74] 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 [75]. 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 film, 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: [76] 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)

I've made one edit to the article (adding a fact tag against that "some critics" wording I mentioned earlier), and until yesterday I had never heard of this film. I noticed this thread on this noticeboard and decided to have a look. And after looking I feel that your interactions on that article have been very heavy, you and other editors have been really slamming down on the attempts by another editor to add content. I don't actually know whether that content is any good - but I do feel the methods you have been using effectively close-down any chance of constructive discussion, which is not the way things should be, and which is also guaranteed to annoy and antagonize UrbanVillager and make his responses equally unconstructive. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 20:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, I am going to ASK you to strike-thru or delete your posts here. You also have MY permission to, at the same time strike-thru or delete my replies, including this one. If you wish (and if I have time), I will communicate through your or my talk page, however, at the moment (probably unintentionally), the effect you are having is probably not constuctive. I will not respond to ANY further posts HERE, not out of discourtesy, but because this is not the place. Thankyou. Pincrete (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Why would I strike through my posts (or any part of them, given that even my accidental implication that you might have made suggestions of sockpuppetry turned out to be correct)? My words addressed the issues raised by the complainant. I don't at all like the title of his complaint, but I think that the core of his complaint - that editors have been "ganging up" to exclude content, and have been using invalid methods to do it - has some substance to it. I am basing much of my opinion on my belief that what I wrote earlier is correct: that just repeatedly saying "no consensus" cannot be used to exclude otherwise valid content, and that issuing "warnings" that adding anything new into a section first needs consensus is not a position that is sustainable. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 16:09, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield said "Bobrayner deleted large areas of text with no justification, giving just the pov assertion "not a reliable source".". I should point out that this content & source was rejected at WP:RSN. Few people would consider that "pov"; with the exception of UrbanVillager, for whom any edit is vandalism by definition if it tones down his promotion of Malagurski. Some examples: [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97]
For instance, if somebody says that ""Kosovo: Can You Imagine?"'s prestigious "Silver Palm" award - something he has repeatedly emphasised - was actually one of 76 Silver Palms awarded in the student films category of a hitherto unknown filmfest, that's definitely vandalism, as far as UrbanVillager is concerned. If somebody replaced "Official selection for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"" with "One of thirteen Serbian films selected for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"", you'd better believe that's vandalism too, just as much as the words "film student" are vandalism if they appear anywhere near Malagurski's name. UrbanVillager is always reverting "vandalism". Even airbrushed resume on the website that Malagurski's mommy set up for him had words like "intern" and "telemarketing", but our articles - several of our articles - present him solely as a master filmmaker. At some point in the future, the community will be able to fix these widespread breaches of WP:V and WP:NPOV; but that can only happen after UrbanVillager (and socks) stop reverting, or the ability to revert is taken away from them. bobrayner (talk) 19:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The above comments by Bobrayner should further convince us of UrbanVillager's complaint. Firstly, those large areas of text Bobrayner refers to were deleted within hours of Pincrete initiating the RS noticeboard discussion [98] over one source. No waiting-time was given for the issue to be discussed. Secondly, there has been no rejection of the Monthly Review source because no RS discussion about it has been initiated. Thirdly, of the five editors who have commented to date on the RS discussion for the Vice source, three of them are Bobrayner, Pincrete, and Somedifferentstuff - editors who already wanted to remove the material from the article. The point of bringing things to the RS noticeboard is to get NEW opinions from uninvolved editors, so Bobrayner has no justification in claiming above that the source has been "rejected". It seems to me to be more evidence that UrbanVillager's allegation of editors "ganging up" to exclude content is justified. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

When several editors disagree with UrbanVillager's edits - not just the editors you've listed here, but also folk like Joy, Potočnik, Opbeith, Peacemaker67 &c - conspiracy is not the most likely explanation, and constant reverting is not the best solution. bobrayner (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Re: Bobrayner's 'conspiracy' post immediately above. At the time I was first accused of being a co-conspirator, I had not even read, edited or 'talked on' 3 of the 4 pages I was alleged to be conspiring to distort. For UrbanVillager to make such a mistake once, might be forgivable, to repeat it on several ANI's therafter (without notifying me) seems somewhat careless at the least, to never attempt to apologise for or withdraw the accusation is … … … well, what we have all (unfortunately) come to expect from him. Here:-[99]. Pincrete (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Corrections to Bobrayner … the film he mentions, was one of 14 winners in the Student's films category, one of 76 overall, and after several very long, hard battles by myself and other editors, the text NOW does say 'one of several winners in Student films category', UrbanVillager has never agreed to this change, but has not - so far - reverted it. … … however other 'festivals', do still seem to be of very questionable note-worthiness, and questionably referenced. These include Ann Arbor Docufest,(until recently described as 'Official Selection, 2011 - for "The Weight of Chains" at the Ann Arbor Docu Fest' [100] which when I eventually tracked down the 'long dead ref.', turns out to be a free monday evening showing at the "Cafe Ambrosia':-Ann Arbor Docu Fest: The Weight of Chains at Cafe Ambrosia, with little evidence that this was meaningfully, a film festival. Pincrete (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC) … … further minor correction, it was PRODUCER, not Peacemaker who was accused of 'conspiracy' alongside myself and the others Bobrayner mentions. added by : Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC) … … … Also bobrayner, I believe that NO editor has ever wanted to insert: "One of thirteen Serbian films selected for the "International Festival of New Latin American Cinema"", though there ARE two issues connected with this, one is the 'peacocky' use of 'Official selection' (when this is not a phrase used by the festival), the second is whether we are ALLOWED to mention that it is in 'Serbian/Balkan categories that the film has been chiefly shown.

Bob, you were clearly angry when you answered Tiptoethrutheminefield, and didn't choose your examples well. HOWEVER, I wholly agree with your main point, recent examples of what UrbanVillager has characterised as 'vandalism' or 'not constructive edits', include 1) placing dead link tags on links that had been known to be dead for at least two years, tags which have 'mysteriously disappeared' previously 2) removing a statement about a LP, which had been on the page UN-referenced for two years, because I added a 'ref' to it, and 3) restoring 'culture critic', when I had replaced it with 'cultural critic'. above text added to by Pincrete. Pincrete (talk) 10:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor correction to Tiptoethrutheminefield I've left no agree/disagree 'comment' on the RS noticeboard, I HAVE left a response to your post, (which you might think is the same). I have also invited EVERY editor (whether they seemed to agree with me or not) to leave a post there. Even if you ignore bobrayner and myself, can you not see that the other 3 are experienced, independent editors making rational arguments, based on WP policy and guidelines? … … the first two (time-wise) of these were WHOLLY independent, then BR, then SDS (very recently involved with this page), then yourself, then my comment … if that isn't us trying to get 'outside opinion' in a neutral way, I don't know what is. Pincrete (talk) 18:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tiptoethrutheminefield, on a simple factual matter, somewhere between 70 and 90 percent of the text on WoC on the day this complaint was filed, had been inserted by UrbanVillager. The other 8-10 involved editors in the last two years, have managed to slightly amend the rest, (all of it done neutrally, as far as possible). Of that 70-90 percent, a VERY large proportion, is copy-pasted from publicity material created by the film maker, and has NEVER had the agreement of the majority of current or past editors. I myself attempted recently to initiate discussion of the present synopsis, here:-[101], this itself is returning to discussions of two years ago, pointing out that the present synopsis is little more than a 'mirror' of the film maker's website and therefore not only copyvio, but inadequate.

I didn't sign up here as an editor to damage the reputation of public figures or their work, but neither did I sign up to assist them (or their fans) in the creation of vanity pages. Pincrete (talk) 09:13, 21 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 [102] 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: [103] 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 ([104], [105], [106]) 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)

Postdlf can you please stop giving a wrong impression of me?. At least you won't take any credit for doing that. Am surprise that you could say here that I added a copyright content to Royal_Adelaide_Golf_Club. I never added any copyright content. I only added references. When I wanted to add the last reference to a particular section, I copied some sentences from the section to confirm the claim on google, there I discovered that copyright content was included in the section (not by me). Because of the nature of my browser, I must save a particular section before the next section. Immediately I save the section (without addition of any content not even the reference I wanted to add) I discovered it was tag for copyvio. by User:None but shining hours. He left a message on my talk page to ask if I wanted to fix the problem. He fixed it and later advised me to always verify for possible copyvio in an article before adding references so as not to give a wrong impression. Now user:Postdlf ran here to say that I added a copyvio content and even talking about site ban forgotten that he was once a new editor. Am not happy with this kind of behaviour. Every member of the community are suppose to behave as one family. Please leave comment that will help my edit behaviour and not comments full of critics.Wikicology (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

• Based on the advices provided by various experienced editors above, I had decided and agreed to limit myself to normal edit ( not to review AFC, NP, not to warn editors) for 3 months. This will enable me to learn more about how editors interact as well as learning the basic policy. I also need a mentor to guild and review my works. I thank you all. Wikicology (talk) 22:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems as if this case can be closed. I personally don't think that active monitoring by an experienced editor is needing during this period. Wikicology's latest article looks fine from what I could see: no copyvio and adequately referenced. Yes, there are some grammar and spelling mistakes but that can be easily taken care of in subsequent edits. Standard WP checks on new articles and edits in existing articles should suffice. Perhaps Wikicology could ask someone, once this 3 month period is over, to review their progress and verify that they have not violated anything (easily done by looking at Wikicology's talkpage and list of contributions), and advise them on how to proceed? - Takeaway (talk) 12:19, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology's self-agreed editing limits detailed above seem acceptable to me as an ordinary editor, as long as that "not warning editors" will also include not going around telling other editors what Wikipedia is or is not, what Wikipedia procedures are, and what "good" Wikipedia editors should do. I hope he comes to realise that people who edit Wikipedia with the purpose from the outset of becoming Wikipedia administrators are probably the worst people to actually be administrators. If Wikicology abandons all hope of becoming an administrator I bet his editing will dramatically improve. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have just reviewed a new article by Wikicology and unfortunately it is a mess. I have given them some advice and 24 hours to clean it up. If it is then still unsatisfactory, it will have to be put up for AfD. I am now very unsure if Wikicology can actually function here on the English Wikipedia on anything beyond very basic level editing such as cleaning up bare URLs. Very, very sorry... - Takeaway (talk) 22:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikicology has rewritten the article. After I had confronted them with my findings yesterday, that many of the original citations did nothing to support the content of the article and were only used to make the article look reliable, it has gone from 39 citations back to only 5, and it is now reduced to only two lines of text including the lead (see this dif). Wikicology is of course not at all happy with me any more, accusing me of WP:BITE after my message here yesterday evening to keep this thread from being archived, stating that they are a new user so are not expected to know better while still arguing that all of the fluff citations supported the content. This comes from someone who, until a few days ago, was going around Wikipedia "advising" people what and what not to do, and "helping" with AfC's .

Apparently, the self-imposed limit to only do "normal editing" did not, in their mind, entail staying away from AfD either (see their latest contribs). Refraining from giving their views at AfD had of course not been mentioned expressly by other editors here in this thread...

They seem to be incapable of accepting responsibility for their own actions. From today's interaction on their talkpage (see User_talk:Wikicology#Your_report_at_ANI): "You said here that the references are too much. I removed them based on your advice. I also removed bulk of the article content. Do you still expect me to includes the references you once condemn?". What I actually said was that the article's content was not backed by the multitude of irrelevant citations and that it should be cleaned up and rewritten. Wikicology seems to just make up excuses as they go along, and deny all responsibility when things go wrong for them. Having now been confronted with this side of them, I can understand what WikiDan61 meant with "unnecessarily belligerent attitude". I had given them the benefit of the doubt, thinking that they would have learned something from all the advice here above and on their talkpage, but now I just don't know what to do any more with someone who exhibits this sort of behaviour. - Takeaway (talk) 21:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If AfD, NPP, not warning newbies, not reviewing AfC is accepted, probably they can't do too much damage can they? There might be some language issues involved, but that is unavoidable. Perhaps give the proposed restrictions a few months and see how it goes? I don't like to see a block without some chance to improve; on the other hand, I have no experience in these matters. Kingsindian (talk) 23:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Looking at their recent contribution history, they seem to now focus on AfD's. Not sure how damaging that is? Keeping oneself busy with AfD's can actually be quite educational I guess, especially when one throws around a whole bunch of wiki policy abbreviations which hopefully they've actually read. I don't really want to involve myself with this editor any more after our last interaction. I also think they would rather not work with me any longer either. Hopefully someone else can take over and/or shed some new light on this matter? - Takeaway (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

204.17.60.130

This user's edits have all been undone.[107] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 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. [108], [109], [110], and attributing content I pasted to my sandbox from a problem article as my own content for further COI accusations [111].

[ • ] 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 (addition: after this edit) [112] all because I posted a peer-reviewed literature review as an example of a secondary source. [113] [114] 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 [[115]]

[ • ] Stated her reason for not attempting to use the article talk page before going to RSN for a the above dispute was her assumption of bad faith [116] , which is counter to WP:AGF throughout the whole talk section. [117]

[ • ] 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."[118] 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. [119] [120] 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 [121]

[ • ] Still kind warning. [122]

[ • ] 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. [123] [124]

[ • ] Second to last warning. [125]

[ • ] Final warning. [126]

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 [127]. EllenCT reverted without addressing those concerns, and immediately went to RSN for the reliability dispute rather than discuss on the talk page first. [128]. 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?"[129] The interaction referenced was me stating what an example of a recent review was (and nothing more from a weight perspective). [130] [131] 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.[132][133] 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."[134] 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. [135] 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.[136], followed by veiled accusations of astroturfing on top of COI at the end of her response [137]. 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 [138] 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. [139] [140] 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 [141] discussed here [142] and at NPOVN [143] I have also discussed with other users trying to figure out how to shift our conversations back to content on the article talk page [144], 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: [145] [146] [147] [148] [149] EllenCT's behavior has been the topic of previous ANI [150][151]and Arbcom discussions [152] where even my exasperation in a topic unrelated to the Arbcom discussion was noted [153]. 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 [154], and her own [155], 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: [156] 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 (and after referencing TLDR) 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)

Who would have prevented Kingofaces from using a Bayer-sponsored literature review which misrepresents its own title and was scrubbed of any non-Bayer-supporting sources, if not for me? Do you agree with Kingofaces that the American Bird Conservancy review by two distinguished authors of 200 high quality primary sources should be deleted from the article? EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The above response is exactly what I meant. The description of the Bayer-sponsored review is just bizarre. And Kingofaces never even tried to use that as a source. Even here, she is doing this. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would be happy to respond to specific issues concerning my bizarre description if they are specified. The title of the review purported and strongly implied that the document was substantially different than the plain language of its methodology indicated in the abstract. Kingofaces produced a citation to that document when I asked him what they thought an example of a WP:MEDRS-quality source was. Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. However, subsequent events which you apparently refuse to provide your opinion on, as to whether the American Bird Conservancy's authors are impeccably accurate (please excuse the pun) have suggested to me that my initial impressions were not an assumption of bad faith. Now I wonder why you have not disclosed our previous strong disagreement about the affects of monoculture and the likelihood of horizontal gene transfer before offering an opinion about me here. EllenCT (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

All I'll say is that this is a continuation of the behavior issues I listed above. I listed the source in question simply as what an example of a secondary source is as I described in my initial post here. The source was the article at the top of my to-do list on my collection of literature reviews to summarize, and later (long before most of this dispute occurred) I listed the rest of the studies that I was looking at for weighting content for scientific consensus [157]. Since then, EllenCT has falsely accused me of trying to push this single review into content and blown the simple fact that I stated it was a source to look at into a diatribe about COI and paid-advocacy (and issues with that going back to Jytdog’s initial support post here). She had been warned she was running with those assumptions way too far as I attempted to correct that misconception, but apparently that was never heard as the behavior still continues. [158] [159] I also agree the comment above, "Who would have prevented Kingofaces from using a Bayer-sponsored literature review . . ." represents an tendentious attitude of trying to right great wrongs. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as a first step (as an involved admin). I think the topic ban is a good idea, but I've had conflicts with Ellen on a number of a different articles, and find she is incapable of believing she could be wrong in result, regardless of whether her arguments have any weight, and she seems incapable of believing that anyone who disagrees with her has good faith. Even when I agree with her, her style doesn't seem collegial. Speaking as someone who also has been accused of not having a collegial style at times, and recognizing it is a problem, she goes far beyond that. <statement redacted before save; I'll assume good faith to the extent that an argument to which I wrote a counter shouldn't be brought up in the first place.> — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Arthur is involved because I have recently asked that his sanctions be extended to include a topic ban in the areas of economics, where he often tries to push anarcho-libertarian views as if they were mainstream instead of fringe. EllenCT (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose EllenCT has strong views. I often disagree with them but she presents them in a reasoned and well-documented manner. She is not intimidated by disagreement or disparagement and she has frequently had to advocate here views to an aggressive group of dissenters. She's attracted ideological adversaries and has had to persevere despite considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based and would not have been directed at a similarly outspoken male editor. This thread should be withdrawn or closed promptly without action. SPECIFICO talk 00:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO I have been one of the participants in the neonic discussiosn and in my view there is no evidence of gender-based opposition from the regular participants there. (EllenCT did have a weird hounder who popped in for a short time, but you convinced that editor to back off). Your post is in my view a red herring that draws away attention from EllenCTs' behavior, but since you opened this I am going to have to ask you to provide difs or strike. Please do so. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 11:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Hello. This is a sensitive subject right now. I did not accuse any individual of making gender-based attacks, however I understand your request for supporting information. The larger issue of gender on WP is currently being discussed on this page. I suggest you post a brief neutral message in a new section there and ask for some fresh eyes to join this thread. I could be mistaken, but I think that gender bias in editing and interactions is a complex and subtle matter and that it is part of the problem here. SPECIFICO talk 12:52, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, you said, "I did not accuse any individual of making gender-based attacks. . ." That indicates it's not a topic for this discussion here then (as Jytdog mentioned, it's a red herring here). It does seem gender discrimination at WP is an important topic for you, but this is not a forum to discuss such things just because an editor in question is female. The topic of this ANI is EllenCT's behavior at neonicotinoid related topics, what to do about it when she's been warned multiple times that it blatantly violates Wikipedia's civility policies and has shown she plans to ignore those warnings. That behavior is inappropriate regardless of gender, nor should gender play a role in that decision. It's been made clear gender was never an issue in this incident or with me, and that should also be very clear in the diffs provided as well. Even if say I or another user had been acting as a raging misogynist in this incident, that still would not excuse the EllentCT’s behavior I outlined above. I’d ask you to either provide diffs gender was directly an issue related to this particular incident, or refrain from casting WP:ASPERSIONS that this was actually an issue in this particular incident. We don’t need to be interjecting unrelated things here and adding unneeded drama. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias does not always show up as black and white. Just as racial bias does not always show up as black and white, even when it's about black and white. Meanwhile, I suggest you consider my suggestion of getting some additional uninvolved opinion, which would help us all to understand whether my concern is relevant to this case. I note that, despite your lengthy documentation, there has not been much support here for your concerns so more opinions on the matter will be helpful even if I am incorrect in my discomfort about the issue. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As I mentioned, either provide diffs or refrain from casting aspersions. It’s really sounding like you’re on a fishing expedition in this case for this bias rather than seeing evidence of it from what you described so far. We’re discussing the specific behavior by EllenCT I brought up in my initial post. Please keep the focus on those actions rather than wandering into other topics and distracting from the behavior issues in question. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO We are all aware of gender issues on Wikipedia, which are a problem. But again, you wrote "She's attracted ideological adversaries and has had to persevere despite considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based". "Considerable hostility which I feel is gender-based" is something that can be demonstrated in difs. Please provide difs from the neonic topic area (which is what we are discussing), or strike. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

One kind of behavior which some women find unnerving is to have men repeat themselves, restating their questions or concerns without responding to the responses they have already elicited. It appears that you've just done that here. Both men and women might believe that such behavior is unproductive, but some women tend to experience it as badgering or hounding, while the typical male response might be to conclude that the interaction is not worth pursuing any further. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 01:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Please recall - I walked away from the page due to EllenCT's repetitive accusations and WP:IDHT behavior. Who is more "male" and who is more "female" here? None of these broad brush things make any sense or are of any use without specifics. In any case, you are unwilling or unable to actually support your claim and unwilling to strike as well. It is what it is, I guess. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind words and patience. Although I have certainly been treated by a small subset of editors in ways which may have been influenced by my gender, on reflection I think most of my detractors are motivated by envy in that I apparently have a much easier time finding, understanding, and summarizing complex secondary source material. However, the most disruptive sources of conflict I have experienced all have five things in common: (1) a history of paid advocacy in the topic area, whether on or off-wiki or both; (2) evidence of behavior consistent with paid editing; (3) attempts to censor or obscure valid summarizations of reliable secondary sources; (4) attempts to impugn the integrity of such sources with no compelling reasons they are likely to be flawed, and (5) a willingness to request sanctions when faced with persistent attempts to point out that the most reliable sources are being misrepresented in a way which supports an economic benefit to moneyed interests. Suggestions are welcome. EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is a spot-on example of EllenCT's difficult behavior. (Envy??) Nothing there is supportable and the broad stroke accusations of COI/paid advocacy/paid editing are ugly and inappropriate. This is exactly how EllenCT disrupts discussions of neonic-relatedarticle content and sources. Jytdog (talk) (edited to make specific per remarks below Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC))

Which are the specific discussions, other than those of neonicotinoids, you believe I have disrupted in such a manner? Why have you refused to say whether you agree with Kingofaces that the American Bird Conservancy review should be deleted? EllenCT (talk) 01:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

that is a good call on the overgenerality of my statement; i meant "neonic articles" and have edited my comment above to limit to that. thanks. and per usual, i am not going respond to your strange, quasi-prosecutorial question. so, so convuluted, off-topic, accusatory. blech! Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. If I asked why you thought the underlying dispute was off-topic, would you answer that? If a question about whether you agree with my detractor's opinion seems accusatory to you, what does that suggest to you about the validity of their complaint? EllenCT (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT This is not about a single discussion but rather is about your pattern of behavior. I don't even know how to unpack the second question. Your tangled questions (which I have attempted to answer many times, which answers you have just ignored) and your persistent claims about paid advocacy/paid editing are just disruptive. I and others have asked you to stop many many times. I've come to the conclusion that you are just POV-pushing with anything you can grab and I have given up hope that you will listen, and change your behavior. We can stop this here if you would just voluntarily withdraw from that topic. Jytdog (talk) 13:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to the implication that I have ignored any of your answers to my questions. Which specific answers do you think I ignored? More than the number of times you refused to answer my questions? I understand that you find the point of view that money can influence science to be uncomfortable because you edit in areas where monied interests have been accused of misconduct. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

done with this. Jytdog (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (uninvolved, except for providing a brief opinion at WP:RSN) Kingofaces43's post was indeed WP:TLDR, though the "D" in my case stands for "did". It paints a pretty bad picture. Having strong views is not a problem, (I for example edit in WP:ARBPIA where I have strong views). But just reading the main discussion linked by Kingofaces43 shows that EllenCT has little knowledge or appreciation for the issues involved. Continual dismissal of information as astroturf or COI is not helpful. There is plenty of astroturf and bad science around the pharma or pesticide etc. industry, but this kind of indiscriminate behaviour will not do. Reviews of literature are complex, and there are all kinds of subtle problems with them, such as the supression of unflattering studies. But these are subtle matters to be judged by competent specialists, and do not lend themselves to massive swiping. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs, and I am afraid EllenCT is attempting just that. Kingsindian (talk) 17:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: On what basis do you claim that I have little knowledge or appreciation of the issues involved? I've read at least half a dozen literature reviews on the topic just in the past six months as a volunteer, and you, at the WP:RSN#Is the American Bird Conservancy an advocacy group? thread you mention, are the first to have joined Kingofaces in opposing NorthBySouthBaranof, Darkfrog24, Stephan Schulz, A Quest For Knowledge, and myself. In doing so, you agreed that the source that Kingofaces is trying to delete is reliable, but claimed that you were insufficiently informed to determine whether it is of sufficient weight. Does that seem like a reasonable position from which to make informed judgements about whether other editors have reasonable amounts of subject matter experience? I would note that Kingofaces took the question of the same source to WP:RSN previously with no notification on the article talk page [160], where he was told that it was acceptable, and decided to delete it anyway. EllenCT (talk) 23:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not the place for a content dispute, so my focus is on behavior here. There's much more going on in the discussion than what EllenCT is portraying. The RSN in question that I posted was about how to handle advocacy groups as sources for scientific content in general. My example was the bird source in question, but I specifically stated I had no edits in mind at the time for that article. That's why I never posted it on the talk page because the RSN was not about that article. When I removed the source at a later date, I was doing so under under WP:RS and WP:SCIRS after reflecting on the general topic for some time, and EllenCT brought the actual source and content to RSN without any talk page discussion. The first RSN was a question of mine alone not pertaining to any article, while EllenCT's was specifically about content in an article. She's been trying to conflate my actions as being the same as hers, but she is well aware that I have explained this a false assumption to her already. [161] Either way, this has been rehashed in my initial posting already, so this is further evidence of WP:IDHT behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you think your attempt to go against RSN consensus twice was reasonable? Since you posted to RSN the first time without disclosure, why is my raising the issue on RSN wrong? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

To EllenCT: I do not base my reply on the RSN content dispute. There is nothing wrong with content disputes, I have them all the time. I base my reply on reading the talk page and diffs. I see a persistent attacking of sources as COI or astroturf with bizarre logic (conflating editor COI with source COI, even after this has been pointed out many times), accusations of paid advocacy, general lack of good faith, personal attacks and refusal to compromise, in line with a a conviction that one has the WP:TRUTH. Kingsindian (talk) 18:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You have accused me of attempting to right great wrongs and of believing to know the truth. Can an ability to locate, identify, understand, and accurately summarize secondary reliable sources lead to behavior which appears consistent with those attributes? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Topic Ban this attack on a source noted above because it is a Bayer sponsored study sponsored by Bayer, without any reference to relevant facts, shows that the issue here is one of POV EllenCT's. Let me note that complaints of TLDR above are absurd not to mention inconsiderate. The complaining user provided short, bulleted, fully-reffed statements. Evereything was immediately understandable, and the evidence at the end of the item. Had he not been so concise and thorough, the complaint would have been dismissed as giving insufficient evidence. When complaints here are dismissed because they are too well evidenced, we might as well all go reason with ISIS and tribesmen killing Ebola volunteers. μηδείς (talk) 01:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Question: Why do you not consider the fact that the title of the review implies it is about "Risks of Neonicotinoid Insecticides to Honeybees" while its methodology indicates that it is only a review of "current and proposed guidance in the United States and Europe for assessing the risks of pesticides to honeybees"[162] to be relevant? As for the TLDR concerns, you are seeing a very much shorter version than was originally posted. EllenCT (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Rather than ask me such a question, why not just post a concise challenge? I have a BA in plant ecology, so I don't think I'll find fact based arguments too difficult. I detest the fact that so much of WP is TLDR by idiots not schooled in the topic at hand, and that is a major issue in my withdrawal for the main part from main space. The issue here has been a formal, not substantive one, and I can see myself opposing any sanctions against you, EllenCT, if I can read them in five brief sentences or less. μηδείς (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I challenge you to answer the question. EllenCT (talk) 03:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the intended support re: TLDR, but just to clarify, most (if not all) of those comments were about my original post here. [163] I was making sure I was being thorough in my first posting, but it was suggested I edit it down into bullets shortly after. The bulk of my original narrative is currently in the collapsed section of my posting, so hopefully that clears up any confusion. Kingofaces43 (talk) 15:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I did not review the Colony Collapse Disorder article, but I did review the Neonicotinoid article's talk page. I don't see any behavior on EllenCT's part that supports a ban of any kind. Lightbreather (talk) 06:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd ask that you specifically refer to the diffs I provided in my initial posting. The unfounded COI accusations and stated refusal to discuss behavior issues anywhere but the article talk page are pretty blatant in them. After repeated warnings for that, if not a ban, what would you then suggest to stop her behavior issues? Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support. Furthermore, I would also support a broader one on topics related to American politics, due to continued and long-term disruption and similar issues regarding sources and such at articles including, but not limited to, Economic inequality, Progressive tax, Single-payer health care, Income inequality in the United States, United States, and so on. If one goes through the talk page archives, we see the same sort of problems regarding misunderstanding POV edits, of poor sourcing, and of bad faith claims toward the opponents and opposing sources. This has gone on for some time now. Thargor Orlando (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando, as as stated in my initial posting, I'm more interested in seeing a specific topic ban here for the articles I brought up right now (although I could be open to more if convinced). I know there's a lot of drama following EllenCT from other articles, but I also don't want that drama turning this ANI into an incoherent hot mess that's jumping between many articles either. Could you maybe comment on why you'd support a topic ban in the context of the diffs I provided, and then separately provide very direct diffs from areas you've been involved in where this behavior is a problem (mainly showing she has been warned against this behavior)? I'd rather see the topic ban for bees and pesticides come into place first, and take the short leash approach to ratchet up sanctions if that ban still doesn't get it across to her in other areas that her behavior has violated our civility policies and guidelines and distracts from the goals of Wikipedia. That seems to me to be better way to approach this, rather than do everything at once.

If you (or anyone else) feel strongly about wider bans than I've proposed and taking care of that now rather than wait, it might be better to make a separate subsection here about EllenCT's wider behavior issues in other articles and propose action based on that material on top of whatever decision comes here. That way, the specific behavior I've brought up here can be addressed as a specific incident, and wider issues can be addressed later (either in time or sequentially on this board). Thanks. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:53, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

@Kingofaces43:, I'm merely expressing my overall opinion. I support your claim, and if it can be broadened, I support that as well. The number of diffs would be overwhelming to include in an already-significant pile of evidence, and the talk archives of those pages are easy to navigate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem at all. I was just a little concerned that bringing in previous problems in other areas had the potential for derailing the specific conversation here depending on how they would be handled here. I wasn't quite sure of what your approach was going to be previously, but I don't have any concerns now that you've explained where you were going with it. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:57, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: the bulk of my most recent interactions with Thargor has been whether to include [164] in Single-payer health care, so given my recent [165] I suggest that administrators decide for themselves why we are graced with his presence today. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• And you'll note that, after nearly a year of asking you to use the item as a source, you did and I had no objection. This doesn't change the months of disruption throughout the articles listed, nor does even this proposal from Kingofaces45 assume that 100% of your contributions are without value. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - full disclosure, EllenCT and I have disagreed on articles relating to economics, some cited by Thargo Orlando, as well as two arbitrations I've witnessed here and here. There have been numerous instances of bad behavior I've witness or been on the receiving end of her activities. I had hoped she would take a little of the pushback to heart.Mattnad (talk) 12:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mattnad, similar to my comment above to Thargo Orlando, but could you provide specific diffs of where this behavior has been problematic and she has been warned against it in some form? In this section, I'd like to demonstrate she has been warned many times already for this behavior in general, but if other topics are going to be discussed more than that, probably better to start a new section. I didn't go looking in the economic topics on her behavior much, so additional history like that would demonstrate just giving her another warning wouldn't do much good. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Mattnad, was it you who said you had looked for years for secondary sources on the payback from education subsidies that it took me less than a day to find? Glad you could join us here too. EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that up again. Here's the dialog [166]. EllenCT misrepresented what I wrote (business as usual for her) and as you'll see, she was pushing a POV unsupported by the sources she provided. Typical.Mattnad (talk) 13:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose a topic-ban as a remedy for the conduct issues that are in evidence. Neutral - Based on review of the talk pages in question, I see a heated content dispute, and that EllenCT does engage in personal attacks, but I don't see evidence of tendentious editing that can't be dealt with by dispute resolution. I would support a warning to Ellen that the next personal attack, including claims of whitewashing and claims of paid editing, will result in a block. A topic-ban doesn't seem to be the right remedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I proposed a topic ban because a warning did not seem like it would be effective (though it was my first preference for awhile early on). I demonstrated that she was warned multiple times in this topic, and other users have also mentioned this has been a problem. Five warnings from users cited in this topic followed by a statement specifically intending she plans to continue the behavior is what indicated to me the behavior was going beyond what even an admin warning would remedy. As for content disputes, the only area where dispute resolution would come into play are reliability of sources or the WP:COMPETENCE matters brought up previously on content. That is largely tangential in this discussion as it's the behavior that's in question here in the specific diffs I provided. The behavior I've described is described as tendentious on WP:TE primarily here [167], here [168], here, [169] and WP:GREATWRONGS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:34, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you. Could you please say why you think whitewashing and paid editing are descriptions of people instead of their behavior? EllenCT (talk) 19:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

They focus on contributors rather than content. Whitewashing is the act of the contributor of removing unfavorable content. The content issue would be one of undue weight or POV. Since there are strict rules about paid editing, the allegation of undisclosed paid editing is a personal attack. Discussing editorial behavior is still discussing the people doing the behavior rather than the resulting article. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If I say an article, paragraph, or sentence is whitewashed or paid for by interests conflicting with those of our readers' and someone asks by whom, where do I draw the line between accuracy and avoiding offense? EllenCT (talk) 23:18, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Exasperating. EllenCT what secret knowledge do you have that lets you "accurately" know there is COI at play? You don't say' it was whitewashed or paid for by interests! That is personal attack. You are here at ANI with a topic ban over your head and you still can't hear this. This is why I walked away from neonis and why kingofaces is a saint for hanging in there and remaining civil - the level of WP:IDHT is staggering. Jytdog (talk) 03:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Robert McClenon please try to imagine being on the other side of this. Would you please consider changing your !vote particularly in light of EllenCTs' response to you (not to mention the pile of difs that have been presented?) thank you. Jytdog (talk) 06:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the Bayer-funded source upon which our original dispute (and my original dispute with Kingofaces) was predicated is not whitewashed or paid for? I am fine discussing it as content instead of contributors, but I would like some guidance as to whether that extends to off-wiki authors who self-identify as being paid for by Bayer. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will explain this for the zillionth time. your response to Robert C is about content in a WP article - and content can only be added to WP by editors. If you say that WP content is whitewashed or paid-for, you are saying something about an editor - you are saying something about violations of NPOV or COI. When this comes up you always shift your ground to talk about the Bayer funding of a specific source, which is an issue of WP:INDY, and at that, a source that kingofaces has never actually used as a source in the article and only brought up as an example on Talk. This is so frustrating. Jytdog (talk) 14:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:EllenCT - By insisting on your right to yell about paid editing and whitewashing, when, as far as I can see, you don't have actual evidence other than the assumption of bad faith, you just lost one of the !votes. I don't think that a topic-ban on insecticides is the answer. Maybe a topic-ban on political topics is necessary (even if that is a de facto site ban). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain how it would be possible to raise a WP:COIN concern without engaging in personal attacks as you have described them? EllenCT (talk) 18:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. As someone with considerable experience at COIN, I would say you have a "safe harbor" as long as you abide by WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest. Basically that means polite accusations of COI are appropriate at user talk and COIN but generally not elsewhere. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will read that. I wish I had read it months ago. EllenCT (talk) 22:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I think EllenCT's repeated levying of unsubstantiated COI claims is sanctionable. She should knock it the hell off but seems to be an IDIDNTHEARTHAT zen master. Final warning should be given that a block will follow if she does that again. As far as the actual editing on the Neonicotinoid piece goes, I think that Ellen is right about inclusion the bird study and Kingofaces appears to be editing tendentiously. He should knock that the hell off. I don't think a topic ban is the answer here, but if I were an administrator (which I am not) I wouldn't hesitate for five seconds to give either one of these two a timely block if they don't knock it off. Close this thread with a stern final warning to each is my advice. Carrite (talk) 06:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 06:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Carrite this is not a content dispute. this is about a consistent pattern of behavior on the part of EllenCT. Wrt your comments about kingoface's judgement on the piece put out by the American Bird Conservancy...in my view this source is legitimately questionable - this is not a peer reviewed scientific study - it is an WP:SPS put out by an advocacy organization. I wouldn't use an SPS put out by anybody with any stake in the game - not the pesticide manufacturers and not an environmental group. But please don't treat this as a content dispute. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 06:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Your opinion on the Bird Conservancy is apparently not strong enough to share with RSN? EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I have not edited the neonic article since this ANI thread was opened. EllenCT (talk) 07:39, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose topic ban. I have no familiarity with the topic or most of the editors, including EllenCT. I'm opposing because I can't see that a case has been made for a topic ban. Several of the presented diffs seem unproblematic. Ellen seems to have a concern that there are COI issues, with respect to sources and contributors (particularly Kingofaces43). I looked at Talk:Neonicotinoid, and couldn't see anything ban-worthy there, but I did see that, when Ellen expressed concern that an involved party, Bayer, had funded one of the sources (a source presented as a literature review), Kingofaces43 replied: "Funding source is not relevant in assessing scientific studies ..." An effort should definitely be made to find independent sources for anything contentious. Perhaps some of the potential COI and sourcing issues could be raised at COIN and thrashed out there. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Kingofaces never tried to use the Bayer funded source. He just brought it up as an example on Talk and EllenCT grabbed onto that like a pitbull and has been all over KingoFaces ever since. I have been trying since June (at least, but please see the exchange at that link) to explain to EllenCT that it is a violation of WP:AGF and WP:NPA to continually make accusations of COI/paid advocacy against other editors on Talk pages and edit notes, and that INDY is different from COI/paid advocacy, but EllenCT persists in making accusations and conflating these concerns. She has displayed a lack of competence (or at least failure to read carefully) multiple times in the course of POV pushing (see here for example - she kept adding content and pushing on Talk, content based on open letters posted on the web by members of the British Beekeeping Association that protested Bayer payments to the BBA that had to do with endorsements for pyrethroids - not any neonics - but kept claiming they were about neonics until we finally got through to her). We cannot make progress with this continued disruptive behavior. It is maddening. Jytdog (talk) 14:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, regardless of the Bayer source, KingoFaces said that the funding of source material doesn't matter, but it clearly does.

WP:COI explains that there's such a thing as "apparent COI": "An apparent conflict of interest arises when P does not have a conflict of interest, but someone would be justified in thinking P does." An apparent COI can be as damaging as an actual COI, because it creates anxiety, and therefore ought to be resolved. (See Michael Davis, "Introduction," in Michael Davis and Andrew Stark (eds.), Conflict of Interest in the Professions, University of Oxford Press, 2001, p. 18.) Kingofaces, perhaps you could explain why you don't have a COI. Your user page says you're an entomologist who works with pesticides at a university, which obviously raises the question of industry funding, now or in future. It's the sort of thing that could be discussed at COIN, rather than here. It seems wrong to ask Ellen not to express concern about it before it has been resolved. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for replying SlimVirgin . EllenCT has raised the issue, and Kingofaces addressed it immediately, here (see last sentences) and his professional work is also described on his user page. EllenCT has continued to pursue it inappropriately -- even on this board and in my eyes this is hounding/harassment and a violation of AGF. But again it is her overall pattern of editing on these articles related to neonics namely Neonicotinoid and Colony collapse disorder in particular. I recommended to her way back in June that if she had concerns about Kingofaces having a COI that she should bring it to COIN or NPOV and instead she has persisted in making attacks in edit notes and Talk. It is part of her disruptive behavior. Jytdog (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

btw my analysis of how the bayer-funded source could be used is here. Jytdog (talk) 15:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog, the diff of Kingofaces addressing the COI issue doesn't show him addressing it (that I can see). I would suggest opening a COIN, starting from the AGF position that Kingofaces43 does not have an actual COI on those pages, but that someone would be justified in thinking that he does, and that it needs to be cleared up. It could be that Kingofaces and Ellen are interpreting COI differently, one narrowly, one broadly. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

User:SlimVirginI see two issues here that are related but separate. The first, as SlimVirgin says, is whether Kingofaces has a conflict of interest. That can be discussed at the conflict of interest noticeboard. As mentioned, an apparent conflict of interest can be problematical also. The second is EllenCT's I didn't hear that apparent insistence on her own right to state that edits are whitewashed and that editors are whitewashing, and to accuse editors of paid editing (something beyond COI). My own assessment, and I may be wrong, is that Ellen not only knows what the truth is, but also knows that anyone else who doesn't know that must be editing in bad faith. It is hard to identify real conflicts of interest when there is an editor who sees all edits with which she disagrees as paid edits or as whitewashes (rather than honest disagreements of opinion). Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin and Robert McClenon, Kingofaces43 just provided a very explicit description of his real life work on his Talk page here and updated the disclosure on his user page here. I remain somewhat disgusted that the initial two statements by Kingofaces (here (see last sentences) and on his user page were not taken on good faith. The disclosure it is now very explicit and on point. Jytdog (talk) 04:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin Above the dif, EllenCT wrote "Attempting to present this source as a literature review raises serious questions relative to bias, neutrality, and the insertion of paid advocacy in to Wikipedia articles" Kingofaces directly addressed that by writing "'I'd suggest backing down on the pitchfork mentality and trying to manufacture biases on my part. We address content here on Wikipedia, not beat around the bush by trying to assume a bias to an editor when the evidence doesn't suggest it. If you want to discuss my professional involvement in EAB or entomology in general (I worked with control methods where insecticide use wasn't an option), I suggest bringing it to my talk page rather than derailing the conversation here" EllenCT did NOT bring it to his Talk page and she did NOT bring it to COIN (null search here) and instead persisted in wielding the pitchfork. This is disruptive behavior. Someone could always bring it to COIN. I have not; I find his face value disclosures I linked to above to be sufficient. Jytdog (talk) 15:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That response didn't address the COI concern; it deflected it (perhaps rightly so, given the venue). Again, I suggest that someone (preferably Ellen or Kingofaces himself) open a COIN. If the COIN consensus is that Kingofaces doesn't have a COI in relation to those articles, then sanctions can be requested if Ellen continues to imply that he does. But first the discussion ought to take place, because the concern is based on the conjunction of Kingofaces' own description of his work and on his editing, rather than an editor simply assuming bad faith.

Again, what might be behind this is that Ellen and Kingofaces interpret the COI guideline, or the concept of COI, differently, so it would be worthwhile to have a discussion that applies common definitions and parameters. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I hear you and agree that somebody who cares could do that. The point of this thread is that EllenCT has a wider pattern of disruptive behavior. Harrassment over COI despite being advised to go the boards several times is part of that pattern. I know I am persisting but EllenCT's editing is incredibly frustrating and her behavior has not changed despite several editors' efforts asking her to change it. Jytdog (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Just yesterday I asked above about which specific discussions, other than those of neonicotinoids, you believe I have disrupted, and you answered: "that is a good call on the overgenerality of my statement; i meant 'neonic articles' and have edited my comment above to limit to that. thanks.... Jytdog (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2014 (UTC)" I believe I have edited two neonic-related articles. Now you say there is a "wider pattern". So which is it? And you say that I have been advised to "go to the boards several times." This ANI thread was started because I went to RSN, after Kingofaces had already been there without disclosing it on the article talk page. And I have been advising you and Kingofaces to go to WP:COIN if you have issues with my edits. I don't recall you or anyone else in the neonic topic area asking me to seek dispute resolution on either specifically appropriate noticeboard before demanding that I be banned here. So to which "several times" do you refer? EllenCT (talk) 18:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

"wider = your behavior is problematic in ways beyond your persistent accusations of COI. I am only supporting a site ban for neonics; others can make judgements about your behavior in other articles.

• Robert McClenon left you a long message on May 20 about being careful about COI/paid editing accusations on a different topic where your behavior was under discussion at Arbcom here. (The Workshop discussion of your behavior at arbcom is here)
• I advised you to back off the COI accusations here on June 11 (especially in light of the same issues coming up about you at Arbcom);
• you and I specifically discussed COIN/NPOVN here on June 14 (entire thread is in EllenCT's archive here), where i said "Continually bringing the accusation of COI in the course of discussions of content, is unproductive and ugly and bothers everybody that has to deal with it - that behavior will come back to bite you as well";
• Kingofaces told you COIN is for concerns about COI here on July 8. That is all I can find right now, but that is plenty.
• I also just found this ANI from last April where you hounded another editor with same convoluted accusations of COI/paid advocacy for bringing a source that you found tainted.

For pete's sake, when are you going to stop disrupting WP by conflating concerns about sources (per WP:INDY) with concerns about editors (per WP:COI)? I laid out the difference between them for you several times (here on june 30 and here on July 3 and here on july 7) yet you persist and persist and it is to the point where I can only interpret your continued blurring of the difference as willful wikilawyering to avoid NPA. You do this to win arguments to push your POV and it is just disruptive - the community should not tolerate it any longer.Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding to Slimvirgin's comments above, whether I have a COI is largely outside the scope of this ANI. What is within the scope is EllenCT's behavior we've bee dealing with. That being said I already stated I do not work with neonicotinoids as Jytdog covered well above. That is more than enough without additional evidence demonstrating a COI per WP:COI. I also do not receive funding from Bayer. I'm happy to discuss perceptions about academia and funding sources on my talk page (as I asked EllenCT to do), but actual evidence is needed for COIN. It's a stretch to insinuate COI because I work with insecticides, and Jytdog mentioned the additional posts I've made further outlining how I work with insecticides should have especially dispelled additional COI concerns. Either way, that's a talk page conversation if someone wants further clarification on what exactly I do before seeking out COI, and shouldn't be a distraction from the topic at hand. Even if I was a blatantly evil scientist paid by company X, that still wouldn't excuse EllenCT's behavior and way of handling things. Kingofaces43 (talk) 19:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

just want to step back here. I am self-aware that i am pursuing this pretty fiercely and that this may make me look like a crazy person in some people's eyes. ANIs about persistent disruptive behavior can sometimes be blatant and easy, and sometimes are more subtle and difficult. EllenCT is a civil POV-pusher and this is one of the difficult problematic editing behaviors that we deal with in WP - you can skim all you like and you will just miss the issues. Those who are making judgements, please take some time and carefully read. Trying to really engage with EllenCT has been maddening. It is almost impossible to reach a reasonable middle ground consensus - instead she plays to win and will shift the ground of her argument, throw convoluted questions at you that convolute our PAG and the issues at play, and will never make a concession - she just bails and then comes back later with more of the same. One just cannot make progress. I am sorry for forum-flooding but am trying to highlight the actual issues. EllenCT has actually been helping make the case as most of her posts here reflect her editing pattern very well. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

These personal attacks are absurd. The suggestion that I don't compromise is obviously false (e.g. [170]) and the personal attacks about "convoluted questions" reflect nothing more than the fact that Jytdog often refuses to answer questions which make him uncomfortable, which can be seen in this section above and at [171]. Being accused of bailing out and coming back later by someone who refuses to answer simple questions is ironic. EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

thanks for again helping make my point. Jytdog (talk) 21:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not at all convinced that Ellen is civil, for what it's worth. Examples: [172] [173]. Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If administrators truly believe that behavior breaches the standard of civility here, after the months of refusal to compromise on the National Academy of Medicine book which Thargor subjected me to, then please ping me. I am no longer inclined to think that contributing to this thread will improve the encyclopedia. EllenCT (talk) 21:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I haven't reviewed this particular article and talk, but I've had similar difficulties working with EllenCT and what I consider tendentious editing. Contention seems to follow. Morphh ^(talk) 01:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Thank you for withdrawing your statement that I am "the most contentious, deceptive and tendentious editor that I've ever had the displeasure of working with. While I appreciate her point of view...." I think it is important for people evaluating this discussion to see what I have had to go through, even if you realized a few hours after you wrote it what an absurd personal attack hyperbole it was. How many people formed an opinion about me in those hours? EllenCT (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't intend it as a personal attack, but as my experience with your editing and communication behavior. It also wasn't hyperbole - you are the most difficult editor that I've ever worked with and I think you cause more harm than good for the encyclopedia. But it was aggressive and perhaps hurtful, so for that, I'm sorry. It's unfortunate because I think you're knowledgeable and a good researcher. So much more would get done if you worked better with other editors. Morphh ^(talk) 12:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you find it difficult to work with me because I insist on reliable secondary mainstream academic journal sources in articles on topics where you would prefer fringe anarcho-libertarian views be more prominently represented so that you can push a point of view supporting radically regressive flat consumption taxes? EllenCT (talk) 13:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No - I find you difficult as demonstrated by your attack asserting bad faith and trying to misrepresent my views and concerns. Morphh ^(talk) 14:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you understand why I thought you might? It's not bad faith if you truly believe that there is some good reason that a flat consumption tax would be superior to the alternatives, and there is certainly plenty of material out there trying to convince people that it is, including a few Nobel prize winners, and no shortage of politicians who stump on it regularly. But in the peer reviewed secondary literature, it's a very far cry from any of the top economics policy proposals, and it's a far cry from the status quo. EllenCT (talk) 18:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not really as I think I've been very direct and clear when describing my issues, which were primarily syn and scope. My viewpoint, though irrelevant, is that different tax structures have pros and cons - it depends on the situation, where and how it is levied. Similarly when looking at the status quo, good or bad, every state in the U.S. has a consumption tax, often several. Morphh ^(talk) 21:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Change to (as ANI poster): Strongly support topic ban. I started this ANI in a position where I was open to ideas to stop EllenCT's behavior other than my suggestion, but examples from other users and her continued behavior on this very board whittled down my good faith in the matter even further. I have all my original diffs in the original posting, which I ask others to really read if you only skimmed the article talk pages as disruptive editing, "is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia." By nature with this kind of editing, one cannot just look at one or two edits and call it actionable or see it by skimming, but I would hope what others have referred to as a massive pile of diffs demonstrates the ongoing issues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As a follow up, no one has mentioned this yet, but an additional one-way interaction ban for EllenCT with me could be justified given that I haven't been pursuing her inappropriately for anything. This doesn't address many of the other article or behavior concerns brought up by me or other folks, so I'd look for a topic ban regardless, and consider an interaction ban secondarily as an addition. EllenCT appears to edit primarily political/economic topics, which I stay out of like the plague, so there wouldn't be any concerns with her not being able to edit in her favorite areas and I wouldn't be showing up in topics where she would need to leave. I bring this up as recently at my talk page [174], she has stated she likely intends to continue pursuit of COI depending on the results here (and thankfully stopped for now when reminded the ANI was ongoing). I'm happy to address COI concerns in the proper manner, but her recent post does show this could be difficult for her to do properly (although not impossible). Basically, it appears caution is needed in this area. As far as the likelihood of an interaction ban goes, I'd be content with an official warning that even one slip up specifically related to me would result in the ban. I'm not looking for community support on this additional ban, but mainly to note it could be a potential future idea if sanctions need to ratcheted up at all. The topic ban seems to have good support, so I'd be in favor of going with that with additional strong warnings for additional ratcheting if the behavior continues. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The fact that you're discussing both topic and interaction bans in the same breath makes it appear that you are looking for punishment of the person rather than prevention of whatever behavior you feel is counterproductive. I suggest you withdraw this thread and chill out. See how it goes. You can always come back if there's a clear policy-based issue in the future. There doesn't seem to be one currently. SPECIFICO talk 00:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've been quite calm and rather civil this entire time (and apparently more so than to be expected according to some editors), not to mention following the policy WP:CIVIL. I specifically stated that an interaction ban is something that could have been considered, but was not something I was looking to pursue at this time. There are a myriad of issues based on behavior here, so there are different ways things could be handled. I was specifying that I thought a topic ban seems like a good course of action for the time being. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just an additional note to specify I actually changed my position during the course of this ANI by now strongly supporting a topic ban. There seemed to potentially be confusion from other editors that I was piling on by separately posting my support, but instead I wanted to just make sure to point out I re-posted my support because I went from being open to other ideas to being convinced a topic ban is in order (even after trying to continue working in good faith with EllenCT on these issues). The continued WP:IDHT on this board from her that even in my last interaction [175] has pretty much convinced me that the behavior is only going to continue to be a time sink at the Neonicotinoid article especially. I've also decided not to further directly engage EllenCT at this ANI because trying to address that IDHT behavior has only resulted in the appearance of fervency on my part by some editors. I'll still post on any clarifications users might want, but this is to hopefully avoid the misconception that I have some vendetta against EllenCT and keep the focus on how we deal with this disruptive behavior. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose of any sanctions on EllenCT. Unlike many of the supports up above, I am fully familiar with how she has been mercilessly harassed, reverted, attacked, and targeted by several active editors in the aforementioned topic area. Her responses indicate her frustration with being baited, with being treated terribly, and with having simple edits reverted without any good reason. Many of the above editors making a "case" against her have had very problematic editing histories in regards to this topic area, and I myself have asked the same questions about COI as has EllenCT. These editors engage in classic civil POV pushing, using the noticeboards only to silence their opponents, often with trumped up claims of "incivlity" based on out of context diffs that seem to show EllenCT in a bad light because they don't show the entire context of the overall dispute. Because the community as a whole is completely unwilling to deal with editors engaged in civil POV pushing (many of whom happen to be EllenCT's accusers) it is unfair to target editors like EllenCT when she attempts to deal with civil POV pushers. Instead of sanctions, EllenCT should be awarded a barnstar for treading into dark waters where the community refuses to go. If EllenCT feels strongly about her position, she should pursue serious dispute resolution matters, and perhaps strike up a discussion with other editors to see what her options are and where she can best get a fair and reasonable outcome for her concerns. Viriditas (talk) 00:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just a note that Viriditas is an involved editor on the articles in question and particularly with me in these sections over primarily content dispute and reliable sources in scientific topics: [176] [177] [178]. Not particularly relevant to the ANI at hand, but those would give readers an idea of what some of the background is at the article. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Support limited broad topic ban and with a warning that personal attacks in future would result in broader sanctions. I oppose draconian solutions as a rule, but the limited sanction seems warranted. Collect (talk) 00:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC) (Change made in response to extended colloquy below from EllenCT below wherein she demonstrates an extremely strong sense of aggression against other editors) Collect (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Note: Collect has not disclosed our very heated prior involvement with each other. I ask that he do so because I would prefer that I not take the risk of mischaracterizing it. I further invite him to address specific content and actions which he feels supports his preference. EllenCT (talk) 01:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I do not recall ever making any intemperate remarks to you or about you in any venue. Period. I would further note my position here is one of a very limited sanction to be placed on you, and for which ample evidence has been educed, and for which you well ought to be grateful for its moderate nature. Is there a reason why you think attacking others who have actually voiced moderate opinions is going to impress anyone? It is, alas, evidence of your own view that all Wikipages are or ought to be "war zones" <g>. I would suggest the "heat" was always on your side, and I do not recall making any "heated comment" to you, about you, or regarding you in any venue. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The only "interaction" I can find instantly is at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American_politics/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Collect with my comment to EllenCt "I have not the foggiest idea of the relevance of your aside". If that qualifies as "heated" in any way, I am a tad surprised. I rather thought my tone in that entire exercise was moderate. Collect (talk) 12:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you recall our discussion about the respect afforded to active-duty soldiers? EllenCT (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No - I doubt it reached the level you appear to ascribe to it as I can not find any such discussion between us using the Wikipedia search function. . On American Politics and Austrian Economics, you had disputes with several editors, none of which was remotely "heated" and certainly not in any sense related to my position here. I have never kept any list of people whom I "oppose" at AN/I. Are you confusing me with another editor? In which case, you rapidly approach the point where I would favour a stronger sanction here, rather than the weak sanction I currently support. Collect (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ellen, something I've noticed from my brief involvement here is that you tend to allude to issues indirectly, or ask questions, rather than plainly stating the case. I think that may be part of what is causing the sense of frustration. For example, with this exchange with Collect, if you'd like to discuss an earlier interaction, the best thing is to post a link to it, or a description if you can't find the link. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember the exchange clearly, and I remember where it took place. I have no desire to dig it up unless whomever closes this discussion suggests that it may have some bearing on the outcome. It was on a topic almost completely unrelated to any other topics discussed here. I have no desire to amplify my anger at what was most probably an offhand comment. Collect's additional link above is sufficient to document that his initial opinion was offered without disclosure of our prior involvement with each other. EllenCT (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Huh? The pages I found show nothing remotely near a heated confrontation - and my words to you have invariably been quite moderate. AFAICT we had no "prior involvement" of any weight whatsoever, and I am rather perturbed by your cavalier attitude about making attacks on other editors. Might I suggest you apologize for your assertions that we had any heated arguments? You appear to recall something which did not occur. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

diff. EllenCT (talk) 20:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And note the edit summary there which quite civilly pointed out my talk page post about a Wikistrike - per break message - editor has had time to read reply) is a normal type of post where I indicated that I was not actively working on the project. Your post [179] shows you taking umbrage at a comment of mine but shows no evidence whatsoever that I acted heatedly about you in any way whatsoever.

(Your words: I am extremely offended by your implication that US violations of the Geneva Conventions and reporting on them is a laughing matter. Shame on you! EllenCT (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

My words to which you took extreme umbrage and which were in no ways were aimed at you personally:[180] As in the "Izzy Award" and "Right Livelihood Award"? Each appears to be far less about "journalism" than about political stances. And neither was for "reporting" as far as I can tell, but far more for her tenacious focus on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. violations of the Geneva conventions, racial justice issues such as the still-displaced poor of New Orleans, and political repression overseas. Sorry -- it fails the laugh test. Reading that as a personal attack on you is iffy, and the context is clear here that the source under discussion at RS/N and about which the discussion revolved has absolutely nothing to do with your anger that I wish to kill US servicemen or the like. In fact, alas, it makes me think you deliberately seek out attacks on other editors where there is no basis for taking umbrage at their proper posts on the proper noticeboards dealing exactly and properly with the topics being discussed at such noticeboards.

A post from a third party on UT:EllenCT: [181] Hello, EllenCT. I've seen hundreds of edits made by Collect over the past few years. I can assure you that he believes in the rule of law, including the Geneva Conventions. When I read his comment "it fails the laugh test", I wasn't exactly sure what "it" was referring to. I sort of thought he either meant Democracy Now! as a reliable source or the awards given to Amy Goodman. I did not think he was referring to violations of the Geneva Conventions by US military personnel. No one in his right mind, and that includes Collect, would think such violations are a laughing matter. Collect is under duress at the moment—he and several other innocent bystanders are about to be barred from editing the Tea Party movement article for six months, without a shred of evidence being presented against them. So, he has gone on strike in protest. Thanks for listening and thanks to your family members who are serving in the armed forces of this great country.

I am therefore now supporting a broad topic ban for you -- you seem to be so anxious to have arguments that it is likely time you saw the results of your verbal animosity. Cheers - you rather seem to have brought this change on yourself. Collect (talk) 23:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried to avoid bringing up the discussion, but after you claimed it did not exist twice, and that you were so offended that I would make such a thing up, when I provided no more than a single diff link proving you wrong, you blew your top and decided that you wanted to strengthen your vote against me? What would you have done if I had not provided that diff link? Why didn't you copy your boldfacing "U.S. violations of the Geneva conventions" from your original quote? EllenCT (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You asserted a "very heated prior involvement." There was no such "heat" whatsoever on my part, and I regarded it as of minimal importance in the grand scheme of things (two posts out of 36K edits is not weighing too heavily in my opinion). You are the only one asserting "heated" and I suggest any outsider reading the few posts we have ever exchanged would agree with my position here. Further, you now seem intent on deliberately aggravating a total non-issue which, frankly, fails to impress me much at all. I made no intemperate comments to you at all in what you assert was so very heated that I must be evincing some bias against you. I hold no such biases, the incident, to which you assign massive weight, was trivial in nature, and right now you seem to be doing your very best to display an argumentative nature which is incompatible with being a reasonable editor. I suggest you have a very large cup of tea at this point, and consider striking your accusations here. Collect (talk) 11:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment EllenCT, is someone I have had only limited interaction with, whilst I would happily describe her as someone who sometimes goes into a discussion with 'all guns blazing', EllenCT has never in my experience acted disruptively, rudely, or not been susceptible to rational argument. I have NOT read this entire post, and so am merely offering my personal experience, which HAS mainly been in the area of US politics. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I see that Ellen went to Kingofaces' talk page (permalink), as he suggested, to discuss COIN, and was treated fairly aggressively. Kingofaces, I think the question of (roughly) what position you hold in a university is a valid one. The phrase "working in a university" could mean anything, so clarifying that you're on staff as an academic would be helpful. Also, to address your point that you don't work with neonicotinoids, the question is to what extent (if any) you work with the industry that produces them.

  We do want subject-matter experts to contribute to articles, but with expertise comes the problem of conflicted roles and relationships. At the most positive end of the spectrum, we want experts on the poetry of Dylan Thomas to write about that on Wikipedia. At the most negative end, we don't want employees of pharmaceutical companies writing about the drugs they produce. When dealing with an apparent COI in a subject-matter expert, the question is where on that spectrum the expert lies, and we're forced to attempt to determine that without violating OUTING or making the editor in question feel very uncomfortable. These are contradictory aims, which is why everyone ends up feeling frustrated. Sorry to sound like a broken record, but you or Ellen need to open a COIN, where people have more experience of treading carefully around these issues. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There's a bit more context there. First, I'll remind you again that whether I have a COI or not is not the topic of this ANI. As I said before, even if I was a blatantly evil scientist paid or supported by company X (all the way at the negative end of your COI spectrum), that still wouldn't excuse EllenCT's behavior and way of handling things in regards to a COI concern, or other behavior issues brought up here. On my talk page, I specifically stated my patience wore thin when I asked her to talk there long ago (which is what the suggestion comment actually refers to), warned her multiple times, and finally brought her here to ANI. Coming to my talk page and wanting to go straight to COIN without even attempting to actually discuss the issue (and more of the Additional Notes at WP:COIN) is evidence of further WP:HOUNDING, especially at the height of this ANI. Trying to push ahead with accusations without discussion is what got her here in the first place in part. That is why I told her to back off as my comments on my talk page were based primarily on her inability to step back for just even a moment while her behavior is the subject of an ANI. As I've stated before, I think it seems EllenCT would have a very difficult (though not impossible) time pursuing COI concerns in good faith at this point.

I've gone above and beyond of WP:COI at this point to dispell even a reasonable apparent COI concern as pointed out to you earlier here by Jytdog [182], and all that happens is each time I'm more specific, someone looks for even more nuanced COI. Do you see the trend here? That is not assuming good faith. This section of WP:COI is very clear on how to handle COI concerns, and edits I have made where I have been accused of COI have been firmly based in citable WP:RS and WP:NPOV. That should have halted the COI accusations long ago per WP:COI. If all someone wants to do is go into a fishing expedition for COI on my part, that is not a subject for this posting, nor is it a subject for COIN in the state of speculation you are proposing either. At this point, WP:AGF should still be in play, and I've bent over backwards to satisfy claims anyways. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Kingofaces, it's a misunderstanding to argue that the person who opens an AN/I discussion controls what it's about; if the discussion turns to COI, that's what it's about. Also, insisting that Ellen discuss things further on your talk is not a good idea. Jytdog has offered to help Ellen draft a COIN discussion. That would be a good way forward. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin I pointed you to it above, and you have apparently looked yourself now, and you have seen the very explicit self-description that Kingofaces has provided. I am sorry to say this, but for you to still call for a COIN posting at this point is - to me - explicitly calling Kingofaces a liar which to me is a clear violation of WP:AGF. At this point I will suggest that you make the COIN posting yourself and run the risk of boomerang. (I am about to go withdraw my offer to help EllenCT post at COIN - I made that offer before Kingofaces made his explicit disclosure and should have withdrawn it sooner) Jytdog (talk) 18:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, you and Kingofaces43 are being too aggressive about this, and it's making you look as though you're in the wrong (whether you are or not). SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin thanks for the feedback; I am aware that I am pushing hard and how that might look. I will respond on your talk page. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thoroughness can easily be confused for aggressiveness, but definitely should not be mistaken as such when I am directly responding to people about myself. I post a lot because there is a lot that has transpired (which lead to my first post being so long in the first place). I'll just end the conversation with you here by saying your comments lately have only antagonized the situation. We don't need that at an ANI especially, so please step back from your current pursuit and look at why I posted here in the first place (namely for ongoing behavior issues by EllenCT). I've been quite patient in the whole ordeal, and I've had no horse in this specific race involving you aside from dispelling some the very aspersions you were making towards me. It should be very clear I was tired of that from EllenCT already, so please stop. That is all.Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support This editor seems to just create a toxic atmosphere. If the thing that makes such a toxic atmosphere is BLP articles, ban the editor. We need an encyclopedia, not this hate. Op47 (talk) 17:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Which BLP edits are you talking about? These are my most recent: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], and [192] all of which have withstood long-term scrutiny. Yes, that's a lot of diffs, but I take spurious accusations about BLP editing very seriously. EllenCT (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I wonder whether Op47 meant to post in a different thread. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ditto. Jytdog (talk) 20:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I have not been part of this particular discussion, and have only edited the articles under discussion here in a relatively casual and occassional way. But I would like to express my concern here with the way COI accusations are sometimes used to bully, intimidate, and discredit anyone expressing a point of view that is to the right of Occupy Wall Street. It's crappy behavior, and speaks to a narcisstic inability to believe disagreeing with one's own views is compatible with being thoughtful, intelligent, and sincere. It violates and degrades any sense of common purpose among editors and generally creates an atmosphere of distrust.

I think we need to put an end to the "are you now or have you ever been a corporate employee" discussion. And I'll say flat out here, that I am a former pharmaceutical employee, and I think that my edits have been as valuable, unbiased and to the point as any editor here, certainly far more so than some who see Wikipedia as a platform for pointing out the evils of capitalism. Lets stick to discussing the issues, and when necessary actual behavior. Thought police we don't need. Formerly 98 (talk) 18:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree, although I haven't seen any COI accusations against pharma industry employees. I haven't experienced any problems with them on or off-wiki. I strongly believe that pharma R&D needs to be buttressed from the privatization and consolidation of recent decades which has seriously harmed the pace of drug development. I have edited on the topic, but not very extensively. EllenCT (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT you do know that Bayer gets most of its revenue from its pharma activities, don't you? Jytdog (talk) 21:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but I don't consider Bayer employees who work in pesticides instead of pharmaceuticals to be pharma employees. Calling an apparent advocacy paper which says in black and white that it was paid for by a company "paid advocacy" (which I believe is correct) is not the same as calling someone who wants to use it a paid advocate, even if that person wants to delete an opposing reliable review consistent with the MEDRS sources. However, I agree with the suggestions that it reaches the threshold where someone should report it to COIN. WP:COI#How to handle conflicts of interest says "The appropriate forum for concerns about sources is WP:RSN." Which is exactly how this thread got started. EllenCT (talk) 22:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• It is 100% incorrect to call a source "paid advocacy" in Wikipedia - that is NOT what the term means in Wikipedia, as I have told you a zillion times. If you search WP:COI for "paid advocacy" you will see exactly what the term means: "Paid advocacy is a category of COI editing that involves receiving financial compensation from a person or organization to use Wikipedia to promote the interests of that person or organization." -- "Paid advocacy" is something editors do.
• And on top of that you have accused Kingofaces of having a COI - you even pursued that further on his talk page, asking him for more information about his professional life even after he made a disclosure. ARGH
• But I am glad that you finally went and read WP:COI - with respect to the sentence you quote about bringing concerns to the appropriate forum -- I wrote it (the section has of course been edited by others so it now looks like this). I have been trying to tell you for months now to bring your concern to the appropriate forum instead of making accusations on Talk and in edit notes.
• Why does this thread exist? The reason this thread got started is because despite being warned many times by me and others, you have never brought your concerns to the appropriate forum and instead have kept inappropriately making accusations against editors having a COI or being paid advocates on Talk and in edit notes and have generally been disruptive. Even here your lack of competence in WP:PAG, combined with the certainty which you are making claims and resisting listening, is making me pull my hair out. You have just been stone deaf to hearing what you have been doing wrong. And now you are here. That is why. Jytdog (talk) 23:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

"Advocacy" can mean both the act of advocating and the textual results of that act, as in "advocacy journalism" when referring to specific text. What do you prefer that I call text which is intentionally biased towards achieving some particular goal, in exchange for money? EllenCT (talk) 03:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for asking a simple, direct, authentic question. I can answer that. Please read this carefully and please actually read the links I have made in what follows. Please. You are speaking in general terms, as though you were not working and writing in the specific context of WP. It is not about what "I prefer", it is how language works here. There are technical terms here - some terms have specific meanings, and when you say them you are actually communicating a specific message to other editors. "Paid editing" and "paid advocacy" and "COI" are words about editors here in WP, all defined in the guideline WP:COI and several essays you can find at COI. "Advocacy" also has meaning here as defined in the important essay WP:ADVOCACY. If you want to question a source within the norms of WP, you do it from the basis of the relevant policy or guideline WP:PAG. If you have concerns about a source, the relevant policy pages are WP:VERIFY and WP:NPOV (search for the word "bias"); relevant guidelines include WP:RS (see WP:BIASED) and WP:MEDRS; relevant essays include WP:INDY. Essays are less solid grounding as they don't have as much consensus of the community; nonetheless the closest grounding for the kinds of concerns you have been raising is WP:INDY WP:BIASED is also relevant but is so short that it is not that useful. More generally, you should never make the kind of strong and persistent claims you have been making without solid grounding in PAG. This is why I keep saying you are not competent - you have no idea what the relevant policies and guidelines are, nor what they actually say, and don't understand how PAG grounds the community - literally grounds it - PAG provides the foundation for rational discussion - PAG are norms that the community has developed over time to help us govern ourselves and work things out rationally. Without them, this place would be a wild west - but it is not. It is a community with norms as expressed in PAG. I keep saying you are not listening (see WP:IDHT and WP:TENDENTIOUS) because you will not listen to the explanations of PAG that I and others have tried to provide you many, many times, nor have you even gone read the relevant policy and guidelines that I and others have provided to you many many times, but instead you persist and persist in accusations and disruptive behavior grounded in nothing but your own ideas about things. Your behavior has been frustrating as hell which is why I have pushed so hard in this ANI to just topic ban you - you will not function within the norms of the community nor even acknowledge those norms exist.. so I have come to the conclusion that it is time to throw you out, at least from the topic where I have direct experience of your behavior. That's it. I hope you read all that carefully and read the links - I am always hopeful that people can wake up and learn. If you can show that you really understand what you have been doing wrong and change your behavior I will back off in a heartbeat. Jytdog (talk) 13:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

EllenCT, are you really just trying to say you're just reading that part of WP:COI now after all the times we've been trying to help you understand COI on Wikipedia and pointed you to the guideline on the article talk page, user talk pages, and here? We've been trying to help you this whole time at the article, so that comment is not helping you as WP:IDHT is one of the main reasons you are here. This is again advice from the very editor who posted this ANI about you not to make your situation worse, so if you're going to hear anything, at least realize why this very behavior is problematic.

Also, RSN is not a replacement for the article talk page (even when you are assuming bad faith as you specifically stated), but a supplement after discussion has begun when needed in our specific case (or for broad questions not pertaining to a particular article as examples). That is why this thread got started (among all the other issues like assuming bad faith I originally outlined). The issues involving the RSN have already been rehashed here already, especially in the original post, so I'm not going to repeat what actually happened there. Please don't misattribute things that have already been outlined rather in-depth. The level of WP:IDHT is only getting worse even after all the good faith attempts to help you with it over time, so I don't plan to directly engage you any further at this ANI. I still will clarify to other users what actually brought me to post this ANI if needed, but I am done engaging you directly until this ANI is finished. I'll let the community and reviewing admin(s) do the engaging at this point. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - per Slim Virgin, SPECIFICO and Viriditas. I am unfamiliar with the articles and with EllenCT, but I feel the case against her here has not only not been made, per the cited editors, but that those repeatedly posting so fervently in favor of sanctions appear in my view to give her statements considerable weight. Suggest we speedily close this. Jusdafax 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

yes it is difficult to get people to actually pay attention to the issues in a case like this. i acknowledge that i pushing hard to encourage people who !vote to do so with care. Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Jusdafax, I agree that the level of involvement can appear fervent as I have been posting a lot here, but that is a symptom of the level of engagement needed to interact with EllenCT to try to get even basic points across rather than any personal vendetta. That is one of the very reasons I brought this here. Trying to work with an editor to actively attempt to remedy repeated behavior like this shouldn't be mistaken for fervency, but I can definitely see how it can be. The level of WP:IDHT with the user has resulted in many conversations and points being repeated again and again. This [193] summarizes how we've actually been trying to work with EllenCT repeatedly pretty well (also seen throughout this conversation). The overarching reason I proposed a topic ban was because the IDHT behavior requires so much attention to continuously address that it is distracting so much from the goal of actually proposing and editing content. In that regard WP:COMPETENCE states, "Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly—but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable time frame, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent." I felt like I reached that point with this editor many times because of the sheer effort required to engage her towards a semi-coherent discussion. If fervency is one of the main aspects of your opposition, I would ask that you weight how dealing with this tendentious behavior in a good faith manner to the degree we've pursued itself can appear fervent if you review your decision. There's a pretty clear narrative if you follow the diffs in succession (just in case you only skimmed a couple diffs). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose sanctions on this user. I simply do not see any basis for a topic ban. Coretheapple (talk) 00:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

respectfully, {u|Coretheapple|Core]], EllenCT's behavior has been maddening. I have a hard time believing that you carefully reviewed the background and links provided to come up with "cannot see any basis".... I can understand disagreeing about the remedy, but there are legitimate problem with EllenCT's behavior. Can you see that? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I just didn't see any problem in the diffs provided. For example, to pick a diff at random, at the very top the complainant says "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 [194]" So I go to the diff and I do not see any "hounding" or "assuming bad faith." I see a routine edit. I'm not referring to the substance of her edit, whether she was right or wrong, but to the behavior exhibited in the diff provided. Coretheapple (talk) 14:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much discussing. So the complaint here is a pattern of behavior, and one dif is not useful with respect to a pattern. In that particular dif, EllenCT was edit warring by re-inserting the american bird conservatory study source and content based on it, and in her edit note, claiming that source is "A WP:SECONDARY book reference by a scientific society meets WP:MEDRS". The source is SPS and its validity as a source was under discussion on the Talk page per WP:BRD. EllenCT does not grasp our policies and guidelines and that lack of competence, in the context of strong assertions she makes, and in that dif, even edit warring, is maddening. Really crazy making. Another example - please see Talk:Neonicotinoid#Undiscussed_replacement_of_COI_paid_advocacy where EllenCT went off on Gandydancer for a legitimate edit and in a way that is just incomprehensible (except that EllenCT was unhappy with the edit). Really frustrating - really hard to have productive conversations to arrive at consensus on content and sources. Thanks again for talking. Jytdog (talk) 15:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

For some additional specification, the diff picked was the edit that resulted in the content dispute that EllenCT handled very poorly. The next bullet demonstrates the talk page conversation that (eventually) resulted where she states her reasoning for skipping any talk page discussion and going straight to RSN as "Is it an assumption of bad faith on my part that interaction has colored my opinion of your neutrality?". Refusing to even discuss an edit because of assuming bad faith is pretty blatant there, and the hounding is with respect to the continued inappropriate accusations of having a COI, etc. listed earlier. If there's more I can specify Coretheapple, feel free to ask. I'm well aware there is a lot going on in the diffs I presented, but that I one of the very problems with this editor I wanted to address. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:34, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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)[195][196], urged people to "do some research" on me[197], 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."[198]. The user has been following me to various noticeboards and a few article talk pages[199] to cast aspersions for more than a year and repeatedly posted at my talk page after I banned him.[200].

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)

Later Note: Sitush has made threat(s) which resulted in an indefinite block and are discussed at ANI: Request review of block of Sitush. The actual text of the threats have been redacted and only partial and unofficial summaries shared by users. Sitush made the threat(s) within hours of angrily denouncing me for thinking that we were discussing a voluntary two-way interaction ban at this ANI(starting at “Indents are weird”). He earlier had written on his talk page “She wants me to avoid her because that would suit her: she "wins" because I'm censored regarding her interests and she has no interest in mine.”[201] Given his attitude that editing is about "winners and losers", I really must ask the closing admin to review the redacted comments to see if they are one more indication that a two-way interaction ban should be imposed. (There are three comments starting at 20:11, September 20, 2014‎ User talk: Sitush) Sitush now has been unblocked in only 24 hours [Later removal as actual unblocker identified and some explanation addedwithout a shred of explanation from the closing administrator, User:Nyttend. I can't rely on others' opinions that Sitush will not continue editing. And thus I must worry he will continuing his harassment of me. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol - remember how I told you to stay far, far away from the drama there? And how it seemed like you were soaking this stuff up and feeding on it? This post is a prime prime example of you seemingly grave dancing and playing the victim. Grow up. Aren't there better things for you to focus on at the moment considering that there's no sight of Sitush and you can work unimpeded at the moment? You focusing on this and seemingly providing these "updates" rather than working on editorial content and such is, well - concerning. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 03:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As I understand it, and from all appearances, Sitush made the threatening remark towards Demiurge. There is no reason to believe it was directed at Carol.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:01, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, please review what happened down below. Someone else unblocked him, so I closed the section because further discussion was moot. I shouldn't need to explain myself, because all I did was procedural, just like the bot that closes lots of WP:FFD discussions for images that got deleted by human admins. Nyttend (talk) 04:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for confusion. I see there is a sort of explanation now. So I struck both comments. I personally don't care if he continues to edit, I just don't want him harassing me any more. Hopefully that goal will be accomplished one way or the other. Meanwhile I'll be pursuing other means to make sure the comment could not have been interpreted as being about me, since a girl can't be too careful. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:44, 22 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)

• Since it seems Carol can support this I will support this if the "community" rejects the one-way interaction ban. It is better than nothing.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose per Tarc and The Devil's Advocate. Just three days ago Sitush called CMDC a prat at GGTF.[202] 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)

• Support. This needs to stop. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:30, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Far, far too much bad blood already, and this seems to be the simplest solution, if it is implemented. Carol is not innocent, but Sitush could certainly have been a little more circumspect, and starting a Bio at such a time was a bad decisiom. We all make made decisions, though, so nip it in the bud with an IBAN. Vanamonde93 (talk) 22:49, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support I struck my oppose opinion above, these two editors clearly do not get along. I see evidence of disruption, and feel that it would be beneficial to have this ban in place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:51, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Only a two way ban. I don't yet have criteria for a 1-way ban, but this wouldn't meet them if I did.--v/r - TP 03:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support A interaction ban from now to Christmas looks good enough to calm down emotions. Both parties are less than friendly towards each other. Birthday party invitations look out of the question. Keep them separated is enough in my opinion. A lock down of the draft article, including withdrawal of the MfD, for the same period, would be good. The Banner talk 14:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any imposed sanction on Sitush, in that implies sanctionable misconduct. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:46, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. IBAN has destructive side apparently ignored/unseen/unappreciated by the imposers. It becomes an effective roving topic ban which isn't healthy or even consistent for best ideas in discussions impacting articles to be brought forward and heard. (For a sore throat the solution isn't surgical removal of the throat.) But the mob loves participation to be judge-jury when inconvenienced over any consideration re resultant health of articles, since that is more immediately rewarding emotionally and makes one feel "involved" and "contributing". Blech. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 23:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ihardlythinkso: the concern you bring up is a valid one, but it seems to me that you are pointing out the flaws in this plan without providing an alternative. I don't think there are very many people here who believe an IBAN to be ideal; it does not address the source of the trouble, for one. But it seems the least among evils; if you believe otherwise, shouldn't you provide an alternative? Vanamonde93 (talk) 03:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Vanamonde93, don't get me started! 1st, your Q is (unintentionally) a trick Q since it presupposes action must be taken, just what kind. (I question that.) 2nd, the purpose of IBAN according to policy is to stop interactions between two users that are "disrupting the work of others". (I don't see any such claim here. I see only "I'm being harassed!" and "She's being harassed!" claims. That's a different policy, not IBAN. And if harassment is the case as deemed by any admin, then they can do some work and warn or revert and/or block as they see fit, w/o the destructive and draconian IBAN.) 3rd, as much as I don't usually agree with admin Chillum, he asked a worthwhile Q above that has not received any attention or discussion. (There is night & day difference between an indefinite [permanent] IBAN versus having a fixed duration.) For those looking for simplicity in solutions, adding a fixed duration to any IBAN makes it at least less objectionable in my view. 4th, for less simple solution (and outside the scope of venue here), I think the entire administration/enforcement system through admins and current policies s/b be scrapped in favor of whatever replacement system the top 10–12 content contributors elected by the community would come up with. (Which would by definition be a more progressive and healthy structure for the future of the encyclopedia. Why? They already know what the problems are and what the solutions are, and what is best for the development & maintenance of the encyclopedia. And they are too intelligent to get into unproductive scraps. They have already invested so much of themselves into the encyclopedia, they couldn't be destructive to it in any possible way. Such a beehive of intelligence/experience would work things out. But that amazing resource goes untapped in favor of the current archaic, mob-rule, inconsistent and even abusive admin system. [Go figure.]) Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:47, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the disruption is fairly clear; two major contributors cannot get into a brawl without collateral damage across the 'pedia. Visit GGTF, for starters, or even here, where people from either "side" have been sucked into the dispute. I agree that currently the admins have less accountability than they should; but otherwise, I feel like you are barking up the wrong tree. What you call mob-like behavior is, IMO, the (fair) price to be paid for having a relatively democratic governing structure, where anybody who makes a policy bound argument will usually be taken seriously. Far better than a cabal. If that is not really the case here, it only speaks to the magnitude of the collateral damage. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:20, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support I held off judgement for a long time to see if the various actors would commit to moving in non-disruptive directions, but that hasn't happened, and it doesn't look like it's going to happen in the future voluntarily. Even if this was day one and we set aside all previous history, we would still have editors openly making plans for future metaphorical knife-fights. An IBAN shouldn't be punitive, it should be preventative. I see no other proposal but this on the table that is seeking to prevent further, easily predictable disruption to the project. Some of the earlier opposes were based on the idea that CMDCC shouldn't be sanctioned, but it looks like she now has volunteered for it. I don't think this continuing crusade is a healthy thing for Sitush, as an editor or as a person, no matter how much he may think it's justified. He seems to think he's the fire alarm to CMDCC's fire, without noticing how disruptive it would be to have a fire alarm that actively fed fires. These are flawed and easily provoked editors, and they are both wrong about things. The question is how to best avoid the obvious divisiveness in the future. No one has made a convincing argument that any voluntary disengagement is ever likely, let alone imminent; I've only seen arguments that the other side is wrong and should be stopped by all means. It is a kindness to all humans, them and us, to separate them somehow. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  It is a kindness to all humans, them and us, to separate them somehow. At the barrel of a gun (escalating blocks or site ban)?! Right. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  Those consequences seem likely if there's no disengagement, voluntary or not. Can anyone honestly say "Yes" to these questions: These editors have come to stable peaceful terms that will prevent future disruption? These editors won't be engaged in proving each other wrong in a new venue in the immediate future, with bad blood all around? These editors will get there all by themselves? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:34, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  A fallacy in your logic is that "getting there" (i.e. peaceful coexistence) is faux and permanently preempted by an IBAN. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  Are they finished with each other?__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  I just want to say that her bio was closed as an attack, how do you go and explain that? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

  It is an irrelevance, really, now: done, dusted, and the "attack" rationale was a WP:IAR decision. You can't impose sanctions for punitive reasons. I've already explained what I intend to do and I think you need to take allegations of hounding etc with a pinch of salt, as per the criticism of some specific examples given a few days ago (below, somewhere, regarding WT:GGTF). I still think CMDC would pass our notability criteria, plenty of others also thought there was a chance (far more than took part in the prior AfDs), but - regardless - that article subject is not going to appear on Wikipedia any time soon because no-one who was involved in the MfD discussion can reasonable claim to be uninvolved with the subject now. Someone has asked for my sources off-wiki but they've not been given them and I've no idea who they are. I'm disengaging from CMDC voluntarily, with certain provisos as stated on my talk page. - Sitush (talk) 15:03, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I have requested a formal closure when the time is ripe. So it would be helpful for the admin if Sitush spells out what he means by disengagement and provisos here so the admin can make an accurate determination. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

(Indents are weird but I'm not touching them). See [203]. In relation to which, this may be pertinent: TParis was trying to broker something despite their underlying opinion, which does them much credit, I think. - Sitush (talk) 15:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Absent a separate section let me note: RE: Discussion of defacto voluntary interaction ban???[added question marks later in case I misunderstood] I'll note that the diffs above aren't very helpful since they represent a huge thread with many distractions. I believe a proposed solution written succinctly at my talk page helps: Sitush may agree to a two way interaction ban provided that any Arbcom action including filing, commenting on, enforcement, clarifications, ect are exempted. Such an iBan would include talking about each other, commenting to each other, writing articles about each other, reverting anothers edits, and commenting on ANI cases involving one another. Would you agree to those terms if he did?--v/r - [[User:TParis|T]][[User_talk:TParis|P]] 15:45, 18 September 2014 (UTC)'' Does that sound like what we are talking about? (Later note: Yes, sounds good to me personally.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any closer would be assisted by your not-very-subtle attempt to parse Sitush's comment into acceptance of a one-way IBAN. It is what it is and the closer can read as much as the rest of us can. DeCausa (talk) 20:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

[Later note: Paris clearly talks about "each other", not just Sitush.] If you can figure out what he wants from those two diffs, you are much smarter than me. I was just going by the last thing I heard from Tom Paris. So leave it up to the admins. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support per SlimVirgin. Sitush and I go way back, so I suppose I'm not all that impartial here (and if I speak out here no one will expect me to close this, so that's good). But I think that draft was not a good idea, and without speculating on who caused what, an IBAN would have prevented that from coming into existence. I foresee further topic restrictions in the future for Sitush's counterpart here, and the only thing that holds me back (and has held me back) is that speaking out in support of an IBAN is taken as a sign that, really, one party has won. But the project will survive even if Sitush cannot defend us from this one editor, if we need defending, and it will remove at least one source of disruption. Drmies (talk) 01:58, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I have no reason to doubt that Sitush will keep to what he has posted on his user page but CMdc just cannot stop herself even though she has been given some very good advice. [204] J3Mrs (talk) 08:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support Opening (or proposing to open) an article on wikipedia about someone you have a conflict with on wikipedia is just weird and creepy. What good can come of it? I have no interest in the history between these two editors, I'm judging only by Sitush's actions, which to me seem highly inappropriate. MaxBrowne (talk) 13:49, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose First - this s a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other. Collect (talk) 12:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You write this is a "common problem" and I agree; editors getting peeved at others and following them around around, reverting their talk page comments and casting aspersion upon them. (The bio thing obviously being uncommon). The interaction ban was not my idea. So just for those who have forgotten other options, the common thing to do is first ask for an admin to ask them to stop. (Note to self: better late than never start figuring out who the helpful admins are.) If that doesn't work, come here, and ask for help: a warning or short block might result and hopefully the individual would get the point and cut it out. Because of the ongoing MfD on the bio, I wasn't going to bring an ANI myself. And after the MfD was successful I would have given a grace period to see if the behavior stopped. That's the process I would follow in the future, should the editor in question return. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Propose one-way interaction ban on Carol Moore (the article)

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

---

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)
• Oppose Pending the AfD outcome this discussion could be moot. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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" [205] - 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)

• [206][207][208]. 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:

• [209] [Edit summary] stop being an idiot
• [210] ...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?
• [211] [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.[212] —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)

• Adding I think Sitush will keep to what he has posted on his user page but CMdc just cannot stop herself even though she has been given some very good advice. [213] J3Mrs (talk) 23:03, 18 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)
• Oppose I have yet to see any compelling reasons to place any editing restrictions on Sitush. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any one way sanction Having been a talk page stalker of Sitush for a while, I saw most of this drama, and suffice to say the fault is most certainly not limited to one party. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose any one way sanction per the direct answer to my question as posed to Carol. I sympathize but this is surely a two way street here.--Mark Miller (talk) 23:07, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - CMDC has narrowly avoided sanctions here so many times it's just not funny any more and this thread is just a further entrenchment of CMDC's "victim status". The current hyper-sensitivity with regard to gender issues has allowed editors to be topic-banned or interaction-banned on the flimsiest of evidence; all of them with previous or ongoing disputes with CMDC. At some point we need to take a step back and consider the common denominator in all of these disputes. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support  This is the editor who wrote the article that was deleted at MfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose First - this s a draconian solution for what appears to be a common problem. Thus it won't work. Second, the idea of a "1 way ban" has been shown to basically never work in practice, and such Ibans made generally end up being 2 way. Third, I suggest that all such Ibans in future be limited in duration, as a preventative sanction only, else they too often become games to people opposing one editor or the other. Collect (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose One-way interaction bans are inherently unfair: A can talk about B, but B can't talk about A. No. Also, I agree with Collect that IBANs should be for a limited duration. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per TP and Black Kite as well as Collect's comment about 1-way bans and limited duration. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 23 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)

This ain't going nowhere. Discuss the ins and outs of article writing elsewhere, please. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
... 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) [Later clarification: In my Humble Opinion] 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) So Sitush is admitting you wrote the bio to start a brouhaha that would make ArbCom take the case? Cause that is what it looks like. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:34, 17 September 2014 (UTC) That is not what I admitted to. And turning your question here into a statement at the MfD is extremely misguided, in my opinion. Not atypical of your modus operandi, but misguided nonetheless. - Sitush (talk) 16:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC) Clarified with In My Humble Opinion, with two diffs. here. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:14, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Harassment, immediate block is called for

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

---

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. Warnings seem good enough for this situation. As complicated as it may seem...it is a lot simpler when you look deeper. Carol did out herself, but requested content that was previously posted and then removed not be brought up on Wikipedia. Sitush posted the off Wiki content to his talk page. She requested Sitush remove it and the editor refused and began creating an article about her.--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)
              • How does she know the edit she made exists? I assume she doesn't have multiple personality disorder, that's how.--v/r - TP 19:22, 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)
                • There's a something a little off about TP's analysis. He quotes WP:OUTING about the admissibility of off-wiki material in a COI complaint context, but Sitush was using the threat of exposing more off-wiki material in general conversation. Carol, piss off and enjoy your nap. One day, I'll post the link to your website on WP and then everyone will understand.[214]. Regardless of motives, there's nothing that indicates that it is specifically a COI concern where he says "Piss off", and I sincerely doubt Tarc's talk page can be considered a "suitable forum" for COI complaints. Saying "I'll post the link" makes it sound like he assumed it wasn't considered generally "on-wiki" (regardless of whether admin-only-access can technically be considered that way). It may be an academic point now, but it's arguable about whether WP:OUTING is satisfied here.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:36, 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)

As I said, warnings to both parties. If I had any doubt, which I didn't, your post to my talk page confirmed it. Dougweller (talk) 18:41, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Months of harassment will mar one's judgement. What was I thinking? In any case, I'd happily take the two way interaction ban. Of course, Sitush can't control himself so if the warning is strict enough he'll quickly go into violation. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:12, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're willing to do a 2-way ban, I could talk to Sitush about volunteering for it too and we can impose it based on you two agreeing to it. Would you like me to go talk to him?--v/r - TP 19:26, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: I'm all for it. Until this recent incident he was far less annoying than SPECIFICO and hopefully won't be following to me various article spaces since I sure would like to feel free to edit again without constant reverts and criticism. And I'll be happy to ignore him if we run into each other at Jimbo's talk page. ;-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:21, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Alright, I've reached out to him already. I'll see if I can persuade him that this will benefit both of you by reducing drama and stress.--v/r - TP 22:26, 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: [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220] 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)
  • Just to be more clear, requiring more and more effort from editors who wish privacy becomes a "Striesand effect" situation, as they are required to take more and more actions and make more inquiries of more people that could have the effect of calling attention to the very thing they want out of sight. Finally you get the scenario where someone is able to say "see this thing that was deleted for privacy reasons" and providing a diff to it on a page that is watched by 6,316 users. Lack of respect for privacy may be tolerated on some off-wiki blogs, but it should not be tolerated here. —Neotarf (talk) 16:43, 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"[221] 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)

Gee, who knew. Thanks for advice. Will do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:23, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not very good advice though. That the subject of an article doesn't want the article is generally neither here nor there, as in the case of Jim Hawkins (radio presenter) for instance. Eric Corbett 17:38, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

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

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)

This is harassment and some Wikipedians need to wake the fuck up

I am boggled at how so many people can be so brain-dead to think Sitush is doing nothing wrong here and I can only assume these are people who either like Sitush, hate Carol, or are just so deeply immersed in the asinine Wikipedia groupthink on harassment that they fail to recognize what is going on here. To wit, Sitush strongly criticized Carol during the case regarding SPECIFICO and in one comment stated: "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." Now, I personally did not think that singular comment was problematic since I took it as being an editor stating a concern about an editor's behavior and feeling there was a need for someone to insure she does not behave disruptively. However, after the case was closed with a one-way interaction ban on SPECIFICO, Sitush merely ten hours later made a remark on his talk page about how should he "do anything related to Wikipedia" it would involve an "analysis" of Carol's personal website. This was reasonably taken by Carol as a signal of Sitush's intent to do "opposition research" on her and she left a warning about it. Sitush then responds with this remark where he pulls out several allegations based on his "research" into Carol, including making allegations of criminal activity and citing personal attacks from someone endorsing a political opponent of hers. He basically taunts her with this information he is gleaning from many non-reliable sources before launching the article over her strenuous objections due to the very reasonable concern that someone who is hot off a personal dispute with her is going to try putting out an article about her on Wikipedia.

Now, I have read the userspace article, and from my reading it seems like Sitush is selectively adding material designed to make Carol look like a lunatic. The space he gives to her statements about The Beatles is bizarre given how trivial it is and reads like something you would include to mock a person by going "Haha! She thinks Beatles fans were a part of women's lib! What a maroon!" Another issue is where he lifts material from this article to say "At that time, she was involved in an anti-war protest, opposing US military action in Iran and Iraq, and also supporting Palestinians in what she said were their defensive actions against Israeli and US troops. She was concerned that one outcome might be a Russian nuclear attack on the US." This phrasing, again, makes her sound like a lunatic since the two events seem completely unrelated or like some absurd exaggeration, until you read the actual source, which says: "Citing Seymour Hersh's "The Samson Option," Ms. Moore expressed concern that an Israeli attack on Iran would result in Russia's launching nuclear missiles at America." Of course, the Samson Option refers to a claim that part of Israel's nuclear strategy is that if the country's leaders feel Israel's very existence is threatened they will launch nukes across the world to spark off a global nuclear war and bring the world down with them, which may be extreme but sounds a lot less crazy. There are other examples, but my only impression upon reading that article in full is that Sitush was probably cackling while writing it and only making the barest effort to be neutral regarding Carol.

He does all this, while having recently expressed a desire for her personally getting dragged before ArbCom. This has all the markings of wanting to see Carol named and shamed for whatever fucking problem he has with her. I don't give a shit how much he thinks he can be neutral, his own personal evaluations of his behavior are completely delusional given that everything he has done in the past few days reeks of harassment. Basically, he followed through on this aforementioned threat and there seem to be a lot of chuckleheads here who don't give a crap about real fucking harassment on Wikipedia. Maybe there is something wrong with Carol's behavior, but it sure as fucking hell isn't excusing anything Sitush is doing here and all of you taking his side should feel like fucking gobs of shit because that is what you fucking are when you enable this kind of abusive treatment. There is a difference between assuming good faith and being an ignorant jerkoff.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:31, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I sound this way but I am not going to read a wall of text here, I feel that an I-ban needs to be put in place between the two, its a good solution and everyone can go on their merry way. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - completely uninvolved in this whole mess (although Corbett's talkpage is on my watchlist for some reason) but I am depressed at just how partisan most contributors to this argument appear so far. After ten minutes of perusing, I can easily discern two camps, and its rare to find any comment that strays outside of those boundaries. Maybe everyone ought to take a chill pill and reconsider their goals? I don't mean this to sound patronizing, I know I could often use a step back myself. As for EC Sitush creating an article on another editor with whom he has beef (assuming I am correctly interpreting the situation thus far), that takes a huge set of balls and a willingness to relinquish any WP peace and quiet. This kind of ANI (or arbcom) response is almost inevitable. I would hve never ever in a thousand years done it myself. That said, the article, when I looked at it, appears uncommonly unbiased and would most certainly be a great starting point for a proper BLP once it moves into mainspace.  Mr.choppers | ✎  03:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

  You seem to be a little confused Mr.choppers; I didn't create the article, nor have I ever even edited it. Eric Corbett 12:27, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops - I meant to write Sitush, but I came to this kerfuffle via your talk page. Cheers,  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Please see my evaluation of Sitush's "unbiased" piece. There is some obvious effort to cherry-pick and misrepresent the sources to portray her in a near comical manner. He is clearly not being neutral or unbiased, but is acting out his hostility towards her with this so-called article. I have read the article and the sources and can safely say he is not being unbiased by any measure. Mind you, I have no personal stake in this GGTF drama or the Austrian Economics drama from which this feud sprung. What I am saying is based off having looked at his comments and the article in the overall context. This is harassment. Period. Full stop.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:48, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• If you are looking for a block or ban then I suggest this goto WP:ARBCOM. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:26, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Two things; one, sometimes the things discussed at ANI and elsewhere take a fair bit of words to really describe what's going on. I want to reach through the screen and slap anyone who posts something like "TL;DR I can't read that so Imma just support banning everyone/closing the discussion/or the god-awful wiki-trope of "trouting". If your attention span is sometimes tested by a 140-character tweet, then please, go away, and let us deal with it.
• Two, I pointed out Sitush's threat to stalk Carol's edits last week. With the article draft creation, I hope all can see now how the intimidation game has just been cranked up a notch. Tarc (talk) 03:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Honestly this is a rant manifested from all the feelings that have come from this thread. Some people are so set in their ways you cant expect some to change their ways with a flip of a switch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:21, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The article is fine. Anything that makes Carol seem like a "lunatic" is because of the sources. Though if I were in Sitush' shoes I would have created this article off-line and waited for things to calm down for a few months before publishing. Or never.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 04:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a tic, back up. A BLP that portrays its subject as a lunatic is OK because there are sources? What's all this NPOV nonsense I've read so much about, then? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:47, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course the sources don't say lunatic, and neither did Sitush' article. Given the content of some of the sources used, I'd say Sitush could have easily portrayed Carol as an unforutnate subject while staying true to the sources.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 13:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is insane. Sitush tells Mark Miller on Sitush talk page he's going to leave me alone and then he puts a list of alleged "search" words on the talk page of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Sitush/Carol Moore which includes "gun owner." In a city where it's illegal to own and unregistered gun, making such an accusation can lead to police raids and death. Or Swatting. Please someone remove this and impose a mandatory two way ban now, including banning him from that talk page which he has sort of moved off his talk page. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Hold the phone here.....I went and looked on Sitush's talk page to see where they suddenly told me that they were going to leave you alone. I can't seem to find it. Mind you...I have not made that many posts on Sitush's talk page but it is possible I missed it. Diff please.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been removed, but enough already. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:23, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush put it back. My housemate, the home owner, is getting really pissed off. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

I re moved it, he can go pound sand for all I care at this point. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

To his great credit, User:Fram has deleted the draft as a BLP violation. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Fram is hereby awarded with the Rene Rancourt double fist pump. Tarc (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

ManymanymanymanyMANY thanks to Fram. But...we still need to get these two editors to part ways and leave each other alone. I can't figure out a way to do this so I strongly encourage an interaction ban...either self imposed by both parties, by the community...or a freaking office action by the foundation.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

An Office action could have removed the BLP, as has happened with others, if that was really the problem. AnonNep (talk) 13:37, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Happily bio's gone [Later strike of premature optimistic statement:and a voluntary two way interaction ban going into effect soon. Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Close this whole thing?

Since Carolmooredc and her IAC cronies have apparently accomplished their mission, this entire ANI should probably be closed as moot. 65.209.113.178 (talk) 14:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

degree in template Infobox officeholder

User:Xenophrenic is deleting degrees from infoboxes Example 1 Example 2 Example 3. I tried to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder but nobody, except for User:Xenophrenic, joined in. In the discussion User:Xenophrenic actually said that he liked the idea of adding a degree field to the template and then he went ahead and deleted degrees from another biography. Is this a WP:POINT type of behavior? The spirit of editing should be to improve the encyclopedia, not to enforce a bureaucracy. I'm not sure what should be done here. How hot is the sun? (talk) 15:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a content/template issue and not a matter for this noticeboard - FWIW degrees awarded should not be in the alma mater field of an infobox - just the university itself. Please engage Xenophrenic on their talk page if you want to discuss changes to the template. Bear in mind that everyone here is a volunteer and may not answer messages instantly. Thanks!  Philg88 ^♦talk 15:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Xenophrenic is now making a point:

1. Alan Grayson revert: 16:31, 22 September 2014
2. Dan Quayle revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
3. David Wu revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
4. Van Jones revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
5. Lawrence O'Donnell revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
6. Carl Sagan revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014
7. Joe Scarborough revert: 16:32, 22 September 2014

Since she is fighting with multiple editors on this issue, she seems to be going against concensus. The reason I am saying that User:Xenophrenic is being WP:POINT is due to what she said at the template talk page. How hot is the sun? (talk) 17:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I assume this is connected with Efforts to impeach Barack Obama and related articles. Xenophrenic is correct that an alma mater field should not be used for other stuff—the hope of some infobox proponents is that the data would be machine readable, and a field should generally contain one item. Philg88 is correct that this is the wrong place. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Unrelated to Efforts to impeach Barack Obama. I tried to start a discussion at Template talk:Infobox officeholder but there were no responses there, and since the template is protected, I cannot edit it. What is the appropriate venue for this discussion? How hot is the sun? (talk) 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:‎66.102.129.154 reported by User:MrMoustacheMM

‎66.102.129.154 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually adds unreliable reviews to various Decapitated album articles, adds non-ratings to Template:Album ratings, and now is also ignoring WP:MOSALBUM. The articles in question are:

• Winds of Creation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nihility (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• The Negation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Organic Hallucinosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Carnival Is Forever (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I reported this user to WP:AN3 here, but no action was taken at that time. I attempted to discuss this with the user on their talk page here, but they did not in any way engage in discussion, and simply removed my explanations. The most "discussion" from this user has been edit summaries like "template is not a guideline" [222] and claiming I am vandalising these articles [223] (showing an obvious lack of understanding of WP:VAND).

Unreliable reviewer:

• The user added a review from About.com, by a reviewer named Dave Schalek here. About.com is already a questionable source, as a lot of it is not overlooked by an editing staff. Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources#About.com, after a discussion about the site here, only reviewers that have been shown to pass WP:RS should be used. This Dave Schalek has no evidence supporting his reliability as a music reviewer. His About.com biography does not in any way support him being a professional music journalist. Rather, he is a high-school physics teacher, who happens to write reviews on the side as a "hobby". However, this user keeps re-adding this unreliable review, despite providing no evidence that this reviewer in any way passes WP:RS.

Adding non-ratings to Template:Album ratings:

• The user keeps adding non-ratings to this template on all 5 articles, non-ratings being WP:OR summaries such as "favorable" or "mixed". See Winds of Creation, Nihility, The Negation, Organic Hallucinosis, Carnival Is Forever. I have nothing against these reviews specifically, and encourage their use within the prose of the articles (for example, here I left the information this user added to the prose from these reviews, and did the same on the other four articles), but they should not be included in the template itself. A recent discussion on that template's talk page found many editors agreed that adding non-ratings to the template was not a good idea, and that these better belonged in the prose of the article, or at the very least included as external links at the bottom of the article. In the case of these articles, all are included in the prose, where they belong. Despite this, the user still insists on re-adding them to the template.

Other MOS issues:

• As shown in the links in the first section of this case, this user is now causing other MOS issues. I removed star ratings from reviews that do not use stars (per Template:Album ratings: "The information in the score field should be the rating given in the review (e.g. 4/5). The rating should use the same format as in the review, to accurately portray the score of the review. For star ratings you should use the star rating template"). I moved many references to Template:Cite web, as bare links should be avoided (see the essay WP:BAREURLS). I removed columns from the Personnel sections per WP:MOSALBUM ("If the number of participants is longer than 20, the list should be divided with a column template such as Div col or col-begin." – none of these articles have personnel lists longer than 20 participants). There are also general issues such as poor grammar, poor choices of wording, missing quote marks, unnecessary formatting for quotes, etc. All of these changes were wholesale reverted.

This user is unwilling to engage in discussion, despite my attempts to do so. The user is not interested in learning how Wikipedia works, does not follow policies, guidelines, template documentation, and existing WP:CONSENSUS formed by discussions by many editors (in other words, WP:IDHT). The user is not interested in working collaboratively, and despite some good edits (such as the addition of Critical Reception prose sections to these articles), is generally not helping Wikipedia. I'm suggesting a block, with a duration long enough to give this user time to read the above-mentioned policies etc, along with a suggestion from the blocking admin that they do so. If this user takes the time to learn, and starts engaging in discussion and a willingness to learn how to follow Wikipedia policies, guidelines, documentation and consensuses, we could probably work through these issues, but right now I do not think this user has any interest in doing so. Instead of improving other articles, I'm wasting time constantly fixing this user's poor edits. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

comment

• MrMoustacheMM use "rating" template and other non guideline disscusion pages to undo my edits, i can't make a change in article withaout revert from MrMoustacheMM, he interprets guidelines on his own, first time he removed reviewed pages claiming that they don't apply to WP:RS , then he says that the same guidline does not allow to use non rating reviews, there is no "real" contributions by this user to Wikipedia, he only undo all edits in articles about bands he like 66.102.129.154 (talk) 08:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • examples of articles with no rating reviews Please Please Me, With the Beatles, Let It Be, Metallica (album) and other, as i said there is no guidelines that don't allow to use non rating reviews, many contributors use them 66.102.129.154 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Response:

• The claim "i can't make a change in article withaout [sic] revert from MrMoustacheMM" is just false. As I showed above, when this user added critical reception sections to these articles, I kept them (although they required a large amount of cleanup, as the grammar and formatting were, quite frankly, atrocious). The claim "first time he removed reviewed pages claiming that they don't apply to WP:RS , then he says that the same guidline [sic] does not allow to use non rating reviews" is also false. I have not at any point claimed that WP:RS says that non-ratings cannot be used in the ratings template; I have pointed to the documentation of Template:Album ratings and to this discussion. While it is true that some portion of my edits are reverting unsourced or unreliably sourced edits (such as these additions), I also make many other constructive contributions (for example, fixing grammar and formatting, moving refs to the cite web template, adding sourced content, watching for vandalism, etc). A look through my contributions should confirm this. As for the last claim, I see that none of the articles this editor has listed are featured articles (and aren't even good articles). For that matter, the only defence this user presents is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is hardly a good argument (especially since I have shown a discussion that disagrees with this usage).
• I see this user is also making disruptive edits such as this one, reverting any changes I make to their edits (another example of where I did not revert their edit, but simply cleaned it up). This user also continues to falsely claim my edits are vandalism (here), again showing a complete lack of understanding what is and is not vandalism. I think this user's behaviour speaks for itself. MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal that User:Protonk's removal of my (a.k.a. Flyer22's) WP:Rollback rights be overturned

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

---

Protonk came to my user talk page with concerns about how I revert WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits, especially with regard to WP:Newbies. He stated that he thought that the majority of my reverts were good, but disagreed with a few ways that I revert, including when it comes to reverting blanking per WP:VANDTYPES and sometimes reverting WP:Newbie edits as WP:Good faith edits without explaining to the WP:Newbie why I reverted him or her. I noted that the way that I patrol is no different than the way that the vast majority of WP:Patrollers, including WP:Administrator Materialscientist, patrol, and that there is no requirement that I leave an explanation each time. I also noted that, per User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies, editors who agree with my style of WP:Patrolling have mentioned how time-consuming it would be if I left a message for every user that I reverted with a WP:Good faith summary. Regarding any edit that I may label WP:Vandalism, I was clear that I don't label edits WP:Vandalism lightly; except for the occasional mistakes, I only label them WP:Vandalism when they clearly appear to be WP:Vandalism, such as extensive blanking without an edit summary. That is common practice among WP:Patrollers. I told Protonk that there are times, such as in this case, that I will recognize a mistake I've made on such matters and revert myself, while noting the mistake in the edit history and/or removing the warning from the user's talk page if I left one there (and my edit summary will note that it was not vandalism). I also noted to Protonk that I am not perfect when it comes to my use of these tools, but indicated that I generally do my best when using them.

In the aforementioned archived discussion, Tomwsulcer and Rivertorch named me one of the best WP:Patrollers Wikipedia has, and indicated that I make wise decisions in various moments regarding WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. I have also received various barnstars, and compliments from various WP:Administrators, including from Mark Arsten, for my WP:Patrolling. But because some of my WP:Patrolling decisions conflict with how Protonk would handle WP:Patrolling, and because the aforementioned discussion I had with him on my talk page turned unpleasant, he has removed my WP:Rollback rights. I don't see any valid reason for him removing them, especially considering that he noted that the majority (the vast majority, from my own knowledge) of my WP:Patrolling is fine, and since I stated, "If you are going to nitpick through my edit history for reverts that you don't like because I didn't revert in the way that you would have, you might as well go through and nitpick the edits of various other WP:Patrollers who revert just like I do." On my user talk page, he suggests that I am not willing to address criticism and change my actions accordingly. On the contrary, I am willing to address criticism and do it often, but explained that I generally disagree with Protonk's take on WP:Patrolling and that I was clearly frustrated with him due to carry-over frustration from my recent WP:ANI case (currently shown above). And as for "change my actions accordingly," the way that Protonk would WP:Patrol does not equate to "the right way to WP:Patrol."

I propose that Protonk's removal of my WP:Rollback rights be overturned as an insufficient cause for removal. I will alert the WP:Rollback, Wikipedia:STiki, WP:Huggle, WP:Med, WP:Anatomy and WP:Film talk pages to this discussion, since those first three pages concern the tools discussed and since I am significantly involved with reverting content regarding those WP:WikiProjects. Flyer22 (talk) 22:51, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Tangentially related discussion about notifications and canvassing
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have placed a notice on Protonk's page linking to this thread. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:05, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I felt that the notification on my talk page that I would be bringing this matter to WP:ANI, and the linking of his username via WP:Echo, was sufficient notification. Flyer22 (talk) 23:10, 20 September 2014 (UTC) And your reverting my notifications to the aforementioned talk pages is appropriate how? Just how were my notifications inappropriate WP:Canvassing, which I assume you will cite as your reasons for reverting me. Flyer22 (talk) 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC) Well if you read WP:CANVAS you will see a section talking about excessive and indiscriminate cross posting. Your concerns will already draw plenty of attention by virtue of being on ANI. You don't need to splash it across a pile of project pages. I have left a note about this on your talk page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:16, 20 September 2014 (UTC) I don't buy your argument of WP:CANVASS, especially after I explained above why I would be alerting those pages; like I just told you, "I don't see those notifications as a WP:Canvass violation. Editors are allowed to alert relevant talk pages and WP:WikiProjects, as recently as the Wikipediocracy doxxing case going on at WP:ANI. And yet you revert my notifications? Hmm." Flyer22 (talk) 23:24, 20 September 2014 (UTC) WP:CANVAS says "The talk page of one or more articles, WikiProjects, or other Wikipedia collaborations directly related to the topic under discussion.". How exactly is the removal of your rollback rights directly related to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anatomy or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film? I think you may have misread/not read the canvasing page. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC) We addressed this on my talk page. You restored two of the notifications, so I do appreciate that. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I encourage editors reading this request to review the talk page discussion where I raised this issue originally. Protonk (talk) 23:15, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
  • This comment from Flyer22 is also problematic and is directly relevant to the discussion:

    "...I am usually very aware of my actions when it comes to my Wikipedia editing. Can I be more careful? Sure. And I will be. But I would appreciate it if you would be more careful not to treat very experienced Wikipedia editors such as myself as though I don't know what I'm doing. There is not a Wikipedia policy or guideline that I need to review. I know each and every one of them like I know the back of my hand. And I do mean each and every one of them. Your posts on this revert, with exclamation marks and "Get over yourselves!", do indeed sound angry. And needlessly angry, in my opinion. Posts like that only anger me. Posts like that disrupt the project. I made a mistake. So did User:ClueBot NG, a bot that vandalism reverters such as myself often follow and trust. I reverted that edit as a test/vandalism, meaning one or the other, and part of that edit was indeed unconstructive. Yes, with all of my Wikipedia experience, I am subject to human error on Wikipedia. I don't need another experienced Wikipedia editor coming at me with posts about how I need to get over myself and as though I have a WP:Competence issue when it comes to Wikipedia policies and guidelines."

  • The response to criticism is roughly in line with what I experienced when I raised my issues on their talk page. Protonk (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Endorse Revocation This user when confronted with his rollback use says "When using WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, the vast majority of the time, I am not going to take the time to explain to a WP:Newbie why I reverted him or her. Like many others using these tools, I often let the tools do the reverting/talking, except for in cases where I see the need to reply manually. A WP:Newbie has the option to come to my talk page to ask why I have reverted him or her"[224]

I think this sums up the problem very well. He/she does not seem to understand that the burden of communication is on him/her for anything other than obviously bad faith edits. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

If that "sums up the problem very well," then you have obviously disregarded what else I have stated on the matter; there is no WP:Burden for me to always address a WP:Newbie on their talk page. And that you have suggested there is one is silly. And I think you know by now that I am a she. Flyer22 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't spend all day remember which person has which gender, especially when some people get very mad if you are wrong. I use he/she on almost everyone I refer to.

WP:ROLLBACK describes the burden to communicate when reversing good faith actions and the consequence of not doing so: editors who misuse standard rollback (for example, by using it to reverse good-faith edits in situations where an explanatory edit summary would normally be expected) may have their rollback rights removed". Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 23:37, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I suggest that you read what is stated in the "User talk:Flyer22/Archive 14#Please don't bite the newbies" discussion above, and hear from some other WP:Patrollers, if you expect WP:Patrollers to leave a note for a WP:Newbie each time they revert a WP:Newbie. I rarely use WP:Rollback by itself. When I use WP:Rollback by itself, it is usually to revert clear-cut WP:Vandalism. Instead, I use WP:STiki (which is enabled by WP:Rollback) the vast majority of the time, and it gives a few options; one of those is to revert a WP:Good-faith edit; it supplies a generic WP:Edit summary of "Reverted 1 good faith edit by [so and so] using STiki." Even Protonk noted in the discussion on my talk page that reverting like that is not necessarily problematic, but that he would rather I and others revert using an explicit edit summary. And again, he noted that the majority of my reverts are good. But I get my WP:Rollback rights taken away because I am not reverting in exactly the way that he would like? Yes, I call that an insufficient cause for removal of my WP:Rollback rights. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, with your initial response to Protonk was almost as if you were erred by his comment on your recent contributions. Remember you aren't being criticized for it more so notified. Remember WP:Rollback is only used in obvious cases of vandalism. The tools that follow it should be used in the same fashion. Using Stiki to revert an edit like this as mentioned by Protonk is not appropriate and no point in reverting, rather just go to the article section, fix it and add a reference to support that claim. Chillum and Protonk are giving you good advise and if I were you I'd follow it. There may be things you disagree on and when it comes to criticism on any action(s) you committed, just take it easy and accept the mistake and don't let it change the way people see you as an editor. You have a good reputation and its little things like these that can ruin it. Rollback isn't big honestly, several months of solid editing or several hundred solid reverts and you will get rollback reinstated. This ANi post will most likely get you nowhere. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Rollback is for both WP:Vandalism and other unconstructive edits. I just noted to Chillum above that I rarely use WP:Rollback by itself. As for the rest, I appreciate your commentary, but generally respectively disagree. Flyer22 (talk) 00:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Rollback should be used only for obvious vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Although that may be useful advice, it is not the guideline that is agreed at WP:ROLLBACK. The opening sentence states "Rollback is a feature of the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. It allows the last user's consecutive edits on a given page to be undone with a single mouse click. On Wikipedia, rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism." (my emphasis). If it were only for vandalism, it wouldn't say "problematic edits" and give vandalism as a non-exhaustive example of them. --RexxS (talk) 02:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

For me to state more would clearly be me repeating myself. This is the way that I have consistently used WP:Rollback, with the occasional mistake. That section of WP:Rollback, as well as the lead of WP:Rollback, is clear that WP:Rollback is not only for obvious vandalism. I reiterate that I hardly use WP:Rollback by itself. And when I do, it is usually in the case of WP:Vandalism or other problematic edits. With WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, a WP:Edit summary is automatically supplied; there is no reverting without a WP:Edit summary. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If you misuse rollback, you should revert yourself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse removal based on the troubling, hubristic quotation above. Anybody claiming to have a complete (or near-complete) understanding of policy on Wikipedia is simply incorrect, particularly when such a person is clearly misusing rollback. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mendaliv, it's not a claim that I have a complete (or near-complete) understanding of policy on Wikipedia; it's a fact, as also recently seemingly indicated by LT910001 (Tom). And WP:Rollback is not a policy; it is a guideline, one that I have followed well, like I noted to Baseball Bugs above, as even essentially stated by Protonk on my user talk page. And yet, despite Protonk stating that my WP:Patrolling is generally good, he took away my WP:Rollback rights because I got snappy with him and don't WP:Patrol in exactly the way that he would want me to. And despite the fact that the way that I WP:Patrol is a common way for WP:Patrollers to WP:Patrol. That (his removal) is a problem. But, yes, endorse the heck out of Protonk's removal of my WP:Rollback rights as if the removal will actually help Wikipedia; it won't. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If your behavior in this thread is any indication of either your understanding of Wikipedia policy or how you behave with respect to new and inexperienced users, I have no problem with letting other users handle the patrolling you might have done. Hubris is unbecoming, and no matter how "right" someone may be, this only serves to steepen our already legendary learning curve. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: I took the time to peruse User:Flyer22's last 500 edits, opening diffs of reverts that looked like they had the potential to be problematic. I found they were making good use of the STiki tool, and didn't find any problems. I also reviewed the 6 diffs that User:Protonk took issue with on User:Flyer22's talk page, and I have to say I'm not seeing what they saw.
  • Edit 1: Reverted using STiki, made a pretty substantial claim without a source, with obvious markup problems. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit by Hrvatskisokol using STiki"
  • Edit 2: Reverted using Rollback feature. Editor had claimed they "Fixed typo" in their edit summary, when in fact they blanked a paragraph and reworded another. This grossly misleading edit summary makes it hard to assume good faith, and the use of Rollback was appropriate in my opinion.
  • Edit 3 Reverted using STiki. IP had blanked a paragraph with no edit summary or explanation. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 186.80.66.57 identified as test/vandalism using STiki". It's not terribly unreasonable to classify unexplained blanking as a "test".
  • Edit 4: Reverted the addition of a new wife to a BLP using STiki. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 good faith edit by Angel pearl using STiki". The user being reverted had not used an edit summary or provided any source, but has now started a talk page discussion. This one is borderline, and if the edit had been "identified as vandalism" it would be problematic, but the "good faith" in the edit summary makes it fine in my opinion.
  • Edit 5: Reverted the a new user who had deleted a 3 paragraph sourced section. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by Mikeweale identified as test/vandalism using STiki". Perhaps this should have been classified as "good faith" since the user had left an edit summary saying they were deleting a section (but without explaining why). Also note that there is a related discussion on the talk page that User:Flyer22 apparently did not see when making the revert. The user responded positively to the level 1 message Flyer22 left on their talk page.
  • Edit 6 Restored a sourced section that had been blanked by an IP without comment. Edit summary: "Reverted 1 edit by 69.113.200.35 identified as test/vandalism using STiki". Again, maybe it wasn't obvious vandalism, but it's not obvious good faith either, and calling it a "test" isn't that outrageous.
  • Additionally this self-revert makes it clear to me that the user is trying to use the tools carefully.

In summary, of the six diffs in question, only one of them actually used the Rollback feature, and there its use was appropriate. Of the five using STiki two were marked as "good faith" and three as "test/vandalism". Only one of those that had been marked as vandalism should have been marked as "good faith". Put this small mistake in the context of the hundreds of vandals reverted, reported, and blocked, and you see anti-vandal work that is unquestionably a net positive. With the bar so low for people currently getting the tool (500+ edits approximately) I find it a bit strange to be taking the tool away from an active vandal fighter who has years of experience and 150,000 edits because they made a few borderline mistakes. ~Adjwilley (talk) 01:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• While Flyer's verbiage here and elsewhere (why notify others of such a discussion??) is irksome, to put it mildly, I also don't see these diffs as indicating problems. Drmies (talk) 01:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Rollback is (and always has been) easy come, easy go. The low threshold to grant the tool works part and parcel with a relatively low threshold to remove it. If, after years of experience and hundreds of thousands of edits they can't respond to criticism of their actions reasonably, that's worrying to me. Likewise, some of the diffs you've noted are problematic. In the case of the Unkiss Me edit, that's a reasonable edit to make to an article and we shouldn't be calling it vandalism if it isn't actually vandalism. Also I'm not mollified by the automated insertion of the words "good faith" in an edit summary. It's still rollback, even if you say "reverted good faith edits"--especially if that's a canned summary which applies for everything that isn't marked as vandalism. Each use of the tool has to be justified. Likewise with the "test/vandalism" summary. If an edit is a test edit then revert it and note as such, but you don't get "out" of calling something vandalism by saying "oh, no, I meant the test part of "test/vandalism", not the vandalism part" How is an editor supposed to know that? And the edits to the transformers page may have been bad (the summary was certainly deceptive and the editor has been warned for that in the past) but reverting them without comment (in the summary or on any talk page) is a textbook misuse of rollback.

But I encourage you to look at the larger picture. I'm not interested in a vandal fighter whose communication strategy is to "let the tools do the talking" or whose response to criticism is to point to their experience and get defensive while prophylactically noting that they're open to critique. Nor do I think "hearing from another WP:Administrator or other editor telling me how they think I should be editing is not high on my "Yes, I want to read constructive criticism" list at the moment" is a great sign. Like I said, I didn't go to their page seeking to remove the tool (though they accused me of that in their first response). I removed the tool because the conversation made it clear that they weren't interested in feedback. I don't think that impression has been falsified by the behavior in this thread, either. Protonk (talk) 01:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse removal - WP:ROLLBACK explicity outlines when and when not to use rollback. Your comments above show that you may not have an appropriate grasp on the tool, it's intentions, and the policy surrounding it's use. Rollback is a privilege, not a right. Your inappropriate canvassing shows that you think otherwise which is also problematic. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate rollback. I've seen this editor here for years with nothing but positive contributions. Revoking rollback is a slap in the face that will only serve to discourage yet another good editor from the project. SlightSmile 01:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• I would normally agree, however, being here for years should strengthen knowledge of policies and doesn't give you a free pass to violate those policies. Again, Rollback is a privilege, not a right. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Dusti, I don't think that you or others have actually understood anything I've stated in this discussion or that WP:Rollback is not the same thing as WP:STiki or WP:Huggle, and that I barely use WP:Rollback by itself. It seems that Adjwilley is currently the only editor who has heard me in this thread. Well, him and Slightsmile. Thank you, both, and now I'm out of here, which is what Protonk wanted in the first place. Flyer22 (talk) 01:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you too, Drmies. Flyer22 (talk) 01:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: If the loss of a flag causes you to leave the project, then I don't think you were here for the right reasons. Good luck with your future endeavors. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see how even a person who was here for the right reasons might feel that an action like this could mean that the community has lost its way, so that it would be advisable to rethink one's participation. Yev Yev (talk) 01:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dusti: That was a spectacularly ill-informed comment. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong - as perhaps I've gotten the wrong impression here - but it certainly seems as though he's stating that he's leaving the project over this issue. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Dusti: Look at what you linked to - "Not being here to build an encyclopedia" - and then look at her work. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I registered in 2006 and I've never had rollbacker right. :-) Indeed, no drama needed for this. --Pudeo' 02:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I just don't think it was a comment that needed to be made. If they were here to revert vandalism (and it doesn't look like that was the case, at least not solely), that's fine. And I don't think that their wanting to leave over this is an indication of anything more than frustration. Also, in general we try not to grave-dance. Protonk (talk) 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize - I certainly didn't mean to be mean or "grave dance". IMO it would be a silly reason to leave the project - and I wished them well should they actually decide to leave the project - which would be a loss as the user certainly seems to be a productive individual. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Flyer22: - apparently my comment is being misunderstood. I do not want you to leave, nor do I think you should. A flag is just a flag. I don't think you were intentionally misusing the right, I think that perhaps you made a mistake, which we all do. As someone said somewhere - the flag is easy come easy go. As you also said, you rarely even use it anyway - so to leave over something so silly wouldn't be the best thing. Let's all take a break here and go for a breather. You've made some really valuable efforts here and losing you would be a net loss for the project. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate rollback The majority of the vandalism work looks fine and appropriate. The inciting issue here, at heart, seems to be that Flyer22 comes across as defensive and impolite on first and second brush. Asking her to personalise more of her summaries would probably be a net negative. I don't see a misuse of the basic tools here. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Removal - I took my time to read over the issue as it unfolded on Flyers talk talk page. Although Flyer made many many good contributions here fighting vandalism, when notified about the mistakes she doesn't listen to the multiple notifications given to her by Protonk and others involved on talk page discussions before the removal of the right. Rollback isn't needed to be a help here on WP as there are many places where your help can be appreciated. The use of Stiki and Rollback should follow the same methods when it comes to reverting obvious vandalism and this is not an example of vandalism its the removal of a paragraph in which it is reverted and marked as vandalism. --Acetotyce (talk) 02:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  If I look through the history for what edit you mean there, that example doesn't actually seem clearly problematic. Are you referring to the IP blanking all the sourced negative reviews in the "Critical response" section? __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Rollback is used to undo problematic edits such as vandalism - quoted from WP:ROLLBACK. Flyer clearly thought that edits such as content blanking without an edit summary are problematic edits and is frustrated that others are criticising her for following the first line of guidance, rather than their own made-up criteria. This kangaroo court is treating a valuable contributor with 7 years experience and 150,000 edits in a completely unwarranted fashion - and Dusti, your comments are completely inappropriate; have you no clue about empathy? No wonder we're losing editors all the time. --RexxS (talk) 02:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate I concur with RexxS on this one. The majority of edits are appropriate. Also, Dusti's comments are completely uncalled for and I ask you to redact them. KonveyorBelt 02:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment if Flyer22 could agree that, in general, when reverting a user some sort of explanation should be provided, either in the edit summary or on the user's talk page, then I'd support reinstating rollback. PhilKnight (talk) 02:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate I've done a fair bit of recent change patrol myself in the past and have seen the good, bad and ugly from other RC patrollers. In my experience Flyer has done a pretty good job, not perfect of course, but it seems like she's being treated a bit unfairly here. I'd recommend concerned editors try to monitor Flyer's work and discuss issues with her going forward instead of trying to push her to give up RC patrol. Like Adjwilley points out above, there are a number of somewhat grey areas and more discussion is probably warranted about best practices. I'd also encourage Flyer to be more accommodating to people who bring up concerns on her user talk page. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:01, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate. I looked over hisher contribs, and heshe doesn't seem to be misusing the rollback tool. That's the only standard that should matter when considering whether or not a person gets to keep the rollback tool. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Lithistman: Flyer22 identifies as a she. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Oops--fixed! Thanks! LHM^{ask me a question} 03:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate rollback per Adjwilley's assessment of the edits in question. Not convinced there is a systematic issue here with Flyer22 and her use of rollback. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 03:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse Removal - Anyone can agree and say "yes I understand all that, sorry, now give me my rollback", when they are on thin ice. It just happened that an admin removed the rollback right of a user after having number of evidences of misuse, what was wrong with that? It is better to close this matter. Every matter shouldn't be brought to ANI. Flyer22 should be also blocked for massive canvassing, but that is not very important right now. Noteswork (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  Blocked for massive canvassing? You can not be serious. And this is the exact right place to get an administrator's poor decision overturned. LHM^{ask me a question} 03:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reinstate rollback per Adjwilley as well. Being careful not to bite newcomers is one thing but slapping someone who by and large has seemed to use huggle and stiki exactly as they were meant to be used seems counterproductive. Cannolis (talk) 03:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate rollback - I've extensively worked with Flyer22 in the last several months on Todd Manning. This difficult article has required extensive re-writing and in some case, additional research, and we've put a lot of hard work into it, over several months. A glance at the talk page will show that although Flyer22 and I have vehemently disagreed about lots, she has always been civil to me. I've enjoyed our collaboration, and she's taught me a lot about writing and researching this type of article. That being said, Flyer22 has made a significant contribution to Wikipedia, and part of that is caring for other difficult and controversial articles which require her to retain rollback rights. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 04:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate and trouts for Protonk, Chillum, Mendaliv, Baseball Bugs, Dusti, et al. As usual, Adjwilley is a voice of reason. Flyer22 was well within the bounds of discretion using rollback and STiki. Even if she wasn't, removing the tool because of her "disinterest in responding to criticism" is overreaction and would be an obvious net negative for the project. I'm not sure why an admin deemed it necessary to audit her edit history; perhaps that deserves more scrutiny. In any case, restore the bit and consider apologizing this unfortunate gaucherie.- MrX 04:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  I too am interested in what led to this "audit", as you refer to it. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: As I look through Flyer22's contribs even deeper, this is a large loss, if she does indeed leave the project over Protonk's poor decision regarding F22's rollback flag. The way Flyer22 has been treated in this episode has been frightfully poor, particularly with the lectures from Chillum and Dusti piled on top of the initial ill-conceived removal of the flag. LHM^{ask me a question} 04:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Strongly support re-instating rollback even though they appear to have left This is ridiculous. This decision is a gigantic net negative to the project and is what causes veteran editors to leave, which judging by the user and talk page is exactly what you have achieved. This whole thing was handled extremely poorly. —Frosty ☃ 04:56, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate immediately Questions about rollback edits did not warrant rollback rights removal. Can't tell if this was just hasty or more personal. Flyer22 is one of the best editors I've encountered on WP. If every reviewer were punished in a similar way, we'd be down 70% of our reviewers. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reinstate rollback Turning off rollback privilege for using it in a perhaps heavy-handed way is appropriate. No one has suggested that this patroller willfully did anything bad, so it's appropriate to turn it back on. On the other hand, while it's more work, patrollers should try not to bite the newbies too hard. Revert where appropriate, but say why. Thank you. John Nagle (talk) 05:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• reinstate Flyer22 claims her use of rollback falls within the norm of other vandalism patrollers. No one so far, has made the opposite case. Based upon the diff analysis above, her tenure and accolades, the complaints of "hubris" seems an unwarranted reason for removal. I don't know if the thread about her above has anything to do with this, but it shouldn't. It seems obvious to me that her having rollback serves the encyclopedia better than her not having rollback.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:28, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

FYI They were correctly restored a few minutes ago. MarnetteD|Talk 05:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Seems I missed all of this while cleaning my carpets today. What a shame as I would have liked to express my disappointment in the manner this was handled....especially since my name was used in conjunction with this Rollback rights removal. I actually see the true good faith of both Flyer and the admin that took the right away. Kind of astonishing, I know...considering how disappointed I have become in the general admin corpse. But...what astonishes me even more, is how quickly the community came to the right conclusion here. Yes...Flyer made a mistake, but unless they did something on purpose...and even I do not believe that, then this should really have garnered a stern warning.....but come on...Flyer you also have a way with taking the legitimate criticism from others...and running off like you are being attacked. I think we all learned something here, but I for one am glad it is sorted out.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:33, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Was "admin corpse" a Freudian slip?  ;-) the panda ₯’ 15:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

This entire discussion was started under the pretext of newbies potentially being bitten by rollbacked edits. But it ended up biting an actual veteran editor that leads to her departure. If admins can make poor decisions on routine basis without facing repercussions, be prepared to see more of this in the future. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I think veterans need to be held to the same standards as newbies. At Requests for Permissions, they don't grant rollback to someone who refuses to advise an editor why their edit was reverted, so once you have rollback the editor needs to continue advising those they revert - even with/especially with vandalism. Nobody should feel bit when they're reminded of what they should do anyway the panda ₯’ 18:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller, I don't know how many times you think I have "ru[n] off like [I'm] being attacked," but, as for the rest (whether regarding what you or others have stated in this thread), I've commented on my user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 00:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request review of block of User:Sitush

{{tlx|

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

---

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

---

Sitush has been unblocked. Nyttend (talk) 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Sitush was blocked about 15 hours ago for an intemperate outburst that was interpreted as a threat of violence. He had commented a bit earlier stating that he'd moved and had spoken to the new occupants of his old place, saying that perhaps he should have warned them that someone might show up with "serious weaponry" at his old place. Following a bit of discussion about Manchester meets, User:Demiurge1000 responded saying "I think this is a very sad state of affairs. Sitush and Eric are less able to attend Manchester meetups for a number of regrettable reasons, and Bishonen is less able to act on undesirable editors who might be behind the problem, for related reasons. Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry, and I wish you both all the best. I am sure Bishonen will be keeping an eye out too." Sitush responded intemperately using similar language, and yes, what he said could technically be interpreted as a threat, although I don't see it as one and if you read User talk:Sitush you can see I'm not alone. However, Admin User:Mike V saw it differently and indefinitely blocked Sitush and his comments were reveled. Of course Admins can still read it, and several including me have commented on his talk page that Sitush was pushed until he snapped. So far as I'm concerned, the bad guys have finally won and Wikipedia has lost. Sitush may not want to come back now but I still think that a wrong has been done and the indefinite block should be lifted, perhaps replaced with a 3 day block as suggested on his talkpage. I hope he will come back as Wikipedia needs him - he edits in areas that have very few good editors but do have a lot of pov editors who now will have little opposition. Dougweller (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is very clear on this matter. This diff[225](deleted) shows the statement "As for looking for serious weaponry: if I found you right now, you'd be looking right down the barrel of it.". This is a threat of violence with a firearm and there is no way to interpret it as otherwise. Joke or not this is serious and cannot be tolerated.

To fail to take this seriously would be a breach of expected reactions to threats violence and would be grossly irresponsible. The quote clearly means that if I found you I would point my gun at you.

No volunteer deserves this kind of threat and to allow it would be abusive to said volunteer. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 16:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I saw what Sitush had written and winced, expecting a block. I agree with your assessment that he was poked repeatedly and that should have been taken into account. If Sitush acknowledges his comment was made in a moment of anger then a three day block (or even time served) sounds appropriate. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Good block. A comment using that kind of imagery is designed to edge right up on making a threat without outright saying it, thus allowing public denial of the intent to make a threat, while still likely leaving the target severely rattled. This is a clear corollary to the situation where someone implies a legal threat without outright saying it. It's not okay to use that kind of argumentative device here. Even if it doesn't fall directly within the ambit of making a TOV, it's so severely uncivil that it should be blockable. Even if it were the result of baiting, we can't countenance this kind of argumentation. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Back the truck up a little bit - yeah, Sitush is responsible for his outburst. However, being provoked the way he was is most certainly part of the problem, and ArbCom even acknowledged that those who provoke are often equally as guilty the panda ₯’ 17:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Absolutely. If this was provoked by off-wiki stalking or similar, those responsible should be held accountable. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• The threat was certainly unacceptable but I believe an indef block was a disproportionate response. I support a reduction to 3 days and a suitable apology from Sitush.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn, entirely per DougWeller, as well as Chillum's (per usual) complete misunderstanding of the situation. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Agree that the threat was unacceptable, but indef block is disproportionate. A block of 3 days-a week is fine, considering Sitush's totally clean block record. Sitush was a marked man on the IAC page and has gotten some threats if I recall correctly. There was a recent attempt to trap him based on an alleged copyvio. Kingsindian (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block - An indef is lenient, as at least it has the possibility of a simplified return. That kind of threat should earn one a siteban. Tarc (talk) 18:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I support DougWeller's, DP's and Philg88's comments and the proposed reduction. However, I suspect it's moot and Sitush may well choose not to come back anyway. This is going to be a huge problem for the Indian sub-continent articles: the damn's going to burst. DeCausa (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block Threats of violence are never acceptable. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Questionable - So, did Demiurge1000 actually feel threatened? Or was the "threat" not aimed at him? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Can we protect every single Indian subcontinent article until he gets back? —Xezbeth (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good Block Even if you are goaded enough to be that angry, it's never okay to threaten anyone with any kind of violence ever. KoshVorlon Angeli i demoni kruzhyli nado mnoj 18:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Indefinite Block/Ban Mike V was correct in administering a ban to Sitush. In addition to this outburst (not the first time this has happened), Sitush is an extremely belligerent user and I, along with my others, are reluctant to edit Wikipedia because of him. He bullies other editors and goes around mass deleting content at different articles, despite the fact that they are well sourced. If Sitush doesn't like the source, then the content gets deleted. Other editors try very hard to build this encyclopedia with their contributions but Sitush ends up removing people's contributions. If you look through Sitush's contributions, most of his editing is mass deleting the work of others. You'll hardly ever see him add anything to articles or doing research himself to improve them. This ban is long needed and I applaud Mike V for having the courage to do it. Maybe I'll start editing again now that this problematic editor is out of the picture. 95.133.238.228 (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• POV warrior editors like 95.133 above are the ones who will celebrate this block, as it rewards their campaign of harassment. LHM^{ask me a question} 18:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

That's why I kinda have to agree that indef is too long as well. While I only remember my interaction with Sitush being civil at best (though interaction that was less so would have been a long long time ago), he does good work and appears to be hounded by a off-site group collaborating to push a Hindutva POV and defame a number of upstanding editors. While I do not claim that any here are party to that (though I see no reason to defend 95.133 from such accusations if others make them), it's tricky. If an indef block stays in place, I hope that he decides to use WP:CLEANSTART return and to duck away from some of his stalkers. If he does so, he is free to email me (and I assume others who will follow my example) who will pretend that the "new" editor is not editing just like Sitush and will do what they can to redirect others from reaching said conclusion.

No judgement on the block itself, but *Overturn indefinite duration or facilitate clandestine clean start. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment (edit conflict) People have already started coming out of the woodworks to push their POV [226] and the above comment just reiterates that we need Sitush more than he needs us. Regardless of the block, he got fed up and decided to leave on his own terms. A huge loss to the project.  NQ  talk 18:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• I think it was a good block per policy and, honestly, he probably could use a cooling-off period given recent actions. That said, I don't think an indefinite block is warranted for this instance. Sitush was provoked by Demiurge, who was clearly mocking the concerns of other editors about overly personalized hostility directed at them that left them with legitimate concerns as to their personal safety. This was an excited utterance that appropriated the language and tenor of the discussion. People who are particularly frustrated say these things at times, though I imagine most Wikipedians who feel like saying it stop before they hit "save page" in the edit window. His block should be reduced to a few days at most, maybe shorter if he chimes in before then to acknowledge that he crossed a line in his frustration.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
•  Question: Are we able to overturn this if the foundation is also investigating? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 18:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes. Any foundation investigation - if there is one, which I'm not going to confirm or deny - would likely not apply to the block (because blocks are outside of our purview - that's a community function). Besides that, when we don't want someone to take an action, we try to make that abundantly clear with notes and templates, and neon signs and the like. If I don't want you to edit a page (assuming it qualifies), I put it under OFFICE protection, for instance. Failing something like that, you should feel free to investigate, overturn, not-overturn, whatever... all to your heart's delight. If you get too close to an area where we're involved, we'll gently let you know. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Block good, duration bad The policy that I saw linked mandates a block. It does not appear to mandate an indefinite block. I am not an admin, and cannot see the actual diffs, but based on the quote above, it was seem the threat was real, but that the extenuating circumstances are very significant. So, reduce the block to whatever appropriate level; 3 days? Vanamonde93 (talk) 18:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Indefinite does not mean forever. I think this would be treated similar to a legal threat where the block remains until such a point as the user convincingly retracts the threat. If such a retractions happens then I would also want to check with the opinion of the person threatened. Threats of violence are far more serious than legal threats so lets keep at least those standards. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 18:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Overturn -- Get a grip Chillum, I doubt Sitush even knows anything about the user, so I should think the "threat" has about as much ground as a fish on water. Again, the admins seem completely devoid of making rational decisions. Are there any sane admins left? I reckon I could only name a few. Cassianto^talk 18:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Sitush does have a very recent reputation for doing extremely detailed "opposition research" on people that he has disagreements with. (Morning all, Dougweller just now kindly mentioned this on my talk page.) --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was kind of Doug, Demiurge1000, and highly relevant, considering there would have been no block but for you. I don't suppose anybody's surprised to see you take the opportunity to make a shitty comment here as well. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC).

Since I'm (apparently?) the target of the threat, which I was only able to confirm because Chillum helpfully quoted it in this thread some considerable number of hours after it happened (didn't it occur to anyone that emailing me telling me what had happened would be a good idea? rather than letting me try to piece things together by speculating on the mess of nonsense on Sitush's talk page?), and since Doug and at least one other person have asked in good faith to what extent I took the threat seriously, I don't consider that a "shitty comment" at all, I consider it a valid observation on a relevant aspect of this discussion. But thank you for your thoughts. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good Block - I completely understand we all lose our shit here at times but threats of violence is never okay nor will it solve anything, I will say however I disagree with it being indef, Perhaps 24hrs or even 48 would've been better but then again he can request unblock at any time... –Davey2010 • (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Overturn. A lot of us including me have already argued on Sitush's talkpage that the block was a case of admin overreaction (and some have argued the opposite, yes). I'll just repeat myself here if that's OK. But I urge the person who closes this thread to take the views on Sitush's page into account, too; everybody may not be as ready to plagiarise themselves as I am. Mike V's revision deletion of Sitush's intemperate comment was acceptable in my opinion, but the block was certainly an overreaction. As Adjwilley, Stalwart111, Dougweller and Hoary (three of them with access to the comment, as have I) and others have argued, Sitush was baited until he snapped. Treating the revdel'd post as a credible threat of violence is just foolish. Mind you, it may not make a whole lot of difference to Sitush that he's blocked; he wanted out in any case, and I'd be surprised to see an unblock request any time soon. I think he may actually be tired of seeing everything he's been doing for the encyclopedia go for nought the way it has been happening recently, including a mealy-mouthed passive-agressive attack from Jimbo and escalating from there. A classic case of Wikipedia eating her children. Bishonen | talk 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC).
• Indef is not permanent. It should mean until the editor shows they're not going to be a problem. Keep block pending retraction of threat, explanation, and a clear and complete indication the editor understands they were well over-the-line. This comes right after this editor made a BLP about an editor they were in dispute with, in the middle of the dispute. I don't think this editor has made any concession to the community that they've been inappropriate in any way in any of these incidents, despite indication by most in those discussion that he was acting in an ill-advised way. Unblocking without even a single indication that the editor agrees the behavior was inappropriate would be premature. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification helpful: Evidently from his talk page some people think the redacted threat was against me. What I read there and above gives the impression it was against other members of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Greater_Manchester who were harassing him in some thread on this talk page; not clear to me which. I live in Washington DC, so obviously it was not a threat against me. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Note from blocking administrator: When I was approached with this issue, a number of policies were considered when blocking. First, our threat of harm policy advocates that, “Threats of violence to others should be met with blocking…” and our personal attack policy recommends blocks without warning when death threats are issued. These policies are further elaborations on one of our 5 fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Regardless of the severity or the likelihood of the execution of the death threat, such threats are not appropriate and are extremely disruptive to the community, the editing process, and most importantly can have a serious negative impact on the targeted user.

In regards to the duration of the block, I want to remind everyone that indefinite blocks are not permanent blocks. I’m opposed to reducing the block to a limited duration, as this would allow Sitush to possibly avoid addressing his or her actions. The duration will only depend on when and how Sitush wishes to approach an unblock. Should Sitush choose to appeal, I hope that Sitush will reflect and learn from this situation, appreciate the gravity of such comments, understand that it’s best to step back from Wikipedia when it becomes stressful, and that it’s more desirable to take the time to compose a calm response to others. Mike V • Talk 19:21, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn The threat was certainly unacceptable but I believe an indef block was a disproportionate response. I support a reduction to 3 days. Too much poking, of multiple sides, can make everybody snap. I even support blocking the other parties involved in this poking and kicking. The Banner talk 19:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do admins talk to you like you have just done something naughty in class? "I hope that Sitush will reflect and learn from this situation, appreciate the gravity of such comments, understand that it’s best to step back from Wikipedia when it becomes stressful, and that it’s more desirable to take the time to compose a calm response to others" sounds both patronising and very condescending. If he was to learn anything from this situation then it would be not to bother logging on at all as clearly the lunatics are running the asylum. Cassianto^talk 19:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Just take a quiet moment and read this again to yourself aloud: "Regardless of the severity or the likelihood of the execution of the death threat, such threats are not appropriate and are extremely disruptive to the community, the editing process, and most importantly can have a serious negative impact on the targeted user." AnonNep (talk) 19:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite moment taken, although I spent most of it wondering why you too are talking to me in a patronising tone. Maybe, just maybe, people shouldn't go bear baiting. Cassianto^talk 19:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixed indent. Even before that, it was under, not responding to yours.[227] I hope your linking to WP:BEAR isn't seen as intimidation or a threat. AnonNep (talk) 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

AnonNep: While I hope it wasn't your intention, you comments appear to be coming off in a vague, passive-agressive manner. I'd much rather prefer if you would state your concerns directly. Mike V • Talk 20:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike V, I don't think the juxtaposition of statements such as 'the severity or the likelihood of the execution of the death threat' with 'extremely disruptive to the community' is vague or passive-aggressive, rather, the statements represent hyperbole and understatement. I was highlighting the extremes of the explanation in light of the in-def decision. AnonNep (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Mike V, here, AnonNep. As Mike V seems utterly incapable of grasping nuance or subtlety, you probably should have simply told him he was acting like a pedantic fusspot. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

AnonNep and Mike V, sorry, can we refer to the editor by name when responding as things are becoming confusing. Cassianto^talk 20:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto: Sure, I've clarified my comments. Mike V • Talk 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto, good advice and will try to as above. AnonNep (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Mike V, can you stop talking in riddles? What comments have you clarified? Ironically, your seem even more vague than whoever it was you were accusing of being vague earlier! Cassianto^talk 20:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Cassianto: I'm sorry if my comments are coming across that way, it is not my intention. By clarify my comments I meant that I would specify to whom my comments were addressing, as the indenting process was not working well. Mike V • Talk 20:35, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Cassianto^talk 20:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Lithistman: Please stop. Your comments are becoming disruptive and aren't beneficial to the current discussion. Mike V • Talk 20:13, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm fairly certain that your initial indef of a good editor with a clean block log was far more disruptive than anything I've posted here. And your pedantic nonsense above just continues the problem. LHM^{ask me a question} 20:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Not too surprised to see the blocking administrator refuse to consider the context of the comments, the history of the editor, or anything other than "the letter of the law", in defending the indef block. And if his condition is that Sitush has to come groveling to him for forgiveness (which is how I read Mike V's note above), then there is no chance this block will ever be overturned, save for some administrator boldly doing what's right. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In 2011 I got a six month block for merely asking an editor a question about whether his editing history which entirely consisted of certain women-related topics was the motivation for his harassing me; I also posted a link to my comment on a the WikiaFeminism site which I naively thought was part of Wikipedia. I had to make it clear that I understood the wrong I had done before my block was lifted after a couple weeks. And there was nary a gun in sight. So let's at least have a proportionate standard on these sorts of things. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I can gather, you should no longer even be a part of this project. LHM^{ask me a question} 19:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc I was going to leave you a message on your talk page advising you to stay far, far away from this situation for dramas sake, but I didn't because I figured you'd realize it would not be advisable for you to involve yourself in this. Apparently I was wrong. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 19:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that kind of similar to "is not and has never been a Wikipedian", LHM? By the way, that's a curious username for you to bring to this discussion, "Listhitman". It's been pointed out to me that this is purely coincidental; the only obvious interpretation of the username is the one mentioned at the user's userpage. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Carol, what you need to understand is that some editors (mostly male?) are regarded as "needed" by the great and good, and some are not. Of course, special consideration is required for those that are "needed" - the feelings of those who are "not needed" is not necessarily a consideration. Sitush has been unblocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I find Mike V's comment off mark, saying that a temporary block will make Sitush avoid addressing his actions. Considering Sitush's totally clean block record and history of behaviour over many years, Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Blocks_should_be_preventative should apply . He made a mistake, and paid for it by getting blocked. No need to add insult to injury by making it indef. And I know indef is not infinite, that is not relevant here. Kingsindian (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  All of that should be taken into consideration in an unblock request. Violent threats are not something that should get some kind of "cool-down" block. If he asked, with some indication of how he viewed his comments, it could theoretically be a one-day block. But it needs some indication from the involved editor. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems to me that a violent threat made in the circumstances are precisely the situation where a cool-down block is called for. Is there some fear that if he is blocked for one week, he will return and issue more violent threats? What, in his history justifies any such fear? Kingsindian (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

People have said he was only threatening about guns because he "snapped". At that point, there's a basic doubt even if he had the cleanest history imaginable. People are being pretty blasé about an editor they basically only know through Wikipedia. The idea seems to be that we can let talk about guns slide because he's only lashing out when he got emotional. That's messed up.__ E L A Q U E A T E 21:04, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Not sure how a week's block means "letting talk about guns slide". I talked about his history on WP, not history in real life. The discussion is about whether the block should be indef or not; not whether there should have been a block. Kingsindian (talk) 21:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I am truly shocked and horrified that any editor would attempt to excuse or minimize a death threat on the grounds that someone was provoked. I mean, seriously?!? I've been on Wikipedia for over 5 years and have over 20,000 edits. I have been in plenty of content disputes, and never have I ever threatened someone with violence. Wikipedia is just a hobby. When any Wikipedia editors threatens another with violence, it affects all of us. I, for one, don't want to worry about some lunatic going after me with a gun because of some crazy content dispute on Wikipedia. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Good block - A threat of violence, credible or not, is a bright line which cannot be crossed. If the editor recants, disavows, apologizes, etc., then an unblock could be considered, but is not an automatic "get out of jail free" card. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Yet again Wikipedia does nothing about the persistent baiting and needling of a good editor by those with an issue to push, and when they do eventually snap, they get blocked, and the culprits get off scot-free. Yes, yes, it was a totally over-the-top comment, but taken in context, what did the peanut gallery that's been trying to get this reaction actually expect? Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • No one here is "provoked" into making a threat of violence. That's a choice on the part of a user. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Nonsense. People regularly do things that are completely out of character if they are provoked enough. Black Kite (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You're wrong. A threat of violence is a conscious choice. This is not a war zone, it's only a website. Has the user recanted, disavowed, apologized, etc.? If not, then he MUST stay blocked. To unblock without that would be a VERY BAD precedent. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
        • And I suggested unblocking ... where, exactly? My point (which I actually thought was pretty clear) was the fact that the disruptive elements that got us to this point are still editing here whilst a very valuable editor is gone. Black Kite (talk) 20:27, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I really have to throw weight behind Mike V's comments. Any reduction should depend on how Sitush responds if and when he does. While I support the reduction, their response to the ban should dictate the results.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 20:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reduce block to 3 days. Sitush's words were entirely inappropriate, and Mike is to be commended for acting quickly. However, count me among those who consider an idefinite block disproportionate to the offense. Clearly context needs to factor in here; Sitush has been consistently provoked. It seems off that good editors can be blocked indefinitely for unfortunate language, and yet we have a difficult time dealing with POV pushers who have a much more detrimental effect on the encyclopedia. I'm also among those who hopes Sitush will return; he's a valuable editor who works in some of the highest need areas of Wikipedia.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Really?!? If somebody threatens to put a bullet between the middle of your brain, you're saying that a 3 day block of editing Wikipedia is a sufficient way to rectify the situation? Really?!?!? I mean, really?!?!?!?!?! A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You think that, in the full knowledge history and context of the 2 editors concerned, that the "threat" was literally meant and literally taken? Really?!?!?!?! I mean really!?!?!?!?!? DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Bullshit and dire block, I will not be editing again till it is overturned. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)***Really?!? You (AQFK) think that's what Cuchullain meant? Or that Sitush really intended to shoot Demiurge if he saw him? I'm sure he didn't. And I'm concerned that this block and the lack of understanding of some of the editors here will put him off Wikipedia entirely. We will lose a very valuable editor over a block that didn't consider context or anything else except the most extreme sanction available under the letter of the law, one that I consider punishment, and leaves the door wide open for the disruptive elements that he's had to contend with to carry on unabated. He's had some of the most vile treatment by some of these elements that I've seen on Wikipedia including threats and allegations that could seriously damage him in real life. But hell, no good deed goes unpunished. Dougweller (talk) 20:57, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Good block. There are many excellent content creators who manage not to threaten to shoot other editors in the face. Overturning the ban should not even be considered prior to some sort of statement on the matter from Sitush expressing awareness that this was remarkably inappropriate. Gamaliel (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Reduce the block to a year or less – Sitush, a constructive contributor, was baited, from what I can see in the context above. Unless I am mistaken, he is human, and does have feelings. Good block, though; violence/death threats aren't tolerated anywhere. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you really think that if he's blocked for a year there's any chance in hell he'll want to contribute here again?  Volunteer Marek  21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

He is unblocked now. So my comment is nil. – Epicgenius (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn block or shorten to time served - i.e. unblock him. Good editors sometimes loose their temper too, especially when often provoked (which, frankly, Demiurge excels at and specializes in). Indefinite is definitely ridiculous. Two more things. One, it's extremely hypocritical, bad faithed, dishonest, and plain sleazy to act like Sitush's comment was meant to be taken literally as some editors are doing above. If that's the game you're trying to play here, you're only making yourself look like a creep. Two, if anyone demands that Sitush grovel and apologize before being unblocked, they deserve a block themselves. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for indulging your sadistic authoritarian tendencies on editors who have contributed far more than you. Volunteer Marek  21:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Unblocked. However, for those of you who live for long stupid arguments like this, you're welcome to carry on arguing for the next few days. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
  • In future, when someone issues a threat of violence and gets blocked, this new "Sitush Rule" can be invoked to justify overturning the block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
    • those of you who live for long stupid arguments like this, you're welcome to carry on arguing for the next few days. then a comment by Baseball Bugs. Heh. Flo called it. Volunteer Marek  00:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
      • You support threats of violence? What's wrong with you?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Demiurge1000's conduct in relation to the circumstances of Sitush's block

I'm not clear on why Demiurge's mocking and provocative post to which Sitush responded isn't subject to scrutiny and sanction. Would anyone care to explain? (Btw, I'm not mentioning this from the point of view of exonerating Sitush, but as a separate issue) DeCausa (talk) 21:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

In what way was what I said provocative? Purely because someone reacted to it in a highly inappropriate manner? Or because of what I actually said?

Are you suggesting that I had been repeatedly poking at Sitush? How many times do you see me commenting in that discussion on Sitush's talk page, or indeed any other discussion there?

Or am I to be convicted of "baiting" Sitush purely because I had dared to express my disapproval of his disruptive behaviour in completely separate discussions elsewhere?

I'm not wholly sure it was "mocking", either; I did consider it "a sad state of affairs", which is exactly what I put in the edit summary. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Can we see diffs of this part of the altercation, or were they oversighted as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tarc (talk • contribs) 21:34, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm assuming perhaps this could be the trigger, as it's the comment right before Sitush's comment that triggered the block. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, there is only one single edit from me in the last five hundred (500!) revisions of Sitush's talk page, and it is visible to all editors (assuming a bureaucrat hasn't randomly given me the admin bit just to spice things up here). So I assume that is what DeCausa is referring to, but I can understand the puzzlement as to why he thinks it's such a big deal. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You're not "wholly" sure it was mocking? What aspects were in fact mocking then? DeCausa (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Either we're missing something in the context of what was rev-deleted or you're linking to the wrong thing, as there's nothing terrible about that comment at all. Tarc (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Tarc: - I'm 99% sure that that is it. His comment was "Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry..." whilst Sitush responded "As for looking for serious weaponry: if I found you right now, you'd be looking right down the barrel of it.". Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 21:55, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Enough stupid arguments on AN/I lately. Not another one. Nothing in the comment which is actionable. Kingsindian (talk) 21:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
• Sitush is unblocked now, so fixing responsibility for this mess is pointless. I suggest we drop the stick and move on. 117.241.136.9 (talk) 21:45, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You think he's coming back after some of the crass comments here? DeCausa (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Un-archived

Sorry, but I've been bold and unarchived this thread. Evidently today is the day for people being ridiculously bold with their reversals of things, so it seems apropos. Sitush's threat was unacceptable; the unblock, given the (and I'm being very generous to the people who think the threat is okay, here) wavering nature of the block debate above, was also unacceptable.

So: consider this a restart of the discussion and good/bad block debate; hopefully this way we can actually reach consensus without being beaten to the punch. Again.

For what it's worth, I consider the block a good block and endorse it being restored. I'm not buying "well he was baited"; there are lines you don't cross even when baited. Ironholds (talk) 23:02, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ironholds: thank you. Would you also be so kind as to restore Tarc's comment which was rollbacked? Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Re Tarc's comments, it looked like some of the intermediate changes conflicted with them, so an undo is out of the question: I can try a manual re-addition if he's that attached to em. Ironholds (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter, leave em out. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

And the shit-stirring continues. Particularly rich coming from someone who jokes about setting other editors on fire. MLauba ^(Talk) 23:15, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

... and the personal attacks start. C'mon - we're adults here (or more mature at least). Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

On the contrary; as someone who acted inappropriately, and was rightly sanctioned for it despite the easy argument that I was 'baited', and despite my many content contributions, I'm highly qualified to speak up here. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Is that your motivation... to do to another content builder what was done to you? Were you indefinitely blocked and did you have to grovel? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

If by that you mean: appropriately punished for acting in an unacceptable way? Then....yes. I'm struggling to see what's controversial about that.

On the other hand, if by that you mean "I got hurt and now everyone else should too, nerr", well, first, I'm not five years old, and second, that would require me to believe that my sanctions were unfair. They weren't: they were entirely justified, and I believe that sanctions against Sitush would also be entirely justified (hence the endorsing of the block). I would suggest two things, however, and that is first, that the content builder distinction is hokum and bunkum and not worth bringing into the conversation (I only mentioned it because it was a defence for the unblock, not because I believe it matters in these discussions) and second, that we get back to discussing the actual block/unblock/what-do-we-do-now question. Ironholds (talk) 23:37, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• It's all one big MMORPG for many here. Not sure what Ironholds expects to gain from unarchiving, but I've got my popcorn ready, though I'll be watching from the sidelines. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

  I'd hope that we can come to an actual decision. At the moment we're in this space where the unblocking admin broke some wooly guidelines to unblock, but anyone seeking to reverse their decision would, without consensus, break not-at-all-wooly-and-very-serious guidelines. The idea is that we can reach a consensus: whether that's "the threat was understandable, the block was inappropriate" or vice versa is sort of secondary to getting us out of this headspace where nobody can move. Ironholds (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment I do find it puzzling the removal of the ban when it seems to me that greater support was given for Ban reduction. Though I could be wrong that just what it seems to me. However now that been done I do not see it as reasonable to undo it. Its seems that most everyone agrees that these comments were unacceptable. Those that don't support the ban removal seem to want some sign that Sitush understands.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Serialjoe, that's what happens when you have a rule that says that any single admin may unilaterally unblock someone. In my opinion, a rational system would not allow such a thing, but this one does. (And I am not involved in this controversy, or any others on Wikipedia. I do observe them though, and it has always puzzled me that the "community" allows things to run this way.) Neutron (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It seems once again that atrocious behavior is being pooh-pooh'ed away for the sake of of keeping a "content contributor" in the stables, laboring away for the good of all. I'd like to see anyone here say with a straight face that if an editor with 2-3 months of experience directed that same sort of violent comment to another, that that editor would not only be unblocked, but unblocked without even first offering up any sort of apology or acknowledgement that they did something wrong. Tarc (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You do realize that an extensive discussion of the block happened at Sitush's talkpage, right? (There is a world outside ANI, though I know that's hard to believe.) And that discussion had a very different tenor. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:40, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean a gaggle of sympathizers and enablers showed up to thump their chests and decry the evil admin abuse and yadda yadda yadda? I am Jack's complete lack of surprise. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

You really put me in my place. I feel humbled and ashamed. I'm sure all your admin friends are impressed. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussions have different tones, but are identical in not including any commentary from Sitush, who doesn't seem to have an opinion on if anything they did was a problem, but is pretty certain they're chilled out about it. I'm not seeing any commentary there which suggests that factoring that discussion in would alter Tarc's comment. Ironholds (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

No, they're not. But I'm not surprised you think they are. LHM^{ask me a question} 23:48, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Obviously content is unimportant. This is really an experiment in democracy, rather than an encyclopaedia. And obviously the years of clean history count for nothing. I opposed indef, and suggested a 3 days to a week at most. Not totally happy with the immediate unblock, but not too concerned either, since he is not coming back soon. Kingsindian (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Ironholds is right. Content is ceasing to matter, and it's time the content builders packed up and moved on. The important thing now is ensuring any remaining content builders behave according to the dictates of the social-networking groups who are here to enforce their particular versions of political correctness. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If that's what the two of you are reading into my commentary, well, that's between you and your biases. What I'm trying to communicate is that "he writes content" is not a defence to threatening to shoot someone in the head. If you think that "not threatening people with violence" is nothing more than a "[dictate] of the social-networking groups" or "political correctness", then yes, you probably want to find another site. One without people. Honestly, if I thought content wasn't important I wouldn't be juggling this thread with writing a lengthy and fairly important article. Ironholds (talk) 00:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well is or is not this the threat in question? If it was, then there was no threat to "shoot someone in the head". There was merely an understandable response to Demiurge's ambiguous comment, "I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry..." It's ambiguous whether this means Demiurge is looking for troublemakers who are equipped with serious weaponry, or whether he is looking with serious weaponry for troublemakers. It would have been easy for Sitush, given the prolonged harassment he has been subjected to, to have read the second meaning into the comment and respond, somewhat immoderately but very understandably as he did. This has been blown out of all proportion. --Epipelagic (talk) 00:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• good block - and should be reinstated. Regardless of the alleged provocation, he chose the words he used. Now, if he wishes, he can choose to do the right thing and retract the threat and make it clear that he understands that the words he used were indeed not acceptable. Isaidnoway (talk) 00:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, I don't understand the argument that people are being unreasonable asking an editor that threatened gun violence to file an unblock request before jumping back into regular editing. Are we being impolite? Is it an inconvenient request? __ E L A Q U E A T E 00:09, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I am not a fan of indefinite blocks, and I support ending the option, as it is a symptom that the blocking admin is indecisive.  In this case a four-month block would have been a better block.  Given that the second-mover advantage is being used to reduce the length of blocks, a tactic is hyper-short blocks, which opens the door to allow the second-mover to extend the block to a reasonable amount of time.  But as for removing this block on the grounds that death threats should not be a black mark against an editor, this is wrong.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Entirely inappropriate, out-of-process unblock. I don't see that there was any serious consultation of the blocking admin. The block itself cannot reasonably be said to have been obviously inappropriate, incorrect, or an abuse of authority in violation of policy. As such, the unblocking admin should not have unblocked without at least consulting the blocking admin. Floquenbeam's comment following the unblock, furthermore, brings the entire project into disrepute by giving the impression of being a supervote. I am greatly disappointed by this, as in my experience, Floquenbeam has been a far more capable administrator up until now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Thanks for the laugh--I literally did laugh out loud at "Floquenbeam's comment following the unblock, furthermore, brings the entire project into disrepute." (Also, the popcorn is very tasty.) FTR, many things that happen on ANI actually do "bring the project into disrepute." Floque's unblock isn't one of them. It shows admirable common sense. LHM^{ask me a question} 00:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Hey, anything that draws more attention to my comment is a plus. Thanks for responding. Remember to upvote. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment While inappropriate I'd agree that Sitush comments were understandable. I certainly hope in the future they will try to moderate such speech. He's unblocked. Why should they be blocked again? You got people mentioning wikipedias repute but this indecisiveness stands to do nothing about that. It's to move on or get to the point so everyone can move on.Serialjoepsycho (talk) 00:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I suppose there wasn't technically anything wrong with the block - Mike saw something and blocked for it. What Mike perhaps didn't see was the 2-week-long campaign of baiting and system-gaming from a professional activist that led to "Demiurge's ambiguous comment" and Sitush's subsequent reply. It's a campaign we've seen before and it's designed with exactly this result in mind; more drama so that certain people can claim victim status. Flo saw the comments in that context and unblocked. At no point was the unblock tied to the suggestion that Mike was somehow incompetent. A technically okay block in a bad context made it a bad block. I called the situation a "fucking joke" and it was. The block should never have happened, but then the baiting should never have happened either - the professional activist aggressor should have been blocked long ago. Flo's unblock just means one less editor head mounted on a certain person's trophy wall. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverse the unblock: There clearly wasn't a consensus to revert the block. I'm contemplating taking Floquenbeam to Arbcom over this one, as he has developed an unpleasant habit of reversing unblocks and relying on WP:WHEELWAR to ensure that he gets his way. This is the third such unblock I'm aware of, and it's getting old. Enabling disruption is conduct unbecoming an administrator.—Kww(talk) 01:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that move will end how you think it will end. But I'll watch your attempt with interest. LHM^{ask me a question} 01:25, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Kww: If you want to bring it to ArbCom, I fully endorse that, and will write a supporting opinion on the case request thus making us the most improbable crime-fighting duo in...quite a while Ironholds (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• I would also be supportive here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• For what it's worth, I'd also support this coming to the Arbitration Committee. I think there are a number of things that could do with review here. GorillaWarfare (talk) 02:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Okay given the above who wants to start the request? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Reverse the unblock Given that this user is already involved in a dispute with carol above this is just another thing that has piled on. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Is any reason to believe that the alleged treat of violence might be actually accomplished? If not, this is just an incivility at most and does not warrant an indefinite block, in my opinion. My very best wishes (talk) 01:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Are you being serious right now? Lets see how your logic works when it comes to school threats for example "Oh they wont actually do it, no worries we don't need to do anything". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• "We're worried he might actually threaten a user with a gun" is not actually the reason threats are treated so seriously (although obviously it's an outcome we'd like to avoid ;p). The point is that unlike incivility, these threats serve a chilling effect. If I tell you you're an [expletive], well, I'm being incivil. If I tell you I'm going to turn up to your house and do hideous violence to your pets, it's incivil, but also serves to have a chilling effect on further conversation. One is a subset of the other, and shouldn't be treated as "just incivil". To extend the school example, the reason it's not just idle language is that, even if it is just idle language, you still have a strong incentive to shut the school down, and that's kind of disruptive. Ironholds (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

  Is there any reason to think that the angry anonymous mouth-breathers who threatened rape during the Gamergate controversy actually had the fortitude to carry out their eThreats? The feasibility of a threat isn't the point; the point was that a threat of harm was introduced to an argument, the effect of which is the proverbial chilling effect on one's opponent. Tarc (talk) 01:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Even if you disagree with the block, the unblock is what's under discussion here... and there was neither consensus to overturn nor a policy-based reason to do so unilaterally. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Agreed, the only thing there present was: "You have been editing a long time and have great value to Wikipedia I will overlook this as a minor thing and give you a slap on the wrist but don't do it again" type of thing. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Except for, "you have been editing for a long time and have great value to Wikipedia. Everyone ignored all rules while you were pushed closer and closer to the edge and you were blocked when you finally fell. So I'm ignoring all rules to unblock you and reset the situation for the sake of maintaining a collegial editing environment where content contributors are valued and drama-mongers might one day be held to account". But whatever. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• So it's fine for an admin to ignore all rules during an ongoing discussion that demonstrates the lack of a community consensus as to how the situation should be handled? No sir, that's one of the worst misuses of IAR I've seen. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• That's the downside of the first-mover mechanics of administrative actions in this project; an admin can block, and admin can unblock, but an admin cannot re-block lest they get slammed for wheel-warring. Tarc (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• And yet that's exactly what happened in the lead-up to the exchange that saw Sitush blocked. An admin expressly ignored all rules (and community consensus) during an ongoing discussion about how a situation should be handled. And it was done for the personal appeasement of one of this project's most disruptive users. But that wasn't considered "one of the worst misuses of IAR" of course. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:27, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• There was an ongoing discussion as to how to handle Sitush's specific comment that resulted in this block? I also wasn't aware that the blocking admin invoked IAR. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I said nothing about the blocking admin and I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. It's a glaringly obvious double-standard. If you genuinely don't then I question the wisdom of commenting here without an understanding of the full context. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Respectfully, I question the relevance of your comment with respect to a double-standard, in that case. This thread is about an unblock that was made without consulting the blocking admin, without an unblock request, and during an ongoing discussion as to the propriety of the block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:16, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn unblock I'm sorry, I defended Sitush tooth and nail and may have taken some credibility hits with the CarolmooreDC situation - but I feel at minimum we need to hear from @Sitush: before undoing this block. Policy explicitly states that every threat of violence needs to be taken seriously. I fail to see how we should treat this any differently. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 01:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• In my opinion I feel that the unblocking admin needs a review of their actions, I can see the need for a reduction of a block but a full unblock after a threat made? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see an issue with a block reduction after Sitush makes a statement. I think that's what most want. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) As someone who thought the block was fine, I can go with that. Hell, I might even have been okay with a full unblock if Sitush came back and owned up to the mistake of making that comment. Though potentially subject to further review, the unblocking admin would have had at least one foot in the line. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Whether he comes back or not, I'd say the chances Sitush "makes a statement" that would satisfy the ANI crowd are slim and none. LHM^{ask me a question} 02:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I understand there may have been a lot of provocation, and I would be willing to support an unblock, but I feel that Sitush should first acknowledge that threatening and violent comments are unacceptable here. Everyking (talk) 02:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see the original post by Sitush before it was redacted. Most of us (who are not admins) are arguing about something that has been reported second-hand. If the quotation above as to what he said is accurate, then it appears that it was an extremely bad joke by an editor under extremely great stress. The previous mention of weaponry had to do not with any threat by Sitush, but with concerns by Sitush that he, Sitush, was in danger from IAC thugs. I inferred that Sitush was under some sort of stress because of his anger toward Carol Moore, on another continent than either Sitush or IAC. If an editor who was trying to deal with real threats made a mistake and posted a bad joke of a threat, then I agree that a block was correct and the unblock was appropriate. Sitush made a mistake if that is what he posted. I will ask other editors who criticize him further whether they know what they would have done in a similar situation. If they think that they know, I will ask whether they were in such a situation, of being threatened with physical violence, and whether they are sure that they would not have done what Sitush did, to make a bad joke about violence. I hope that the block and unblock does not cause Sitush to leave Wikipedia. If he decides to leave Wikipedia because the danger is not worth it, that is his decision. If the quote is correct, it was a bad joke about a much worse situation. There has been mention of what the WMF should do. The WMF is presumably by now well aware of the situation. The only actions that I can see that can be taken by the WMF for a real-world off-wiki threat due to on-wiki conduct is to cooperate with the British police. Editors who have not been threatened with physical violence for their on-wiki conduct should be hesitant to judge one who apparenthly has. Those are my thoughts. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

 Comment: The quote is provided by Chillum who has access to RevDel and I assume copied/pasted the comment for non-admins to see. I pulled the other diff from Sitush's talk page which is available for everyone to see. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 02:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I think we should just generally wait until Sitush says something, anything, about the block. He appears to have simply stopped contributing after that outburst. No need to go after Floquen's nuts over something that may very well be resolved imminently.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 02:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@The Devil's Advocate, Sitush's rev-deleted post also contained some strong language indicating his intention to retire. ~Adjwilley (talk) 03:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn unblock There was clearly no consensus to reverse the block. It was a threat of violence with a weapon. To reverse it like that is insulting to the person targeted. Nobody wants to work in a place where people threaten to shoot you. I cannot fucking believe I have to say this. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 03:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Admins have a clear duty to avoid misrepresentation, particularly when they are attacking content builders. You have failed to mention the context of relentless harassment Sitush had been subjected to. But you do mention that Sitush threatened violence with a weapon. You also indicate that he threatened to shoot someone. According to the OP of this thread, an editor who had been part of this harassment said ambiguously and provocatively, "Well, I will certainly keep an eye out for any troublemakers with serious weaponry...". That is ambiguous, because it is not clear whether the serious weaponry was related to the "troublemakers" or to the harasser. It has been claimed that Sitush responded, "As for looking for serious weaponry: if I found you right now, you'd be looking right down the barrel of it." Did Sitush then escalate the matter with a specific threat that he would be violent? And did he then further escalate matters and specifically threaten to shoot someone? Or are these just embellishments you made up? --Epipelagic (talk) 04:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Epipelagic: Saying that Sitush threatened to shoot someone is an embellishment. I've read the comment several times, and even if you were to ignore all context and take everything literally, the most Sitush threatened to do was to point "serious weaponry" at Demiurge1000. ~Adjwilley (talk) 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Well if Demiurge1000 had made those comments about "serious weaponry" to me I would likely have responded in a similar way as Sitush. Sitush was just turning the situation Demiurge1000 had created around. There's a lot of dramatic talk in this thread about the "chilling effect" by a crowd that seems to want to break out pitchforks. That's the talk I find chilling. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:15, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Speculation regarding the accoutrements brought by hypothetical troublemakers is unnecessary; the relevant context is still present on the talk page. isaacl (talk) 05:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• People threaten to kill each other all the time. Rarely is the threat serious. We are expected to treat it seriously, but that does not mean we should pretend like this is not something that happens sometimes when people are really frustrated. As I said, many people probably say it aloud while having the good sense not to post it and that does not take into account how many think it. Then you have all the things short of an actual threat that still convey the same inherent meaning such as "I hope you get hit by a bus", "why don't just kill yourself", or the ever popular "I hope you choke on it", as that sort of thing enters the mind much more easily since it is more morally tolerable to merely wish ill on someone than to threaten ill on someone.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've got to tell you, I would totally expect someone who told another editor to go kill themselves to draw a block. I'm not saying I'd be one to agree with the block, but I would absolutely expect someone to drop a block on that sort of incivility. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 04:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn unblock - The original block was correct and proper. The unblock is breathtaking under the circumstances as I understand them: threats about guns, no word of contrition from Sitush and an unblock without consensus. That threats of violence are now to be accepted here is the death-knell for a volunteer project. I feel the chilling effect already. Jusdafax 04:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you come here to rant at me? It is water off a duck's back.

• Overturn unblock - Someone is baiting a person who proclaims that rants are like water off a duck's back, but still lashes out with a serious threat of violence. And then gets unblocked without a statement from the blocked editor? Let's wait at the very least for his statement first. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:47, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
• Question; are any of those who are demanding Sitush be reblocked willing to lend a hand in the Indian caste articles? I'd like to see how many of you brahmin gandoo chamchas (to use some very mild terminology that's been flung his way) are willing to be even remotely friendly after being referred to as such for two years and having innumerable real-world threats on your life and health. People lose their shit every so often, it happens. If this is simply about needing to be angry at something, I can help you redirect your attention to something that happened in, you know, the real world. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 05:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Oh, that makes it all fine, of course. We all get people yelling at you all the time, and therefore it is fine to throw in the occasional threat of violence and .. become like them. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:03, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question To those saying that the matter is resolved, have the authorities been notified? Until the police say that there is no threat to us, the matter has not been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Relax. It's most unlikely Sitush is tracking you down with assault rifles and bazookas. Though you could notify the United Nations, just to be on the safe side. --Epipelagic (talk) 06:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Allow me to say that I have reported editors to the authorities before, Epipelagic. I've recieved barnstars doing so. I think the dismissive attitude manifested by you and others here is extremely unhelpful, as any threat of violence, especially involving weapons, must be taken seriously. The repeated shutting down of this thread in the face of growing consensus to reblock is deeply troubling, and raises additional questions. I for one am anything but relaxed and find your gratituious reassurances offensive. Jusdafax 07:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Analysis of closing

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

---

A simple count of the bolded positions in the "Un-archived" section reveals unanimous 8-0 favor for overturning the unblock.  The closing has characterized the consensus here to overturn the unblock as a "majority", but in my case has grouped my stated preference for a four-month block with "moving on".  I can agree that at this point, in this forum, the discussion is not directly about who did the unblock.  Should this closing be overturned?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes The closing should be overturned. The fact that so many editors disagree with the close is proof that the matter has not been resolved. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No, Sitush has now stated that he made a bad tempered response rather than a threat, and also that he intends to not edit Wikipedia for at least a while. So the discussion of his unblocking is now largely out of date, and the unblock should not overturned because of it. Cardamon (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - He has recanted and disavowed his threat of violence. But he better not let it happen again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - He fucked up, He admitted wrong, Lets all just move on. –Davey2010 • (talk) 01:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - He said he is taking a break anyways, even if the block were to be shortened he wouldn't be here. I disagree with the unblocking admin's actions though as it gave off a personalized feel to it. If an inexperienced editor had done the same and then said the same response as Sitush for a unblock request would they have been given the same treatment or different due to lack of support? This bothers me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No to reopening the closing and/or restoring the block. A good and valuable editor made a mistake, and has acknowledged that mistake. A block for his use of a hyperbolic metaphor was appropriate; an indefinite block, followed by ritual humiliation in begging for forgiveness, was not. Others, to their discredit, seized upon an obviously metaphorical phrase and exaggerated the offending language into a genuine threat of physical violence. That grotesque exaggeration was nonsense, and the majority of editors commenting on this page should know that without being told. Time served. No further action in this matter is required or desirable. End of drama. Go back to editing an encyclopedia. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Since the original message was hidden a-lot of people did not see it but it was reposted after the fact. As for a good and valuable editor? That should not be a factor. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Of course it's a factor, KnowledgeKid. And well it should be. Every court of law in the Anglo-American legal world would take into account the prior good citizenship of a first-time offender, as well as other mitigating and aggravating circumstances of the crime itself. We're no different. There is an element of common sense and the "reasonable person" at work here. I would hope that knowledgeable and intelligent editors such as yourself could see that. A witch-burning is not required here. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• While I agree that in a sentencing matter, those sorts of things would be factored into a judge's sentence... we're not a court, not engaging in punishment, and we have other countervailing interests. While long-term contributors are to be valued, Wikipedia must avoid the appearance of letting insiders play by different rules. A less-prolific contributor would have been indeffed without controversy, and there certainly would not have been a unilateral unblock (particularly without an unblock request). Anyway, just my 2¢. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Good people who go do a stupid thing can get disgraced in the real world as well im sure you know this. Wikipedia is not the real world though and seeing this is online all we have are words to go by, which I feel is part of the reason why the Wikimedia foundation takes all threats seriously good editor and new editor alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No – When a new editor retracts a threat of violence, we unblock them and move on. When an experienced editor retracts a threat of violence, we unblock them and move on. Therefore, since Sitush retracted his threat of violence, we unblock him and move on. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Procedural no due to mootness. Sitush has responded, and reasonably so. I think that's all I would have required in order for me to strike my endorsement of the original block in the first section above. I'm still displeased with Floquenbeam's unilateral unblock during the ongoing discussion (note that this is independent of any concerns as to the propriety of the "unilateral block" in the first instance). But the issue of Floquenbeam's use of the tools is one that goes well beyond both ANI's jurisdiction and capability. We just aren't set up to handle things that require anything more than summary action (and yes, this is in part a call for ANI reform, whereby matters that cannot be handled summarily should be purged from these boards). —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Meh - In light of the editor recanting, there's no practical purpose to overturning or reinstating anything. Let it go. Tarc (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No and I shouldn't have to bold anything for my opinion to count. Giving weight only to bolded opinions is silly and there was nowhere near consensus for anything in that thread. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No - Would serve no purpose whatsoever. Another admin would just come along and close it with their preferred consensus. Hopefully he got the message and will stay retired. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Unresponsive POV-pushing IP

70.33.31.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has:

• censored sourced information in the Exorcism of Roland Doe article,
• added undue weight on fringe aspects of the same article,
• POV pushed in the Theistic Satanism article,
• attempted to censor the same article,
• continued to make the same sort of edits to the Exorcism of Roland Doe article despite being told why the edits were reverted and invited to discuss the issue.

The IP is pushing both supernaturalist and Christian POVs, and does not appear interested in discussion. A block might get their attention, but I welcome anyone else to waste their time leaving messages on their talk page and actually would appreciate if anyone else would mind keeping an eye on them. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:41/03:14, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I've left a non-templated final warning on the IP's talk page. Please re-report if the behavior continues and I somehow miss it.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the user's response was to leave a massive personal attack on Phil's talk page.[228] --MelanieN (talk) 04:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd call it a rant rather than a PA, but if someone else considers it warrants a block I have no objection.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And the IP continues to add unsourced material to Exorcism of Roland Doe, including an unsourced red herring that leaves me unable to assume both competence or good faith with regards to their ability to edit articles on possession. Were they a registered user, I'd call for a topic ban. The IP strikes me as being more interested in WP:THETRUTH and WP:RGW than cooperatively building an encyclopedia.

We definitely need to block the IP. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 48 hours after ignoring the final talk page warning.  Philg88 ^♦talk 16:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Netoholic and User:Thivierr conduct at Stefan Molyneux

Netoholic (talk · contribs)

Thivierr (talk · contribs)

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

I'm sort of at wits end and would like to request assistance with this editor. For the last 3 weeks, every edit of mine to a particular article, regardless of content or circumstances, is being reverted by User:Thivierr (who signs as "Rob"). For a while, he did participate in collaborative discussions on the talk page, but lately it seems like his main activity on WP seems to be to revert any and all edits I make to this article, and to do so without leaving any substantive edit comment describing his reasoning. I don't mind being reverted, if its accompanied at least by an explanation, but this daily, wordless reverting is not productive. I attempted to contact the user and ask that he either provide edit summaries or discuss these reversions on the talk page, but he rejected my request by deleting my message on his talk page. I have attempted to communicate, both directly and very actively on the article's talk page, and I am not sure what other course to pursue other than to contact others and ask for any guidance you think would be helpful in ending this situation. -- Netoholic @ 02:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The last interaction between the users (here) indicates suggests that this is a WP:POINT tactic by Thivierr. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If a single active editor (who sees this) agrees to actively monitor Stefan Molyneux for at least a month, who hasn't been involved before, I'll happily take at least that long off from editing the article, voluntarily. Basically, Stefan Molyneux has only received mainstream/reliable coverage for his "deFOO" advice to families (telling adult children to disconnect from families). That's what got him mentioned in the Globe and Mail[229] and Guardian. The Wikipedia article, however, gives the impression of a prominent philosopher widely known for his various views, despite the fact that most coverage of his views, is by himself, promotional material, and his fellow like-minded pundits. I used to try to explain this, as others have, but nobody can keep up the arguments with Netoholic. Things got so bad on the talk page, that Netoholic will censor any mention of any unwanted details, such as the mere extensive of Molyneux's wife and child (which Molyneux publicly talks about). The Globe and Mail published his wife's name, in a story that was principally about her, and her time co-hosting the Freedomain Radio show[230]. But, not only does the article not name her, and nobody can name her in talk space, but Netoholic feels the mere statement of the fact he has a wife, without a name, is not permissible. I'm all for talk page discussion, and the only user preventing it, is the one complaining above. --Rob (talk) 03:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So you admit it's an WP:OWN issue with you about the article? Yeah the article is excessively using primary sources but that doesn't mean reverting anyone who you disagree with. If Netoholic is being disruptive, you should be moving for an RfC on the user rather than this tactic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a plane, it's superman, no, it's a red herring. Thivierr just gave a very detailed analysis of the problem and your response indicates you read none of it and threw a kneejerk WP:ALPHABETSOUP at the issue. --v/r - TP 17:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, here's a thread in which Rob actually argued against those of us who questioned Molynuex' notability and demonstrated a fact-based reasoned approach underlying his views.[231] SPECIFICO talk 17:28, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If your intent is to "monitor" the article, then you need to explain why it is only *my edits* that you are reverting. Your comments about old talk page discussions have no bearing on the recent reverts you've done of my edits. I think you've simply given up any pretense of collaboration, decided to personally enact some sort of one-sided ban on me on that article, and now just check daily to see if I'm the most recent edit of the page and revert it regardless of content. -- Netoholic @ 10:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

@Ricky81682: Please examine the talk page history of the past 6 months on that article. Netoholic has repeatedly taken an extreme ownership position on various parts of the article, down to the defense of his own choice of words and grammar. He has made repeated wholesale reverts of others' contributions. In an RfC, he tendentiously argued with each participant and stalked several to their talk pages, then denied the outcome after it was closed. Netoholic's talk page comments are replete with personal attack, failure to AGF, and accusation. Just review the past month or so. He has edit-warred over Article Improvement Tags, as noted by @David Gerard: here. Many good editors, including David Gerard, @ZarlanTheGreen: (see here) have dropped out of editing the article after Netoholic's tendentious badgering. He's had similar unconstructive, repetitive exchanges with @N-HH: on the talk page here. Netoholic has repeatedly, persistently violated the decorum principle of the recent Arbcom decision concerning BLP here. Several editors noted he was on the verge of being sanctioned for such behavior relating to the RfC linked above. SPECIFICO talk 14:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Concur. Netoholic is an enthusiastic fan of Molyneux, but a rather overenthusiastic one with a fondness for terrible and non-notable sources. He has also been sanctioned already (blocks) for his conduct (personal attacks) on said talk page. I don't think there's really much room for Netoholic to complain of others seeking to curb his overenthusiasm in the name of encyclopedicness - David Gerard (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have never been blocked for personal attacks on that talk page (and certainly not "blocks" plural), and I ask that David Gerard correct his statement immediately before I respond further. (DG: feel free to remove this reply along with your mistaken accusation). -- Netoholic @ 19:32, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor comment - your block in May was for personal attacks. While they might have been left on an alternate page, they related directly to the article/talk page in question. Your subsequent block related to edit-warring at that article. So yes, a reasonable reading of your block log would suggest multiple blocks relating to that article/talk page, one of which related to personal attacks. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is this topic about Netoholic's blocks and bans or about continuous wholesale reverts that have been going on for months now without any discussion on the talk page? Should the article be reduced to a stub simply because one editor happened to touch it?--Truther2012 (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban against Netoholic then?

WP:BOOMERANG question then. Regardless of what Netoholic has been on the verge of, the editor hasn't actually been topic banned from the article. The solution to me isn't to freeze him out, revert everything he does and demand other editors take up the task for you but to open a discussion on that editor. Do people feel a topic ban is appropriate here? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like everyone to compare the state of the article in April of this year just before I began working on it, and the state of the article now (my last major edit). Of course, there have been other editors, but I am absolutely responsible for all the fresh sources in that article since I started working on it (literally, I can't think of a single one added by anyone else). I have proudly spent a great deal of research time on this obscure article topic adding dozens of sources and summary text. Only a handful of the sources I've found have not met the full standards of Wikipedia and been retired from the article. I am quite proud of the result, though, even now. I had the goal of perhaps bringing it to Good Article status at least, because I think every established, notable article on Wikipedia (even the controversial topics) deserves to be at that level. Its been a learning experience and I think the article is better after the (somewhat rare) fair and impartial feedback that it has gotten. When challenged on content, my first instinct is always to find new and better sources. The main problem I've encountered, is that there are a few people that come to the article carrying an ideological axe to grind against this article's subject and have no interest in actually seeing a Good Article about a subject they hate. They will attack efforts towards article improvement by both procedurally intimidating those willing to do the hard work and by directly hindering progress - edit warring instead of discussion, making "death by a thousand cuts"-style edits, attacking the borderline-quality sources by demanding unattainable standards, defacing the article with banner notices that don't apply. If you want to ban me, then you are banning the type of editor that builds towards article improvement and supporting the types of editors that only know how to destroy topics that they dislike. As a Wikipedia eventualist, I have no doubt that this will someday become a Good Article, and I believe I can be part of that process. The longer the non-contributory detractors are involved in the article, though, the longer that goal will take to be reached. -- Netoholic @ 10:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban of Netaholic. Sadly, his response above is more of the same denial, deflection, and projection which has hamstrung the Molyneux article for nearly six months. When sanctions have been impending or enacted, Netoholic has typically promised to do better or has tried to negotiate them away. Then the battleground behavior recurs. The Molyneux article would be just about entirely primary-sourced, promotional nonsense if all of Netoholic's contributions remained in the text. His post above demonstrates that he is not ready to contribute constructively here, so the TBAN is a suitable preventive, not punitive, remedy. Except for tweaks to articles like Philosopher which relate to his agenda at Molyneux, Netoholic has been almost a single purpose account. He's done some work on templates, but he's also gotten into various bad interactions there (it's off topic for this thread, but see his talk page history.) SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Netoholic's been around WP for years, so it's inaccurate to call him almost an SPA - though I can understand that impression from the level of obsession - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see that he was around years ago, then there was a long hiatus, then he returned with the near-singular focus. At any rate, topic ban seems like a way to solve the current problem while allowing him the opportunity to contribute constructively in other areas. Thanks for the clarification. SPECIFICO talk 14:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (as involved editor). Netoholic has insisted on adding terrible and self-promotional sources that are absolutely not of BLP standard, edit-warring to keep them, and long-running personal attacks on other involved editors sufficient to net blocks for it, as documented above by @Stalwart111:. He's been as cooperative to work with on the article as a junkyard dog. If the non-RSes and self-sources were removed the article would be about a third of the size, and probably should be - David Gerard (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support It's becoming increasingly clear that Netoholic is unable to edit this article in a collaborative way. My only involvement in this is closing an RfC on the article's talk page, which provoked a rather ill-advised attempt to overturn the RFC on AN, which resulted in a unanimous endorsement and several comments on Netoholic's behaviour that are clearly still applicable. Number 57 14:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Everyone interested in this question should read that RFC appeal - David Gerard (talk) 14:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Linked here. SPECIFICO talk 14:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support (as involved party). Netoholic has essentially admitted and boasted of his ownership by explaining how he almost single-handedly greatly improved the article. The problem is there are only a handful of reliable sources (Globe and Mail, Guardian, Time). What he's added is mainly Molyneux's only writings, promotional material (e.g. conference bios), like minded pundits pontifications, and some videos of the man speaking. No level of work can manufacture good sources. Sometimes, the harder you work to find sources, the worse the sources you find. Netoholic is a one man army, that simply exhausts all other editors, who aren't able to re-argue the same points over and over again, so that they give up. Also, I'll admit some of actions in response were a bit petty, and I'll keep my committment to leave editing the article for a month. --Rob (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support (uninvolved) per Rob/Thivierr's comment up top.--v/r - TP 17:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support. Netoholic has long had ownership issues with this article, but I didn't think a topic ban was warranted until his blanket accusation that editors who disagree are "carrying an ideological axe to grind", a mindset which does not lead to collaborative editing. Gamaliel (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • It wasn't a blanket statement - I said a "few people come" with the axe to grind. And you're right, that mindset has been difficult to collaborate with. There have been very rare times when people with a genuine interest to improve the article, even if they dislike the topic, have made editing a pleasure. David Gerard expressed the problem perfectly above when he says he wants to see the article cut down to a third of what it is... this is the destructive attitude that has been present ever since I tried to improve the article. Note that he isn't saying that he wants to devote some time finding better sources to improve the present state of the article - he wants to destroy and tear down. And that destructive attitude comes from being opposed to an ideology so much that he doesn't even want to see it presented in anything above a stub-level article. -- Netoholic @ 18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Longer is not always better, and sometimes it's inappropriate or promotional to have a very long article on a particularly obscure topic, especially if the sources do not support it. I don't think this attitude is "destructive". Gamaliel (talk) 19:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Please reread the sourcing rules at WP:BLP. They are very stringent, with excellent reason. And just as BLPs must not be hatchet jobs, nor should they be hagiographies or filled with puffery and self-promotion. BLP issues are toweringly important to Wikipedia, and we do need consistency of application per policy, lest this bad application be used as an excuse for another bad application - David Gerard (talk) 19:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Let's face facts. Netoholic doesn't make these accusation only against David Gerard. He says more or less the same thing about every editor who has tried to collaborate with him. He stalks people to their talk pages to pound away at his tendentious views. His repeated, strident denials open the door to a troubling conclusion. If Netoholic levies personal attacks at so many editors who are struggling to conform articles to RS, BLP, V and other key policy, should his ban be confined only to this topic, or should it be more broadly applied? SPECIFICO talk 19:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
      • If good sourcing is the goal (which I agree), then can David Gerard or SPECIFICO please point to any good reliable sources they've added to this article in all their edits of it? I would think that if you were consistent in your desire to make good BLPs, you'd be able to demonstrate a balanced approach by showing additions to the article as well as removals. -- Netoholic @ 19:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
        • WP:IDHT. You arn't getting it. If the sources don't exist, they cannot be added. If you are using crappy sources, they need to be removed. You'd be wise to accept that because this is only going to get worse for you. David and SPECIFICO (editors whom I have both had conflict with) are on solid footing with this one. I assure you, this is not going to turn back around on them at all.--v/r - TP 19:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
          • You're using a lot of "if" statements and implying that I disagree with sourcing policies - I do not disagree with them. The question is whether there has been any evidence presented that I actually advocate bad sources... and that evidence is nowhere. I will freely admit that some sources have turned out not up-to-snuff, and I am not attempting to force those, but the article as it stands today, after many people have evaluated it, is very well-sourced. I am proud to have provided all those, and that there is a real article to even be a point of discussion and not some useless stub. If the reward for someone who has made great effort to improve an article is banning from the very same article, then I deserve it... but that is a messed-up system of priorities. My dedication to work on this article has been labeled as "obsession", without evidence, when in reality its genuine effort and research with the best of intentions towards improving one tiny corner of this encyclopedia. -- Netoholic @ 00:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support - there seems to be a disconnect between Netoholic's actions and their stated goals above. Netoholic has an extensive block log with (as pointed out above) a lengthy hiatus in the middle which appears not to have advanced their willingness to function in a collegial manner. The ideal length of the article or the quality of the sources used are matters for the article talk page or other noticeboards. Disagreements over those things do not excuse poor behaviour. The issue here is editor conduct which the editor in question seems determined not to address. A topic ban from this article is a start but the only other area where Netoholic has edited in the last month resulted in a block there too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask what, in your opinion, is the right sort of conduct I should aspire to? Keep in mind that, for the last 3 weeks, I've been subjected to wholesale reverts by a single editor (the original top of this ANI)... So how have I handled myself under that strain? I have not made personal attacks on him. I have not edit warred with him (self-limiting to about 1 edit a day). I reached out to him on his talk page, and was rejected. And then I sought help from uninvolved people by posting here. Other than completely walking away from the project, what could I have done differently? Could it be that the blocks you refer to have been a result of past strains which I didn't handle as well, and am now trying to work through more constructively, like asking for the assistance above? -- Netoholic @ 00:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, but only 3 weeks before that you were blocked for edit-warring at that article in question. The statistics for the article are telling. The article is 42k bytes in size but you've added 67k bytes on your own, making 60 more edits than the next most active editor, 168 more than the next and 215 more than the editor you accuse of "wholesale reverts". Uninvolved editors are indeed likely to view statistics like that as "obsessive", whether you like it or not. If you have a content dispute with other editors, bring it to the attention of others via RFC or one of the many content-related noticeboards. Bringing it here will likely end badly - case in point. You need to learn to walk away and find (as you nicely put it) a different "tiny corner of this encyclopedia" to work on for a bit. If you can't bring yourself to do so, the community will force you to do so. My concern, as above, is that the only time this month that you have edited something else, you got blocked there too. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• What I brought here was not a content dispute, it was a single editor's ongoing actions. WP:BOOMERANG documents a possibility not a prophecy that must be fulfilled. I started working on an article that I found needed work and was willing to devote time. That is not obsession, that is initiative. Are you saying I should graze around making minor updates all over rather than making a deep dive into a single topic? I guess that is one way to steer clear of controversy... but its hardly the sort of thing that results in real encyclopedic substance. Featured Articles certainly don't get to that level by drive-by editors... they get to that level by having a team of people collaborating (or in your terms "obsessing") on the subject for a time. Where was the teamwork here? Why am I the only one expressing a desire to get this article to Good Article status? Shouldn't that be something every Wikipedia editor wants to see happen? -- Netoholic @ 01:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I get the feeling that no matter what anyone says, you don't have any intention of listening. Whatever you believe or feel or think with regard to that article, you're making no progress there. Why not just move on to something else? As I said, if you can't, the community will move you on. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I actually had pretty much moved on from the article, getting back to template maintenance. SPECIFICO, though, who has been involved in the article for far longer than I have, keep returning to it and making what I can only describe as "death-by-a-thousand-cuts" style of editing. He has also been blocked for edit warring on the article, and in fact is currently under an ArbCom ban on a certain class of BLPs for his misbehavior on those. That misbehavior seems to have spread to this very closely related BLP. I will take a break from the article voluntarily for as long as he does so - lets say up to 3 months. Does this sound like an acceptable deal? We can both use a break from it. -- Netoholic @ 02:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You aren't hearing us. It is entirely appropriate, and approaching mandatory to remove content that is poorly sourced. There are elements you could focus on that have some sourcing, but you drew your line in the sand on the weak stuff. choose your battles. many people have now told you the same thing, and you arent hearing it. support topic ban Gaijin42 (talk) 02:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Support topic ban, as an uninvolved editor, who has now read this discussion and a couple of months of talk page discussion. Netoholic seems incapable of behaving reasonably and collaboratively regarding this topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Being that you're uninvolved, I'm very interested in hearing what specifically led you to that conclusion. If anything good is to come out of this, it is feedback from others that would help me pinpoint what makes it hard to reason or collaborate with me. -- Netoholic @ 07:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• You could start with - "getting an entire thread worth of guidance and advice and then ignoring it and asking for guidance and advice". St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• @Stalwart - I'll limit this to the advice you've given specifically. In my re-read of your posts here, the only actionable advice from you was "need to learn to walk away". Since you're also voting to ban me, this advice is kind of a tautology (how can I choose to walk away when also being told by you to stay away?). The feedback I'm looking for is about what can help lead toward collaboration, rather than separation? What can you pinpoint is the problem that has prevented that, and why do you think it can never be resolved? -- Netoholic @ 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attack from User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise

On 17 September I was invited to vote in Talk:Macedonia_(ancient_kingdom)#Request_for_CONSENSUS. One of the given options was Macedonia was an Ancient Slavic Kingdom and I chose this option which I further developed into Macedonia was a Protoslavic kingdom. I immediately became subject of attacks from User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise who deleted my comment twice and called me "an idiot from the opposing Greek side" and that I was selecting the slavic/protoslavic option to make Macedonians look stupid:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleksanderDonski&diff=625917152&oldid=625915379

before I could even find time to respond to his insults he went on to block me:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AleksanderDonski&diff=625919317&oldid=625917152

Futureperfect acting as if he was Judge Dredd abused his administrator capacity, he insulted me and disallowed me to further express my opinion or vote in the discussion.

He clearly did not assume good faith or spend a minute to discuss and investigate the case. I should clarify that I am not the first person in the world to express such an opinion, that Ancient Macedonian spoke an Indoeuropean language that has many similarities with proto-slavic languages. There are many websites and publications that have supported the theory and examples are below: [232] [233] [234]

Perhaps it would be worth mentioning that FuturePerfect had earlier confused my nickname Aleksander Donski, a short of ALEKSANDER MakeDONSKI, (my favourite Ancient Macedonian warlord), with a modern Macedonian Historian whose name AleksandAR Donski has similar spelling (~AR instead or ~ER). Apparently there is a story between User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise and the modern Historian, Future perfect disagrees with Donski's work and in 2010 he voted to delete his article speaking with prerogative and arrogant tone for the Historian: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Aleksandar_Donski&diff=375330700&oldid=375324774 This might have influenced his decision because he mentioned the Historical in my talk-page. I propose that you warn him or revise User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise's right to block users without investigation.

AleksanderDonski (talk) 12:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear Futureperfect, I tried to inform you about the report but I couldn't, it says that your page is semiprotected. Fortunately someone else informed you. AleksanderDonski (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The contentious diff is [235]. That content seems fairly nonsensical, pointlessly inflammatory, and was made by a newly created account named after a rather controversial real-world person. We could harp on WP:BITE here, but in this context, I'm not particularly optimistic that there's any point in accommodating this apparent flamebait. YMMV. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 14:08, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the comment was provocative, but it was only on a talk page, and there is often considerable latitude for talk page comments. Since Macedonia (ancient kingdom) is within the scope of the Balkans, it is within the scope of the eponymous WP:ARBMAC. Any request for consensus should be addressed by a formal Request for Comments. The current "Request for Consensus" may be a reasonable prototype, but should be deleted and replaced. Shouldn't any disruptive editing be dealt with by previously uninvolved admins at Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• FPaS is probably entirely right about the issue, but I'm not not sure why he would think it's okay to block someone on that article.--v/r - TP 17:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Not really, practically all of FPaS' edits on the article are either uncontentious fixes, copyedits or removing obvious disruption (and no edits for 18 months). I don't really see a problem there. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Participation on the talk page is much more recent than 18 months.--v/r - TP 20:05, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Again, either uncontentious, reverting obvious trolling (or in one case, pointing out to one such editor why their edit will never stand). I don't see any evidence of anything approaching INVOLVED ("an administrator who has interacted with an editor or topic area purely in an administrative role, or whose prior involvements are minor or obvious edits which do not speak to bias, is not involved"). As an aside, this is a similar issue to that of User:Sitush on Indian subcontinent articles; we are too over-reliant on one editor to hold back the tide of nationalistic POV warriors and it is very easy for them to claim INVOLVED; we shouldn't be helping them. Black Kite (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• There is that strange policy prejudice about "involvedness" having to do with ever having edited an article. Fortunately, that has never been what the admin policy actually entails. Being involved or not is not a function of what articles you have or haven't edited, but a function of whether or not you have an editorial position of your own at stake with respect to the specific situation at hand. Don't take admin actions to advance your own position in a dispute; that's what it says. In fact, I would never block some of the other people currently involved in the fracas on that article, because with them I actually do have an editorial difference of opinion pertinent to the situation (if I thought it okay to block them, I would have handed out half a dozen blocks weeks ago, believe me.) But I have no editorial dispute with "AleksanderDonski" here. Determining, as I did, that the opinions he wishes to promote on that page are miles outside the bounds of what could legitimately be defended as a constructive, policy-conformant editorial position, and that his additions to the debate were nothing but disruptive flamebait, is not an editorial opinion but a administrative observation that any other competent administrator who knows the area would equally arrive at. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• This is one of the cases where a totally "uninvolved" admin would have to spend a couple of hours working out what the underlying issue is, and would still be unsure of which claims on the talk page were based on reliable sources and which were nationalist POV pushing. AleksanderDonski should be congratulated for their detailed ANI report as their eighth edit but nothing further is required here. Johnuniq (talk) 03:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

User:LeninDev and User:LNDV adding a non-free image to sandboxes

These two users continue to add File:ShridharUniversity.jpg to User:LeninDev/sandbox and User:LNDV/sandbox in violation of WP:NFCC#9 despite warnings on their talk pages. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Those pages are ads and also copyvios. I've deleted accordingly as G11/G12. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, they were copies of Shridhar University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which was created by User:LNDV and has been heavily edited by User:LeninDev. I tagged it today for multiple issues requiring clean up. It may also have copyvio, or simply be a "custom made" advert. I'll try to look into it more closely tomorrow. Meanwhile, shortly after I added the maintenance tags, they were removed by an IP [236]. I have restored them, but I have no idea how long they'll stay there. Voceditenore (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

That was the second removal by the same IP. The tags had been removed earlier, & the IP had been warned & the tags reapplied, but the IP repeated the offence. --David Biddulph (talk) 17:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

How is that image any more of a copyvio than this, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:34, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's just that you can't use them in user space. Neatsfoot (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio isn't the issue, you can't use any non-free media outside article space. Black Kite (talk) 19:50, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Below, Seraphim continues to insist it's a copyvio. Which of you two has it right? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Both of us. The mainspace article (Shridhar University) was a copyvio and an advertisement, and the use of image in the sandbox versions (which was the original issue) failed WP:NFCC#9. Black Kite (talk) 22:26, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So there's no problem with the image itself, only with how it was being used?←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite - if the article existed in mainspace, it could be used there. Technically, though, the image could currently be deleted per WP:CSD#F5 as unused. Black Kite (talk) 22:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's standard procedure for fair-use images not in use. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

The mainspace one was a copyvio (and ad) as well, and has been deleted correspondingly. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I have deleted it again and salted it. The university is probably notable, but unless we actually have a non-copyright-violating article to put there, leaving it unprotected seems to be considered an invitation to re-post the same copyvio spam. Huon (talk) 01:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Back again as Shridhar University, Pilani. Same authors, same copy-vios. As a serial (and sometimes unfairly snarky) India-related CSD decliner, I've noticed you can quite often find passing mentions of secondary schools in the usual English language press sources that confirm they at least exist, independently of the schools' websites. It seems curious that there is no mention at all in G-news for a university opened in 2008. Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing issues with User:Truth_is_the_only_religion on Brahma Kumaris article

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is a SPA and appears to only be here to edit disruptively, without any regard for consensus and without feeling any need to explain his/her edits on the talk page. Probably their contrib's show the story best. The issues raised when I posted here on 26th August are still very much a concern. However in addition, since that date this user has persistently made the same aggressive edit (deleting 15-35% of the article) at least 9 times [237][238][239][240][241][242][243] etc. against consensus, being reverted by 4 different editors so far. In a nutshell, they are trying to piecemeal re-instate a version of the article that existed prior to User:Januarythe18th being indefinitely blocked. There have been at least 3 occasions when the article has been 'bulk reverted' to the banned editors preferred version. Of course they were all undone. So now this "new editor" is going for the piecemeal approach. They refuse to work with other editors at all. I'm confident I can collaborate with User:McGeddon and others to address any content concerns through the usual process. This editor was warned last week on their talk page about this conduct, but no change at all. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 19:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:OWB #72 is hereby invoked. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Some WP:BOOMERANG here - User:Danh108 is also a bulk-reverting SPA, on the same article. I'm afraid I don't share Danh108's confidence in collaboration as they have declared a personal connection to Brahma Kumaris but reject COI policy as not applying to them. --McGeddon (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. Boomerangs come in all shapes and sizes[244]. Who is "them" anyway? Do you normally refer to editors by their religious beliefs[245]? 85.255.234.91 (talk) 13:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That was intended as a singular they referring to Danh108. --McGeddon (talk) 14:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK fair dues. Although the bulk reverts appear to apply to the disruptive trolling account which appears to be sock of a previously blocked editor WP:BMB. Also Dan appears to have received your content related edits gracefully. Perhaps that would be a more productive avenue to explore 66.249.93.52 (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what I am supposed to say. The simple answer is just that this is a Brahma Kumari follower, one of three editing the page, who have turned it into a badly written advert full of unsubstantiated conclusions.

I don't know every rule on the Wikipedia but I know a few and if you look at my edits more closely you will, for example, that I removed unreferenced material which had a flag almost a year old. I removed links to Blogspot website for the religion. I removed many self-published references written by the religion. I removed a whole lot of links to their retreat centres which could only have been advertising for them. And so on.

As I mentioned on the talk page, they have spent months editing the page without any discussion of the changes and, strangely, they never discuss or dispute between themselves.

I have asked them to confirm in writing that they are not acting as a team, and are not being coordinated somewhere off the Wikipedia. I believe they are and so their answer is evidence of their good faith. At present I believe that there is evidence of bad faith, e.g. constant admin reports about any one else editing the page and reversion of simple erroneous facts such as their founder's date of birth. I think they are doing this deliberately to provoke troubles which they then use to report people.

Therefore, can I demand a response from them here, are all three of you BK followers and you BK followers being coordinated by other individuals within the sect behind the scenes, or elsewhere? Honest answer please. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:15, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Request administrator to evaluate conduct of user

I have asked Scalhotrod repeatedly over the months to keep his comments on content, not on contributor, but he insists on attacking and harassing me.

20 May 2014

Scalhotrod accused me of WP:GAMING:[246]

I answered his "question" and asked him to keep it on content:[247]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

21 May 2014

I warned him [248] about three instances of using WP:REVTALK to attack and bait me:[249][250][251]

He deleted the warning:[252]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

22 May 2014

Scalhotrod accused me of making an article talk-page discussion about me:[253]

I explained why my comment was an example of WP:TALK#USE, and I asked him to keep it on content:[254]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

28 May 2014

Scalhotrod accused me of having an "agenda or salacious purpose":[255]

I asked him (on his talk page) to strike it and stop:[256]

He deleted that request and called it "harassing":[257]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

9 June 2014 - 11 July 2014

He deleted reliably sourced content I added to an article, calling it "Clean up."[258]

I explained (on his talk page): "Removing relevant, verifiable, reliably sourced information is not 'clean up,'" and asked him to restore the content or start a discussion on the article's talk page or at RSN.[259]

After TransporterMan asked Scalhotrod to discuss the content dispute with me, Scal responded with a 600+ word tirade accusing me of POV pushing and ownership issues - with virtually no evidence.[260]

Scalhotrod continued to give the edit summary "Clean up" inappropriately.[261]

I asked him to stop, which led to another of his long commentaries about me:[262]

I asked him to keep it on content, which led to yet another long commentary yet again about me:[263]

We were topic banned for edit warring:[264]

Response - I can't due to the Topic Ban imposed on LB and myself. --Scal

22 July 2014

He speculated at another user's talk page about whether or not I was a sockpuppet:[265]

Response - This is not what was said. After months of intensive editing in some instances where upwards of 80% of edits made over a week or more where by LB, activity stopped completely. I posed a question on the Talk page of an Editor who is more familiar with the site and processes than I am. --Scal

This is horribly not assuming good faith, but do you think she would resort to editing as an IP or creating another account? Scalhotrod 17:27, 22 July 2014 Lightbreather (talk) 17:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

26 July 2014

I joined the Gender Gap Task Force [266] and he joined less than 48 hours later:[267] (and within an hour of my inviting two other female editors to join)

Response - I have no idea what LB's invitations of other women have to do with anything, but I became curious about the Gender Gap Task Force as a result of a comment by LB. --Scal

28 July 2014

He started a conversation about me on his talk page, pinging three other editors to join in:[268]

Response - And I genuinely thought this was an acceptable means to start a conversation that involved several different Editors regarding what I understood as a Talk page violation and the attempt to misrepresent a conversation. --Scal

I asked here at ANI for an admin evaluation of Scal's conduct. It was marked as "resolved" in less than 15 minutes by a non-admin editor.[269]

Response - Actually Admin Drmies agreed with the close shortly thereafter [270]. I'm not sure what the significance of this is. --Scal

Scalhotrod, man, you are on a short leash. Drmies 01:52, 29 July 2014 (UTC) [271] (scroll to last, long paragraph) Lightbreather (talk) 18:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That comment wasn't even from the same page and is entirely out of context. Its from a rant of yours that is very similar to this one, now you're just being sloppy or indifferent about posting difs. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's directly related. It's from the discussion I started on Drmies' talk page[272] asking him to please re-open my request to have an admin evaluate your conduct - which, as noted above, had been closed quickly and without the eval. Lightbreather (talk) 19:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

17 September 2014

While I was in the middle of working on a page, he came to it and made a revert:[273]

(Despite having told me and others, including Drmies, that he was observing a voluntary IBAN.)

Response - This has absolutely NOTHING to do with LB. As I stated in my edit summary and on my Talk page I noticed that a controversial (to some) quote was still posted at the top of the No Personal Attacks policy page and I removed it citing the discussion on the Talk page. Yes, I did notice that Lightbreather was editing the page and even "Thanked" her for one of her edits that I thought was a good contribution. That's the only connection between the two. As for LB being in the middle of editing, I've suggested that she use "under construction" template or something similar to notify other editors, but this was rebuked. --Scal

My response was not a "rebuke."[274] Lightbreather (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, so you acknowledge that my edit had nothing to do with you and you're trying to make a connection where there is none. Granted, I'm still trying to understand the issue of you being "in the middle of working on a page". You've brought this up before, but never explained why an article should be hands off by other editors while you're making edits. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Great, so you acknowledge...? No, I do not. This is exactly what I'm talking about. Please stop. Lightbreather (talk) 18:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

22 September 2014

Today, on his talk page, Scal took advantage of an opportunity to attack me again:[275]

(The discussion was about content on a policy page, not about me.)

I asked him again to stop this kind of behavior:[276]

He closed the discussion saying that I was trolling him![277]

Response - Only after LB admitted to WP:Wikihounding my Talk page [278] --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the discussion was with T., I don't see hounding or admitting to hounding:

Scalhotrod, I was just getting ready to start a discussion with T. on his talk page when I found your comment above. Will you please redact the 'that apparently triggered...' portion of your last sentence? I have asked you repeatedly to keep your comments on content, not contributor. Please stop already.

--Lightbreather (talk) 18:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If you didn't have my Talk page on your watchlist and were not routinely checking it (as you admitted to on Drmies Talk page [279]), in other words - WIkihounding my Talk page, how is it you "found" the comment? AND as its been explained to you by so many Users, talking about someone is NOT a personal attack. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As explained above, I was getting ready to start a discussion on T's talk page. I was reviewing his recent contributions before I started the discussion. His recent contributions included edits on your talk page. When I went there, I read what you'd told him about me. Further, as to hounding, "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." I have an overriding reason - and just the one - for keeping an eye on your talk page: because you have a history of talking about me and of accusing me of policy violations without evidence. I have provided evidence of this over and over again. I want that to stop. Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Therefore, per WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE, I am asking that an administrator evaluate his conduct. --Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of this is mundane, but I particularly thing the paranoid comment, the accusation of vandalism, and this edit where LB is accused of plagiarism (but if it were plagiarism then the edit by Scalhotrod would amount to close paraphrasing and certainly didn't fix it) are all personal attacks.--v/r - TP 23:00, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Then what is your opinion of a statement like, "He has edited many dozens of porn articles and, IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women." made during an ANI? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 23:43, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Is your question based on the philosophy "an eye for an eye" or "two wrongs" or some other silly nonsense where your actions have to be compared to your opponents?--v/r - TP 23:52, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Not in the slightest. I am asking you to give an opinion on a statement made by my accuser just as you did on what was presented above. When I inquired previously about that statement during the ANI, it was ignored. When I inquired again, with a specific Admin, I was told that it would be better to just drop the issue, which I did. Why I am asking for your opinion is that a great many things said to and about Lightbreather in the last several months that she has interpreted as a personal attack, were either downplayed or simply ruled as not being a personal attack. If she can make a statement like that and not get called on it (assuming its ruled a personal attack), then maybe she (and/or me for that matter) doesn't understand what one is. Hence the laundry list of perceived issues that LB been posted here. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I oppose it. Any accusations about each other based on perceptions are counter to the goals of this project. Both your comments that I mention above and LB's comment that you have no respect for women are both inappropriate. Yours are personal attacks, LB's amount to casting aspersions.--v/r - TP 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, then how are you determining that my comments are personal attacks versus casting aspersions or simply asking a question based on the context of the situation? I'm happy to respond to each item in the list so the full context can be taken into consideration, not just LB's opinion on the matter. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Quit lawyering and quit the personal attacks. Calling someone paranoid is a personal attack. No one cares if you think you can talk your way out of it.--v/r - TP 04:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm simply asking how you are deciding what is a personal attack vs aspersions or any other possible interpretation? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 04:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:IDHT much? You're winning no points in this thread.--v/r - TP 17:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "win points", I'm trying to understand the measure that you're applying. Relative to Eric Corbett's language and behavior mentioned below, LB's accusations seem minor or even trivial. When are you going to understand that I'm trying to learn something from this experience so that I can move on to better things? Since you are the primary Admin involved, I am asking you for explanation since its one of the expectations of Adminship. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The part that says "As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized." Calling LB paranoid is personalizing a dispute.--v/r - TP 20:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And here we are at the crux of the matter. I did not "call LB paranoid", she was not involved in the discussion the word was used in. Based on the comment, "Removing the Eleanor Roosevelt quote... ...from the NPA article, which I'm in the middle of working on, is adding to the stalked feeling I have gotten from you before." is why I used the word when describing LBs actions. The article on "paranoia" states, "Paranoia is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear..." This is why I do not understand your conclusion that its use is a personal attack. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's clear to me that you think I am stupid and incapable of reading. "Lightbreather was making edits that apparently triggered her paranoid tendencies" looks cut and dry to me.--v/r - TP 00:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think you are stupid or incapable of reading, but I question your copy/paste abilities since you only quoted a portion of a sentence from my comment which changes its context and misleads anyone else who reads this. Then again, you could have just as easily attempted to make your point without the "stupid and incapable" preface. Speaking of "points", even the user I was having the discussion with is puzzled by your assessment of my comments and those of Lightbreather's (see User Tlhslobus' comments below). The User also references a similar situation where the assessment and outcome was radically different. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Scalhotrod only gave the last part of the statement he shared above. The first part was "[Since Scalhotrod] feels entitled to judge me I'll say this: " The whole statement was the last in a response to 700-words-worth of things he said about me,[280] including speculation that had nothing to do with the topic, plus some outright untruths like, "Looking at Lightbreather's edit history, I can't find a single edit that isn't [topic-ban]-related...." Lightbreather (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The 'he made me say it' argument doesn't work with me. Don't shoot yourself in the foot.--v/r - TP 01:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of our (mine and LB's) mutual topic ban, if you haven't already looked at it, the details are here. I'm not sure if LB's above statement violates the ban or not, but Callanecc can likely shed some light. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not funny. Today, but 30 minutes after I called it a day on an article that I was working on, and while this request for evaluation of his conduct is underway, Scalhotrod went to the page that I was working on and edited it.[281] And then again a couple hours later.[282] How many thousands of articles on Wikipedia? And he chooses to go to the one I'm working on? Please, please, PLEASE won't somebody ban him from interacting with me? It's creepy and unwanted and it has gone on long enough. Please - Callanec, Drmies, TParis? Somebody? Some admin? Won't somebody please tell him to stop it? Lightbreather (talk) 04:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• I really don't want to be in the middle of this, though I suppose there's no way out. I see some problems with both editors in terms of behavior, and I kind of like and appreciate both of them as well: I prefer to try and get along with both of them. It seems, though, that they really can't be in the same room. Sketched roughly, Scalhotrod typically says the wrong thing, to which Lightbreather responds with admin requests and ANI threads. Both are drains on the community. So maybe an interaction ban (one-way or two-way or four-way) is helpful. On the other hand, we hear lots of complaints about lack of civility enforcement, and I think the "paranoid" comment really goes too far--but much of what tirritates Lightbreather is not so much outright personal attacks but minor mentions and edits that add up. If someone is able and willing to do the leg work (someone who is, ahem, not Lightbreather), they could go through the diffs and edits and overlaps to see if indeed there is solid evidence of stalking. I hear and see conflicting assessments, but a thorough investigation would be helpful, so we could draw intelligent and reasonable conclusions and perhaps act on it. (Let it be clear that I have no opinion on the stalking charge, since I just don't know.) For me, that is more of an investment than I can make right now. As a side note, I thought that Scalhotrod was going to stay away from LB, but apparently he didn't? That's not helpful.

  My apologies if I'm rambling, and it's all hot air anyway since I can't and won't pick sides at this moment and speak out one way or another. It's late and it's been a busy and sucky day on Wikipedia, and here we have yet another long-term conflict, and again I have no idea what to do about it. In another editorial conflict today I suggested a process be followed, and that apparently was unnecessary or whatever, and I'm afraid the same is going to happen here, and it will just fester. Drmies (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I have various sexual articles on my WP:Watchlist, and Measure B is one of them. As the edit history of that article shows, Scalhotrod has been editing that article months before you, Lightbreather. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One-Way Interaction Ban

While I agree that both editors have behaved in a less than optimal fashion, Scalhotrod's behavior is Wikistalking, especially his following Lightbreather to the GGTF, but then never taking part in the GGTF after he succeeded in getting Lightbreather to leave it. I recommend a one-way interaction ban imposed by the community on Scalhotrod with respect to Lightbreather.

• Support - As proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're not only accusing convicting me of stalking LB but claiming that I joined the GGTF for the purpose of getting her to quit the project?!? I do not know what the expectation of "taking part" in the GGTF is, but I have participated on the Talk page, participated in AfDs regarding articles of interest to the project, edited articles of interest to the project, started at least one (its currently a stub, but has survived an AfD), AND there is currently a topic regarding the addition of content regarding an essay that I wrote on the Talk page as a result of interaction between Carolmooredc and myself. By the way, LB's accusations and inferences were deplorable upon my arrival at the GGTF. She essentially reiterated the personal attack I mentioned above on the GGTF Talk page and several project members came to my defense, you included Mr. McClenon. I did not make any accusations in kind when she joined the Pornography Project, in fact I've stuck up for her on at least one occasion.

Has anyone considered that LB just reads way too much into edits, difs, or what-have-you that are innocuous, coincidental, or just plain have a "non-nefarious" explanation to them? Maybe if she stopped being so convinced that I'm "out to get her" that she would not interpret so many of my edits (or those of others LB has had a problem with) as just that. I took her Talk page off my Watch list months ago and haven't looked back since. Our paths cross simply because we are both active Editors. I'm still trying to understand how you can hold me responsible for how another Editor feels when I have no control over that [283]. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support Less than ideal behavior. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Cannot support one-way IBAN - I haven't seen it working, ever. And that is before I even evaluate the premise of the thread. Will look at it later today (Tuesday). - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - As per Penwhale; the only interaction bans that work and are fair, are two-way bans. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as noted frequently (including just above on this noticeboard) - such bans do not work. Collect (talk) 14:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - Questions, actually.

1. I have seen the argument numerous times now, but no explanation. Examples, please, of what happens that makes a 1-way not work? Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

2. Am I allowed to vote? Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 15:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

1. A One Way IBAN is open to abuse and poking from the editor who did not get the IBAN.

2. Not really, as you are one of the main parties, but your opinion counts and you are able to volunteer to be in a two way IBAN. KonveyorBelt 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The thing is, I'm not the one who has been stalking and harassing. I do not plan on stalking and harassing. I just want to be able to work without Scalhotrod following me around and without him accusing me of things, without evidence, in inappropriate places. (I won't do that either.) As the person who has had these things done to me, repeatedly, by him, I think the community could start by assuming good faith on my part. If I do start hounding, harassing, attacking him - then by all means - make it a 2-way ban. But there is no evidence here that I deserve that. The thing that I've done that seems to irk everyone the most is making an issue of his conduct, even though there is no policy that says one must ignore a harasser. I've committed the crime of "making drama" - but that is not a crime. I am, in fact, a victim here, and I'm asking for god's sake will someone do something about it? Lightbreather (talk) 05:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

And, as I said elsewhere, although I am/was in the middle of improving some porn articles to-do with STDs in the industry, I will happily leave the project and walk away from those articles, if he will just leave GGTF - which he is not really active in - so I can return to a preferred project/subject area with editors that I'd like to work with. Lightbreather (talk) 05:08, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• involved oppose Lightbreather's new area of focus is pornography, an area that Scalhotrod has been editing in for a very long time. LB is making a decent number of policy proposals, and article proposals in a relatively large number of articles, and this proposal would effectively push scalhotrod out of the area. (Which is ironic considering LB's allegations of being pushed out of the GGTF). IF the Iban were 1) bidirectional and 2) construed as to not cover commenting on RFCs and other proposals created by each other (but restricted to not commenting about eachother directly) I could support that. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

If it would help, I would be happy to leave WP:PORN if Scal will leave WP:GGTF. However, I have a handful of porn articles I'm working on that I would like to finish. Lightbreather (talk) 22:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I think you're a GREAT addition to the Porn Project; please continue to work on the articles. The edits you've made to the Measure B article alone are worthy of praise. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 02:32, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. Enough with the interaction bans already. —Xezbeth (talk) 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:It seems the accused and the rest of us are expected to accept that "IMO, he doesn't have much respect for women" is a mere "aspersion" (see the uses made of this word above), something very mild compared to the utterly unacceptable personal attacks of accusing somebody of having "paranoid tendencies", and perpetrating vandalism and plagiarism. Personally I would much rather be accused of having paranoid tendencies than of not having much respect for women, though I accept that many others might well prefer it the other way round. But it seems simply offensive to all women (and to all men who have female loved ones) to imply, however unintentionally, that not having much respect for women is a minor matter compared to vandalizing an article or putting a bit of plagiarism into it. There is also the problem of the (presumably unintended) intimidating/censoring effect on others, given the context is a male working on porn-related articles, an area that I have no desire to edit anyway, but which I would never dare get involved with even if I did have such a desire, precisely because of fear of that kind of accusation. While checking a potential opponent's block log (as I normally do before deciding whether to risk getting into a dispute with them), I recently came across a case in which a similar (though more wounding) accusation was made a few years ago by a female editor against a male one working on porn-related articles. She got banned for 3 months, reduced to a week after she apologized. He accepted the apology, but a month later he stopped editing, leaving a note saying that maybe he would resume at a later date under a different name (I have no way of knowing whether he did or not). In that kind of context, to ignore such accusations as supposed mere aspersions thus seems like a second reason for deep dissatisfaction with the way the accused has been 'interogated' here.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Two points: My comment was made in an appropriate forum, at an ARE, of which Scal was notified, specifically discussing Scal's (and my) behavior. Also, I made clear that what I said was my opinion about Scal. Scal's comments are often at inappropriate forums, where I am not notified, and presented as fact - not opinion. Lightbreather (talk) 01:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You may well be partly or wholly right, LB. You certainly have not had any charge properly formulated against you, let alone been given an adequate chance to defend yourself against such a properly formulated charge, and as such you have not yet had anything remotely resembling due process. (And by the way, my apologies for initially putting "Involved support" behind the two-way ban proposal before I quickly realized it was inappropriately premature on my part given that you had not yet had any kind of due process, and changed it to "Comment").

The comment here initially had nothing to do with the current two-way ban proposal, but appeared as a protest against both an aspect of the way the accused had been treated in the 'interogation' (not by you), and the way the question of 'disrespect for women' and accusations thereof had been (presumably unwittingly) trivialized in the proceedings (again not by you), including in the context of its potential for intimidating/censoring other male editors of porn-related articles.

In the context of the two-way ban proposal (see below), I am simply pointing out (in response to the "where?" questioned which you asked the proposer of the two-way ban immediately after he proposed it) at least one place (perhaps the only one?) where a basis for 'response with provocation' may lie. I am also concerned that some people around here (possibly, but not necessarily, including you) do not seem to appreciate how non-trivial is what you said about the accused. I might add that the (admittedly more wounding) accusation that lead to the above-mentioned 3 month ban was, at least to the best of my recollection, also made in an appropriate forum (an ANI, I think - Correction: It was made on his Talk Page, after indicating in the ANI that she would be explaining her concerns about him on his Talk Page) by a woman who felt harassed, although there were of course differences too. However none of this is to suggest that you are 'guilty', merely that you may well have some kind of case to answer, though, as already mentioned, no case against you has yet been properly formulated, and I have no intention of trying to formulate one myself (which would probably be inappropriate, given that, as I've already pointed out below, I've been involved in recent disputes with you, some of which may not yet be over). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Involved oppose: I'm the 'T.' mentioned in the conversation that lead to this ANI. I fully intended to stay out of it as usual (I don't think I've ever commented on an ANI before) until disturbed by certain aspects of the above 'interogation' (see here). As my concerns were not mentioned until now, I don't really feel the accused has really had the benefit of 'due process' (also known as a fair trial). Plus I fear the potential consequences of simply ignoring the concerns I mentioned above. I also suspect there may well be much wisdom in the comments of Gaijin42 and Penwhale. I should however point out that I'm not entirely un-involved, and therefore presumably not entirely unbiased, as I've been involved in a couple of recent disputes with LB, so-far relatively mild (but not all that pleasant, and not yet clearly over). I do try to make allowances for the difficulties often faced by female editors in Wikipedia (which presumably at least partly contribute to their massive under-representation here), but I doubt if that can ever fully offset the biassing effects of being in a dispute with somebody.Tlhslobus (talk) 00:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose. I view Scalhotrod as very pro-pornography. And I view Lightbreather as very anti-pornography, as recently as this discussion where the two of us have debated WP:Least vs. WP:Primary topic; this debate is because of an explicit sexual lead image at the Fellatio article. So, in my opinion, the two of them together help bring balance to the pornography articles. Giving one of them free rein to edit an article without opposition to whatever viewpoint that editing might be leaning toward is not a solution. And I reiterate that these (my assertion of very pro-pornography vs. very anti-pornography) are my views of how these two editors view pornographic material, or rather simply explicit sexual imagery if one wants to call it that. I am all for putting the WP:Offensive material guideline ahead of the WP:Not censored policy, but only when it makes sense to do so. Flyer22 (talk) 05:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support either of above or at least a warning: It's ridiculous that editors can get a bee in their bonnet about some other editor, appoint themselves guardians of Wikipedia and just follow editors around like that. If they are doing something that bad, take the diffs to an admin or ANI. Editors are only human are will soon enough lose their tempers over it, though just as many will just quit the project. Let's read again: (Wikipedia:Harassment#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. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Two-Way Interaction Ban

On further review, I see that, while Scalhotord is Wikistalking Lightbreather, Lightbreather is responding to provocation with provocation. Propose a full symmetric interaction ban with the usual exceptions to be narrowly interpreted. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support as proposer of alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Responding, yes, but where am I responding with provocation? Is ANI not the appropriate place to hash out the details of a dispute? Is there a policy that says that I must ignore others' provocation? Lightbreather (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've reviewed WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE. It says: "Administrators have wide latitude to use their permissions to stop misconduct and damage to the encyclopedia; for example, an editor who is making personal attacks, and does not stop when you ask them, may be warned by an administrator and subsequently blocked." I have asked Scal to stop so many times I have lost count. He was warned by an admin to stop. I'm not asking that Scal be blocked - but a 2-way is uncalled for. Lightbreather (talk) 22:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Re 'where's the response with provocation?', see my earlier comment here. Tlhslobus (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose without modification. If Lightbreather is prohibited from commenting on WP:PORN and related essays, and Scalhotord is prohibited from commenting on GGTF and related essays, it might be workable, although I can't say I would support it. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Wait, who is stalking whom here? LB's condition that Scal leave the GGTF and she'll leave the Porn Project is a straight up admission that she only went to the Porn Project, knowing Scal's involvement in it, to make a point. And LB's accusation of Scal having no respect for for women simply because of the areas they edit in is a far worse PA than anything Scal said in the diffs above. Capeo (talk) 12:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Involved oppose: As argued above (see here), this would currently involve punishing LB without any semblance of due process. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:44, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Given that nobody has yet been found 'guilty' of anything, it's arguably a bit premature of me to make the following suggestion (and perhaps also optimistic, and utterly naive), but what I hope to eventually see coming out of this dispute is an admission by both sides that at least some of their behaviour has been inappropriate, that both sides apologize for that inappropriate behaviour, and express what Catholics (of whom I was one until about 40 years ago) call a firm purpose of amendment, and that both are then let off with some kind of formal caution from the community that is recorded here but does not necessarily go onto their block logs. However I am totally inexperienced regarding ANIs (and hope that I won't find myself anywhere near another one for a long time to come), so it may well be that this suggestion is far too naive to deserve your serious consideration, let alone for any of you to expend energy working to try to bring about such a resolution (and if so, my apologies for wasting people's time with it). Tlhslobus (talk) 12:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Legal Threat on Talk:Edward Tobinick

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

---

This edit [284] appears to include a legal threat from the institute affiliated with Edward Tobinick can editors more familiar with this please advise. VViking_TalkEdits 22:31, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look like a legal threat to me. A little aggressive sure, but not a threat. CombatWombat42 (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

It's still an attempt at intimidation. If he's got sourced facts, he should get them into the article. If not, he should back off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

True, but not really a problem for administrators. CombatWombat42 (talk) 01:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this, but it doesn't seem (yet) to be a legal threat - just an overly formal choice of words in raising a content dispute. Talk page discussion seems to be proceeding, which will hopefully resolve the issue. Euryalus (talk) 02:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a legal threat as said - but the "mandated" part is humerus. Carry one folks, carry on. Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 04:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP 68.39.152.45 keeps removing valid sources and will not attempt discussion

Recently an anonymous editor (68.39.152.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) deleted several bands from the Crossover thrash (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article. Some of those were legitimate, but several others are generally considered to be a part of the genre and I later provided sources to back that up. However, the user seems to have a problem with the sources, even though they are generally considered reliable as per Wikipedia's standards. I attempted to discuss it on the talk page and on his own page, but the editor still insisted that he was right. I left the bands he had a problem with off for a while.

I later asked around if my sources were considered reliable enough and started a discussion on I had asked for help on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Metal, and it seemed that my sources were alright, so I decided to re-add the bands to the list. MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then suggested that sources be provided on the crossover page itself, and I proceeded to do that for the bands that the IP wanted to stay off the list, with the intention of eventually providing all hte bands on the list in the future, however the IP again started deleting the bands. MrMoustacheMM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then suggested that all the bands should be discussed on the talk page on the article before they're added to the article. I agreed to that and moved all the bands to the talk page, including the ones the IP had a problem with. The user then went on and deleted the bands on the talk page as seen here here and here, despite being asked to discuss whether they should or shouldn't be there first. He also seems to ignore sources and cites things such as the sidebar on AMG, which isn't considered reliable, unlike the articles. He keeps mentioning that "he was there" which is why he should be trusted, uses his own "knowledge" to decide what is and what isn't crossover based on his own arbitrary rules and accuses me of trying to hog the page, pushing my POV for finding sources, and working for the band and record labels. He also removed my sources for here and here, citing the AMG sidebar and a book that probably doesn't claim what he says it claims, while not realizing that a source saying that a band belongs to a certain genre, doesn't negate the fact that it can also belong to another one SonOfPlisskin (talk) 02:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

my page is here 68.39.152.45 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC) this is crossover thrash . everything is up for review as well as the talk page . two days of this user coming to the talk page but claims "will not attempt discussion" . Have nothing more to say . anything to get this person to stop typing to me . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

also, "some of the edits were legitimate" All bands removed from the list based on their wiki articles (and sound) all were legitimate. after this person became upset at that he/she made personal attacks and went to the articles he/she wanted added and Changed the Genre of the pages to meet re-add them to meet his/her POV . never seen anyone do this in a Decade of being here . IP changed so the history of this IP isn't showing and representing all contributions to Articles after moving . This person is only concerned with their POV . Removing bands where their articles claim they are punk rock or thrashcore or speed metal makes the Crossover Thrash page more accurate . For example this person went and changed "speed core" to "crossover thrash" on an articles just to re-added bands she/he wanted there . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 09:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

One more this person has been on wiki for five Months all they have done is argue with people . take a look at their talk page I though I was the only one . the whole page is a prime example of this persons general bad attitude towards others . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 09:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

First off, I've been editing this site since 2005. I've just changed by username. You're not the only one who can do that. Second, the arguments I had on my talk page were with another unreasonable genre warrior, and it's completely irrelevant to this. I could bring up all of your past history as well, since I've seen some of your past edits, but I chose not to. Third, you don't get to decide what should or shouldn't count based on your own opinion if there are sources supporting them, especially things like AMG articles written by a well known writer there, and replace them with genres from the sidebar. The sources page clearly states "Allmusic's genre sidebar should generally be avoided if better sources are available. Previous discussions at WP:ALBUMS and RSN have evinced that they can be incongruous with the reviewer's prose, which should take precedent over the sidebar (e.g. Allmusic's sidebar classifies Rhythm Killers as "reggae", while the reviewer observes "no reggae in sight").I added sources because you said there were no sources".

Also, there's absolutely nothing wrong with looking for sources. I've seen those bands referred to as crossover on various sites, and so I went ahead and found reliable ones. It's funny that you said "based on their wiki articles", when two of those pages already listed crossover thrash. I just added sources for it. And lastly, you can't edit my comment on the talk page. I added the bands there to discuss what should or shouldn't be on the page, but you keep deleting them without any, hence "not interested in discussion". If you have a problem with any band there, then discuss it. You can't magically make things you don't like disappear. You've been insulting and condescending towards me from the beginning, so don't bring "personal attacks" into it. I tried to talk to you about the bands you removed but you started up by saying that you're right, because you say so and that you wanted the list to be"pure" (whatever that means). At most I'd made a light-hearted comment about your poor typing skills, but that's only after you'd already proved yourself to be unwilling to reason. Any later "attacks" were sarcastic ones based on you ridiculous claims about me working for the label nad pushing your own point of view. You can't blame me for not thinking you were editing in "good faith". And don't forget, it's YOU who made the big changes to the crossover page. When an IP user makes mass deletions like you did, people are going to take notice. And I never changed speedcore to crossover. Speedcore isn't even a metal genre. Ludichrist was listed as speed metal (though it might have been taken from AMG, speed metal is used interchangeably with thrash here, as you can see in the more detailed AMG review of their first album) and hardcore. Thrash metal + hardcore = crossover. Ludichrist was well known as a crossover band, and I found other sources to back it up. And half the bands you left on the list didn't have sources saying they're crossover, but you only seem to have a problem with those particular bands. Using your ears counts as original research. If you weren't so delete-happy, I might have been more patient here. I'd like to add that the user has edited my comment on the talk page to his own liking for the third time here SonOfPlisskin (talk) 11:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You Argue With EVERYONE you deal with . You are 5 months old beginner, you need to learn how things work . Everything on your talk page is "sarcasm" "digs" no sense, you lie , you change pages to meet your own point of view . Im not reading your book . Show what your old page was if you aren't new . I can show my old address IPs if I get asked by an administrator . Seriously . Look at your talk page . plus you made some serious Obvious mistakes in some of your rush to change genres to try and get speed metal bands on a crossover list . That will be secret until your time comes . You lie Constantly . Im done with your nonsense and I wouldn't doubt if you are a sock puppet, it wouldn't surprise me . There is Not One Person on your talk page that you dealt with , with a Shred of dignity , class or tact . YOU WENT AND CHANGES PAGES WHEN YOU SAW WHAT THEY HAD ON THIER WIKIS IN SOME CASES, FOR YEARS . THE BANDS DONT EVEN HAVE THOSE GENRES ON THIER OWN FACEBOOK PAGES . Someone else will deal with you . Im not reading anymore of your Nonsense . For someone you said was "unwilling" I am tired of your personality Disorder style "working" with others style . 68.39.152.45 (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've argued with one other person, who was a recurring problematic user who got two accounts blocked and is currently under a sockpuppet investigation. I'll bring up my own accounts if an admin asks as well, but that's not going to happen, because it's completely irrelevant to this. Just adding another diff here. Stop editing my posts on the talk page. You claim to be "experienced" but you don't know the basic rules. And you still don't understand that there's nothing wrong with adding sources to pages. Pages don't remain as they are forever. Plus I only added crossover to two bands. Three of them already had it listed and I just added sources for them. Again, you don't seem to have a problem with other bands that have no sources or flimsy ones. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 17:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Did it EVER occur to you to , Stop Arguing, and wait for someone to mediate . Someone has to read this and quite frankly it comes across as immature nonsense . Is one of the bands going to break up if You don't put them on a list they don't belong . What the "urgency" . Its not a problem if it stays as it IS until a mediator full examines things . Also another editor cleaned up a little at crossover Thrash, did you see anyone have a Problem with my edits and replacing your SECTION BLANKING. No , they didn't . Give it a Rest . Even if Three days goes by , people are Busy , wait for an editor . None of your fave bands are going to break up if you don't get them in a list . Like I said at their own Facebook pages those bands don't even classify themselves as crossover thrash . Not as a reference but how out of tune your angle is . Try this word, "Patience" .68.39.152.45 (talk) 17:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The problem is you editing my post that is on topic and relevant. I didn't add the bands back to the main page. I added them to the talk page for discussion. A post that I was asked to make. Just because you edit pages that most people don't care about, it doesn't mean that your edits are "good". I have no patience for disruptive editors. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You just go on and on and on and on and on and on . I GET WHAT YOU ARE TYPING . THREE DAYS AGO . Is there any need to explain . If you were working TOGETHER this would have never happened and like I said I moved three times , in 13-15 years Of Editing your the only editor who seems to possess an incessant OCD for Your POV. 68.39.152.45 (talk) 17:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia wasn't even around 15 years ago. SonOfPlisskin (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You just go on and on and on and on and on and on . incessant OCD 68.39.152.45 (talk) 18:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

68*, accusing another editor of having OCD is a personal attack. If it happens again, it doesn't matter what the merits or not of the rest of this case is, you will be blocked for making personal attacks. So don't. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:01, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by Eric Corbett

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

---

Eric Corbett has recently engaged in blatant and extreme personal attacks against other users as well as general incivility toward editors and Wikipedia in general. This behavior is unacceptable and a complete disregard for one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. That this behavior is coming from a seasoned and experienced editor makes the matter more distressing. Any newer editor would have been templated and blocked by now. Moreover, the behavior has escalated in recent weeks. Below are links to diffs with direct quotes from Eric Corbett, presented roughly in reverse chronological order.

Personal Attacks:

• Chillum knows that I think he's a piece of shit. (referring to Chillum)
• Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you? (directed at Carolmooredc)
• I think most editors would be glad if you were site banned Carol, as you're nothing but a pain in the arse. (referring to Carolmooredc)
• Thinking isn't really one of Jimbo's strong suits though. (referring to Jimbo Wales)
• It would be even more difficult for any reasonable editor to believe that you are in full possession of your faculties if you're unable to see the evident nonsense on display here. (directed at Elaqueate)
• The second is that Brandon Harris is a completely self-centred nutcase. (referring to Brandon Harris of the WMF)

Incivility:

• I treat those who deserve respect with respect. The others can go fuck themselves as far as I'm concerned.
• Fuck off Srich, you're not welcome here. Fuck off Srich. (edit summary: fuck off Srich) (directed at S.Rich)
• I've only got one thing to say that, which is fuck it, and fuck Wikipedia. (edit summary: fuck it and fuck wikipedia)

Eric Corbett's behavior has been subject of many discussions here and elsewhere, but this is way over the line and utterly unacceptable. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Minor update: comments that no action can be taken is not only jaded by incorrect. If you feel this behavior is unacceptable and actionable, please express so. If not, please explain why. But just saying nothing's gonna happen ensures that nothing will. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action. Due to the excellent content that Eric Corbett contributes, he has been granted a de facto exemption from the Civility and No Personal Attacks policies and any admin who doesn't recognize that will be desysopped. Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • (I was being half-sarcastic there, but if you look at the block log you will see a number of blocks for personal attacks and incivility that have quickly been reversed. I was sharply chastised when I closed an AN thread by upholding a block. I have come to that you are better off ignoring this stuff, because if you try to pursue any sanctions you will end up very disappointed.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 05:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• {EC}And this is going to be different to all the other discussions how? The only actionable comments are calling Chillum a piece of shit and telling Srich32977 to fuck off. Having failed to get a block to stick for calling another user a cunt, I can't see any prospect of getting any worthwhile outcome here and I don't have time to respond to the usual rabid defenses from the Eric Fanboys to want to go out on a limb again. I suggest you just archive this and accept that some users are uncontrollable. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Spartaz: I've seen a few ANI and such recently involving Eric, but this more recent behavior is undeniably unacceptable and indefensible. We're not talking about a hum of general incivility here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:15, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 2) No action possible here: AN/ANI is just not the right forum for this dispute, which is ages old, and where there are a great deal of people on either side involved. While I am of the position that things like threats of violence (or otherwise violent speech) rise to the level where they are set apart from the surrounding circumstances (for purposes of whether a sanction is merited at all), I'm of the opinion that these statements are not in the same category. There's a lot more factfinding that ought to be done here. And it's clear that ANI is all but impotent to address matters that cannot be dispensed of summarily. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• @Sjakkalle and Mendaliv: I believe we all know that bans may be implemented by consensus. The behavior is clearly in violation of policy and guidelines. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • • I agree that the comments you selected for this thread are uncivil, and looked at in a vacuum should probably merit a sanction. However, this is a situation of such complexity that experience shows it cannot be resolved by ANI. And while you're correct that a community ban can absolutely come from a consensus formed on ANI, even a brief look at any of the other threads dealing with these matters (whether Eric Corbett or any of the other parties involved in the ongoing dispute) should be enough to tell you that ANI is fundamentally incapable of reaching a consensus on this. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 05:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• All but two of these examples are taken from Eric's talk page where he is talking among friends, or from the talk page of a friend of his. Why would you go so doggedly out of your way to eavesdrop on these personal pages? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have his talk page on my watchlist and noticed the recent extreme personal attacks. However, Eric's behavior is the topic of discussion. The location of the comments does not matter; talk pages are not exempt from Wikipedia guidelines and policy (quite the opposite).EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In the past the community has dealt with this editor with a combination of enabling and cowardice. I don't expect the community will grow a pair and actually deal with this. More likely this will be hatted with some comment along the lines of "nothing will come of this" and we will have this exact conversation again in a few weeks. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please clarify Chillum, who exactly are you are accusing of being "cowards" and lacking "a pair". --Epipelagic (talk) 05:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Just read the last several ANI posts regarding this user. You will find plenty of examples of both. The fact is we would not tolerate this behavior from a normal user. Eric has been made into a special user. I used the word community because this problem is systemic. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric is a special editor. He is arguably the best copy editor we have. I personally have no problem tolerating his behavior (apart from wincing sometimes). Are you saying I am a coward and lacking a pair? --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Tolerate it all you want, I have no problem with that behavior. Those who defend it are enabling it. Those who say there is nothing we can do and we just have to put up with him are demonstrating a lack of confidence to put it nicely. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• The reason nothing ever happens is that people make pointless reports with a simplistic interpretation of events. Anyone familiar with the situation knows that Chillum is goading Eric by posting on his talk—it is quite common for people to repeatedly post on Eric's talk with very CIVIL comments designed to poke the bear. When there is a solution which fits all sizes, come back and let's talk about it. The Elaqueate diff shows Eric making a reasonable comment and getting a non sequitur reply from EvergreenFir followed by poking from Elaqueate. The solution there is to engage with what Eric said or don't reply at all. Shotgun ANI reports are rarely useful. Johnuniq (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I avoid this editor when I can. If you think I am goading anyone then please provide evidence. When someone accuses me of being a sock puppet and I ask for evidence that is not goading. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Goading is no excuse for this behavior. If Eric feels goaded, he has every right to remove the message from his user talk page and request the editor never post them again. Nothing other users do compels him to make these statements. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy Close: Aside from the fact that some of these whinings are already many days old (one is early September?), Eric's ranting comments on non-mainspace pages are not even worth reading, and thus not worth going to ANI. If you ignore him, we won't have these continual useless threads.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

@Milowent: Can you please cite which policies exempt non-mainspace pages from pillars, policies, and guidelines? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No doubt Eric's pathetic musings and childlike tantrums violate many 'rules' around here. But who cares? I don't arrest flies for trespassing in my yard.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 05:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Does the boy who cried wolf come to anyone else' mind? Johnuniq feels that the "evidence" is a simplistic interpretation. Evergreenfir's last attempt at a filing here was of similar quality and one might say intentionally misleading for the purpose of "getting" ones opponent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Two kinds of pork (talk • contribs)

@Two kinds of pork: my last filing was not considered serious enough for action. Since then things have escalated, thus this filing. Can you please explain why you feel these statements are not personal attacks or incivility? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:40, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last fling was considered frivolous by any who bothered to examine the diffs you submitted. As indicated by someone other than me, that might be the case now as well. Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 05:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Recommend severe warning – Look at the immediate responses as this ANI is posted – Eric deserves scrutiny! As former US Army enlisted soldier and field medic, member of Special Operations Forces, and a veteran of the Iraq War, I can appreciate the wonderful release that is experienced whenever one says fuck. That said, Eric's needless and offensive use of fuck etc, especially when given in response to polite good faith messages, does not have a place in Wikipedia. Many thanks to EvergreenFir for bringing this to the ANI. Eric deserves a slap on the wrist – with a 2x4 – so that he will bite his tongue whenever he seeks to release whatever anger (etc.) is lurking. Wikipedia editors need not receive such uncivil responses. Eric's offensive replies and comments do not contribute to the project and they detract, severely, from his contributions. – S. Rich (talk) 05:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Yawn Recommend working on some articles; there are BLP violations you could attend to rather than searching for an editor who has said "fuck" on his talk page. Hint; if you are offended by this word, you should avoid reading others' talk pages. Words like "fuck" are not prohibited on Wikipedia. It's just a word. There are far more serious things to worry about. --John (talk) 05:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy Close - There's far more important things to worry about than one editor telling another to fuck off & what not .... –Davey2010 • (talk) 06:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close: ridiculous nonsense. Why not spend time creating/working on content instead of trailing around looking for words you don't like? Who re-opened this anyway? SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I reoponed it as it was closed by an IP. Iselilja (talk) 06:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, it was closed by John. SagaciousPhil - Chat 06:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

My apologies - my internet is sooooo slow, after a dozen edit conflicts it looked as if it was John who closed it. I see it has been re-opened again anyway, just to waste even more of everyone's time. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy enable At this point Eric is clearly exempt from our personal attack policies and nobody wants to talk about this issue. Wikipedia should live with this behavior as it has chosen to enable and encourage it. We should close this thread and ignore the situation until is escalates into something that cannot be ignored. This is not sarcasm, I am serious. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 06:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Perhaps, instead of fishing for more blocks, you could help improve Indian subcontinent articles now that the last line of defense has understandably had enough. —Xezbeth (talk) 06:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• No one has cited any policy for moves to close. These are tantamount to WP:IDLI and WP:OTHERSTUFF. If you feel this should be closed, explain why Eric's actions are not against policy. The existence of other problems of WP is not sufficient reason. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, how about wikipedia is not a battleground? Looking at your past 500 edits, how much was improving the encyclopedia and how much was arguing? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority are about articles. Try looking at past 2500. Further, like others, you try to turn the focus on me and away from the egregious violations of Eric. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 06:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps the focus should be on you, in addition to a few others. I suspect if the arbitration request (currently on the decline side) were to be accepted, that is precisely what will happen.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Purely ad hominem, TKoP. Have Eric's comments comported with the WP pillar of civility? I submit not. 07:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• Speedy close – If you don't like what your read on Eric's page, then don't go there. Eric is, in my opinion, bang on the nose with most of what he says. Cassianto^talk 06:46, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Speedy close. Eric, quoted above: "I treat those who deserve respect with respect. " Period. Just stay in that group, everybody, it's that easy. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Addendum

In my experience, Malleus / Corbett can come across as snippy, sarcastic, vulgar, etc... and is also totally willing to work with an editor who is sincere and likewise willing to work with him. He's a good guy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Caveat being, of course, that he is not always a good guy - else we would not be here discussing it, or attempting to. But there isn't going to be a consensus to do anything about it here, and I strongly doubt that arbcom would do anything either. A big old group hate might make some editors feel better, but at the end nothing would change. We'd just have more hours spend not editing articles, more feelings hurt and egos bruised, and more grudges. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Another Addendum

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

---

This thread was closed after being open for a period of less than four hours. During a period of only four hours, anywhere in the world, some editors won't see it. (In this case, it wasn't seen on the US East Coast.) It is clear that some editors have decided that it is "community consensus" that the larger community doesn't need to express its opinions on Eric Corbett again because it is already consensus that complaints about him be ignored. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC) If the closing admin, User:BlackKite, was offering the opinion that WP:ANI is broken as a way of dealing with productive but disruptive editors because it introduces drama and accomplishes nothing, I basically agree. Part of the problem is that, for whatever reasons, the ArbCom is heavily backlogged and has not been able to deal expeditiously with such editors. There is a problem in that the English Wikipedia has a few highly controversial, very productive but very disruptive editors, and no process for dealing either with them or with the disruption that they cause. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbcom isn't backlogged into not dealing with that class of editors, it is hobbled by a majority of its members refusing to act because it is not "political" to do so. — Coren ^(talk) 15:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Any thread on ANI that has the words Eric and Corbett in it is basically a candle and any editor who jumps into it is basically a moth looking for a flame to immolate themselves. Quite frankly, any thread that is opened up about Eric should just be closed posthaste with the rationale "Because...Eric" and everyone can move on to something more productive. Blackmane (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI is incapable of handling this, we see that every time it is tried when the "find something better to do" crowd shows up. Tarc (talk) 16:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not so much the "find something better to do" crowd, but that the situation has been left to fester so long that there are too many facts to be addressable within ANI's attention span. I'm not sure what the solution is. If ArbCom is too backlogged to handle its case load, maybe more seats should be added. Or some means for simplifying the procedure and limiting the scope of arbitration could be considered. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

IP Block

Hi,

Can we get a however long is felt appropriate block on this IP 94.196.250.104, obvious WP:SOCK of Evlekis, low chance of colateral damage as only one non vandalism edit ever and that was some years ago. Amortias (T)(C) 07:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I gave it a short term block, but it's a wireless carrier IP, so a long block is unlikely to help. NawlinWiki (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

impersonate

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

---

This user was impersonated my ID.--KRAKOV (talk) 15:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• People are bound to have a similar username to you, and there is no impersonation since he's not "acting" like you at all..... –Davey2010 • (talk) 15:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• KRAKOV, you need to notify this user that you have brought them up at AN/I. You can also take the opportunity to politely ask them to change their username. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 15:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• User:Fetx202 made a series of potentially unconstructive edits [285], identical to the previous edits by an IP [286]. After KRAKOV (User:Fetx2002) reverted the IP's edits, Fetx202 registered his/her account and started reverting where the IP left off. That's no "coincidence". Voceditenore (talk) 16:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

The username "InsaneHacker"

Hello en-wiki admins. My name is Matthias Smed Larsen but on da-wiki I go by the username InsaneHacker. I've been trying to convert my account to a global account but apparently someone registered the username InsaneHacker on en-wiki back in 2006. When looking at the logs I can see the account never made any edits, is there any way for you to see if the account is active at all? And if it isn't, is there a way I can have it? Best Regards InsaneHacker (You can reply here or on my da-wiki talk page) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.60.145.167 (talk) 15:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You're looking for WP:USURP. Unless I'm mistaken, that account is eligible. InsaneHacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

hello I want an wikipedia account

I do not know if I am right here. I edited Wikipedia for a while and I got a problem with my ip, it is permanently changing. Another user even thought that I am a kind of sockpuppet using proxy or so. Thus I want to request an account to avoid further problems. I would like to call me "موغانلی" which is written in Persian as "Mooghanly". Hope anyone can help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:E620:FD80:64D4:A654:6A61:5C49 (talk) 18:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Read this for more information: Wikipedia:Why_create_an_account?

Click here to sign up: Special:UserLogin/signup

JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dantetheperuvian

Dantetheperuvian has insulted me here (calling me a "fuck"), here (questioning my pride) and here (calling me a "troll"). He/she is also engaged in edit warring. SLBedit (talk) 19:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What does that even mean? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:10, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

You should know but I help you: "Derogatory term used to address a bunch of complete douchebags. Often used in times of extreme anger. "You fucks! Get your sorry asses here or I'll make you wish you were never born!" SLBedit (talk) 19:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Comment - Personally, I think you misinterpreted what was said. It looks like in the context of the discussion that the User meant to say, "if you [give a] f***..." or something to this effect. This puts the comment in an entirely different light. So vulgar language and bad editing, but no intended insult in my opinion. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. It's a malformed sentence. There's no clear indication Dantetheperuvian meant to call SLBedit a "fuck", though even if he had I'm not sure we'd do anything about it. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

There is a clear indication Dantetheperuvian called me a "fuck" because he replied to me and wrote "you fuck". SLBedit (talk) 19:47, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In my view you are misinterpreting what he/she wrote because you didn't feel insulted (it wasn't you). Is it okay if I start calling Wikipedians trolls and fucks when I disagree with them? If yes I will do the same just don't warn me about that. SLBedit (talk) 19:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are absolutely correct that I was not the person the comment was directed. But you came here for the opinion of others and I've offered that. Furthermore, if a person does not feel insulted, then the claim can be made that no insult was made.

You are entitled to feel insulted, but you are not entitled to create an insult where its questionable that one exists. Something else to consider is that by feeling so insulted (to the point that you're discussing it here), you are giving far more power to the comments that the other User made than were originally intended. But that is also your choice to make. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I see your point but it's not questionable that he insulted me. SLBedit (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

In the first and second instance, yes it's questionable, (granted I don't understand the sports reference), in the third (i.e. "troll") no, its pretty clear. But still fairly petty. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

What about calling me a troll for reverting an edit? SLBedit (talk) 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Clearly that was rude, but not worth seeking action over. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Not if I did the same to a administrator or a admin's friend. SLBedit (talk) 20:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish with this comment. I understand you are probably frustrated with this user, but multiple people have responded to this indicating that to a dispassionate, outside observer there is nothing particularly actionable about Dantetheperuvian's conduct. I suggest you find some other way of resolving the dispute between the two of you. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it okay for user Dantetheperuvian to call Jérôme Faugeras a "John Doe Fauregas" (twice!)? SLBedit (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no idea as I do not know who this person is or what relevance they have to this discussion. As I mentioned previously, the words used only have the power over you that you give them. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's relevant to the discussion because of Dantetheperuvian edits which brought me here.

That means it doesn't matter if I insult you because "words used only have the power over you that you give them" which means insults don't exist on Wikipedia. You don't want to punish him/her fine BUT don't warn me if I use the same tactics. SLBedit (talk) 20:56, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't punish people on Wikipedia. We prevent future occurrences. The "severity of the response" depends on the "severity of the protection required". You weren't called a "fuck". You were called a troll. The person was warned not to do that again. Voila, response is done unless there's a recurrence. the panda ɛˢˡ” 14:35, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• There's no possible way, even with a poorly-built sentence, that anyone called you a "fuck". Being called a "troll"? Meh, if the first part had been true, then added to troll it could have led to a warning. Otherwise, it's not worthy of action other than reminding the other party to be civil. the panda ₯’ 21:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Fucks bye trolls good. SLBedit (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I've left a note cautioning them to comment on content and not editors. Please do your best just to steer clear of the drama and ignore petty items like someone calling you a troll. If that's the worst that happens, you'll be entirely fine. Remember what we're here for :) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 23:18, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please, since when "troll" is synonymous with "shit"? But what adjective deserve someone who responds that way in this discussion? (wrote "To me it seems like you are a Porto fan. It should be fixed now. If you are Juventus fan then you share something with Porto fans: shame of (proven) corruption in football" in his 1st answer), so the "outraged" should be me. Now, it's "curious" read how this user "edit" where before delete, why?

To end, regarding mr. Jérôme Faugeras, Internet not appear anywhere if he is a statistician, a football board member, a manager, an expert in international football like this or if it's a other Internet user like you or me. And I remember that Wikipedia only accept original research conducted by subjects who have sufficient prestige and/or notoriety in their work's area, and that can not be said of this man...--Dantetheperuvian (talk) 01:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, there's a part answer right there; a shortage of competence in English. FYI,@Dantetheperuvian:, original research is accepted nowhere on Wikipedia. Furthermore, you should consider yourself warned that directed attacks at editors will attract blocks of increasing duration. To both SLBedit and Dantetheperuvian, comment on content not the editor. Neither of you are covering yourselves in glory here. cmtBlackmane (talk) 03:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible legal issues here

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

---

Alleged "cease and desist" post here [287]. I will notify the account of this thread. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a clear legal threat. Blocking would be appropriate. A DOLT analysis indicates that the user's beef is evidently with Tim Burton, and is threatening Wikipedia for even discussing the project. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:39, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur. Legal threat, not a DOLT situation.--v/r - TP 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Koala15

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

---

Koala15, a user who is generally productive and makes good contributions, has twice [288][289] submitted episode synopses that appear to be extraordinarily close paraphrases of content found here, for instance, with superficial changes in wording. User claims in his edit summary that he wrote them himself. Requesting an admin weigh in here, please. Unrelated, but also worthy of note: I've pointed out to Koala15 that there are new guidelines that govern TV series overview tables at MOS:TV#Series overview, but the user prefers to maintain his personal preference for table width, for example here and here. The rationale for using a smaller table, (as explained in the MOS discussion) is that for users with large monitors, a four-column table can take up 19 inches of horizontal space. This is not a good way to present information. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Withdrawn. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Extreme and Systemic Disruption / WP:LEGAL

Note that the following is not an editor dispute as Krzyhorse22 and myself have no interaction history in articles. Krzyhorse22 has wasted untold hours of editor time. A wide variety of editors have negatively commented on this editors extremely bizarre and aberrant behavior patterns, including Baseball_Bugs, The Bushranger, Rsrikanth05, Bbb23 etc. Please observe the following:

• He has taken a particular WP:STALKING fascination with StanTheMan87. He places a warning template on Stan's talk page, on average, of once every 37 hours (19 times in the last 30 days).
• His first three edits on WP were to file ANIs.
• In the 30-day life of his account, he has filed at least (that we can count) 7 ANIs and 3RRs ([290] [291][292],[293], [294] [295]), all of which have been dismissed or archived without action. Here's his most recent: [296]. In most of these he repeatedly demands 'indefinite blocks' ([297]).
• In a variety of WP:CIVIL transgressions he has called other editors "monkey face," ([298]) among a wide variety of other invectives.
• In violation of WP:LEGAL he has said that he has contacted the CIA regarding another editor's edits. ([299])
• In possible violation of WP:LEGAL, he has insinuated he, himself, is a CIA agent here to enforce copyright laws. ([300])
• In violation of WP:VAN, and in apparent retribution against me after I asked him to stop his daily tagging of the Mullah Omar file for deletion, he vandalized image file permissions descriptions of two public domain images I uploaded to make them appear to be non-public domain prior to then nominating them for deletion. (here - [301] - he modified an image peremissions file to add "current owner Susan Parish" then nominated it for deletion - the source (http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/Record/View/CC3D746502C00F7ADEFF3EE66D57F54A) does not contain the word "owner" or anything similar)
• He has previously been cautioned by DeltaQuad for editing "in a way which conflicts with sockpuppetry policy." ([302])

An ANI was previously filed on 1SEP2014 regarding this editor, however, was archived without admin input. We have tried to bring it up to other admins outside ANI, however, have been told KH22 has made so many "unusual" edits that they don't have time to sort through them. IOW, we're getting absolutely pummeled by this account but, frustratingly, he's spending so much time doing it that he's essentially bought a carte blanche. DocumentError (talk) 20:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the two "Legal" statements, the first one is not a threat at all. He supposedly asked the head of the CIA to verify if a photo was actually a particular terrorist. Not any sort of threat explicit nor implicit. Regarding the second one, saying "you have no idea who I am, I could be CIA for all you know" is also not a threat but a factual statement about the nature of the internet. I could be King Abdullah for all you know.--v/r - TP 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Got it. Thank you for contextualizing it. Saying "I just called the head of CIA and he said nobody is sure if that guy in the image is the real Mullah Omar" I guess could be something a good faith, rational editor might drop into a routine edit discussion. And, you are correct, his other statement is a factual statement about the nature of the internet; he could be a CIA agent here to monitor Wikipedia for copyright violations. I've edited my OP to move those issues down to the bottom of the list. If I overreacted, I would like to apologize to KH22, and also ask him to please transmit my apologies to CIA director John Brennan and president Obama the next time he conferences with them regarding Wikipedia image file permissions.DocumentError (talk) 20:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's not a legal threat, but IMHO something more along the lines of WP:CIR if stated seriously, and m:TROLL if not, speaking frankly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And, honestly I'm less concerned with the declarations of CIA intervention into WP (which are obviously just insane rants) than I am with the vandalizing of image permissions pages, with templating StanTheMan's talk page 19 times in 30 days, with filing one ANI every 96 hours (all of which are dismissed but have now occupied going on 10 hours of editor time to work through), with the questions of sockpuppetry, etc. And we wonder why there's been a 30% drop-off in editors. Who wants to deal with this lunacy beginning Day 2 of their Wikipedia account history and, when they try to ask for help like StanTheMan has done, are basically told to stop complaining? DocumentError (talk) 23:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I never called any editor a monkey face. My first edit was nominating an image of Mohammad Omar which was deleted and so was my first edit. When StanTheMan87 began uploading the same image I was forced to confront him. I didn't file excessive reports, others are filing them against me. I'm not violating Wikipedia by nominating images that are uploaded with vague licenses. I have said to everyone the phone call to CIA was a joke and that was over a week ago, DocumentError and StanTheMan87 are repeating this in their every message. I never vandalized the image description but added the author and other important information [303] [304] that DocumentError failed to provide. To make it short, the accusations levelled against me are untrue. I did not violate any Wikipedia policy. I only added 4 image tags on StanTheman87's page, one warning for 3RR and one regarding ANI case, all of that are Wikipedia's requirement.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"So now you either accept that monkey face or go find clear evidence." ([305]) The rest of your pleas of innocence (e.g. not vandalizing image permission files) have already been debunked with diffs in my OP. That said, I note you just undid your vandalism to the permissions description in the last 60 minutes ... basically right after I filed this ANI (see: [306]). You do realize everything on WP is permanent, right? DocumentError (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Me and admin Baseball Bugs were joking about adding this monkey face to an article, Bugs had brought this up and I just replied, read the whole conversation. That's not calling another editor a monkey face. You are deliberately twisting information.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Krzyhorse22 is much more than meets the eye. He/she has used arguments supporting his own viewpoint by making outrageous and insulting statements targeting not only an individual in one case ("Because Khalid Hadi was proven to be a liar, we cannot take his story about photographing Mulla Omar as truth") [307], but entire ethnic groups (" Afghans in general are corrupt and they exaggerate too much. The same goes for Pakistanis, Indians, Iranians and etc.") [308]. All of these accusations have been made without no, absolutely no cited sources. In fact, the only time he has managed to find a source to support his weak pov, he used it from me proving a point then twisted it against me, see [309](10th paragraph down) and [310] as well as [311] and [312]. His supposed claim to have contacted the head of the CIA is also ridiculous, as he used that as justifying the removal of an image to suit his own totally whack POV. How can someone like this be considered an impartial editor? StanTheMan87 (talk) 03:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we Indians are a very corrupt lot. Thankfully he hasn't harassed me for being one. But we'rre so corrupt that we have a dozen Wikipedias in our own language. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 04:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, don't take it the wrong way. I was referring to Afghan, Pakistani and Indian sources. They often exaggerate or are based on what villagers believe. For example, Khalid Hadi is an Afghan and claimed that he photographed the spiritual leader of the Taliban in 1993 in Kandahar, Afghanistan. [313] However, all other sources say that Omar was living in Pakistan in 1993. He and his men (Taliban) took over Kandahar in 1994. It's not me, it's the world who calls Afghanistan one of the most corrupt countries on earth. See Corruption Perceptions Index. Besides, this is my personal view and if anyone doesn't agree just don't. Also, read what this American photojournalist think about Afghans. He has been to that country 20 times. [314]--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 09:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

"Omar was living in Pakistan in 1993" yet another classic statement from Krzyhorse22, accompanied without a source. Forgive me if I take the word of a cited primary source [315] over a delusional POV pushing internet troll, and his weak, unsourced opinions. StanTheMan87 (talk) 11:01, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You're getting boring and annoying with your wild rants and personal attacks. Admin DeltaQuad already warned you and DocumentError to stop. [316] I'm not delusional or an internet troll. You uploaded a 1993 image and tagged it a pre-1923 image. [317] What does that explain about you? Why don't you just give up uploading Mohammed Omar's images with false licenses?--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 11:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for not notifying me on your latest embarrassment in Wikipedia. I'm pretty sure you were meant to notify me, if I am correct, as stated by the template, but that slip-up will only show your desperation in crusading all over Wikipedia for the past month. Notice the template says "In most cases...", for it being PD in the U.S only, *sigh and I didn't mention that you personally were the delusional troll, in that second sentence, unlike in the first one, so you can deduce all you want, just hope you don't stay up too late in the night wondering if I was referring to you. StanTheMan87 (talk) 12:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks and false accusations

• Lithistman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• John Barrowman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Talk:John Barrowman (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs)

Lithistman is on a bit of a vendetta, it seems. Despite pleasant collaboration elsewhere, they see fit to place this personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous: "aving recently started editing the main Landmark article, I'd be willing to bet that many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". They charge that "many of the editors" object to inclusion of material because it is critical of the Landmark movement: in other words, those editors (I assume that's Randykitty, Tgeairn, Hoary, and me) have POVs slanted toward Landmark and cannot edit neutrally.

That's a bad enough personal attack already, and then follows some more crap at John Barrowman. In a nutshell: John takes issue with the material (really a minor matter in its own right), Spartaz protects, protection runs out, and Lithistman reinstates the material. I see this, I revert, I re-protect, and explain at length on the talk page what, in my opinion, the proper way forward is. Lithistman fills up a talk page with claims of admin abuse. In the meantime, Spartaz clarifies what they hadn't said out loud: that they considered the issue resolved, though there is no formal resolution on the talk page, which kind of leaves me with my pants down--but any admin can understand that invoking the BLP is a valid argument for protection and revert.

Well, you can check the history of the talk page: Lithistman has more abuse and false accusations to offer (such material discussing user conduct is inappropriate on an article talk page), and refuses to go to ANI--no doubt because they realize they don't have a leg to stand on. but I've had it with the rather sickening personal attacks and the disruption. I'm leaving that talk page alone, though they removed my last comment--perhaps someone can restore that, I don't care. And let me add that I did what I did in that article not because I agree with John (I have mixed feelings, as I explained), but because the BLP is to be protected above everything else. But editors who act like this make this very difficult, and I'm tired of it. So here it is: personal attacks of POV editing, disruption of a talk page, false accusations of abuse, and a total disrespect for the BLP. Drmies (talk) 21:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• And this little section, they closed as "harassing comments". If I ask them not to make personal attacks, and they call that harassment, what should I call accusations of POV editing, admin abuse, etc? Drmies (talk) 21:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• I won't be offering anything by way of reply here. I stand by every edit I've made on this project, including statements I've made about my experience editing the Landmark article. My work on the project is my reply, so check my contributions for my defense. LHM^{ask me a question} 21:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Your article work isn't explaining your behaviour, however. We have too many editors who think they can behave poorly if they do good edits elsewhere - you don't want to become one of those the panda ₯’ 21:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'm unimpressed with Lithistman's grasp of the material he is discussing, and I am deeply unimpressed with an editor who apparently has to personalise everything rather than discuss improving articles. I don't appreciate the section on his talk page about me and I would like it removed. Lithistman needs to up his game or he is in for some nasty surprises, especially if he is going to edit in difficult areas like BLP. --John (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Did you see the list of editors they pinged on that talk page to discuss our ongoing admin abuse? How is that not a violation of WP:TPNO? Drmies (talk) 22:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • I did. Did you see this and this? Coupled with this, where he gets the name of the source he is edit-warring wrong, I think we have an unfortunate combination of impulsivity and carelessness. I would like to see it stopped but administratively I've done my bit and that can be someone else's call now. --John (talk) 22:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• For people interested in what actually is going on, see the Barrowman talkpage. As for the pinging, I pinged the editors that had established the consensus that you were edit-warring against. Before an administrator takes any action supporting this silliness, I'd encourage you to dig deeper. Much deeper. LHM^{ask me a question} 22:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There is nothing deeper to dig here. No matter whether John has a point or not, they can invoke the BLP and that trumps everything. It's not a recipe to stall all article progress, and if Spartaz had closed that discussion with a consensus (one which John might or might not have agreed with) this might have gone differently. As it is, I am accused of admin abuse (it's right there on the talk page) when I did exactly what the BLP tells me to do as an admin: revert, protect, in the absence of a clear-cut consensus. And along comes Lithistman (still edit-warring in that article) pinging half a dozen people and accusing me of admin abuse--and they refuse to bring it to ANI or to respond here, since, of course, the charge can't stand daylight. And that's on top of the personal accusation of POV editing in that gourous AfD. This, I propose, is the kind of thing that sickens the atmosphere around here. Wanna make this go away? Apologize, for your actions and your words. Drmies (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• And now Lithistman is offering the same lies at an ArbCom case, here. Drmies (talk) 22:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid that's entirely incorrect. There has been a clear consensus for the inclusion of the material (and the reliability of the source) as the result of multiple discussions since February 2014, and the current talk page shows this to be true. John's misinterpretation of BLPSOURCES to push his personal POV is legendary, and the community has consistently told him he's wrong and he needs to stop. For background, see the People magazine debacle where John attempted the same bad behavior. The community has neither blacklisted the Daily Mail not has it disallowed the use of nonvontroversial interviews, and in fact, it has supported the use of this source for this purpose. Until just last week, John accepted this consensus but has now returned to the same disruptive editing as before. Unfortunately, several admins, including Spartaz and Drmies have stepped in to support John's involvement, which has led both to my recent block (which was overturned) and now the current block of Lithistman. I'm afraid that the admin community has shown a preference for rallying around their own during a dispute, and in the process, targets regular editors for sanctions using trumped up claims and accusations. As a result of this continuing disruption by admins, we will need to take this to arbcom, as admins cannot prosecute their own nor have they shown the slightest interest in regulating their own community. I personally witnessed this several weeks ago when Drmies was edit warring and John stepped in to close the edit warring report against him, even though John had acted involved in the initial incident report and called for sanctions against the reporter. Both John and Drmies have worked together against Lithistman here, and he is currently blocked because of their tag team behavior. Admins must be held to the same standard of decorum as regular editors. Viriditas (talk) 23:09, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
    • That's a long-ass paragraph, Viriditas, full of hot air. Are you really saying that Spartaz and I are responsible for your block? Weren't you blocked last week? I first edited the article and its talk page today, so I'm curious how my actions today caused you to get blocked last week. Some facts, please, or explain how I am secretly able to warp time. Or are you just here to smear some accusations around and get some revenge after you were shown up elsewhere for lack of knowledge and disruptive editing? I know my ass from my elbow, Viriditas. I find this helpful. Drmies (talk) 23:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
• Now Lithistman got hisself blocked, and leaves with yet another accusation on their talk page: their retirement was my goal. They called this ANI frivolous, and I find nothing frivolous or amusing about being accused of admin abuse and POV editing, with unsubstantiated charges smeared all over the article talk page, my talk page, their talk page, and now the ArbCom request case. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I read at the start of this: Lithistman is on a bit of a vendetta, it seems. Despite pleasant collaboration elsewhere, they see fit to place this personal attack at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous: "aving recently started editing the main Landmark article, I'd be willing to bet that many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". They charge that "many of the editors" object to inclusion of material because it is critical of the Landmark movement: in other words, those editors (I assume that's Randykitty, Tgeairn, Hoary, and me) have POVs slanted toward Landmark and cannot edit neutrally. Minor point: I don't remember having ever edited Landmark Worldwide; if I've ever done so, it would I think have been a long time ago. I have edited Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. In the recently concluded AfD of the latter, I recommended adding material about the subject matter to the article Landmark Worldwide. ¶ While not defending accusations of bias and also trying not to make them myself, I rather routinely find them directed at me: I normally just yawn and carry on with what I'm doing. -- Hoary (talk) 00:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Well, it's hard to yawn sometimes. Lithistman loudly proclaims that my forum shopping was aimed at making them quite--an act of clairvoyance, besides a lie, since I "shopped" at only one forum, this one, and only because they refused to retract their allegations and make their case in the proper place. This user has been engaged in this sort of hitting below the belt for years, under various accounts--editors like Gwen Gale may remember this and so, Hoary, may you. So if you tell me to just yawn--well, I suppose. And I'll yawn at the diatribe below as well: I like the gift as I like the giver. "Potentially facing sanctions"--pff. Drmies (talk) 05:26, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Support BOOMERANG. Drmies hasn't cited a single alleged "personal attack" made by Lithistman here or anywhere else for that matter. I encourage everyone to look at the links and diffs and try to substantiate what Drmies is saying, because it's completely impossible. What we have here are several admins working together to target editors who disagree with them, and this is the second instance of Drmies edit warring against another editor and getting them blocked in only the last month. In other words, Drmies was involved in another edit war and decided to file false charges against the other editor in a content dispute. Contrary to what Drmies claims, there isn't a single piece of evidence supporting his claims that Lithistman is on a vendetta anywhere, that Lithistman has made personal attacks, or that Lithistman has disrupted Wikipedia. This is yet another example of Drmies going after people who disagree with them. Just as admin John called for my sanctions when I recently filed an ANI against Drmies for edit warring and adding biased content, and just as John acted involved to close the edit warring report against Drmies to prevent any sanctions from taking place, so too has Drmies attempted to help admin John by reverting and protecting John Barrowman against consensus to admin John's preferred version, and the kicker is that Drmies has admitted doing this. Meanwhile, to distract everyone from the purely disruptive behavior of these two admins, Drmies has filed this frivolous and vexatious complaint to keep our eyes off the ball. Well, it's not going to happen. The facts are clear. Admin John acted involved and blocked me for reverting his edits against consensus. Lithistman showed up to revert to the consensus version and Drmies reverted him and protected the article against consensus. Meanwhile, this ridiculous, baseless report was filed and Lithistman was blocked for daring to challenge two admins who worked together to undermine the consensus generated by the community. There's not a single thing about this report from Drmies that has a basis in fact or evidence and the community should take a stand against two admins working together to violate the rules, twist the policies, and block editors who challenge their POV. Let's face the facts: Drmies is potentially facing sanctions in at least two topic areas right now, one of which is already on the arbcom request page, with very serious allegations being made against Drmies.[318] I think this ANI is another attempt by Drmies to distract the community from his continuing bad behavior, but I just don't think it is going to work anymore. At some point, WP:ROPE comes into play, and there's nothing anyone can do. Viriditas (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack here? All Lithistman has said, and possibly quite correctly, is that the editors on Landmark article would object to any critical material being added from Voyage au pays des nouveaux gourous. If Drmies feels that this applies to him personally, then perhaps he doth protest too much. Looking at the other edits/flaggings/deletion nominations over the past week or so, it would be an easy thing to mistake conscientious editing by a long-time wikipedia editor and one with an agenda. Zambelo; talk 12:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Can a truely uninvolved admin please step in and end this bickering or figure out what the heck is going on and warn all parties to ratch it down a notch? Thank you, --Malerooster (talk) 13:54, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - User:Drmies, I assume you're going to provide diffs of those personal attacks, yes? I see one linked comment, and it's not a personal attack at all. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• For a timeline of what happened yesterday, see this page, that I compiled after Drmies managed to briefly get me blocked yesterday. LHM^{ask me a question} 15:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • That timeline should be marked "original research"--there's more mindreading, synthesis, and sophistry there than I've seen in a long time. To cite just one, I didn't question your competence over this Mail/Mirror thing, which is trivial--I question it because of your apparent lack of knowledge of what BLP means, and what edit warring means. And then there was this, where you seemed to think that a primary source becomes secondary if you cite it twice. And this, where you reinstated what was previously pointed out as a copyvio, not just "simply linking to a reprint". Drmies (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• Hi UltraExactZZ. Sure. But let me note one thing first: LHM continually claims "edit warring against consensus" (in a few diffs below) as if that is an exemption for him to edit war (they reverted three times). That consensus was hardly iron-clad. John claims BLP--and like it or not, BLP trumps consensus. If editors disagree, they should seek recourse one way or another--but not this way.
  • LHM accusing other editors of POV editing in the Landmark matter: "many of the editors there would STRONGLY resist any attempt to put a paragraph about this critical documentary into the article". (Either that, or LHM is a mind reader.)
  • LHM backtracking from that comment with a falsehood ("my comment was clearly a general one") and a non-apology apology: "I'm sorry you felt attacked". Note how LHM expresses that taking civility complaints to ANI is "silly"--as if discussing them in AfDs and article talk pages is the way to go (it is not, as everybody knows).
  • Here is LHM calling John lazy because John does not see a consensus on including the material--note that Spartaz later says on the talk page that "there appears to be consensus", a statement so modified that it is reasonable to accept that John read that discussion (and its lack of formalized consensus/outcome differently.
  • John accused of "misusing his status as an administrator to try and enforce his mistaken interpretation of BLP". Calling John's BLP view is mistaken is one thing, saying he abuses his status as an admin is quite another, and it is not a matter for the article talk page.
  • Now LHM is accusing me (I suppose--"another admin") of "edit-warring against consensus, abusing his tools to protect a non-consensus version". Well, the BLP takes away the edit-warring concern, and since when is one single revert an edit war? how many times has LHM reverted that same edit? Oops: once, twice, three times. (Note their last edit summary: he claims I'm making this personal--showing a distinct lack of AGF as well as mindreading.) In addition, the consensus was hardly as clear as could be (already noted), and protecting a BLP in case of an edit dispute is an admin's job.
  • More mindreading, specious claims of edit warring (this is after LHM had reverted three times, against my single one) and abuse of tools.
  • And here is John being accused of edit warring, and of recruiting me. Well, is this a "recruitment"?
  • Same claim of recruitment and more mindreading. I didn't want LHM blocked.
  • Anyone interested in LHM's "help I'm being oppressed" message? Here's his talk page notice, accusing me of "forum shopping" (which requires more than one forum, I suppose, and I sought only one, the proper one, ANI, which LHM studiously avoids), my mission is to get him blocked (more mindreading), and my RFPP request was "deceptive" (how "deceptive" is this?).
• I'm sure LHM thinks this is all very funny, and Viriditas jumped right on top, didn't he. ANI discussions are silly. Rants and false accusations in bold print on their talk page are OK (again). Unproven accusations of admin abuse made in all the wrong places are OK. I'm banned from their talk page (boohoo!), so they can just say anything they like? Ultraexactzz, is this what you were looking for? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I repeat I am not happy with having a section dedicated to me on User:Lithistman's user talk page which has no content and at the same time Lithistman has "banned" me from his talk page. Drmies has removed it (once?) and I have removed it (twice). If he continues to replace it I request a one week block. --John (talk) 16:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • John, I'd leave that nonsense alone, before you get blocked for removing a personal attack (gasp!). Also, no, I never removed anything from that talk page. It should be removed, and maybe a passing admin will take care of it. Maybe. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
• The fact of the matter is that the biggest, by far, and most insidious problem wikipedia faces is that of "civil" POV pushing, hiding behind cries of "admin abuse", "thingism", "catism", "dogism" or whatever the "...ism" of the day is. Until we address that dysfunctional aspect of the site, these stupidly long, pointless threads will continue, because, hell, they're admirable, aren't they? Judge folks by what they say and do, not by which minority or majority group you think they belong to. The ones crying "but... equality..." are generally the ones who don't want, or understand that at all. Disbelievers may examine this page for "gamergateism" etc, to see this invasion, and ponder on what we have become. Begoon ^talk 17:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Overuse of UK

Gigs suggested I bring this here. The background is the debate about using "England, UK" or just "England" (also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland). There was a discussion that Gigs closed with instruction that changes should stop at [319]. I stopped removing "UK". The editor adding "UK" kept adding it. The editor is identified by having a Orange Broadband IP address. I have put some examples in my sandbox, from the last month or so. What to do? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:14, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Put diff's of the evidence in this report as evidence of the issue as per WP:D&L.

You also need to put the {{subst:ANI-notice}} info on their talk page to advise them that your reporting them here and it might not be a bad idea to advise what their actual IP or username is so we know who were looking at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:19, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The IP changes a lot, maybe every hour. I do not know how to find the last one, can I just pick any? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Article names are best bet in that case so the IP's can be looked at. Amortias (T)(C) 22:38, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

The Orange IP are 2.24-31.*.* 95.144-151.*.* 91.105-109.*.*. A list of pages is in my sandbox, it is a bit big, do I have to copy it here? Narrow Feint (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Theres quite a large range of pages there some of which havent been edited in a couple of weeks, 2 or 3 recent examples would be best, if there arent any within the last 48 hours or so it might need to be held off until they edit again. Amortias (T)(C) 22:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am somewhat familiar with this as I was involved in the initial discussion and I have discussed this on Narrow Feint's talk page. NF says "the editor adding "UK" kept adding it". That isn't really the fact of the matter as a) there was no one editor who was identified as persistently adding it in the first place (unless NF has an editor in mind), b) there seems to be more than one editor at work here, and c) those editors were almost certainly not involved in the discussion that concluded these changes were to stop, so they are probably not aware that they're doing anything wrong. However, at first glance, it looks likely that a lot of these edits are one person using IPs from Salford, so basically we just need to identify those IPs who are adding it regularly or often, and tell them on their talk pages to stop. I did say to NF that I would do that, but I haven't had the chance yet (his list is rather long), and he has decided to come here first. I'm not really sure this is ANI material, not yet anyway. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

On second glance, the Salford editor with the Orange IPs does seem to be the main person doing this, but he uses a different IP every day, only going back to it maybe a couple of weeks later. It's rather hard to find the most recent, and I'm not sure he'd see a warning if we left him one. How do we grab his attention? Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure if this works, but use the articles' talk pages first, since this is a dynamic IP, title a new section, and say something similar to "To Orange IP User who keeps adding 'UK' to articles...". We don't want it to escalate to having a whole city as collateral damage to an Orange rangeblock. Anyone have better ideas? – Epicgenius (talk) 01:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, here goes. These have changed in the last three days. I will have to pause now. The IP that the editor uses keeps changing, but it always an Orange IP. Narrow Feint (talk) 23:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Victoria Derbyshire

| birth_place = Ramsbottom, Lancashire, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Ramsbottom, Lancashire, England, UK

Liam Boyle (actor)

| birth_place = Bolton, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bolton, England, UK

Jack Bond

| birth_place = Kearsley, Lancashire, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Kearsley, Lancashire, England, UK

Sir Thomas Barlow, 1st Baronet

| PLACE OF DEATH = 10 Wimpole Street, London, England, UK

Natalie Dormer

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Reading, Berkshire, England, UK

Tommy Banks (footballer)

| birth_place = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK

Suzanne Shaw

| birth_place = Bury, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bury, England, UK

Mark Charnock

| birth_place = Bolton, Lancashire, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bolton, Lancashire, England, UK

Johnny Ball

| birth_place = Bristol, Gloucestershire, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bristol, Gloucestershire, England, UK

Cherie Blair

|birth_place = Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

|PLACE OF BIRTH= Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

Ian Aspinall

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Bolton, Lancashire, England, UK

Reg Harris

| death_place = Macclesfield, Cheshire, England, UK

| PLACE OF DEATH = Macclesfield, Cheshire, England, UK

Danny Boyle

| birth_place = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

Hylda Baker

| death_place = Epsom, Surrey, England, UK

| PLACE OF DEATH =Epsom, Surrey, England, UK

Andrew Buchan

| birth_place = Stockport, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Stockport, England, UK

Nellie Halstead

| PLACE OF DEATH = Bury, Lancashire, England, UK

John Spencer (snooker player)

| birth_place = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

| death_place = Radcliffe, Bury, England, UK

| PLACE OF BIRTH = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

| PLACE OF DEATH = Radcliffe, Lancashire, England, UK

Alan Ball, Jr.

|PLACE OF BIRTH = Farnworth, Lancashire, England, UK

|PLACE OF DEATH = Warsash, Hampshire, England, UK

The most recent IP is this one [320], which he used today. But he will very likely use a different one tomorrow. He seems to be editing BLPs with an association with his local area, i.e. Manchester / Lancashire etc. Looking at what he does, there's major overlinking there as well as placename fiddling – I suspect he's not very familiar with a number of MOS guidelines and just needs to be informed of what he's doing wrong. But I'm not sure how we can do that if he keeps switching IPs about. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Somebody who knows how to make an edit filter could create one that prevents IPs from adding the phrase 'England, UK' to an article. (Could flag or prevent these edits, or send the IPs over to WP:AIV for further review). The page at User:Narrow Feint/sandbox is helpful but it might be more useful to get a list of the IPs used, ordered by date. If we are agreed that these edits are abuse (or at least, unwitting damage on a large scale) it might be better to discuss this at WP:SPI to save the valuable time of ANI. EdJohnston (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned this at the GM project page here Several editors responded and I have left messages on the talk pages of some of the ips. For what it's worth I think the editor knows exactly what he's doing. J3Mrs (talk) 07:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

User:HarpBasedBand

HarpBasedBand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Repeated unconstructive editing and addition of empty placeholder "TBA" tables void of data.

• Warned 20 September 2014 for unconstructive editing (adding incorrect list of upcoming episodes to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19)#Ratings and for removing references from same section).
• Also warned 19 & 20 September 2014 for not following MOS:DASH and for adding placeholder information.
• Warned 21 September 2014 for adding unreferenced information to Quintavious Johnson.
• Warned again 22 September 2014 for adding unreferenced information to Quintavious Johnson.
• User added placeholder "TBA" tables to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) on 22 September 2014.
  • Warned twice on 22 September 2014 (one, two) for adding placeholder "TBA" tables void of data to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19).
• User added placeholder "TBA" tables to America's Got Talent.
  • Final warning for adding placeholder "TBA" tables to America's Got Talent.
• User again added placeholder "TBA" tables to Dancing with the Stars (U.S. season 19) on 23 September 2014.

AldezD (talk) 03:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

West Aurora High School

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

---

Could someone please jump over to RPP or AIV and possibly handle the things involving this srticle? It is under a mass attack from several new users; typical schoolcruft stuff. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

• Nyttend already blocked one--I changed that block to indefinite for vandalism-only. Drmies (talk) 03:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
  • There are 3 active vandals at this time. Seaphoto has been getting most of it, but I think RPP is certainly in order. John from Idegon (talk) 03:41, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Thnks, guys! John from Idegon (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
      • I blocked them all, and the article is now semi-protected. Thanks for your vigilance, John from Idegon. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Block appeal for CSDarrow

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

---

• Note: With the permission of the blocking admin[321] I have unblocked CSDarrow for the sole purpose of participating in this discussion[322]. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 17:16, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will abide by the conditions. CSDarrow (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I am posting this here because of an unblock request by a user blocked under the Men's rights movement article probation. The terms of the probation say "Administrators are not to reverse such sanctions without either (1) approval by the imposing administrator, or (2) community consensus".

I have been assured that attempts to appeal to the blocking admin have been attempted and have not been fruitful. I am posting this users unblock request for them.

Links: Talk page section with block notification, Talk page section with appeal request, Block log, Article in question: Men's rights movement

My personal opinion is that the block was justified based on years of such editing. The logs on Men's rights movement article probation show this has been going on a long time. Even in the unblock request he mentions that he forced the issue and seems to think it is an acceptable way to edit a contentious area. I think any reduction in duration would need replaced with a topic ban. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 05:02, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

What would have me do Chillum, simply leave the text there? No one is arguing it should not be changed, yet discussion has died and it still there. Cailil point blank refuses to put forward a proposal in a discussable form. CSDarrow (talk) 03:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I would have you not "force" issues. I would have you walk away from contentious areas where your behavior repeatedly results in blocks. I would have you reduce the certainty that you have that your actions are without failure. I did advise you that you should make an unblock request that takes responsibility for the behavior that led up to the block instead of trying to explain why you did not deserve the block.

Frankly you probably could have worked this all out with the blocking admin if you were willing to take responsibility rather than deny responsibility. Chillum Need help? Type {{ping|Chillum}} 14:16, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

A simple acknowledge of your comment has oddly spun out of control. This is probably going to ArbCom were I will address your point within a more general framework. CSDarrow (talk) 15:08, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, an error in your line of thinking: ArbCom is a much more focused framework, not more general. Indeed, you personally should not under any circumstances want your behavior related to MRM at ArbCom - and by not taking responsibility for your actions, you've 100% precluded this from ever going the way you want it there; in fact, it'll be worse the panda ɛˢˡ” 16:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You might be nitpicking my words a little there. I assure my arguments will be focused. CSDarrow (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Focused or not, you appear to be lucky with the details of this block; taking this to Arbcom would be wikisuicide the panda ₯’ 20:06, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Background

I was blocked for 1 year by HJ Mitchell, [323], for an alleged violation of the page probation of Men's Rights.

It is claimed I have edited without consensus. I believe this is untrue. The disputed text is the reference to the United Kingdom in the first sentence of the section here, [324]. The discussion is lengthy and starts here [325], though the pertinent parts start in NPOV [326] and continue back into Talk here [327].

Discussion

In point form:-

• It clear by half way through the WP:NPOV discussion [328] that the disputed entry is at best un-encylopedic. I don't think this is disputable, even Cailil had says the source is 'shaky'.

• Based on that alone it should be removed. However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted.

• Cailil then starts listing possible replacement texts towards the end of WP:NPOV that then continue on into Talk [329]. We now have a torrent of ever changing suggestions, none of which he used in his eventual edit.

• I think he is Filibustering and I know what will happen here. For me to address his comments would result in a wall of text and the discussion would be lost with the contended text still in place.

• I try to pin him down by asking for a static suggestion, with both its justification and how the sources support it. He simply won't do this.

• 5 days elapses. Un-encylopedic content is still in place, no consensus on replacement text had been made, and in fact I don't even think a reasonable proposal has been made. The discussion has stalled.

• I force the issue by removing un-encylopedic content, ie either come up with a reasonable proposal for discussion or leave the text out. I get blocked for 1 year.

• Cailil then edits the entry to his liking without any discussion, let alone consensus [330].

I don't think I have violated the terms of probation. There was a consensus the text was un-encyclopedic, otherwise Cailil would not have made a non trivial edit of it.

I respectively ask my block be lifted.

CSDarrow (talk) 00:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• Just a comment for now... in general CSDarrow had 2 options here: admit they were wrong, get unblocked early. Argue vehemently they were right and 2 things could happen: 1) the community agrees and they get unblocked, 2) stay blocked with now no further chance of appeal because they have now argued they did nothing wrong, which is WP:GAB-uncompliant. Obviously, that means that this is the more dangerous route. the panda ₯’ 08:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I understand the two options. I am putting all my chips on the table and trusting the dice are fair. CSDarrow (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

And based on what I've seen, that's your problem: you brought dice and expected the rules of craps to apply. The problem is, since the rest of us were playing poker, then rules of poker will apply. You don't get to determine the ruleset, which is what your arguments below seem to be doing the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I have notified HJ Mitchell and Cailil of this discussion. There are probably others who were also involved, but those are the only two who are mentioned by name above. At the same time, I wonder if HJ would consider unblocking CSDarrow for the duration of this discussion with two restrictions: (1) he can edit nowhere else at Wikipedia except in this topic; and (2) he cannot edit his own talk page (only to avoid having multiple comments about the same issues in two places). As for the merits of the unblock request, I reserve my position on that for the moment as I'm only here because of insomnia.--Bbb23 (talk) 09:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
  • I'd have no problem with unblocking him to participate in this discussion (nor with allowing him to edit his own talk page as well) within reason if that's what CSD wants. I give my consent for you (or any other admin) to unblock for that purpose as you see fit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:32, 18 September 2014‎ (UTC)

• Apologies for the TLDR - am very very busy in RL
  CSDarrow (CSD) has used a number of forums to campaign for removal of sourced material - this is now the third. He has raised spurious issues regarding sources (see below). The sources in question are all academic, reliable sourced published by SAGE and Edinburgh University Press. The core of the point in relation to CSD’s complaint about me is that I found better sources for content he wants to remove. CSD raised the content matter on WP:NPOVN[331] vis a vis 1 source's weighting this was resolved by finding 3 more sourcesat NPOVN that corroborate the material.
  He had however been talking in circles with other users on the talk page before this (I was not involved at that point) – an edit war broke out and Bbb23 protected the page for 8 days. Due to WP:MRMPS that article is under 1RR and CSD had been slow revert warring to remove the text (as can be seen here and [332]. Bbb23 protected the page and warned everyone that “If after the lock expires, I see anyone continue to edit the disputed part of the article without a clear consensus in favor of the edit, they risk being blocked without notice”[333].
  When I pointed CSD to the sources on NPOVN he demanded I bring the matter to the Article’s talk page[334] which I did. When shock horror he couldn’t find the books online (despite them all being in google books) he persisted in throwing up straw man arguments and continually talking about what "new wording" I was about to add, *when no wording was needed* (see the discussion [335]. I noted CSD’s conduct to Bbb23 while he was blocked for a separate BLP issue. Bbb23 noted there that CSD was being tendentious[336].
  The matter that led to this block came to a head when immediately after the page protection ended CSD reverted again[337]. At this point Bbb23 was alerted by Sonicyouth (while he was on wikibreak) about CSD’s edit[338] – due to Bbb23's I made a post to Drmies[339]. HJMitchell saw that post, investigated it, and made his own call based on WP:MRMPS and CSD’s history.
  This[340] is my one and only edit to that article WRT to this issue. It has not been reverted by anyone despite it being added 5 days ago and despite CSD's claims of contentiousness. The only person who doesn’t like it is CSDarrow. And he has a long history[341] of misunderstanding that he doesn’t have a veto over consensus and edit-warring to enforce it. Furthermore this edit-warring and tendentiousness is part of a 2 year campaigning to remove this text (September 2012[342] and June 2013[343])--Cailil ^talk 10:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, the fact you should lobby for my block then brazenly commit the very thing you accuse me of is mind boggling. Rather than debate properly you go for the block, in fact twice during the debate.

• Just before I was to ask Bbb23 to remove the text, your first attempt was to feed Dreadstar [344] and Bbb23 [345] incorrect inferences. The fact you weren't aware Whitcomb is dead is odd, considering how well known he is in Feminist circles. You seem very friendly with Dreadstar who made the block and seemingly is indebted to you. What does the "hot water comment" refer to? I got indefinitely hard blocked. My appeal was successful.

• Once I removed the un-encyclopedic text, rather than propose a replacement text and promote discussion, you lobbied again for another block [346]. Unbelievably you then committed exactly the offense you falsely accused me of. You had two options, you chose the most disruptive.

On two occasions you chose the most disruptive of the options available to you. You have barely addressed a single point I have raised here. CSDarrow (talk) 03:09, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all CSD, the policy issue you raised at NPOVN related to the content was asked, and answered by the additional academic sources - the discussion was over, the issue resolved. You not liking the result is your own problem, and your inability to abide by WP's rules is why you're blocked - it really is that simple. Secondly nobody lobbied for you to be blocked just for an uninvolved sysop to *look at your actions*.
For the record, no Dreadstar is not "indebted" to me or anyone else (I can't remember the last time I interacted with them before your block and, as a point of order, I never contacted them) both they and HJM acted at there own discretion - they do have their own minds you know. BTW your wild conspiracy theories are not helping your case and would be better redacted. The difference between my actions and what you describe is clear and simple. And if you continue to misconstrue my or other ppl's actions you'll just dig a deeper hole for yourself. I wasn't the first person who contacted an admin vis a vis your edit-warring this time, but your fixation with me is not helping you, wikipedia is not a battleground. This is my last reply to you CSD - you've wasted enough of my and other ppl's time--Cailil ^talk 14:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to highlight the following:-

"..the policy issue you raised at NPOVN related to the content was asked, and answered by the additional academic sources - the discussion was over, the issue resolved."

CSDarrow (talk) 12:47, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

• Keep Blocked. The first question to ask in any block review is whether the blocked editor will, if unblocked, continue the disruption that resulted in the block the first time 'round. Here, given the statement and the utter lack of awareness of why their conduct was problematic, the answer would have to be probably. I'm open to arguments in favor, but I just don't see any benefit to be had by unblocking at this time. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

The dispute is as as to whether I have been disruptive or not. We have to resolve that issue first. CSDarrow (talk) 03:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@CSDarrow: Wrong again. You did NOT ask for a block review. You asked for an unblock. A block review has the community review the circumstances of the block, and whether or not the blocking admin was within the parameters permitted to place the block. An unblock request follows WP:GAB, and nothing else - so if you wanted someone to determine if you had been disruptive, you did the wrong thing. Nevertheless, every single editor who has commented in this thread agrees that you were, indeed, disruptive. So, if you wanted a block review, you got one. You wanted an unblock request, you go that too - and neither look good the panda ₯’ 20:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Some trash talk on the subject from a non-administrator. Darrow is an editor who has absorbed probably hundreds of hours of other editors, (administrators and not,) time, dealing with all his/her various issues. And for what? A look at her/his wiki record: https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=CSDarrow&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia reveals that over 75% of his/her edits are on talk pages. And how many of her/his other edits to articles have been undone? It is clear to me (another of those phrase that mean in my opinion) that s/he is an editor with an agenda, that s/he edits on a relatively few number of articles and then talks every one within reading range to death. And other unfortunate editors actually try to untie his gordian arguments. Enough time has been wasted. Carptrash (talk) 13:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• I'll just note that CSDarrow doesn't seem to be arguing that my block was procedurally incorrect, that I've been unreasonable in declining to unblock him thus far, that his conduct wasn't problematic, nor even that he wouldn't continue exactly the same behaviour that led to the block (and, as far as I can tell, all of his previous blocks, including one of three months' duration). Had he taken the latter approach, I might well be having a conversation with him leading towards an amicable solution. In fact, his argument seems to rest on a belief that he was 'right' and that being 'right' exempts him from all the normal workings of Wikipedia, which are especially important in contentious topic areas. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:52, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Checking your contributions page, from the time you would have noticed Cailils post, here [347], to forming and posting an opinion is 21 mins. This is an immensely complex issue involving page after page of involved argument over multiple different Wikipedia talk pages. I find it impossible to believe your block was based on rational scrutiny of the issue before you. CSDarrow (talk) 02:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

The content issues might be "immensely complex" (though I suspect they would be less so were it not for your contributions), but the problem with your conduct is clear for anybody to see. If you find that impossible to believe, then you stand in opposition to just about everybody; thousands of people watch this page and thus far not one of them has opined in your favour. Your refusal to accept that you might not be completely correct, or that Wikipedia's norms and policies apply to you, is what led to this block, to all your other blocks, and is why we're having this conversation at ANI instead of negotiating on your talk page. Do you see a pattern emerging here? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 11:59, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Good grief, you are the blocking Admin and you make a post like that? Might I remind you at one time most people also thought the World was flat. This is almost entirely and argument of fact, ie either I broke the terms of probation or I did not, which can be settled by examining the record of the discussion. It is impossible for you to have made a rational decision in the time period you did. I also find the joyous enthusiasm with which you joined this affair, here[348], troubling. CSDarrow (talk) 12:39, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

From what I have seen, I find the entire way you have conducted yourself since you registered your account on this project "troubling", and that will be my last comment here. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than addressing the issues pertinent to the case in hand you are indulging in irrelevances, ie red herrings. CSDarrow (talk) 13:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Um, wrong. On ANI, you do not get to set the limits of discussion - the discussion WILL investigate all of your behavior, your block log, and most !votes will be based on the concept of "overall net negative" or "overall net positive". This is why I think you wholly misrolled your dice because you failed to understand this most basic element the panda ɛˢˡ” 13:29, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

My post was basically referring to how HJ Michells response related to what I'd just said.

I understand the primacy of the well being of Wikipedia principle in decision making. There is actually a name for this form of governance; sometimes it works, sometimes it does not. Without going into tortuous discussion, there is an implication in my arguments I am in compliance with that principle. If I was to fully unpack your interpretation of this idea then we have a very lengthy discussion on our plate. The immediate point that comes to mind is even if I proof my case and was in full compliance with the page probation, then why was I not blocked even before the whole affair even started? If this carries onto ArbCom, which seems probable, then this can be discussed in detail. I assure you I can argue my case well and the discussion should be useful for Wikipedia, whether I am correct or not. CSDarrow (talk) 14:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• CSDarrow is a WP:SPA on the subject of the men's rights movement (MRM); since September 2012, his editing has been restricted to the MRM article and related MRM pages. CSDarrow is WP:NOTHERE and the problem goes beyond the fact that his article space edits make up less than 6% of his contributions. His editing tends to be tendentious, disruptive and in violation of our content policies. His edits on the MRM page are good examples of his modus operandi. CSDarrow tries to get his way by repeating edits despite opposition from other editors. Examples include a slow moving edit-war over the designation of some MRM sectors as misogynist (e.g., [349], [350], [351], [352], [353], [354]), attempts to get MRM views on marital rape removed (e.g., [355], [356], [357], [358], [359]), and links to MRM websites or wikilinks to red-linked MRM organizations (e.g., [360], [361], [362]). He claims consensus for removal of reliably sourced content where no such consensus exists (e.g., [363], [364]) and accuses others of vandalism (e.g., [365]). Cailil is correct in saying that CSDarrow's most recent three repeat edits re the marital rape paragraph are part of a campaign that started two years ago (Sep 18, 2012, repeated on Sep 20, 2012). CSDarrow is not here to build an encyclopedia; HJ Mitchell's block was justified and appropriate. It's a shame that it took two long years and three MRM sanctions until someone said enough is enough. Keep blocked for a year or change to indef (with the latter being the better option imho). --Sonicyouth86 (talk) 18:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

• The main feature of many of the responses here is the refusal to actually address the arguments I have raised. Which is possibly because no one as yet has a convincing counter to them. There had been a consensus that un-encyclopedic material had been in place for over 5 days. There is an implied consensus that Wikipedia does not publish material at odds with the Five Pillars. It's that simple. This is tough to respond to, which is why I largely see walls of text that are little more than Gish Gallops [366]. Aggravating factors are moot if there is nothing to aggravate. I shall not be drawn into exchanges that generate even bigger walls of text that confound the discussion, so resulting in the status quo being maintained. This level of discussion might explain some of the other blocks.

If people are willing to address my argument brought here to ANI, then I am willing to take on all comers on ANY point I have made in my appeal. Make then one by one to avoid walls of text please. CSDarrow (talk) 03:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

"I am willing to take on all comers" Yes, we know, and that's a concern to many editors who are not focused on showing the merits of the MRM. Johnuniq (talk) 07:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!! :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.251.162 (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block - Sort of. Looking at this issue has forced me to look at the block log and contributions of CSDarrow(including their 1st 500 edits). This editor isn't trying to convince editors he deserves another chance, only that he is right. Which is a constant theme in their edits. Over and over and over and over. I would say 100% of this editors edits have concerned the MRM or blocks that resulted in this editors tendentious editing concerning that subject. So when I say 'sort of', I am referring to the fact a year isn't going to do any good. He will just come back here and return to the same battleground behavior. Which should be evident by his posts after being unblocked to discuss this here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• I've spent the better part of an hour going through the talk page discussion and the history. I too endorse the block that was levied. I'll try to explain my rationale, with respect to the points that CSDarrow raised, as briefly as possible. CSDarrow boldly removed text that was, in their opinion, unencyclopedic, this was reverted. When the discussion and its direction is not to CSD's liking, he removes it again resulting in protection1. Following the protection expiry, CSD again removed the material to "force the issue" thus engaging in slow motion edit warring over the removal of the text. The edit warring, pointy text removal to "force the issue" and CSD's filibustering on the talk page is very much a violation of the probation in spirit if not the letter. CSD's point "However common courtesy would suggest wait if replacement text can quickly crafted" is telling. There is no WP:DEADLINE and short of a BLP or copyright violation, nothing needs to be done quickly. Anything short of a realisation of these points should result in an unblock request being denied. Following his return from the block, whether it be through expiry or a GAB compliant request, CSD should be indefinitely banned from the article. Blackmane (talk) 14:32, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Blackmane I appreciate you going through the whole discussion, it is long. Though we will have to agree to disagree on our interpretations. Though will I state concerning the BLP issue, there are serious candidates standing on a Men's Rights platform for the 2015 UK Parliamentary Election, and sitting members of the Governing Coalition that commonly champion Men's Rights related causes. I state this in my NPOVN submission. Suggesting they support Marital Rape is a fairly substantial assertion to make. CSDarrow (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

As with any political movement there will always be internal elements that have certain views that are more or less extreme than others within it. As such a somewhat broad brush statement, as it was previously, should not, imo, be seen as a BLP violation. Cailil's subsequent edit changing the wording makes this clearer than the previous version and is most likely the reason it hasn't been challenged yet and in fact [367] a discussion was held where there was a minor consensus supporting the wording. Regardless of this, your continuous removal of material can only be interpreted as edit warring. Furthermore, when EvergreenFir reverted you, your belligerence towards that action was blatantly assuming bad faith on their part. Blackmane (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean the discussion between Cailil and the hours old IP accounts 81.129.126.66 and 109.148.125.244? CSDarrow (talk) 22:50, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Given that both IPs locate to BT public address pools in England, and are thus dynamic there is no reason to expect substantial contributions from either address. Blackmane (talk) 05:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per Dave Dial/DD2K. I would need to see CSDarrow's approach change or an interest to edit something other than MRM (and by that I mean not edit MRM for a period of 6 months) to support an unblock. Political activism needs to happen off-wiki.--v/r - TP 17:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

RE: "Political activism needs to happen off-wiki."

Probably the best comment made in this whole discussion. It is a belief in that very fact that has me post on Wikipedia. CSDarrow (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Question CSDarrow What do you think was wrong with your previous approach? What articles do you want to work on? __ E L A Q U E A T E 18:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
• Comment. I was the one who asked if CSDarrow's block could be lifted solely for the purpose of contributing to this discussion. I did it only to be fair to him. However, I fear that CSDarrow's idea of contributing is making it worse for him, not better. I strongly urge him to be less combative, less controlling, and less paranoid in his comments. Otherwise, it's almost a foregone conclusion that the block will be upheld.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I suggest keep the block, or alternatively you CSDarrow should try to get it to ArbCom. The same involved editors (yes I'm involved too) can't achieve anything new for you at ANI. ANI votes are a farce anyway, as evidenced by the Tutelary section above. --Pudeo' 11:25, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

As already noted, if CSDarrow took this behaviour to ArbCom, we not see him again on Wikipedia this century the panda ₯’ 12:01, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's fine, too. Atleast in that case he could probably feel he used all possible means and then has nothing to lose. Of course, up to him. --Pudeo' 12:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse per Sonicyouth86's rationale. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

CommentThis thread was archived after a few days of inaction. This really needs an admin close to judge the consensus whether to reinstate the block or not. Blackmane (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

Gamergate talk page

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

---

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gamergate_controversy

Why am I unmable to edit the Gamergate talk page? It doesn't have a lock icon on it, so there's no indication it has semi-protected status, or why. I've never seen a talk page be protected before. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:14, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It has been semi-protected due to repeated BLP violations. Woodroar (talk) 04:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Can't you delete the BLP violations instead of punishing everybody who's an IP editor? 72.89.93.231 (talk) 04:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't myself, no. :) I hear where you're coming from, though. I imagine it's difficult balancing that with the impossibility of monitoring the page 24/7 for violations, which is unfortunately what's happening. Woodroar (talk) 04:30, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an easy task to keep undoing a flurry of edits. If you would like to edit, you could either create an account or post on the talk page. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 05:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Rsrikanth05, the talk page itself is semi'd, so your second suggestion is not possible. (And the OP clearly indicated it's the talk page that is the issue.) - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 05:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep looking for the talk page of the talk page. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 06:12, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

, Oh sorry. I did not notice that. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 08:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

You could just create an account, make 10 good edits and wait for 4 days. You could call yourself "GameDude1541" and nobody would have a clue who you really are or where in the world you reside, while now I can do a whois on your IP and know much more about you than I would otherwise. Not too onerous a task, is it? That said, semi-protecting the talk page is generally frowned upon except for short periods of time as it stops first time or one-off users from contributing at all. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of off-wiki campaign to damage this particular page (leastways OTRS is getting a slew of remarkably similar "I love Wikipedia but the Gamergate article is biased" emails at the moment), so protecting the talkpage (the other principal venue for this sort of disruption) does make a lot of sense, at least for the time being. Sucks for those anon editors who have something genuine to contribute, but sadly its the most pertinent response we have available. Yunshui ^雲_水 08:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I just looked at Talk:Gamergate controversy while logged out, and as expected, I got a "view source" button instead of "edit". Clicking on that explained why I couldn't edit, but also invited me to "Submit an edit request". I clicked on that, which recursively took me back to the same page, since it appears to work by going to the talk page of whatever you're looking at and prefilling some templates for you. This sounds like a bug - though where should an edit request for a semi-protected talk page go? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:03, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:Requests for page protection has a section specifically for asking that edits be made to a given page (or they did last time I checked), specifically for circumstances like this. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 09:27, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

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

WP:ESDONTS

In my opinion the edit summary here is in direct violation of WP:ESDONTS.

I have asked the editor who made it to redact it. They have refused. The justification given is not that they do not think it is a breach of WP:ESDONTS, but "I ... having been subjected to far worse from admins".

Please could a neutral administrator look at it and if they think it violation of WP:ESDONTS then "Delete edit summary", or admonish the editor for embedding comments which breach WP:ESDONTS into the edit history of a page. -- PBS (talk) 10:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Meh. PBS appeared to me not to know the difference between Coventry and Rotterdam. I said so. We'd been disagreeing about the inclusion of an incorrectly referenced contentious sentence inserted by one of his (now indeffed) chums. He's corrected the reference and removed the sentence which he had fought so hard to keep, but wanted to make a reference point to an irrelevant page about a different city. Still, if it means so much to him to have the last word on HIS article then let him. I really don't give a shit - just glad he eventually removed the bollocks that he had been defending so vigourously. I'm used to the hypocrisy of admins who'll defend each other but never do anything about crap admins attacking ordinary editors. Seen far too much of that. DuncanHill (talk) 10:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Not an admin, but it seems to me much ado about nothing. The content in the article is updated, the most important thing. The edit summary is on the talk page. Since PBS feels strongly about removal, and DH is fine with the removal of edit summary on the talk page, it can perhaps be done by some neutral admin and we can all avoid any drama. Kingsindian (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I too am not an admin, but I would find it hard to believe that the edit summary in question fell within the removal criteria listed at either WP:Revdel or WP:Oversight. --David Biddulph (talk) 15:16, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Repeated demands to self-revert

I've been recently under repeated demands to self-revert and allow the insertion of inaccurate information by Kingsindian who has a bit of a (self professed) history for not really listening to proper source-based arguments on the talk page (sample: "I simply ignore"[368]). I don't really know what to make of this as I stated my acceptance of one of the suggested versions -- but this user insists I self-revert to his version (which is, in my humble opinion, a misrepresentation of the sources: bomb squad officials != Ministry of Interior). To boot, there's been battle behavior and article ownership issues from said user since our early encounters. I'm not even going into the issue of repeated source misrepresentation -- which is also a real concern. To the point of self-revert demands, I'd appreciate some administrative help. Perhaps a warning that said user stop using threats as means to get his bold versions on the page. I think the wiki-terminology is 'bold, revert, discuss'. He appears to wish to replace the 'discuss' part with 'I don't want to discuss anymore, you must self-revert!'.[369],[370],[371] (apologies if these are not ordered by time stamp). Regards, MarciulionisHOF (talk) 12:45, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing much to say, except I did not demand self-reversion. I said that if he does not self-revert, I will go to WP:AE. It is a common practice for people in this area to ask people to self-revert, instead of using a big-hammer WP:AE approach. I have no desire to report him per se, but I will, if he continues. If he feels that his actions were fully justified, he can make his case there. Kingsindian (talk) 12:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a nice courteous move if someone mistakenly reverted over the allotted number of reverts. I hope others will agree it should not be common for editors to demand others 'self-revert <or else>' to get newly inserted content de-rever-ed. I'd be quite disappointed if others did not reject threat-making in this context. MarciulionisHOF (talk) 16:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, Israel/Palestine articles are all under a 1 revert WP:AE restriction, so if you made more than a single revert, it might be a valid suggestion. the panda ɛˢˡ” 17:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

POV editors on Anarcho-capitalism

There are two editors on the Anarcho-capitalism page who insist that the article be composed from an anarcho-capitalist POV.

• User:Knight of BAAWA
• User:JLMadrigal
• User:Netoholic

A RfC initially attracted my attention, and I first noticed the battleground behavior in the discussion thereof. The RfC closed in favor of including in the lead the prominent controversies of the libertarian philosophy/movement, per WP:LEAD. For those unfamiliar with these, the two relevant controversies are between 1) libertarian socialists (aka anarchists) and modern American libertarians, and 2) minarchists and anarcho-capitalists. The only three to vote "No" on the RfC are here accused of article ownership, and I think reading their comments in the RfC are indicative of their battleground behavior.

• [372]
• [373]
• [374]

Since this dispute, the article has been in several edit wars, leading to two page protections:

• [375]

JLMadrigal and Netoholic have explicitly demanded ownership:

• "The problem with the disputed text is that it describes viewpoints about anarcho-capitalism held by those outside of the movement - in this case criticisms of anarcho-capitalism." - JLMadrigal ([376])
• "That's not the issue at all. The concern is due weight: this article is the only place where AnCap descriptions of their own movement is relevant and in fact necessary to give a clear definition of the viewpoints that make up this philosophy." - Netoholic ([377])
• "It does not follow that 'well-documented' means it should feature 'prominently' in this article. For the reasons I said above, article space in this article must give more weight to descriptions of anarcho-capitalism from people within the movement since this article is the only reasonable place that content (also 'well-documented') belongs" - Netoholic ([378])

Outside attempts to include relevant information in the lead are either reverted or modified to reflect an anarcho-capitalist POV:

• [379]
• [380]

The reasons they provide for opposing changes are clearly post-hoc justifications for their POV, as sources are never presented and we are supposed to merely take them at their word, which often disagrees with reality:

• JLMadrigal says "anarcho-capitalism is not presented as a 'form of anarchism' in the lede" ([381]), despite the many signs: the Anarchism sidebar, several synonyms which ascribe adjectives to the word anarchism, and claims that "capitalism is the fullest expression of anarchism, and anarchism is the fullest expression of capitalism."
• JLMadrigal acknowledges the fact that anarcho-capitalists believe they are practicing anarchism ([382]) and clearly believes the same (see the aforementioned modifications to outside attempts), but waffles when asked a simple, straightforward question: Is anarcho-capitalism anarchism? "If the absence of the state is the determining factor, then yes. If suppressing capital is required, then no." ([383]) So it appears that he understands the controversy surrounding identification as an anarchist... he just doesn't want it mentioned in the lead.
• "Anarcho-capitalist never make the claim that anarcho-capitalism is part of the leftist school - as these editors posit." ([384]) For the record, no editor has claimed that anarcho-capitalism is part of the left.
• Netoholic states that, "As far as I know, there is no AnCap literature that attempts to imply that AnCap is a sub-type of the Anarchist movement, so all this defensiveness from left-Anarchists is unwarranted." But, again, the claim is right there, in the article, sourced to the founder of anarcho-capitalism himself.
• [385]
• [386]

Knight of BAAWA was blocked on 11 July for "personal attacks, incivility and battleground behaviour."

• [387]

Examples of his battleground behavior:

• [388]
• [389]

Drawing irrelevant analogies:

• [390]
• [391]
• [392]
• [393]

I reported him again when he returned and continued to insult others by "stealthily" using the same pejorative that led to his block (statist). I am still awaiting admin attention on this issue, but it has gone into an Incident Archive and I don't think anyone is going to look at it:

• [394]
• [395]
• [396]

He has continued to threaten me with action if I don't submit to his demands:

• [397]
• [398]
• [399]

A NPOV/N was opened on 26 July by JLMadrigal, who phrased the whole dispute as occurring between left-anarchists and anarcho-capitalists despite the fact that only one editor in the "left-anarchist" camp is an anarchist (me). The noticeboard did receive the following third-party comments though:

• User:Robert McClenon: "The issue is not one of so-called left-anarchists holding the article hostage, but of anarchocapitalists apparently demanding ownership of the article." ([400])
• User:Dyrnych: "It appears that the argument against including the debate in the lead amounts to: "An-cap defines itself as anarchism, so its view and only its view should be reflected in the lead; reflecting any other views amounts to diluting the description of an-cap." But that (1) isolates the legitimate purpose of defining the topic to the exclusion of other purposes of the lead, which include "establish[ing] context"; and (2) assumes that NPOV requires that descriptions of an ideology are made only by adherents of that ideology. Both of these are counter to Wikipedia policies, as other editors have noted." ([401])

I waited for resolution at the NPOV Noticeboards until recently, when I was informed that these boards rarely receive admin attention. But this has gone on too long, and cost Wikipedia a valuable editor (User:N-HH). It is clear to me that admin attention is necessary to resolve this dispute. I am hoping to see topic bans for two of the individuals in question, but perhaps the admins here will have a better solution. The third user here named (Netoholic) has not been active on the Anarcho-capitalism article for some time and I am therefore not seeking any admin action against him. Thanks! — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 14:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

I was asked to comment. I don't have anything to add to my previous comments but will restate them. There had been an RFC. I closed the RFC, finding, among other things, that it was community consensus that other anarchists do not consider anarcho-capitalism to be a form of anarchism. Almost immediately, a thread was opened at the NPOV noticeboard, claiming that left-anarchists were holding the article hostage. The timing implies forum shopping. (A response that would not be forum shopping would have been a request for closure review.) As I mentioned on the NPOV noticeboard, my assessment is that the anarcho-capitalists are demanding ownership of the article. I won't comment further at this time, except that the NPOV thread, like most NPOV threads, has been open too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 24 September 2014 (UTC)