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

204.17.60.130

This user's edits have all been undone.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alrich44 (talk • contribs) 03:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Ongoing issues with User:Truth_is_the_only_religion on Brahma Kumaris article

^{What's up, Doc?} 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 [2][3][4][5][6][7][8] 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[9]. Who is "them" anyway? Do you normally refer to editors by their religious beliefs[10]? 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)

Why no answer yet from the 3 editors? Can one of them tell us if they are being coordinated off the Wikipedia? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

You sound exactly like a previous editor who was blocked for repeated outing, talk page abuse and a battleground mentality. 66.249.93.52 (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is a significant concern. I agree with User talk:66.249.93.52's comments above. I propose User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is either banned from this topic or re-blocked for the following reasons:

Proposal for User:Truth_is_the_only_religion to be site banned for the following reasons:

• They have just joined Wikipedia, yet they are clearly not a new user. I struggle to accept User:McGeddon's suggestion that theymay have lost their password.
• I suggest it is a brazen evasion of their earlier indefinite block: Just compare their comments above to the identical accusations being made in this users unblock requests. This users strategy is actually working really well - pump the talk page with unevidenced accusations, playing on the suspicions people have around these kind of pages (because so many times it has been true - Unfortunately everyone loves a conspiracy theory). Then edit as you like.
• The Tag-team allegation [11] relates to myself User:GreyWinterOwl and User:Changeisconstant. User:Changeisconstant has only edited the page once since and has almost no contrib's - why would they be part of the conspiracy theory? I am asserting they were included because this editor knows them from past wikipedia experience and therefore includes them in the accusations they made earlier when operating the account User:Januarythe18th. Otherwise they would just as easily have included User: TMDrew who has reverted their bulk edits twice and is also a new account (January 2014). I am asserting this is just a strategy to deceive people, to character assassinate editors that don't conform to his/her views, persistenly focusing on their character/alleged religious affiliation, while merrily changing whatever they feel like on the article. So far the only content they keep raising to justify their edits is the founders DOB (and ironically I agree with this!, but can't find RS in support).
• In a similar vein, User talk:Truth is the only religion is immediately referring to the other editors as 'they' - presumably in accordance with his/her conspiracy theory. He launches personal attacks based on religious belief/affiliation. Here he suggest all BKs should be banned from editing the page - what would happen if that was written on Jewish pages?
• The talk page gets turned into WP:Battleground and editors are met with hostility and endless accusations and demands that "they" must answer his accusations before this editor will even speak to content issues "If the BKs would care to confirm or deny my first two questions, then I am happy to continue a discussion of why I think the changes are justified".
• This conduct incites the same level of suspicion in other editors towards "BKs", yet it's all just empty accusations. No attempt is ever made to raise the concerns with Wiki admin - it is used purely as an editing strategy....and let's be honest, who reading this isn't very weary about User:Danh108 now....I even start to doubt myself.
• Now that other editors are getting involved they are realising/echoing the concerns I've been flagging [12] [13]
• User:McGeddon is a really good editor and quite pleasant to interact with. If anyone has time for the explanation about why some of his comments about me are incorrect they can read this. The only editor I reverted was User:Truth_is_the_only_religion who was doing mass edits with explanations like "change date of birth" or "written by follower of religion". Unfortunately User:McGeddon has a small blindspot in his/her interaction with me - I think mainly because of the influence of the rhetoric on the talk page.

Danh108 (talk) 20:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

My suggestion that the user might have lost their password was a good faith response to your initial post on my talk page back in August, accusing an editor I'd never heard of of being a sockpuppet of "my old friend" who I'd evidently reverted once, months previously. If you want to make and discuss sockpuppet accusations, WP:SPI is the place to do it. --McGeddon (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

This guy, Truth_is_the_only_religion has continued to edit war against numerous users and has repeatedly reverted edits against consensus.--TMD (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

There are significant 'blockworthy' issues that don't relate to the sockpuppetry being raised here.Danh108 (talk) 04:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Truth_is_the_only_religion has questioned me as a BK follower and part of some tag team. The same approach was taken by User:Januarythe18th many times before being blocked. If it helps the case, let me make it very clear that I am not a BK follower and this is a baseless presumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Changeisconstant (talk • contribs) 17:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I actually did not read all of what Danh108 has written because what is going on here is far more simple. They have accused me of being someone else called June24th. All I can say is that I am not June24th but I don't know how to prove it. I welcome any investigation.

If you look at the actual edits I have, I think you will find they are according to the rules of the Wikpedia, for example, removing blog links, self-publish materials, unreferenced stuff, outdated requests for information and so on. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait a minute, no one has ever accused your current account of being June24th. User:Januarythe18th had been accused of being User:June24th about 8 months before your current account was created. Why did you suddenly bring that up? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 19:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

::That there is a dead giveaway, so block it already! Not to mention should be blocked for BATTLEGROUND against a specific religion and not getting how wikipedia has worked since the beginning - as someone said we will never ban Jews from Jewish pages so why do ppl suggest it for your personal unfavorite (fill in the blank) 71.127.138.35 (talk) 20:23, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Striking yet another sock edit by indefinitely blocked Til Eulenspiegel. Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

GreyWinterOwl, that's more the proof that User:Truth_is_the_only_religion is likely to be a User:Januarythe18th sockpuppet account Changeisconstant (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here it is; [14]. There might actually have been others but I cannot afford to spend the time looking. Danh108 seems to spend all this time complaining, reporting or trying to get admins to support him. There are too many. Ultimately it all adds up to the same thing. The BKs are trying to block any change to a page that they have written like an advert for their religion. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• I once walked into a crowded pub and as soon as I entered no one looked at me, but it went completely quiet - that silence spoke and I knew there had been conversations I wasn't privy to. I now know how it feels to be prejudged....Danh108 (talk) 17:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The accusation that I was User:June24th is the only I can remember looking at. The BK editors have made so many, I have not followed them all. It seems to me to be all they do; revert the topics on their religion and make complaints to block other users.

I asked the BK editors a question which they have refused to answer. Are they being coordinated and supported off the Wikipedia by other members of their religion to control the topic on their religion?

The reason it is important to hold them to an answer is two fold.

1. If they admit the answer is yes, and the answer is as I can show, then it proves they are acting as a team to control the topic page, and acting in bad faith.
2. If they answer no, it proves they are acting in bad faith and being dishonest to the Wikipedian community and general public.

This is why they won't answer the question. Both answers prove bad faith.

If it is important, I will search for the User:June24th accusation but it will take me a little time that could be better spent. Thank you. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You're demands seem to revolve around concerns of WP:COI, which is a guideline. Given your singular fascination with one article it is entirely possible you have some conflict of interest issues yourself. But all this is a smokescreen. Behind the smoke you are almost certainly evading a block based on your similar behaviour to User:Januarythe18th and suddenly mentioning User:June24th (a sockpuppet of Jan18th), harassing editors by making repeated accusations without evidence, personal attacks by discrediting editors based on their alleged religious affiliations and editing tendentiously. These are all violations of policies, not just guidelines. I'm amazed that you continue to do all this in full view of ANI. It's a wonder you haven't been blocked already. It's impossible to assess if your accusations are true without evidence or other editors, who don't engage in a pattern of POV pushing and disruption as you seem to be doing, experiencing some kind of disruptive resistance to editing that seems to be in some way coordinated between the editors you mention.85.255.233.102 (talk) 07:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Who are you? You did not log in. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what else is needed for blocking an editor who has himself disclosed clearly using a sock account! 85.255.232.86 (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(The previous comment was not made by me although we are using the same ISP)

We are witnessing history being made here. An editor has actually managed to orchestrate an environment where he can abuse other editors and Wikipedia as much as he likes while swinging all scorn and suspicion towards those reporting him instead. It looks like he has become "too bad too block". No admin will comment, vote or take action. Truth is the only religion has actually become untouchable. In situations where a systems designed to safeguard citizens, or Wikipedians and the project itself, break down then it is often the victims that get blamed and punished instead of the perpetrator. I comment here anonymously because the situation here is just so weird.

I value Wikipedia highly as a community and a resource. I am deeply concerned that such overtly disruptive behaviour should be overlooked or ignored because I don't think that it is conducive to the project progressing or an environment editors will want to take part in. That is, after all, why behavioural polices exist in the first place. 85.255.232.235 (talk) 08:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I am a completely uninvolved party who stumbled on this thread. First of all, editors making accusations should log in. Second of all, this is not SPI, and if there is evidence that a SPI is warranted, as there seems to be, this is not the venue for it, SPI is, and that is the place for blocks for sockpuppeting. Softlavender (talk) 08:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I wish one of the involved editors would file an SPI. Maybe they need a little help. However it isn't just block evasion being reported here. There are multiple issues which is why, I guess, DanH is proposing a ban. A block or ban isn't just to please some other "involved" party. If it is warranted then it is for the good of the project and community as a whole. If an editor can act in such as way with impunity then what precedent does that set? What do other editors who are blocked or banned for less serious policy violations going to be thinking? What's this guy doing right to get away with so much?

I am not making any accusations beyond what I can see reported here and looking at the contribs. I will log in when I feel it is safe to do so. Sometimes the message is more important than the messenger. 85.255.232.235 (talk) 09:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Truth is the only religion, as it has become perfectly clear that the account is a block-evading sockpuppet. I will leave the decision as to whether to impose a site ban to others. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for Brahma Kumari followers to be banned from editing page relating to their religion BKWSU

User:Danh108, User:GreyWinterOwl and User:Changeisconstant are Brahma Kumari followers and working as a team to control the Wikipedia topic page on their religion, and are being coordinated off the Wikipedia to do so.

The version of the topic they keep reverting to is highly problematic as discussed. They appear to be investing a disproportionate amount of time and effort courting administrators and putting in complaints.

If someone can tell me how or where to put in a more formal or complaint and explanation, please do so. Thanks.

Before I do so, I want to ask the Brahma Kumaris followers a simple leading question and see their answer. I would like other Wikipedians to hold them to an answer.

Have you and are you being coordinated off Wikipedia by other member or members of your religion? --Truth is the only religion (talk) 17:46, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Truth is the only religion, Serious accusations require serious evidence. I suggest you either back up your claims or remove them. --Richard Yin (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

This proposal isn't likely to go anywhere. Yes, we banned the Church of Scientology, but that's easier to define and track (sort of), and the Church of Scientology is noted for their incompatible worldview (to put it politely). With or without bans, followers of different religions are going to otherwise edit articles relating to their religions. Except in some fringe cases (namely, and to my knowledge, only the Church of Scientology) it is better that they do so openly so that biases can be understood for what they are (as well as allowing good-faith editors to edit topics they are interested in and to balance out those who have a bias against any given group).

Do I have the impression that Brahma Kumari followers are causing trouble in the article? Yes (though I also get the impression that former members or persons otherwise with an agenda against the religion are trying to hard to balance them out). Do I think that topic banning Brahma Kumari followers is going to accomplish anything? Not really. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Going by the record of banned sock puppet accounts like User:Januarythe18th, they had similar battleground approach and accusations to distract Admins looking at banning them. I am not a BKWSU follower as stated above already however followers are always going to be editing the articles pertaining to their religions and there is no way Wikipedia would ban all followers of religions! Changeisconstant (talk) 04:27, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

This proposal can't be voted on because it is illegal in most countries to bar participation based on religion. The tit-for-tat nature of the proposal looks to me like gaming. 66.249.93.109 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:43, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can substantiate my allegation but I am asking the 3 BK editors to come clean first and answer my question to them regarding whether they are being coordinated off the Wikipedia?

Can someone ensure that they answer, or accept their unwillingness to answer as an admission of guilt?

The reason I am not rushing to provide the evidence I have is to further underline the bad faith and waste of others time, energy and efforts via their operating as a team, and making quite so many complaints and accusations to distract from what is going on as they have done.

I suggest that the Brahma Kumari extreme worldview and modus operandi is clearly comparable. Yes, I think they should be banned as per Scientology. The intentions of any group who believe dinosaurs existed 2,500 years ago and that they are going to inspire a nuclear holocaust which will kill off 7 billion impure members of humanity so that they can inherit a heaven on earth afterwards has to be suspect. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your problem is not with some group of editors. Your problem is with the wp policies you have such little regard for. Your contribs today speak for themselves. 66.249.93.61 (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't answer to most nation's laws. This is a private site, and we are allowed to ban or block editors as we see fit. See WP:FREESPEECH. This proposal is worrisome, however.

If BK followers were causing a tenth as much trouble as the Church of Scientology did, it would have been noticed not only by other users, but by the news media. The Church of Scientology (not necessarily its followers, but the organization that sells the followers their beliefs) was noted for decades of undeniable illegal actions, which they tried to censor (among other things), along with a worldview that is completely at odds with common understandings of research, biology, and even language itself. If there are BK followers in this thread, they appear to be speaking the same English as everyone else, instead of a nearly-distinct language consisting of homonymic jargon. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have to answer to US laws. For example, the community can't just vote to allow child pornography on Wikipedia. Banning a whole religious group from editing as a policy would be seen as religious discrimination. Referring again to the Scientology arbcom case example, it was a mechanical IP range block against offices being used to edit disruptively, not against Scientologist editors in general. 66.249.93.61 (talk) 17:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

The Foundation is not bound by the First Amendment, as it is not the US Congress. Freedom of religion as enshrined in the First Amendment only prevents the United States government from endorsing or prohibiting the worship of a given religion, and has no bearing on private entities such as the Wikimedia Foundation. Your comparison to child pornography is a straw man, since there is not (to my knowledge) any Constitutional amendment specifically banning it as there is with freedom of religion. Apples to oranges. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 00:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm going to have to throw my hands up here and say I'm not in the US nor a lawyer before I did myself six feet under! I just read a "Civil Rights" webpage [15] and assumed that where it said that there were, "Laws protecting people from private (non-government) discrimination (based on gender, religion, race, sexual orientation, etc.)", that would include public participation in projects or services provided to the public. So far I've only been able to find laws applying to employment so I may have been mistaken. The "straw man" was in answer to the statement made by Ian.thomson that, "Wikipedia doesn't answer to most nation's laws". The point being that Wikimedia Foundation certainly does have answer to laws where they are applicable to an organisation running a website in CA/US. Even if there aren't very many of them. I've also just read WP:FREESPEECH and it appears to be slapping me on the face with a wet trout. How embarrassing.

So I guess that leaves the question as to whether Wikimedia Foundation would accept a community decision to ban editors based solely on their religious beliefs due to the possible bad publicity and protests that might entail. 85.255.233.102 (talk) 07:15, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Since there is no prospect of the community enacting any such ban, we'll never know... AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy to end on that note. 85.255.233.102 (talk) 07:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

85.255, Did you read anything else I said? While Wikipedia could ban editors based on their religious affiliation, there is no reason to believe that'd happen unless a particular group proved to be incapable of contributing positively (such as the Church of Scientology, but not Freezone Scientologists). And does Wikipedia answer to the laws of any other nation? No. Is America "most nations?" No. Don't assume that America is the world. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

OK. You are right. I was wrong. 212.183.128.125 (talk) 14:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So how do I progress this, and prove that the Brahma Kumaris are both centrally coordinating and supporting adherents to protect their religion's topic pages; and raise the issue of whether they are comparable to the Scientologists?

It strikes me all the BKs/BK supporters do is revert to their chosen version and put in complaints to block or hinder others.

That is all this is about.

I have asked the three editors to confirm or deny whether this is going on. Despite all the incrimination and waffle they have all avoided answering the question. --Truth is the only religion (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

You do not progress this. For the community to accept that BKs are comparable to the Church of Scientology in term of harm, multiple uninvolved editors would have to bring up that the organization of BK (not merely lay followers acting on their own) is being actively directed by the leaders to edit the article according to a set agenda. BK would also have to have an explicit doctrine demonstrating that they would not be willing to cooperate with Wikipedia (like Scientology's "fair game" doctrine) and a history of crimes against (such as the Church of Scientology breaking into US gov't offices) that would have lead a number of otherwise free countries to blocking the religion (such as Germany outlawing the Church of Scientology).

Because of your prior history in opposing them specifically, including making unevidenced claims that editors you disagree with must be BKs, you would actually detract from the credibility of such investigations. I'm perfectly willing to accept that there are BKs trying to get people blocked, but you're really coming across as their inverse, not their opposite. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

If Ian.thomson or someone else wanted to let me know why my post was such a flop that would be great - without feedback I can't improve for the future. I get that the SPI aspects of my concern have been raised in the wrong place, but think there is more to it than just this. Thank you Danh108 (talk) 00:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official "OTRS action" that must not be reverted "without permission"

For any interested editors, I have begun a related discussion about a similar article (Suzannah Lipscomb) at WP:BLPN. I hope that a wider response can be achieved there. 86.133.242.71 (talk) 00:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

---

Mdann52 (talk · contribs) made some very controversial changes to the Generation Rescue article, one of the organizations promoting the pseudoscientific idea that vaccines cause autism, removing most of the content critical to them:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=prev&oldid=626204970

This, naturally, was reverted. At which point he made the changes again, this time as an official OTRS action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=prev&oldid=626610904 (OTRS action Ticket:Ticket:2014091810016149. Please do not revert without contacting me. I have also removed some seemingly unrelated EL; these are not covered by the action.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=626635473&oldid=626622916 Edit summary: "DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission. Please see my reply on my talk"

Further, he's also done the same thing at Daniel Amen, stripping criticism ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&diff=624284523&oldid=624284415 ), and, when reverted, claiming it's an OTRS action. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&diff=624285062&oldid=624284846 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daniel_Amen&diff=624304483&oldid=624287626 )

This can't be the intended use of OTRS actions, surely? The actions are non-neutral, and serve as a workaround to Wikipedia policy, specifically, WP:FRINGE. The sources being removed are pretty obviously reliable ones; this appears to be a case where the OTRS actions are a way to avoid justifying why sources or text is wrong. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:22, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Have you tried asking this user what the special considerations are? It appears your first attempt to communicate was to post the ANI notice. Perhaps try to work this out directly before seeking public scrutiny? Chillum 16:27, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

People have on the talk page. Not very forthcoming about it though; see Talk:Generation_Rescue#Recent_large_deletions_based_on_concerns_at_OTRS. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:29, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. It appears there is private information involved. It is also mentioned that the foundation is involved. I think perhaps a bit of time may be needed. I am eager to hear the point of view of the OTRS worker. I have worked OTRS in the past and I can say that there are some tricky sensitive situations sometimes. Chillum 16:35, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3) I usually make such actions when complaints are raised, then work with the people in question to help resolve the issue; In fact, Daniel Amen is a perfect example of this (the OP fails to mention I self-reverted after I got a better picture about what the issues seemed to be [16]. The example linked above is yet another example of this; The person in question is going to participate on the article page as and when; I'm waiting for them to respond to my latest enquiry, but they are more than willing to work with us on this. There are other factors here, which I can't go into detail about on-wiki due to Non-public data rules, however as soon as I can, I will self-revert and do what I can. As it is, in the meantime, people can suggest and make edits still, and I will do what I can. Frankly, raising this here without discussing it with me first is not really very good; As the page I link to whenever I make an edit related to a ticket details, I prefer email, as it allows me to discuss wider than I can on-wiki; I have recieved 0 emails about this since I made the edits. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 4)There's a specific way of challenging an OTRS team edit. See WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution. That should be followed. Having said that I've always been puzzled by the authoritarian statements such as "DO NOT revert OTRS actions without permission." which I've seen this OTRS team member use before. I can't see that it is either in the spirit or the letter of what WP:OTRS says. DeCausa (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@DeCausa: there is a lot of context behind this; I'm just trying to advise people of this. Admitidly, I could of put this better, and I will try and do so in the future. None of us are perfect; However, I prefer a quiet word to being pulled up in front of everyone when I have already explained why I am being a tad ambiguous here. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mdann52: I think it would be better (i.e. more likely to elicit co-operation and help you in what you're trying to do) if you were to link specifically to WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution rather than simply declare that your permission is needed (or link to the user page you created). DeCausa (talk) 16:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

While it should have been handled directly first, I do not have much issue with raising this publicly. As some wise man said "With great power, comes great responsibility". Hopefully, OTRS changes would be made piecemeal, not wholesale. I am not convinced by the discussion on the talk page. It seems to me those concerns about NPOV could have been dealt with in an editorial fashion, instead of using OTRS. But then, I am not privy to private information. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The information removed is sourced to reliable sources, and the "OTRS edit" was basically the removal of most of the mainstream view from the article. While OTRS may be meant to deal with sensitive issues, it's not a backdoor to let organizations stealthily remove mainstream criticism, even if the people object. If the sources are unreliable, or misrepresented, simply stating that is sufficient reason to remove them and the information connected to them - without ever bringing up OTRS, thus making it clear that sensitive information exists in the first place. At the very least, this was massively botched handling of the issue. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:08, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of what was removed I don't have a problem with. I don't think that [17] counts as a reliable source, nor that it meets WP:EL criteria. The edit by Mdann52 was massive, significantly gutting the article in one fell swoop. Nearly all criticism of the article subject was removed, with only the mention that some of the medical community dispute their point of view. The source for that claim, by the way, doesn't even come close to using such watered down language but points out flatly that GR's views aren't supported. Most distressing though was the hammer that MDann52 was using in comments and discussion that OTRS cannot be undone. They mentioned private discussions and a forthcoming draft (oh hey - let's allow a fringe group to write their article! Won't that be just great!). What should have happened was a combination of piecemeal edits, where each one was explained. This wasn't a privacy or legal concern, it was a fringe group trying to white-wash their article and they found a way to do it. Strongly sourced information was removed and just about anything negative to GR was wiped out. This IS a fringe group. Explaining their views and noting that they are held as fringe by the scientific community is part of NPOV. This could have been handled better by Mdann52. About the only thing that wasn't done was a knee-jerk protection as an OTRS action. Ravensfire (talk) 18:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

"I self-reverted after I got a better picture about what the issues seemed to be." Why are you taking actions when you don't know what the situation is? It sounds a lot like you jump into a situation and perform exactly the edits you are instructed to without any due consideration on your part. This is twice in the last month the editor has been using their OTRS position to whitewash articles, Second Quantization (talk) 18:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Major changes to an article without reading the sources first. Removal of sourced content without actually consulting the sources. Failure to understand and apply NPOV. Failure to supply policy based rationale with sources for back up. POV editing as a proxy for COI parties. Claiming OTRS authority to make changes and attempting to suppress reversion improperly claiming OTRS authority. Failure to provide policy based explanations for challenged edits. Failure to provide such explanations when explicitly asked repeatedly. Directly editing as a COI proxy without following COI guidelines. This is clear violation of numerous policies and guidelines. This behavior demands address by an administrator of English Wikipedia and an OTRS administrator. Perhaps a ping to the OTRS admins is needed. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I've commented several times on this and related discussions - we (the OTRS admins) have been aware of the situation. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 1

Mdann52 (talk · contribs)'s revert ban under OTRS 'authority' is rescinded and expunged and normal editing practices may continue on Generation Rescue. OTRS may not be used for enforcing edits that violate NPOV, such as white washing, and editors are extremely cautioned about using OTRS as a means to condone and enforce such behavior. OTRS should be used with care.--v/r - TP 20:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, the edit has been reverted, and I have no plans to re-revert. I have already directed the person in question to the talk page; Hopefully, they will pop up over there in a few days time. --Mdann52talk to me! 20:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Not good enough. Besides the ridiculous edit summaries, your commentary on the Talk:Generation Rescue page is truly appalling. Forbidding people from including material in an article simply because of a conversation you are having with an organization is a kind of behavior I have never before encountered. Being an OTRS volunteer does not give you special privileges over other volunteers to claim that people shouldn't revert you. This is outrageous! jps (talk) 02:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree, since this isn't actually a sanction, but a sign that the editor should follow normal procedures this presents no actual impediment for Mdann to perform normal OTRS duties, it serves as a warning from the community, Second Quantization (talk) 08:37, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 2

The only way to avoid this problem in the future is to demand that the rules forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we allow some ability to act on non-controversial actions. There are, after all, a lot of articles with minimal traffic to their talk pages, and doing a non-controversial, neutral edit like correcting someone's birth date shouldn't have to languish for months. But it's absolutely clear OTRS was abused in this case, and anything remotely like this can't be allowed to happen again. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think OTRS agents should justify their edits by wikipedia policy and not use the existing of a ticket to override that; i.e note the existence of a ticket, but provide reasoning in line with standard policy. I don't think OTRS agents should be forbidden from making edits as that seems to add to the workload of trying to get edits that are actually requierd. WMF concerns are achieved through office actions, and would not be affected one way or the other, Second Quantization (talk) 08:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Edits other than clear BLP issues should be proposed on talk following COI guidelines. Once an OTRS agent is in correspondence with a COI party and has input on the article they are acting as a proxy for the COI party. Becoming involved in editing an article while acting as an OTRS agent is not appropriate. Raising issues and making proposals on talk is the way this should be handled. For low traffic articles an RFC or request to an uninvolved editor can be used. There should be no backdoor for COI editing without scrutiny, transparency and adherence to policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:52, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose too over-reaching and restrictive. Minor edits and the like shouldn't be considered non-controversial. Hard cases make bad policy, and we shouldn't change the entire system for one (admittedly very) bad screw-up. --Jayron32 11:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron. Protonk (talk) 13:41, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose as written. Something along the lines of only labeling clear BLP or privacy issues as OTRS edits I could go for. OTRS shouldn't be restricted from making edits, but their current process for handling disputed edits that are pure content decisions is crap. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jayron. OTRS is badly backlogged, additional bureaucracy should not be added without a solid reason. It happens that I have made several edits this morning based upon OTRS requests. My usual practice is to include the OTRS ticket number, as well as an explanation, so that non-agents can see why it was done, and agents can see more detail, if needed. I do see I failed to do that in one case, but it was fixing a dead link, so quite innocuous. There may be times that privacy consideration prevent a full disclosure of the reasons. If so, my edit summary will urge contact with an agent before reverting. I think the request is valid, although I'll use softer language than used in this case. @MrBill3: Today, someone pointed out an article title was misspelled. I moved it. Another pointed out a company name had changed, I checked the official company site and moved it. Another pointed out a deadlink, I fixed the link. I think it would be a massive over-reaction to suggest that these are COI by proxy edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Sphilbrick: Do you think it would increase the backlog and create an excessive delay to have proposed those changes on talk? Why would the normal COI guidelines not apply to actions performed by OTRS team members on behalf of COI correspondents? Shouldn't the existing policy be followed whether an edit is suggested via OTRS or any other means? Some of these edits seem to fall under those that would be acceptable for a COI editor to make directly (minor, unlikely to controversial, clearly factual). I wonder what sources were added to the articles to support those edits. I would suggest an edit performed on behalf of a party with a COI who wrote to OTRS is a COI edit by proxy. This seems to be the definiton of proxy. Some direct editing is supported by the COI guideline but very limited. Should any party be able to write to OTRS to have an edit performed without following the COI guidelines? - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:11, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Last week, over 800 tickets were handled for the English Wikipedia (this does not count permissions or photosubmissions). Not all resulted in an edit but many did. Asking that the agent write out a request for posting on a talk page, which in many cases gets little traffic would probably double or triple the time needed to handle a ticket. The backlog is already at a level which is concerning. Agents are not permitted to make edits at the direction of others, any edits made must be taken on as the responsibility of the agent. I respectfully decline to make some of the edits requested, and do urge a posting to the talk page, which I often do myself, if I am not comfortable with the edit. If someone if not following the proper procedure, the right thing to do is address that person, not create a bureaucratic hurdle for the rest. If you identify a systematic problem, that's a different story, but there is no hint of that.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:08, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose No need to bring out the pitchforks. It is no great tragedy even if there is a bit of a delay due to communication issues and the article is in a "whitish" state for a few hours or days. Eventually it is bound to get clarified: there are no deadlines on WP. I do not know about OTRS in general, so I can't comment more broadly. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose For reasons given above and also because, as I mention in a sub-section below, Mdann actually removed a whole bunch of BLP violations from that page. Editors protesting here should disperse their lynch mob and go fix up that article with reliable sources actually discussing the subject of the article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:11, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Despite the American Republican party, Corporations are not people. The worst you can say happened is that 100% reliably sourced information about the head of the organization was, in some cases, used to talk about the organization as a whole, and this only applies to a small part of the information removed. Please stick to facts. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:02, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Proposal 3

The OTRS coordinators are asked to review Mdann52's actions in this incident. Having reviewed all correspondence and other such material, they shall decide whether Mdann is capable of remaining an OTRS volunteer, and whether any other actions are necessary. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The OTRS admins are aware of the discussions and are following them, but strongly believe this is an isolated incident. We'll remind agents about the existing policy and make clarifications as necessary. Rjd0060 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

However, there was another example of this happening in the past: Look here. So, it's not exactly "isolated", though I will agree that two examples do not make a rule. jps (talk) 21:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@Rjd0060: So, does that mean that OTRS are or are not able to police their own volunteers if problems arise. Because, if OTRS is functionally capable of dealing with Mdann's abuse of their authority, I'd rather leave it to you to reeducate them, and make sure no incidents happen again. If OTRS is not capable of this, that's a fundamental problem with OTRS, even beyond Mdann's actions. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:51, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

We've (the OTRS admins) handled this internally and have already spoken with Mdann. We have confidence that this issue was isolated and do not have any reason to believe that any further issues will arise. I've also suggested a modification of the OTRS page here to reflect the actual practice and hopefully clarify things for all users involved. The OTRS admins have no control or authority with regards to what happened on this wiki. If the community decides they would like to take local action against the user they are of course free to do that as well. Rjd0060 (talk) 00:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Also note I have just made the change to the OTRS page to further clarify the process. Rjd0060 (talk) 16:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

A specific example

This was brought up on the talk page, and I think it shows a major problem. In the edit here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Generation_Rescue&diff=626610904&oldid=626532808 - and this is a little hard to see because of a deletion before the change, the sentence "Because of Generation Rescue's public profile through national advertising and because its point of view is not shared by the mainstream medical community, its message has been controversial, etc." was changed to "However, as its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community, its message has been controversial, etc."

When challenged on this, Mdann52 changed it to "most of". However, remember, this was a supposedly "OTRS action" which must not be reverted - and yet which didn't just delete content, but which changed it to insert misrepresentation of the mainstream view. There's three sources for that sentence (Admittedly, one of them rather mispositioned, as it doesn't actually mention Generation Rescue, it's just meant to a secondary reference to show the mainstream consensus, to confirm the sources that do, but is placed on its own) and none of them backs the new phrasing. One could challenge the sentence by asking for better sources for the general statement being made, when the sources are a little more specific, but what one can't do is ignore the sources entirely and make things up.

If there are problems with the article, OTRS volunteers are quite right to step in to fix them. But I don't see how this kind of edit could be justified under any grounds as an official, unrevertable change, as acting to prevent one group from being misrepresented does not mean misrepresenting another group to make them look better.

OTRS edits should be well-thought through, careful, and researched. One could, in an emergency, blank content and ask for time to do research on the talk page. That isn't what was done here, however. When you're actively going against the sources, changing content to misrepresent the mainstream view, that's not a sober, careful fix of a sensitive issue, it's a WP:POVPUSH under an official banner. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Point of clarification on "OTRS edits"

Hi all. I am an OTRS administrator however I am not speaking on the behalf of anybody but myself. I wanted to clarify a misconception here that I've seen several people imply. OTRS agents have no special authority on local wikis. They of course may happen to be an admin/arbitrator/etc. on a wiki, but they do not act in official OTRS capacity on wiki.

All edits made by an OTRS agent are ultimately under the 'control' or jurisdiction of the local wiki. So in this case, the edits or actions made should be able to stand on their own merit. Edits that are made as a result of an OTRS ticket must be able to stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines.

I have not completely reviewed all of the information on this issue but will continue looking into it on our end. Please see WP:OTRS#Privacy and team members on the English Wikipedia where an OTRS agents' role on the English Wikipedia is further explained. I personally feel that Wikipedia:Volunteer_Response_Team#Disagreeing with a team-related edit is not the current practice and needs to be adjusted to reflect so. It seems slightly contradictory to the previous link I posted. With that in mind, however - we do appreciate the understanding from the local communities. As you are probably aware, OTRS sometimes requires that we attempt to handle sensitive issues with regards to content that may not meet Wikipedia guidelines. We would not be as successful as agents if the community was not as cooperative as they have been over the years. Rjd0060 (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the above explanation I don't see how these two cases can be seen as anything other than an attempt to abuse a claim of authority. If, "Edits that are made as a result of an OTRS ticket must be able to stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines." The removal of well sourced content is not appropriate. Policy is quite clear on content that is strongly supported by a reliable source. Any content removal needs to be supported by policy based rationale, not hand waving at invisible "OTRS" issues. If the content violates policy that can be made clear, the removed content is not suppressed so the information in the content can be discussed and specific policy related to it cited. What "secret information" is needed to present a policy based objection to existing content? The attempt to suppress editing and discussion with an inappropriate (false?) claim of administrative authority seems clearly an abuse of what authority has been granted. Additionally it seems highly inappropriate to make edits that go beyond the unexplained issue at the same time. This was done in both cases. Take note of the quantity of material removed originally from Daniel Amen (and repeatedly removed despite clear rationale for its inclusion given on talk) and then most of it was restored. Also note the lack of policy based rationale provided on talk, clearly not edits which can "stand on their own based on local wiki policies and guidelines." Then asserting (falsely?) the authority the have the edit stand "unless cleared" wtf? Surely an editor with some experience/administrative authority also has a grasp of NPOV in that it does not mean whitewashing or watering down content based on reliable sources. This removal of content diff ES "cleanup, rm stuff not relevant to him" is highly problematic. Did the editor read any of the sources? The rationale for including this content was clearly explained on talk. The editor was directly and clearly asked to explain how OTRS has authority to enforce edits and no explanation of OTRS authority or function was given. This is a big problem. Can an OTRS complaint/ticket/action force WP not to present information published in reliable sources? Should an editor acting under the auspices of the OTRS team be WP:INVOLVED in editing the article they are dealing with as an OTRS team member? - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

If the edits are related to privacy or legal issues, I can see the point of saying don't revert an OTRS action without discussion. If the edit is simply a content decision made based on communication with the article subject, that's something else entirely. Saying that edits need to be able to stand on their merit, then making it far more difficult to challenge those edits isn't helpful. Having a way for subjects of an article to comment and/or offer suggestions is ultimately a helpful thing. But having one person (the OTRS agent) make content decisions that aren't driven by sensitive issues and have a process in place that makes it difficult to challenge those decision is not helpful. Ravensfire (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

How can privacy or legal issues come into play if the content is information published in reliable sources? None of the sources for Daniel Amen were other than widely disseminated public publications. If the information is published the legal and privacy issues rest with the publisher not the encyclopedia. I realize there may be specific cases that have to do with what WP policy considers appropriate and there is some room for courtesy and respect, but both of the subjects are publicly prominent. In particular with Generation Rescue this is non-profit that has engaged in substantial media activity, likewise Amen engages in extensive highly public self promotion. - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:25, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

In general, I agree. Specific to these two articles, I haven't seen anything that would be considered a privacy or legal issue. My comment in this section was intended to be more a general thought. There are some things you'll find in reliable sources that BLP says avoid including (kids names, address, etc). But general facts? If a source has been found legally defamatory or retracted, but still used as a source in the article, that's something I can see OTRS involvement, but they should explain why in the edit summary, not a vague hand-waving. OTRS involvement in pure content decisions (sourcing, NPOV, UNDUE, etc) needs to be done in an open manner working with the other editors on the article. I think there can be scenarios where they may have to resort to more drastic measures (strong OWNership, obvious issues being ignored), but that's far and few between and (gasp!) we've got alternatives to help with that in the various noticeboards. Pure content matters should not be done under the OTRS action banner. Ravensfire (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

The combination of high-handed action, authoritarian communication, and ill-informed reasoning makes it clear that the OTRS personnel are in dire need of a review followed by a thinning of the herd. - Nunh-huh 19:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

• No action should be taken other than to edit the articles according to policy. Perhaps the claims of special authority were overblown, but in general it is extremely desirable that OTRS agents undertake the work of liasing with external entities. Occasionally—as with all of Wikipedia's procedures—there will be unfortunate cases where an OTRS agent is persuaded to make edits that are unwise, but there is no need for further discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

They locked down the article and threatened people who tried to undo their actions, after editing to whitewash he article. Everyone has lapses of judgement, but a lapse of judgement as large as this situation got - where the OTRS volunteer was talking about a draft they were preparing with the fringe organization to replace the then-current article, while telling anyone who objected to their whitewashing that, as an OTRS change, noone was permitted to do anything about it - is such a severe lapse of judgement that it raises questions of whether they should be trusted with the tools. Perhaps they just got in over their head, and a simple reminder is enough, but Mdann has not offered any explanation of how they let this situation get as far as it did. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 01:05, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

It's a general principle here that if you repeatedly abuse special editing privileges you have been trusted with, they're taken away. One article would be a lapse. Two articles is a repetition. . - Nunh-huh 02:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read the commentary of the volunteer, it is clear that they are using the OTRS position as a claim of privilege above-and-beyond other volunteers. We should not have to e-mail an OTRS volunteer to make an edit. We should be able to discuss, on wiki, issues related to reliable sourcing, NPOV, etc. If there are sensitivities that need to be worked out with a third party, that's between the OTRS volunteer and the third party. Their edits are supposed to rise and fall on their own rationale, not on the basis of "I had a conversation and you can't revert because of that." They also claimed that the WMF was getting involved as though WP:OFFICE or something gave them mandate. This is all just really gross. jps (talk) 03:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm thinking that this should result in some strict rules which forbid OTRS volunteers from themselves making the edits, unless they are clearly and unequivocally BLP issues.

Especially legal threats (not an issue here) received through that system should be met in the same way we normally deal with them....strong resistance. We will not be intimidated by such threats. We rely on RS for our content, and editors are protected by laws which protect users of the internet who reproduce content created by others. OTOH, the original creators of those RS may be liable if they libel someone, but those who copy or quote their work are protected by law.

The OTRS system must not be compromised by COI suspicions. The volunteers should not be allowed to get caught in such situations. They can get caught in the middle of matters which are far beyond their knowledge and area of responsibility. Their job is to relay concerns and let other editors deal with it in the normal manner, and they should act like any other COI editor....just use the talk page to give guidance. They should never use OTRS as a means to intimidate editors and stifle normal editing, as was done here. They are not above our policies and guidelines. Using vague OTRS and WMF concerns as an excuse to make disputed edits is wrong on so many levels. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, here's the thing I'm wondering, after reading all this: are "OTRS volunteers" doing something problematic and bringing suspicion upon themselves - that is, is this a systemic problem - or is this literally a case of one volunteer not understanding the guidelines he was operating under, and people reacting out of the fear that it's not that he misunderstood, it's that this is just what's done? Because if it helps, this is the first time I'm aware of this sort of action being an issue since I've been an OTRS agent, and in fact I distinctly remember absorbing "don't think that 'because OTRS' trumps the usual editing rules, because it doesn't and it would get you in big trouble" from other volunteers, the wiki pages, and the OTRS manual when I was new on OTRS. There's even an OTRS response template that goes something like "OTRS does not make edits on request, since all edits are subject to community consensus. Here's how to make/request your edits onwiki."

In short, it's never been the case that volunteers are taught that their edits are inviolable or that they should make requested article edits as a matter of course, so responding to this incident as "those OTRS volunteers! They need to stop abusing their rights!" rather than "what went wrong in training, that this one person didn't get that training?" seems out of place. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 14:24, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Fluffernutter is entirely correct here, so much so it bears repeating with as much emphasis as possible. Not one person has presented evidence that there is a problem with the OTRS system which needs fixing. Not one. What there is is one editor, in one instance, has demonstrated a pretty grievous lack of judgement. The question we need to ask is "Had the system been different (that is, had the changes people are clamoring for been in place), would it have prevented this?" The answer, of course, is "No." Because no system, set of rules, and training can prevent people from making free choices in their own actions. Poor choices cannot be stopped, and no one has presented any evidence that the system as a whole suffers from people being poorly educated on their role in OTRS. Instead, we have a case of someone making a poor decision, a singular poor decision, that nothing could have prevented. So there's no point in wringing our hands and saying "Oh no, what is wrong with OTRS!!!" There's nothing wrong with OTRS. Something is wrong with what this one person did this one time. Fix this one problem, and move on. --Jayron32 14:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. This seems to be a single OTRS volunteer who has (apparently with two different fringe articles) gone too far. It needs to be made more clear that OTRS volunteers' edits are not above policy. (A BLP related deletion by ANYONE is not to be reverted, so using OTRS concerns should not be mentioned in a manner which intimidates other editors.) OTRS volunteers could still make uncontroversial and minor edits without any problem, but it would be wise to stay away from using OTRS concerns as an excuse to make controversial edits. Mention those concerns on the talk page and guide other editors. Just use the normal processes and work with other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that it is a problem with the OTRS system if Mdann keeps his status with OTRS, without any sort of public censure and/or promises never to do it again. Mdann has not, at this time, admitted any wrongdoing. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is a sitting arbitrator doing exactly the same thing last year: [18]. Notice this statement [19] which is directly contradicted by sources [20] (and [21] who got court documents). So I wonder if it is how OTRS volunteers are instructed, rather than one bad apple, Second Quantization (talk) 22:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

• Given the comments above by S Philbrick I am led to wonder if OTRS agents are trained in such a way that they understand their edits must follow existing policy. In editing on behalf of an OTRS correspondent who has a conflict of interest they are performing edits that should be done following the COI guideline. Just because Joe from Acme wrote OTRS that doesn't mean that the edits Joe suggests should not be executed in adherence to the COI guideline, they are still edits proposed by a party with a COI. The COI guideline is quite clear that the edits that should be performed directly are very limited. What is the policy at OTRS regarding making edits for parties who write OTRS that have a COI? From what I understand OTRS agents should be following PAG. COI is clearly not being followed very closely. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• WP:COI and WP:MEAT apply to any editor, including OTRS volunteers, who attempt to make edits on behalf of another person. AGF applies to other editors, not to outside sources. Outside sources are still bound by our rules (but they don't follow them), which is to provide a RS for their information. Then OTRS volunteers should present the concern and the RS on the article's talk page and let other editors deal with it. We should be distrustful of outside sources and do as we always do here, which is to let the Reliable and Verifiable sources determine the matter. OR from an outside source is not a RS which is verifiable by ALL Wikipedia editors, ergo we cannot use it to guide our editing. Outside sources have agendas, and we must recognize that. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Further, Mdann has not yet admitted any wrongdoing. It's all very well to call this an "isolated incident", but if there's no admission of wrongdoing, and no indication that Mdann will use OTRS requests more carefully, and research matters before acting in future, this problem can hardly be considered dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I fear you are right, because they still don't show evidence they understand the problem. COI editors and outside sources should always be treated with extra care and some degree of skepticism. The reason we don't hold them to the same standards as others is that they have a COI and bias which will naturally tend to skew article content away from NPOV. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

To be completely fair, I must point out that Mdann52 finally did begin to admit being "over-hasty", but only after multiple editors had gotten on their case. Something needs to be done with the basic instructions to OTRS volunteers and the public guidelines for the OTRS system which will prevent this type of thing from happening again. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That does seem to indicate a problem, yeah. If Mdann wants to continue as an OTRS agent, he needs to understand and abide by the limitations of the role. If we can't be sure he can do that, he should not have OTRS access, in my non-OTRS-admin opinion. At the same time, however, I don't think "public censure" or forcing him to admit "wrongdoing" is what we should be aiming for here. If the goal is for him to conform to the limitations of the OTRS role, then the way to fix it is either for his permissions to be revoked, or for him to commit (publicly or to the OTRS admins; frankly it's more the admins' purview than it is ANI's) to abiding by the limitations of the role going forward - not for us to make a show of embarrassing him via a toothless "censure" pour encourager les autres. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, yes, but, if they are to retain OTRS volunteer status, then something making it clear that they understand where they went wrong and will return to using the tools necessary has to happen. This could be Mdann showing they understand what they did wrong; it could be the OTRS coordinators making it clear they'll be watching Mdann's behaviour through censure, it could be anything else in that line. But, at the moment, Mdann is showing no indication they understand the scope of their problem.

I don't think that kicking him out of OTRS is the best solution, if it can be avoided. We want our actions to be preventative, not punitive. But, if we don't have clear indicators Mdann definitely won't do this again, I think we would be foolish to drop this discussion without taking the alternative, less-preferable actions. #Proposal 3, above, was meant to be a face-saving way for OTRS to deal with this privately with Mdann; the response there does not inspire any faith in OTRS's ability to police its own. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 17:44, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Per the new response at #Proposal 3, this seems to have been dealt with. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:46, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

General problems with the article

I perused the citations in the current article and from what I can tell very few of the sources cited at present actually make any mention of Generation Rescue. Particularly, this article in the LA Times makes no mention of the group whatsoever, but is used to make very negative implications about the group. Having seen the state prior to the first revert, it was clearly bad, including a bunch of BLP violations and widespread use of self-published blogs. People can call it white-washing, but the vast majority of the material was original research or poorly sourced and much of it still is that way. The article is better as a result of Mdann's actions and, instead of trying to lynch Mdann here, editors should instead focus on finding reliable sources for the article that are actually about the group rather than repeatedly restoring dreck just because it happens to suit their POV.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"Jenny McCarthy, a former Playboy model and actress who has written about raising an autistic son, has appeared twice on "Larry King Live" since September, arguing that vaccines trigger autism."[22] QuackGuru (talk) 04:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm . . . *checks title of article and checks quote* . . . I believe you have the wrong article. We are talking about the article on Generation Rescue, the article you are looking for is thataway.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 04:30, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Today, Generation Rescue is known as a platform for Jenny McCarthy's autism and anti-vaccine advocacy.[5] Generation Rescue is run by Jenny McCarthy. QuackGuru (talk) 05:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Generation Rescue and Jenny McCarthy are often properly identified with each other. It's her vehicle. Otherwise this subsection is getting us off track here. Content discussion should happen at the article's talk page. Here we are talking about abuse of OTRS in a COI manner, IOW meatpuppetry for a fringe organization. OTRS volunteers are not supposed to do that. They are not above our policies and guidelines. There were no BLP issues, and nothing that couldn't be handled in the ordinary manner, so there was no justification for shortcircuiting and bypassing normal editing. There was certainly no justification for edit warring. Those are the issues to be discussed here, not any content issues. Those are now being worked out at the article. Stay on topic. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Just because McCarthy runs it does not mean every article about McCarthy should be considered an article about Generation Rescue. Such an approach would turn it into a BLP coatrack, which is what it was before Mdann got involved. The person and the group are separate and, for your information, a lot of stuff cited on that page does not even mention McCarthy. As far as this not being about content, it is about content since you are going after the person who removed the content. If the content being removed violates our policies then your argument for malfeasance kind of falls flat.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Mdann never made such an argument, and he didn't just remove things that referenced McCarthy - they removed everything that was at all critical, regardless of quality of source. Had they removed poorly cited content - and said that was why they were removing it - that would be quite a different thing to actively rewriting content to misrepresent the mainstream view, or saying that they were working on a draft of the article with the organization in question.

The thing is, were that the reason, and had Mdann mentioned that, people would be able to act to fix the article with better sources. But if the OTRS volunteer simply removes all critical content, doesn't give reasons, and states that no content may be restored because it's an OTRS action, then that justification is insufficient, because it offers no road forwards for people to maintain important policies such as WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. Even if we accept that was entirely Mdann's rationale, by not explaining themselves, they turned a fixable article that needed resourced and rewritten to an unfixable by OTRS fiat POV mess. The problem is the heavy-handedness; any legitimacy one can find for the changes after the fact is irrelevant, because Mdann never offered any argument in its defense other than "secret OTRS communications of a sensitive nature that I can't tell you" - which offers no way to move forwards on fixing the article.

And that's presuming the best possible view of his actions - which is unjustified. Because Mdann's removals was not, so far as I'm aware, solely limited to things that failed to specifically mention Generation Rescue, it was indiscriminate. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 07:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The place for discussions of content and sources for the article Generation Rescue is thataway. The subject of this filing is involved editing with claims of no reversion allowed by an OTRS agent acting as a proxy COI editor. - - MrBill3 (talk) 10:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Those claims hinge on the edits being bad for removing policy-compliant material. Evidence to the contrary is certainly appropriate here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:13, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to TDA's obnoxious behavior, I have started this discussion. jps (talk) 21:44, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

No the claim of making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest and asserting that no revision is permissible based on the edit being performed by an OTRS agent has nothing to do with the validity of those edits, the content or sources of the article(s) edited. Once again that discussion is thataway. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I am with MrBill3 on this one. Even if the edits were of the highest quality and even if the removed material consisted of 100% unambiguous BLP violations, making edits for someone with a COI and forbidding revision on OTRS grounds would still be unacceptable. We remove BLP violations all of the time, with no need to make our doing so unrevertable. If reverts that restore BLP violations are a problem, a quick note to ANI gets nearly instant results, including blocks, page protection, and revdels, as appropriate. This is an improper solution to a problem that we are well equipped to handle without any unrevertable OTRS editing. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The person who filed this case talked about the article being whitewashed and that is a major focus of the criticism Mdann has received. If the material is in fact not acceptable per our policies then talk of a whitewash is mistaken. Adding material backed by reliable sources that are actually talking about the subject would resolve the problem. Were the complaint merely about the theoretical implications of OTRS editing then ANI is not the place to handle it. Should a COI editor directly make edits, but those edits just remove material that violates our policies then we generally don't rake them over the coals for it. Why should an editor acting per a request from a conflicted party be any different?--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

TDA you seem to be ignoring the fact the same activity occured at Daniel Amen, where content was removed with an ES saying not relevant when the sources specifically named the subject of the article, some repeatedly, some as primary focus. And when reverted there redid edit with summary "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so". Refused to provide policy based explanations on talk when asked directly twice. So again the primary issue is COI proxy editing, asserting authority to suppress reversion and failure to provide policy based rationale to support edits on talk which has occured twice. Secondarily the content removed from Daniel Amen was improperly removed as it was relevant to the subject. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't seen that since the focus of the filing party was clearly on the Generation Rescue article, but the edits there also seem appropriate, even if the initial reasoning was not entirely valid (I believe the reasoning was that it applies more to the guy's clinics or the procedure than the guy). It does look like the 2005 APA statement only alludes to Amen by using him as a reference about the practice, while the 2012 statement appears to make no mention or allusion to him at all (both are included in the same PDF file so this may be the reason both are seen as relevant). Seems the other material Mdann tried to remove from the article was gratuitously redundant and was inserted solely to have more negative commentary. There was more than enough criticism of the guy already. Clearly Mdann wasn't whitewashing anything on that article.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I smell IDHT. "I hadn't seen that" did you read the filing and check the diffs? The edits at Daniel Amen are clearly a part of the original filing, are you jumping in without actually reading the filing and checking the diffs? Second material removed (diff) was sourced to 1) an article about Amen in The Washington Post Magazine 2) Farah & Gillihan (2012) which discusses Amen and his practice, studies extensively 3) Hall 2005 and 2008 again about the subject 4) The 2005 APA consensus statement as you mentioned explicitly mentions the subject 5) The 2012 APA statement is a follow up to the 2005 statement and addresses the same subject matter. The principle activity of the subject and reason for his notability is the activities of his medical practice and his clinics (of which he is CEO and Medical Director). The main technique discussed in reliable sources (and by Amen himself) used by these clinics is SPECT, the subject has made multiple assertions about his use of SPECT. The presentation of the mainstream medical scientific consensus relating to biomedical information must be predominant and clear in any article, see WP:MEDRS. If Amen asserts SPECT is useful for diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric conditions (which he does and charges a great deal of money for in his practice) then the article must present the current medical knowledge on SPECT for diagnosis and treatment... as clearly and explicitly and in due proportion. Per NPOV the content should represent what is published in reliable sources per due. There had already been extensive discussion on talk about these sources and about the appropriateness of clearly and explicitly presenting the current medical knowledge regarding the technique promoted by Amen and practiced by him and his clinics. The appropriate amount of "criticism of the guy" is proportional per due in RS not in a WP editor's opinion.

You are also conveniently ignoring the ES "As this is an OTRS action, please don't retore it without being cleared to do so." It is this type of claim of authority that is at the root of this filing. It is also the failure to present the type of arguments and rationale you are providing here (again the WRONG VENUE) and get consensus support for challenged edits (please take this to the TALK PAGES of the SPECIFIC ARTICLES and work on getting consensus for your opinion there). Here the issues are 1) POV/COI editing with 2) claims of unchallengable editing 3) lack of discussion and consensus 4) general failure to follow PAG based on status as an OTRS agent. - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You cannot say the issue is POV editing and then credibly suggest the article's content is not a valid issue here. Did the material Mdann removed comply with our policies? If the answer is yes then it is POV editing. If the answer is no, then it is not POV editing. Here I am saying the answer is no the material Mdann removed did not comply with our policies. For the record, the Amen article still had plenty of criticism of him and his methods and noted the position of mainstream science. The article complied with WP:FRINGE in both versions.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If you would like to raise the questions you have about the edits on the talk page of the article (after reading the talk archives) I think you will find there is strong consensus against the position you are taking and that is based on substantial discussion, policy based rationale and sources. Your contention that the material removed "did not comply with our policies" is not supported by the consensus interpretation of policy ON THE TALK PAGE of the article (and the archives). The removal of sourced material with consensus support does not comply with our policies. The repeat of such removal without providing policy based rationale on talk and gaining consensus is a clear violation of policy. The assertion of authority to ban reverts of one's edits based on being an OTRS team member is highly problematic and seems a clear violation of English WP policy and OTRS policy. So far an aknowledgement of this from Mdann or OTRS admin is lacking. Editing based on the requests of a party with a conflict of interest (the definition of proxy) without following the COI guidelines does not comply with our policies. Per COI "If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page." (emphasis in original). Thus clearly an edit made on the behalf of a party with COI that has been reverted should be discussed on talk. NOT repeated with a bogus revert ban. As the edit was removal of content that had been extensively discussed and was supported by consensus the edits and assertions of needing to be "cleared" to restore the content were gross violations of policy. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please respond to what MrBill3 actually wrote. He wrote "making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest". That is not the same thing as "POV editing". The issue -- the specific issue that I am concerned about -- is the combination of making edits at the behest of a party with a conflict of interest and claiming that the edits cannot be reverted because of OTRS. You keep claiming that the specific issue that I am concerned about is something else. That's wrong. You could argue that it 'should be' something else, but the fact remains that I am well aware of what concerns me, I have clearly explained what concerns me twice now, and what concerns me has nothing to do with the quality of the edit. Please stop trying to make this about POV editing. The edits were wrong even if NPOV. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Long story short is, the article after the changes was a major violation of our NPOV policy. Before, it at worse needed some - not all - of the sources improved. Sources needing improved is a case for tagging, not for massive deletion of content, creating a POV mess and lockdown. Mdann unambiguously violated WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE in their edits. Further, Mdann did not raise any policy when asked to defend their edits, just cited secret OTRS communication. Had they given reasons for their edits, and cited policy, we wouldn't be having this argument, we'd be fixing the article to respond to Mdann's concerns. It does not add a single jot to Mdann's case to come up with possible justifications for a part of their edits, particularly as, even if we accept the edits were justified - and I'm not saying they are, but even if we did, BLP does not apply to corporations, so Mdann had no right to lock the article down. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 21:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The article before the changes was a major violation of our NPOV policy. At least after the changes it generally comported with our V and BLP policies. With all the time you guys have spent trying to lynch someone over the matter, you could have easily found some actual reliable sources that actually discuss the subject.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:03, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You clearly do not understand WP:NPOV - NPOV is not presenting the subject in a positive light. When the subject expresses fringe beliefs, and we report on them, we are required by WP:FRINGE - part of the NPOV policy - to put those fringe beliefs in context. It's not worth discussing this with you further if you don't understand the policies being discussed. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:49, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I did not say the article was NPOV-compliant after Mdann's edits, only that neither version was compliant with NPOV, but Mdann's version was compliant with V and BLP. That is on the people who were not providing policy-compliant material for criticism of Generation Rescue, not Mdann.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You are literally the only person seeing BLP issues. You do realise corporations aren't people, right? Further, Mdann added inaccuracies, such as his misrepresentation of the scientific consensus, so Verifiability is shot as well. Your argument holds no water. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 20:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

You should look more carefully at the article prior to Mdann's edits because there are plenty of BLP violations and I am not talking about material concerning the group itself. As far as the scientific consensus part, I am not seeing where the statement is backed by the source at all so it was a verifiability issue before and after Mdann's changes.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Adam, I couldn't disagree with you more. I am personally no supporter of non-standard science, and certainly I regard their view of this controversy as bothvery unlikely, and dangerous; but that does not change the need for a proper article. This was a proper attempt to remove disproportionate coverage. This article is about the Association. It's enough to indicate that they support a non-stanfard view of the subject. Discussion of why their virw is not standard is extensively covered elsewhere in WP--extensively, and appropriately, on the basis of the scientific evidence, just as it ought to be.The view is not unique to them--the explanation of their view in detail or its refutation is no more needed here than an explanation of why the evidence for flying saucers is insufficient at the article on a SF fan club. Repeating it here is unnecessary, inappropriate, and confusing. If this was a group supporting the scientific consensus of the matter, it would be equally wrong to explain the consensus in detail--every bit as wrong as to explain the basis of climate change in an article either on either climate change denialists or eon environmental activists. In an article on manufacturer of widgets, when they attempt, as they often do, to explain the great social utility of widgets in general, we remove it as promotionalism.

As for the OTRS aspect, I have deliberately not see the oTRS correspondence, tho I am an OTRS agent, because it doesn't matter. The material does not belong here. I agree it is inappropriate just to give OTRS as a reason, but one of the proper uses of OTRS is people complaining about this sort of prejudicial content, to get proper attention on it, and to overcome the bias of people who because they how they are right, and in fact are right, need to spread the truth everywhere regardless of encyclopedic balance. OTRS is, among other things, our key defense against promotionalism. I use it to explain to companies, more personally than I could do here, just why their edits are improper, and to tell them how to reach a solution in keeping with WP. When necessary, after telling them what would both address the interests of truth and balance, I often make the edits directly. I have as much right as an OTRS agent to make a edit on behalf of a COI user as anyone else does. But though I will mention I', editing in response to an OTRS request, they have the right to have their privacy preserved as much as any other user does--I act as the intermediate for the purpose, just as I would act if I were verifying a copyright donation.

OTRS is one of the things that work best in WP. I delayed being active there for many years, because I could see I see I was not needed,and have only become more active to handle the incoming flood of promotionalism. It does have the same problem as the rest of WP, that there are a considerable number of people all acting independently, and , just like admins, reluctant to interfere with each other to avoid causing chaos. This does give the need for some degree of oversight. It is presentthere informally, for we can see each others' work. But it is always unwise to leave things at that without some formal review--just as we have Deletion Review for administrative speedys. We have it in a sense for OTRS edits, because they are made openly in the face of the community. But we do need a formal mechanism for ensuring accuracy and consistency of operation at OTRS--I understand that some steps are being taken in this direction. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

He actively changed statements of the scientific consensus to "some doctors", DGG. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The changed to "most", still not a good expression of the breadth and depth of the scientific/medical/academic/official consensus general watering down and changes that remove positions clearly held and publicized in the past. - - MrBill3 (talk) 04:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

He changed it to "some" as Adam said ("its point of view has been disputed by some of the medical community" [23]), a complete misrepresentation of the facts. Deleting over emphatic criticism is one thing. Misrepresenting the mainstream view is something else. Paul B (talk) 21:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I'll crosspost what I put on the Fringe Noticeboard, because, on reflection, I should have said it here: Perception is all, and when an editor breezes into a contentious article and makes changes with basically the rationale "secret squirrel - I know stuff you don't - don't alter my important action without 'clearing' it with me", then it gets folks backs up. From that point things are never going to go well. I'm sure, DGG, had you handled this, it would have gone very differently - even if there was not universal agreement for your actions. Regular editors need to see the rationale behind these actions, and there should have been no problem being transparent here. Nothing I can see required the "I can't tell you why I'm doing this" approach. That will result, rightly or wrongly, in a fear that COI edits are being made by proxy without proper process or consensus, via a "back-door". I'm encouraged by your comments about training. Notwithstanding any of that, I can fully understand why folks here want to see some acknowledgement of the errors in approach at least, to be reassured that these concerns are understood and addressed. Begoon ^talk 21:18, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Here is Mdann's edit summary in the editor's first edit on the Generation Rescue article: "rm some poorly cited material, some uncited material, and other non neutral stuff. See also - Ticket:2014091810016149". No talk of being a secret squirrel. That only came after people kept reverting Mdann's actions. Reasons were given and they were fairly good reasons as I have been attempting to explain.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:33, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

TDA still flogging the content aspect in the wrong venue? That only serves the same purpose as any straw man argument, which is to divert attention from the real issue here, which is a misuse of OTRS. Nothing needed to be done which could not have been done by following normal collaborative editing procedures, including any possible BLP issues. Even Mdann52 later realized that and backed off.

TDA, your harping on this issue here is quite tendentious and disruptive. You are wasting our time. Stop it. Mdann52 could have been a million percent right and the manner he did it was still wrong. It's the "wrong manner" part we're discussing here. Are you really incapable of understanding that? If so, then you shouldn't be commenting in areas where you lack competence. -- Brangifer (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was brought to this page under the header "Article whitewashed; when reverted, the whitewashing happens again as a supposedly official 'OTRS action' that must not be reverted 'without permission'" and the comments by the filer make it clear that the edits themselves are in large part the reason for the complaint, not the OTRS action in isolation. There is no objective way to view the nature of the content as off-topic when the discussion started off as a complaint about the content changes being made. The allegation of misuse is clearly predicated on the content changes being inappropriate on their own. If your objection is strictly to the idea of someone saying an OTRS action should not be reverted without being discussed privately, or how OTRS requests are handled generally, then this is the wrong venue for your complaint. You need to take that up at another page that concerns procedural policy on this matter.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:34, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule that says we have to pay any attention to what the person filing the report thinks the issue is. It often happens on ANI that the original complaint is dismissed out of hand and everyone focuses on another issue that came up during the discussion. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Except, the two issues are inseparable. The idea that there was malfeasance is based on the edits being inappropriate. An OTRS editor was informed of problems with an article. Said editor found problems with the article and sought to address them. Honestly, it does not seem there was sufficient consideration for the state of the article prior to Mdann's edits until I raised the issue here.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 00:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that you are the only person here who finds the two issues to be inseparable, and I completely reject your notion that "the idea that there was malfeasance is based on the edits being inappropriate". That statement is simply not true. You have restated your opinion on this again and again and as far as I can tell have convinced nobody, It is time to drop the stick. (I would have said "concern", BTW; I am not ready to accuse anyone of malfeasance.) --Guy Macon (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Were the material being removed considered completely inappropriate by everyone involved, we would not be here at all. Period. Full stop. No one is going to complain at ANI about an OTRS edit if they believe it was removing material that did not comply with our policies. It certainly would not gain as much traction at ANI.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 08:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I think this issue has been hashed out pretty well. I'd like to see the stick dropped in regards to Mdann. IMO a statement by OTRS administration that, except in clear cases of BLP or privacy issues, edits by OTRS editors:

1) Must follow English Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including COI, and should be argued for with policy based rationale on talk when challenged

2) Have NO exemption from reversion or discussion on talk and assertions of such are not appropriate

would be a step in the right direction. (As a point of fact BLP and privacy issues have substantial means of address within existing WP PAG.) An acknowledgement of the same by the editor involved would also be useful.

The issue that remains somewhat unclear is the application of COI when an OTRS editor is acting based on input from an unseen email. Does off wiki communication with a party that is not editing WP themselves create an instance of COI editing by proxy and require disclosure when making edits based on/inspired by that communication? I understand that an OTRS agent made aware of problems with an article can make an assessment (how independent? how thorough?) of the article and edit the article to improve it. When driven by off wiki secret correspondence this becomes fuzzy.

A clear and specific acknowledgement of the problems with the actions on the two articles in the filing might allow this discussion to move towards addressing the remaining clarification I think is needed. I am hoping both English WP admins and OTRS admins can propose a way forward that allows OTRS agents to act efficiently while ensuring adherence to English WP PAG. While the above discussion has delved far into discussing the merits of edits, some clarification of how OTRS agents should proceed and how edits should be done and argued for might be useful. I invite other editors to raise concerns I do not address.

Per WP:Volunteer Response Team, "Most requests relating to usual editorial matters are referred to normal on-wiki processes." Shouldn't normal on-wiki processes absolutely involve argument in support of challenged edits on talk? No criteria is given for what requests are handled by other than normal on-wiki processes, let's assume privacy, BLP and defamation are. What else? Why not be clear and explicit? On the same page @ Dispute resolution, "The volunteer team strongly recommends that you contact the editor responsible prior to reverting." Shouldn't this section first make clear that OTRS agent edits are subject to WP PAG and the normal dispute resolution process, particularly including discussion on the talk page of the article? Shouldn't it make clear that OTRS agent edits should stand on their merits? Regarding, "the agent may be in possession of confidential information that should not be published on a public site such as Wikipedia." while such information should be held in confidence what bearing does that have on edits made on WP? Except for an internal OTRS issue that the anonymity of the OTRS correspondent should be maintained, shouldn't COI be disclosed per policy? Shouldn't edits be worked out in accordance with PAG? Even for fairly basic editing where is the problem with requiring OTRS agents to disclose an edit has been made at the suggestion of a party with a COI?

If issues with NPOV and or DUE seem apparent to an OTRS agent shouldn't a discussion on talk be started at the time of the edit, particularly if based on input from a party with a COI? Even for basic generally non controversial edits a posting on talk doesn't seem like an onerous burden on an OTRS agent performing an edit. I think acknowledgement of and strict adherence to PAG, and transparency would go far to help the community maintain good faith and work collaboratively with OTRS agents. - - MrBill3 (talk) 16:03, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill3, I don't think we've met. Thanks for your contributions, and for your interest in this subject.  :-) I'm a little confused though - I thought that Rjd0060 had already (a couple of times) met the request that you make at the top for those statements. If there's something else you think needs to be done, I'm afraid I'm being a little too dense to figure out what it is. Do you think another statement is necessary? If so, where and to whom, and why aren't the ones that he's just made (in his role as an OTRS admin) enough?

I truly do want to make sure that legitimate concerns are addressed here, but I also want to be sure that we're not focusing our energy on a problem that's already on the way to solution. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Greetings Philippe Beaudette, I also think we have not met. The pleasure is mine. First if the other editors involved in this discussion feel it has been adequately addressed, I am willing to "drop the stick". Of concern to me are a number of issues 1) The differentiation between Rjd0060's statements speaking only for themself and those as an OTRS admin is not entirely clear. 2) I don't see in this discussion or especially on Volunteer Response Team (VRT) clear and adequate explanation that OTRS team member edits are subject to and must follow PAG. 3) That the dispute resolution section of the same does not explicitly state that talk page discussion and existing WP PAG are primary and acceptable for disputing OTRS team member edits. 4) Of particular importance, an explicit statement that OTRS team member assertions of revert ban authority were in this case and others not OTRS or WP policy. 5) A clear statement that edits driven/inspired by confidential input from a party with COI are COI edits and should be declared as such.

I think an additional statement from an OTRS admin (here) that addresses all five points explaining OTRS policy would provide needed clarity. I also think a revision to VRT that reflects the policy clearly is needed. A statement from an English WP admin that addresses these points with an explanation of policy would also be useful. As above I am willing to yield to a consensus of concerned editors. Also in the interest of not unnecessarily expending energy on a resolved problem, I think problems that arise may be dealt with when they occur. I would point out a problem "on the way to solution" is one that has not reached a solution.

I thank you and the editors above for their contributions to the project and their efforts in addressing this/these issues. Best wishes and happy editing. - - MrBill3 (talk) 00:42, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia—there are no cast-iron undertakings about anything. The situation is that an OTRS volunteer made a mistake by overstating their position. It's not the end of the encyclopedia—we will survive. OTRS volunteers (who almost always do wonderful and highly appreciated work) have obviously got the message, and no further time needs to be spent debating the constitution. Johnuniq (talk) 01:48, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's not good enough. There are too many uncertainties. Yes, one OTRS volunteer clearly acted inappropriately, although they don't seem to yet completely understand what they did wrong, and that's a problem. Part of why they don't understand might lay in the fact that there isn't an explicit enough statement that Wikipedia PAG are the ultimate authority, not some secret communications involving OR information and COI-inspired pressure to tweak existing content away from NPOV. (Clearly BLP and privacy issues can already be dealt with under existing PAG. There is no need to wave "OTRS" as a type of privilege which trumps PAG.)

We need to read "in print" (not declarations that "we understand") that OTRS is not a shadow government capable of ignoring PAG. It needs to be written clearly that OTRS cannot use secret information and OR as justifications to ignore RS and allow COI individuals to steer content away from NPOV. Those are not acceptable options or alternatives to normal PAG.

Much as many COI individuals/organizations might like to think, OTRS should not be used as a method for circumventing, short circuiting, or getting around PAG, but is only a means of jump starting the process of dealing with problems, and that "dealing" with them will happen in the normal manner (collaborative editing), with openness and discussion. Until we can actually SEE this in writing, there will be distrust. The current debacle would never have happened if such declarations had been clearly written, with no room for misunderstanding.

I can see no scenario where there would be any exception to using normal collaborative editing procedures, including dealing with BLP issues. Can you name even one? If you can, then it needs to be included in existing PAG. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

With my OTRS admin hat on, I made the edit you are looking for. Long of the short, I removed the "per OTRS" as a reason in the dispute resolution page to make an edit. That's not acceptable and agents are not trained to think so, as RjD0060, Fluffernutter, DGG, Jayron32 and others have noted. The notion of "per OTRS" being acceptable went away around 2010 and now it's actually gone from policy. I'd like to thank those for bringing up that the process pages were not up-to-date as far as OTRS standards go and I appreciate this opportunity to read the community discussing this. The OTRS agent community is moving forward in being as transparent and community-oriented as possible in light of what is handled and there are some relics of old processes that still remain in some places, such as this case. If you're interested in watching/listening to a (brief) overview of the most common emails OTRS receives and how we handle them, you can watch my half hour Wikimania presentation from London on YouTube. Keegan (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I can see the need to push back against the idea that an elite editing crew have special powers to dictate what occurs in articles, but are there other known cases of a problem? I quickly scanned the archives of WP:OTRS/N since January 2013 and did not notice any issues raised (WP:OTRS#Dispute resolution says to raise issues there if unsatisfied with other discussions). Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There was this edit last year when Deepak Chopra contacted OTRS and got the volunteer to make some decidedly non-neutral edits on his behalf. Again, note the ES says not to revert without contacting the agent (which I ignored, leading to this discussion on Talk). Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3 asked me to comment--so, to expand a little on what I said yesterday at Wikipedia talk:Volunteer Response Team:

I don't think we are finished until the policy statements at WP:Volunteer Response Team and elsewhere have been revised. Even if they were intended properly, they make much greater g=claims of privileged editing than supported by the fundamental policy of the nature of WP as a user-contributed encyclopedia. Several issues have been confused:

(1) The actual quality of the edits that gave rise to this discussion. In general , I support the edits. They did mostly serve to remove a rather blatant bias. Whether they went to far in the opposite direction is for the article talk page.

(2) The attempt to use OTRS authority in making the edits. This was totally unnecessary and inappropriate. They used no confidential information. There was nothing there that could not and should not have been openly addressed. If agreement could not be reached on the article talk page, then the further ordinary on-wiki steps were available.

(3) As an OTRS agent, I've seen the communication there that gave rise to the edit. It is a COI communication from a paid public relations agent, and, as is often the case even with justified complaints, claims altogether too much, and should not have been taken at face value. To do so implies a non-critical approach and an unawareness of the actual situation. The job of OTRS is to filter and mediate complaints, not necessarily to resolve them. Sometimes a necessary edit is so obvious it can be made without prior negotiation. This was not one such an instance.

(4) In a situation like this, I consider it to have been poor practice within the existing parameters of OTRS to proceed immediately from such a complaint to make an edit--the better course would first to have discussed the problem with the complainant, to clarify what would and would not be possible within WP editing policy. After that, in a case such as this , the ORTS agent would have had the choice between making what they consider the appropriate edit, while saying they were doing it on the basis of an outside request (we must indicate when we edit on behalf of another) but not claiming any special authority other than that of trying to assist a situation, or of referring the complainant to the article talk page for discussion, or of posting appropriate portions or paraphrases of the hopefully revised complaint there themselves, explaining what they were doing. The OTRS agent was illegitimately attempting to bypass normal editing is correct--even if the edits were desirable.

(5) This situation was not unique: other OTRS agents have done similarly. They should not be doing it in such situations. They have in disputed situations like this no special powers whatsoever, and an attempt to claim it is an attempt to claim super-editor, a privilege that does not exist in WP. (There is a privilege to suppress material or to block vested in every administrator but subject to the review of every other administrator and discussion on-wiki, and in some cases supervision by arbcom; and the right of WP:LEGAL or the oversight team to make a suppression or a block that cannot be reversed by an admin or ANI in the usual way, but which there is an existing review mechanism).

(6) The unique ability of an OTRS agent is the access to private information. Nothing further.

(7) Problems from this will continue to arise. The OTRS policy pages must be revised to indicate that all changes other than those that are specifically stated to be based on private information are subject entirely to the normal editorial processes. Complaints about OTRS agents overstepping their authority or making errors should probably normally be handled within OTRS by an appropriate procedure , but there remains a right of anyone to deal with them directly on-wiki as for any other actions or any other editor. The current special dispute resolution procedure is only indicated for ones that are specifically stated to be based on confidential but verified communications,and it must be so indicated.

(8) Assurances that this is all being dealt will be justified when they have been dealt with. The responsibility for training and supervising OTRS is the joint responsibility of the Foundation and the community. The Foundation does have the responsibility to grant or withhold OTRS access, as for everything requiring access to identifying information; I assume that they would not refuse an on-wiki request that such access be removed, but the community does retain the power to block anyone. Legitimate power in a complex organization is based on a systems of balancing and overlapping authority.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 04:38, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is a very wise analysis. Thanks! To resolve this situation, we need to come up with some wording and specific revisions. Let's start working on that. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Having followed this discussion since its inception, I fully concur with DGG's analysis of what needs to be done, especially re the clear mis-use of "confidentiality" claims to stifle discussion, when no confidentiality is involved as was the case here. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution should also make it clear that OTRS agents are not editors on the same level as functionaries, checkusers, Arbcom, or WMF staff making legal action edits. Finally, this issue is a lot more prevalent than people think. This was a particularly egregious example which finally prompted a "full and frank" discussion. However, when most editors (including me), see OTRS edit summaries like the ones used here pop up on their watchlist, they simply "obey" even if they don't agree with the edit, or often don't even bother to check the edit itself. That is why so few show up at dispute resolution, and why from now on I'm going to carefully check each and every OTRS flagged edit that shows up on my watchlist. Voceditenore (talk) 07:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

At the risk of piling on, I'd also like to thank DGG for answering questions on this issue at multiple locations, and for this extraordinarily thorough analysis. Hopefully things will indeed move forward both in terms of how OTRS agents understand and approach these matters, and how the community scrutinises and reacts to them. As Voceditenore says above, often it takes a particularly glaring example for an underlying issue to be exposed. We now have the power to move towards a situation where this problem is eliminated. Begoon ^talk 07:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Delimitations

We need a section with two subsections which clearly describe the delimitations of the OTRS system. There should be two lists (not prose):

A. What OTRS volunteers can do for you

1. If you don't understand the editing process and need help, they can give you pointers.
2. They will attempt to address any privacy concerns you may have.
3. If you feel that you or your organization have been libeled, they will see if anything needs to be done and can be done. They will follow the normal manner of dealing with information covered by our Biographies of living persons (BLP) policy.
4. They will ask you to provide any reliable sources which can be used to back up and justify any changes. Your word alone is what we call "original research" and cannot be used to justify changing any content.
5. They will advise you about not making legal threats or personal attacks, and that getting too aggressive, whether here at Wikipedia or in the real world, can create a Streisand effect. Tread lightly and be patient.
6. More suggestions.....

B. What OTRS volunteers will not do for you

1. Volunteers have no more rights than any other Wikipedia editor, so they cannot be used to strong arm other editors. They cannot force other editors to do anything, and they will discuss the matter with other editors. This is a process of give and take, and patience is required.
2. The OTRS system is not a means to circumvent normal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Volunteers will use the normal collaborative editing processes while dealing with your request.
3. Volunteers will not violate any policies for you.
4. You may have a conflict of interest (COI), and thus your concerns will be dealt with in the same manner as anyone else who has a COI. Volunteers will not automatically take your side, and they will never force your preferred version or content into an article, nor will they delete negative content which is properly sourced.
5. More suggestions.....

That section (possibly as a template) should be placed on at least these two places:

• Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team
• OTRS

Please feel free to suggest other points and alternate wordings. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I broadly agree with this. I do wonder, though, if this is the best place any more, or it's now time to move from this board to an OTRS specific location, or a "Pump", in which case the discussion should be an RFC, widely advertised - with maybe a watchlist notification, even, since it is potentially of wide community interest. Begoon ^talk 17:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Right now, more people are watching here and there has been wider input, but making it an RfC would be good. The OTS talk pages seem to get defensive responses (and edit summaries which want to shut down the discussion!) from the few people who are active there, so we need very wide responses from the whole community. So far we've been getting responses here by people who understand the problems and controversy related to this latest incident. We need to keep that history in focus wherever the RfC is held. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:24, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sounds like a thing for WP:VPP then. This discussion and the one at the Fringe Noticeboard should be linked and included. It can always be brought back here if that fails. Just seems like the best way forward right now. Begoon ^talk 19:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Go for it! -- Brangifer (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I did this: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#OTRS. Hopefully it can progress from there. Begoon ^talk 00:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

And I made some small changes in wording, and added several additional points. I think we should continue there, not here. If we're going to work on devising a text, it has to be at a single place. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Personal attacks (and probable trolling) on Talk:Historicity of Jesus

(For reference, the first paragraph below mostly discusses article content as a necessary background to what I see as inappropriate user behaviour. Please do not misunderstand me as asking for content input on the article talk page. Please also do not take me as asking for sanctions against Mmeijieri; the latter user is also being disruptive, but has not made any personal attacks against me or -- it appears -- other users.)

Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs) has been completely devoted to this one page for the last month: he doesn't seem to have any solid ideas for improving the page, but has been posting inane arguments that seem to be promoting the fringe theory that Jesus never existed. It's extremely hard to tell. He and Mmeijeri (talk · contribs) in particular seem to be obsessed with arguments like "New Testament scholars are not historians" and "lots of legitimate historians have criticized the attempts of Christian apologists to construct 'historical Jesus' models that are in fact theological in nature". They place an arbitrary distinction between "New Testament scholars" and "historians", where even though a lot of the former are not historians per se they have rejected out-of-hand the claim by a highly-reputable historian that virtually all historians agree with New Testament scholars on this point. Can anyone look at this edit and not think Fearofreprisal is violating WP:POINT? Taking quotations from legitimate historians out of context, in order to imply that they adhere to a fringe theory discussed in the article, is extremely inappropriate, and at least one is on record as being bothered by being misquoted in this way. Once said historian wrote a 300-page book discrediting the fringe theory, and since then most of his quotes have been removed. Quotes about the historical reliability of from other scholars who have not openly complained about being misquoted are still in the article on the subject of whether or not Jesus existed. It's extremely difficult to discuss these points with Fearofreprisal in particular, since he seems to be more interested in getting a rise out of his "opponents" than in building an encyclopedia article.

But then he took it over the top by starting a new thread about me on the article talk page.[24]

I think the majority of users involved in the historicity article (and related discussions) over the last month would agree with me that FoP has been disruptive. I frankly don't care if he is allowed to continue to edit the article in the short term. But I'd like to see some reprisal for deliberately trying to intimidate me by insinuating bad faith on my part for a username change that took place two years ago...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

I agree that FoR is being needlessly combative, but the article does suffer from major POV issues and Hijiri himself has been very unconstructive in resolving them. He has also been overly eager to run off to various noticeboards at the slightest provocation / disagreement. I might add that I'm annoyed that my good-faith attempts to address major and long-standing POV issues that have been pointed out by many, many Wikipedians in the past are now being brought up by Hijiri as worthy of sanctions. I have received several thank-you's for my contributions to the debate and I think those who read my contributions will see that I've always been constructive and willing to to accommodate the concerns of others.

I don't know why he brings up the fact that researchers who criticise the methodological soundness and lack of objectivity of Historical Jesus research do generally agree Jesus exists. That's certainly true, and if that needs to be made even more explicit than it is right now then I'm all for it, but it's not the point of bringing up the criticism. I even explicitly added the statement that historians do not take the competing Christ Myth Theory seriously.

The point of the criticism section is that the opinion of HJ scholars should not be presented in Wikipedia voice and that biblical scholars should not be misrepresented as historians. I don't understand why Hijiri thinks the distinction is artificial. At first sight it seems obvious they are two different though possibly related disciplines. Biblical scholarship as a whole certainly isn't a subdiscipline of history, it has equally strong or stronger links with semitic studies, theology, archaeology and perhaps other fields. But sometimes things that seem obviously true turn out to be subtly false, so it's possible that the more specific subfield of HJ research is seen as a subfield of history too by historians. In that case we'd need a reliable source to tell us that. I have not seen such a source, and in fact we do have many sources (cited in the article) who explicitly deny it, including prominent biblical scholars involved with HJ research and a (modern) historian who has published a biography of Jesus.

I do think the criticism section is needlessly lengthy and duplicative with what is said in the HJ article, and I have said so before on the article Talk page. However, we've already had discussions about whether we need to have a separate Historicity of Jesus page at all, in addition to the HJ and CMT pages. At one point a lot of material was moved to these other two pages. That discussion can continue after or even in parallel with the POV issue, which does seem more pressing.

IMO the solution is what we always do when dealing with POV issues, namely to state the various opinions from a neutral point of view, taking care to give each view its due attention, not more and not less. In the interaction between scholarly proponents of the competing views various accusations have been made back and forth about possible religious or antireligious bias, lack of historical methodological soundness of methods, lack of scholarly credentials in general, lack of knowledge of Aramaic and possibly others. Accordingly, the article tries to mention any relevant background (credentials, religious / antireligious affiliation) whenever a scholar is first named to help the reader identify possible sources of bias / lack of scholarly quality. In addition I think it would be helpful if we added a paragraph that explains the distinction between theology and religious studies, since it appears to be a common source of confusion.

In closing, I urge Hijiri to be more constructive, and if he isn't, I hope his frequent unjustified appeals to various noticeboards will WP:BOOMERANG on him. It would be well-deserved. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion ends here.

I think we should reconsider seeking arbitration mediation, since all these unproductive trips to the administrators noticeboard don't help. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

My lack of involvement for a while (aside from spending a few weeks sorting my books) has a great deal to do with FearOfReprisal, who has honestly just worn me down. As I've (more or less) said before:

• Fearofreprisal claimed that sources by Christians and even ex-Christians are inherently incapable of competently handling the historicity of Jesus, under the assumption that they automatically assume Jesus had to exist and cannot think otherwise (nevermind Tom Harpur and Docetism denying a physical Jesus, and C.S. "Mere Goddamn Christianity" Lewis was capable of separating the Jesuses of history and faith). If he had just said "Christians," it would only be potential bigotry on his part. But, he threw in ex-Christians, those who affirm the plausibility of a historical Jesus in particular. He doesn't mind people citing them when they deny the possibility of a historical Jesus (at no point demonstrating any problem with a user who misrepresented sources and cited a dozen irrelevant sources to argue that Jesus couldn't have existed), but he does when ex-Christians go against the Christ myth theory. After a time, he turned to OR arguments against RSs and vague arguments regarding the scope of the article that coincidentally eliminate the sort of material he's targeted before. -- He has a clear agenda for giving at least equal weight.
• He created a thread accusing me of an agenda, on the article talk page instead of my talk page, providing no evidence. He then edit warred to keep the thread on the page. When told that he needed evidence for his accusations, he euphemistically rephrased the accusations. When told that he should have brought any concerns over my interactions with editors up on my talk page instead of the article's talk page, he claimed the out-of-place thread wasn't an accusation of problematic behavior. When context was given for the words he took out of context, he continued to insist that I was operating with an agenda, provided diffs to the words he took out of context (as if I had denied saying those things). At no point did he provide even a reference to a conversation where I fabricated quotes. When I demonstrated how one would present evidence of an agenda (had I not been stuck on my phone in a hotel room, I would've even provided diffs instead of referencing material anyone can still see on the talk page), he continued to say that I had an agenda and showed offense at me supposedly trying to bring his religious beliefs into it (even though I never mentioned his religious beliefs, and even though it was totally fine for him to accuse me of a religious agenda without evidence). The only user to support his complaints at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_33#Ian.thomson was a user who also made similar unevidenced claims, and was blocked for likewise failing to assume good faith and attacking editors.

As I've indicated on the article talk page and in past discussions, I'm for including a variety of sources, even due weight to the Christ Myth Theory. Between that, me pointing out that a recently added source claims that a historical Jesus is ultimately unknowable, and my prior track record, accusing me of an agenda, especially without evidence, is inexcusable.

Since I had moved on to other things, I did not see his misquotations, but it only confirms for me that FearofReprisal should not be editing articles relating to the historicity of Jesus. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal has a history of accusing others of bad faith and/or incivility on article talk pages without any shred of evidence. I do not think that's a habit we should tolerate. Huon (talk) 01:40, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

• Echoing User:Ian.thomson and User:Huon's comments (though this is a page I informally watch but don't edit). Some remedy/warning stronger than the last visit to ANI is required. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:49, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Echoing User:Ian.thomson, User:Huon, and In ictu oculi's comments. For myself, FoR has also implied that I have no business on the article talk page because I had not edited it before. In what way is that comment appropriate? No collaboration, nor interest in resolving issues; much interest in disputation. Talk page disruption even more than article page - it is a drain on the community. I could say more, but am almost entirely away from Internet service for a time and cannot respond fully now. Evensteven (talk) 12:30, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

NOTE: Off-topic discussion of article content begins here.

• I'm not a big fan of Fear of Reprisal, but I'm hard put to see him as being the instigator of the problems with this article. The discussions are dominated by people that won't concede the obvious point that Christians and Muslims possess an inherent bias towards seeing evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. This gets consistently and insistently misrepresented as having said that Christians are completely incapable making judgements. When one side won't concede a point as obviously true as that one and persistently misrepresents the points others are making, problems ensue.—Kww(talk) 02:34, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Please quit bringing up that strawman argument (that fails to acknowledge the clear examples of Christians separating the historical and religious Jesuses I keep bringing up) in his defense and either discuss his conduct or stay out of this. FearofReprisal has also thrown in ex-Christians who see reason to accept a historical Jesus as plausible as likewise being religiously biased, and has misquoted authors on those grounds. That is not attempting to remove theologically-motivated sources, that is making bigoted assumptions about anyone who holds a position that is common regardless of religion.

His actions were not merely to remove theological resources (which would be fine), he has demonstrably sought to dismiss any source that isn't part of the Christ myth theory as being religiously biased, or twisted it to say the opposite of what it says. He has made bad-faith accusations against any editor who points out his problems.

If a Christian came onto the talk page, argued that atheists (especially former Christians) are biased against any evidence for the existence of Jesus, tried to remove or distort secular reliable sources that didn't present the Sunday school version of Jesus on the grounds that they were biased against Christianity, made bad-faith attacks on editors who tried to stop this, and then tried to justify their actions as merely trying to balance out inherent biases -- If all this happened, you'd support them being topic banned as would I. Now, what's the difference here? Ian.thomson (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The majority of people arguing on that page have reacted to any discussion from me, from Hilo48, from Fear of Reprisal, from anyone that argues that Christians and Muslims have to be treated as biased sources about the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth as if we were bigots. It's not a strawman argument at all, and all your "clear examples of Christians separating the historical and religious Jesuses" does is illustrate the very point I am making: saying that someone is biased is not the same thing as saying that they are completely incapable of rational judgement. It's quite normal to be simultaneously biased and rational. To deny the bias of people that consider someone to be divine is to argue against logic and human nature.—Kww(talk) 02:59, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

You affirm that people can be both biased and rational, and yet you do not grant that to Christians and Muslims on this issue. And please, point out (on the article's talk page, because this thread is about FearofReprisal's behavior) where the article uses theological sources (which is where the religious bias would indeed come in). You go on about how we need to acknowledge biases in Christians and Muslims, and yet you're helping someone who is misquoting sources and making bad-faith accusations just because it goes along with your POV. This is not a thread about content, it is about FearofReprisal's behavior. If you want to discuss content, go to Talk:Historicity of Jesus. If you want to post here, post about FearofReprisal's behavior.

Back to the behavioral issue at hand, what you are saying regarding Christians and Muslims being biased is not FearofReprisal's argument, which is why I called it a strawman. FearofReprisal's argument extended to the assumption that ex-Christians must also be religiously biased, but he only holds to that when they side with the historical Jesus theory and does a 180 if ex-Christians can be cited (or misquoted, which you have yet to address) to go against the historical Jesus. That is biased editing, and it is nothing but hypocrisy for you to defend it. If you wanted to stay out of this, I wouldn't blame you.

Even if you are absolutely right on content (which this thread is not about), that does not in any way defend FearofReprisal's behavior. This isn't an issue of religion, FearofReprisal has been POV-pushed, and you have defended his incivility because you agree with that POV, and tried to draw attention away from it by making irrelevant blanket statements. I have little reason to assume you're going to understand that, but I would very much like to be proven wrong on that point.

Also, please, point out how the hypothetical I provided of a Christian arguing that atheists are biased is not the mirror image of this situation. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

It's easy to point out why your last point is wrong: atheists have no particular bias for or against the existence of anyone, only their divinity. As for the rest, I view FoR's misbehaviour as the flailing of a drowning man. If his opponents would listen to reason (which you have demonstrated that you will not, by persistently accusing me of failing to grant Christians and Muslims the power of reason, when I have only maintained that they are biased), he would likely be more reasonable himself. It's a cesspool of an article and a cesspool of a talkpage. I'd be just as happy to delete and salt the entire area, because I don't believe the participants will yield to rational argument.—Kww(talk) 03:55, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

And I have brought up plenty of evidence demonstrate that Christians are likewise capable of separating divinity and physical existence. You keep ignoring that, or else fail to get that that capacity is the same as allowing one's rationality to control one's bias. The situations are no different: an individual whose bias controls their rationality makes blanket claims that the worldview they believe to be their opposite number are incapable of letting their rationality control their bias and only capable of letting their bias control their rationality, before proceeding to disrupt the site by acting on such assumptions. The only difference is that what's happening now is a POV you agree with.

So do you do you approve of FearofReprisal's misquoting sources then? Do you approve of FearofReprisal's lying about what others say if you personally think the opposing side is being irrational? Do you really think that it's FearofReprisal who's being rational here? Ian.thomson (talk) 04:07, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your constant misrepresentation of my statements and refusal to accept basic logic means that I have no reason to favour you in a dispute. You misrepresent me, and in the same breath ask me to be upset because someone else is, in your view, misrepresenting someone. That's the problem here: you are implicitly asking people to favour your position and discipline FoR when any review of your position and reasoning shows that the other editors have thrown up a brick wall. When everyone refuses to acknowledge any kind of middle ground, there's no hope.—Kww(talk) 04:41, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have repeatedly said that the article should give due weight to all views, and even started a subpage just to gather and sort sources (before I gave up dealing with FoR), even going so far as to include polemic sources such as Prometheus books just to make sure that all views are covered. That's middle ground. Most of the other editors have also been trying to discuss how to give due weight to all views, or at least only academia's views, but get sidetracked by dealing with FoR trying to eliminate members of academia that he disagrees with by misusing your argument of supposed religious bias.

Your refusal to acknowledge that consensus is against you, FoR, and Hilo is a problem for the article. But notice that ANI threads aren't being made about you or Hilo, they're regularly being made about FoR's misbehavior. If it was you and Hilo, there could well progress, but with you defending someone who outright lies about sources, how can there be? Once again, do you condone FoR's misquoting? If you have to refuse to answer that because of me, you're acting out of spite instead of logic or even good faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, I suspect that if you simply edited the article to segregate the views of Christian and Muslim sources, explicitly label them as biased, and then found sources that weren't Christian or Muslim to balance the article, the behavioural problems would disappear. The problems won't go away until that is done: we can slap FoR silly, and someone else will take his place. I note that despite the controversy about the overuse of Christian sources your listing doesn't address the religion of the authors, even going so far as to label works by Craig A. Evans as "clearly academic" without noting the inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 15:14, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

As has been explained over and over, which you don't seem to be listening too, FoR has pushed for treating ex-Christians if they don't agree with his views. He has indicated that that would not get rid of behavioral problems. Quit ignoring his behavioral problems to support your POV. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I was going to post on Kww's talk page, since his comment merits a response but seems to be mostly about article content, but since Ian.thomson has already replied here I might as well throw in my two cents here. Yes, User:Kww, Christians are biased when it comes to reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Most reputable historians who also happen to be Christians can keep their biases in check, however, when they are engaging in historical research. These factors only apply to historical Jesus research (i.e., who Jesus was, what he said, what he did, whether historians can prove miracles, etc.). When it comes to whether or not a man named Jesus of Nazareth existed, Christians may also be considered "biased". However, it is worth noting that the vast majority (99.9999%) of trained historians of other theological persuasions (atheist, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Shintoist...) agree with the Christian historians that at the very least the guy did exist. This means that the bias of Christians toward the historicity question (note I'm speaking exclusively about the historicity of Jesus, not of his sayings miracles, skin colour, marital status or sexuality) is essentially negligible, and we shouldn't bring it up in the article per WP:UNDUE. However, it has been noted (in Ehrman 2012's epilogue, for instance) that the mythicist apologists overwhelmingly have their own theological bias against the historicity of Jesus, in that they grew up in Christian environs and have a specific distrust of Christianity, and believe that arguing against the historicity of Jesus will serve to discredit Christianity and solve the evils they feel Christianity has wrought. Ehrman understands and sympathizes with them on most points other than the historicity of Jesus (as do I, I should add). But at the end of the day we have one historical claim (that Jesus existed) that is accepted by virtually every scholar of every theological persuasion, and an opposing historical claim (that Jesus never existed) that is essentially only accepted by a vocal minority of adherents of one theological persuasion (atheism), the majority of whom are also vocal in their specific opposition to 21st century Anglo-American Christianity. Books defending the historicity of Jesus come from Christian publishers, yes, but also from Oxford University Press; books attacking the historicity of Jesus come almost exclusively from American Atheist Press and other publishers with their theological views made clear in the name. I don't think we should use article space to speculate about theological biases on the part of either side, but if we do one we have to do the other. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 05:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Your "99.999%" figure is interesting. First, it includes Muslims, who revere Jesus of Nazareth to the same extent that Christians do: orthodox Muslim theology is that Jesus was never crucified, but remains physically alive at the side of Allah. Second, I've asked multiple times for someone to provide examples of Buddhist and atheist historians that have stated that evidence supports the historic existence of Jesus, and no one has provided one. If you wish to have any credibility in your argument, Hijiri 88, please provide a short list of atheist, Jewish, Hindu, Buddhist, and Shintoist historians that agree that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth existed. If it's 99.999% of all such historians, it should be trivially easy to provide such a list. Then, we can add the list to the article and all the controversy will go away.—Kww(talk) 05:35, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman is an atheist historian. He is also a reliable source on the views of the historical community (歴史学界), and he says virtually historians in Asia accept the historicity of Jesus. Christians make up only a tiny minority of the historical community in Asia, and Muslims only a slightly larger minority. Therefore, for virtually all historians in Asia to accept something, more than a few Muslims and Hindus would need to accept it as well. You're demanding that we categorize qualified historians based on their theological persuasion is an insult to said historians' academic integrity, and could easily land in trouble with WP:BLP. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

One example from one particular group does not 99.999% of a large group of things make. You've argued with me by making things up, and then asked us to be upset because someone accused you of making things up.—Kww(talk) 14:54, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic discussion ends here.

Kww, please discuss article content on the article talk page. You are as usual wrong on the substance, but this is not the place to discuss that. Hijiri 88 (聖 やや) 05:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that the above comment was twice removed, without explanation, by User:Kww and User:Reyk. If this thread gets archived with no result as a consequence of Kww's deliberate attempt to hinder outside input with WP:TLDR off-topic rants about article-content, a new thread will be opened in its place. And whether or not Kww's attempt to get this thread archived with no outside input succeeds, both users will be made to answer for repeated unexplained removal of other users' comments. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Your hatting of this section was inappropriate, and your claim that my revert was "unexplained" is false. I stated in the edit summary that you don't get to dictate what can and cannot be discussed on ANI. Hatting a section because an article is being discussed is not a good reason. Of course you are free to restore your comments, without the misbehaviour, and I see that you have. Reyk _YO! 06:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

No, I did not say your reversion of my hat. I said your removal of my response to Kww was removed without explanation. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:28, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said- you are free to restore any comments you made, minus the misbehaviour, and I see that you have. Reyk _YO! 07:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Reyk: Collapsing off-topic asides that belong on the article talk page, in order to make the thread more readable, is not misbehaviour. It is in fact pretty standard procedure. The only thing unique about this is that the off-topic content was not an accidental, good-faith aside (if it was, Kww would have acknowledged his mistake and let it go), but a deliberate attempt to take advantage of WP:TLDR in order to limit outside input. The claim that my hatting off his content discussion with User:Ian.thomson was an attempt on my part to "remove" or "hide" legit user conduct discussion because I'm afraid of a WP:BOOMERANG against myself resulting from such discussion is an almost-laughable cover-story. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:35, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Back to the matter at hand

FoR has, as demonstrated above, attacked editors and misquoted sources. He has done this repeatedly. Article content is NOT the issue here, it is tendentious editing, plain and simple. Some editors may support this tendentious editing because it goes with their views, but such actions are in bad-faith and they need to quit defending such actions. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not think the problem is with FoR, but rather with the topic itself. Neither side has been without fault. I would suggest mediation. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any bad-faith defenses of FoR. I've witnessed a serious WP:KETTLE problem in the discussion above, though.—Kww(talk) 22:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ret.Prof: Maybe so, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any instance of me doing something that merited a thread on the article talk page about how I have used sockpuppets to get away with making personal attacks against people (I have not) and ultimately changed my username to get away with making personal attacks against people (I have not). Whether FoR is right on the substance (he is not) is frankly irrelevant here, except for the fact that the side of this dispute that is wrong has had to increasingly resort to personal attacks, misquoting of sources, violations of WP:POINT, etc.

@User:Kww: All of the defenses of FoR have hinged on "he is right on the substance" (he is not) or "Hijiri88 is a cry-baby" (I put up with his crap for I think three weeks before posting here).

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

On the chance that anyone actually cares about building an encyclopedia, I'll point out that, despite contributing lots of POV and OR to the talk page, User:Hijiri88, User:Ian.thomson, and User:Huon have each contributed nothing to the Historicity of Jesus article. Zip.

I was wrong to link Hijiri88's use of sockpuppets and user name change with incivility. They could be totally unrelated things. (It's worth noting that he still seems to be using IP socks, though, again, it wouldn't be fair to impute any motive to it.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:08, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Umm... every time I post logged out from my phone I specify that it's me. And I don't need to WP:EDITWAR. I have presented solid proposals to improve the article (removing out-of-context quotations that imply John P. Meier, a Catholic priest is skeptical about the historical existence of Jesus, and rejects historical Jesus research. What constructive edits have you made to the article? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Note that I attempted a few times to hat off the TLDR off-topic discussions in the above section, and was repeatedly reverted by Kww and accused by them of "removing" comments. (This while Kww was somewhat hypocritically deleting one of my comments.) This is an obvious attempt on the part of someone who realizes outside input will be invariably against them to prevent outside input by forcing anyone who wants to contribute to wade through thousands of words of off-topic content dispute material. Kww will be made to answer for this repeated disruption once the FoP issue has been resolved. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Ahem. Do you guys have some kind of Wiki-death wish? Surely you must realize the end result of escalating a dispute at ANI like this. Let's see some evidence of how progress in building the encyclopedia has been impeded in the form of diffs summarized by concise statements. Ignocrates (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: How so? In the past, whenever I have come into conflict with a POV-pusher who was abusing/misquoting sources and aggressively making personal attacks against me and others, I tried initially discussing on the article talk pages and their user talk page, and when that didn't work eventually it came to ANI (or SPI, or some other such venue) and the community dealt with them effectively. Both Ian.thomson and I presented concise statements with diffs as evidence. Kww then came along and posted a string of TLDR comments about article content. Please actually examine who has posted what, and who has tried to do what to resolve the issue, before blanket-smearing all parties in a dispute like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Blanket-smearing"? Please see WP:BLUDGEON. I don't see persuasive evidence of progress being impeded on improving the article. Do yourself a favor and return to constructive editing. ANI isn't the place to dry your tears and give out hugs. Ignocrates (talk) 14:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Can the article be written in the same way without reliance on biased sources? Of course, Christians are biased about whether Jesus existed. I think it is equally obvious that Wikipedia doesn't prohibit biased sources--but, the article shouldn't unduly represent their view. Howunusual (talk) 18:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Howunusual: If all sources written by anyone who either is now or was at one time a Christian, then probably no. It's worth noting that virtually everyone who denies historicity is an atheist apologist who comes from a Christian background. In fact, per Ehrman 2012's epilogue this represents an obvious conflict of interest. It seems to me that Fearofreprisal, Kww, and the others are arguing that we should mention these biases for every scholar mentioned in the article. Ian.thomson, myself and the others appear to be arguing against this, and in my case at least it's because most of the so-called mythicists are not reliable sources, and trying to "balance" the article by presenting all the (thousands?) of reliable sources on the other side as "biased" will give readers the wrong impression. It's not Wikipedia's place to be deciding which sources are biased, when reliable sources do not make this claim. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I meant sources whose Christianity is part of their professional background. Howunusual (talk) 13:15, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: This is wiki madness! Iggy, Ignocrates and I do not agree on much these days but he is absolutely right in the end result of an escalating dispute at ANI like this. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:24, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Please sign your posts Ret.Prof, and stop calling me Iggy. It's inappropriate. Btw, since we will be facing off in arbitration in about a week, it would be best if you refrained from commenting on my comments, unless its really pertinent. Ignocrates (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think your notice to me HERE is very, very wrong. In future limit such comments to our talk pages! - Ret.Prof (talk)

@Hijiri 88: Sorry about the above disruption. I thought you were being a bit harsh with him.

@User:Ret.Prof: How so? In the past, whenever I have come into conflict with a POV-pusher who was abusing/misquoting sources and aggressively making personal attacks against me and others, I tried initially discussing on the article talk pages and their user talk page, and when that didn't work eventually it came to ANI (or SPI, or some other such venue) and the community dealt with them effectively. Both Ian.thomson and I presented concise statements with diffs as evidence. Kww then came along and posted a string of TLDR comments about article content. Please actually examine who has posted what, and who has tried to do what to resolve the issue, before blanket-smearing all parties in a dispute like that. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:18, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I've posted seven short paragraphs in seven distinct replies. I'm going to presume that your post is simply an extension of your strategy of making false statements. On the other hand, if one paragraph falls into your definition of TL;DR it might explain why having a substantive discussion with you has proven to be so difficult.—Kww(talk) 14:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't delete your distinct replies. I merely pointed out what Ian.thomson did as well, that they belong on the article talk page, and should not be posted here because of TLDR. As I predicted, your overrunning this thread with TLDR content disputes has caused two other user to come along and completely misinterpret the problem. I never should have pinged you. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Issue still ongoing

For the record, this issue continues in the absence of any admin action. I recently came to the article, this is what the user under discussion directed at me [25]. 100% personal attack without even the intention to discuss anything related to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 19:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

This is true.. I have been watching and mildly contributing for a couple months on this page and its a bit frustrating to have input like this. I don't think this user is some bane of order or a gigantic problem, but a little talking-to wouldn't hurt. Its hard enough to make progress with people being civil, and its probably just a joke on his part, but it slows things down a bit to have to deal with it each time. Granted I don't see any of the main players here as being too innocent! :) Prasangika37 (talk) 19:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the bigger issue is whether this article should even exist. I noticed a thread was opened on the talk page to discuss the AfD option. As it stands, Wikipedia has three articles to cover two topics, with this one wedged in the middle position. At one point, I remember this article being a sort of Christian triumphalist alternative to the Christ Myth Theory. It is now more NPOV, but its reason for being is even less clear. Imo, this is one of the biggest reasons for the seemingly eternal squabbles on the article. Fix the underlying problem and all the rest of this noise will go away. Just a thought. Ignocrates (talk) 01:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

A Suggestion to Wrap This Up for Now

This is not the first or second time that there has been a thread at this noticeboard about Historicity of Jesus. Nor, unfortunately, does it appear to be the last time. The OP has complained about one particular editor, User:Fearofreprisal, who has been tendentious and difficult, but not the only disruptive editor. However, the OP has no particular proposal for what to do. He or she does not request a block, an indef, a topic-ban, an interaction ban, or a site ban, which are the only administrative actions that I am aware that the community can deal with here. By coming here to complain, without requesting sanctions, the OP is just venting and wasting time, as is the case with too many threads here. It appears to me that this article is one where a combination of content issues (should the article exist? what is its scope?) and conduct issues over a long period rise to the level where arbitration is likely to be necessary. My recommendation is, first, that this thread be closed with a warning to Fearofreprisal and a warning to the OP, and, second, that it be noted that any future disruption should be sent (along with the history of past disruption) to the Arbitration Committee. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Close this thread with warnings, and note that any future disruption will be sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that arbitration is the better option. This soap-boxing is a complete waste of ANI's time. The content issue needs to be addressed as well. Otherwise, the litany of complaints will just resume with the next group of combatants. Take it to AfD and let the community decide the scope there, or if it should exist at all. Ignocrates (talk) 02:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

User:Wdford was bold and stripped the contentious article down to a short disambiguation article containing links to other articles. Several other editors concur that that is an improvement. User:Fearofreprisal reverted the bold edit. I restored the shortened article. Fearofreprisal hasn't suggested an alternative. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

It looks great. And it makes so much more sense. If this gets reverted again, I would file for arbitration immediately. Thanks for all your hard work coming up with this creative solution and diffusing the dispute in the process. Ignocrates (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have, in fact, responded, providing citations to reliable sources. diff here Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic-Ban of User:Fearofreprisal

I am striking my previous suggestion that this thread be closed with warnings. User:Wdford made a bold edit and shortened the contentious article to a disambiguation article with links to other articles. An RFC is in progress on whether to keep the shortened article or restore the full article. User:Fearofreprisal is the only editor who disagrees with the shortening of the article, and has called the shortened version "blanking" and "vandalism". User:Fearofreprisal has now filed a frivolous request for formal mediation on the issue of whether to revert the "blanking" of the article. Since mediation requires the voluntary participation of all named parties, and some of the parties are known to support the shortened version of the article, the only actual effect of the RFM is to continue to stir up controversy. (The requirement to assume good faith only goes so far and perhaps should be set aside now. Perhaps this editor is trolling.) I request a topic-ban on User:Fearofreprisal from historicity of Jesus and all of the articles referenced in the shortened version of the article in order to prevent this editor from continuing to stir up controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support given the editor's recent history of tendentious and very unproductive commentary on the talk page. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support given recent events, yes, absolutely. I would broaden this T-ban to include articles related to Historicity of Jesus broadly construed. Ignocrates (talk) 16:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment I'd suggest reading Robert McClenon's last sentence carefully. He's suggesting banning me for making controversial statements. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
  • No, that's not right. The suggestion is that some editors thrive on controversy with a resulting very low benefit-to-noise ratio. I haven't looked lately, but when I last checked that appeared to be the situation. Johnuniq (talk) 09:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Something is very, very wrong here! In the first place aren't Ignocrates and John Carter here in violation of "their bans". Secondly, it looks a though Fearofreprisal is being set up by a group of user accounts working together diff This needs to be looked into further! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. I filed a request for enforcement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Request_concerning_John_Carter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Howunusual (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not seeing how that supports the claim that FoR is being "set up by a group of user accounts working together." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose: I would recommend arbitration to get to the root of the matter. and possibly a sock puppet investigation. strike due to diff> I am also going to ask some trustworthy admins and crats to to look into this situation! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Who are you suggesting are sockpuppets? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If there is to be a sockpuppet investigation, it should look at connections with (deleted) and banned (deleted). Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, (deleted) is not a banned user, and he is actively editing. Allegations of sockpuppetry should be made at SPI, not here, and it's tendentious to bring up someone's name as a likely sockpuppet without a shred of evidence. For such spurious claims, blocks are made. Ignocrates (talk) 21:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Very well, I've deleted the names in my own post, you may want to do the same thing in yours. A topic ban did appear to be in effect, judging by his talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. I have asked an admin to take a look at the unsupported allegation of sockpuppetry as it applies to the editors working on the article, per WP:casting aspersions. Ignocrates (talk) 22:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - About time. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment:Don't get me wrong. I am not making any specific allegations. What I am saying is there something is very, very wrong here! It needs to be fully investigated possibly by Arbitration or by other means! If arbitration goes against Fear, I will most certainly accept it. Turning an important article into a little more than stub was most unsettling! - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're not making specific allegations, don't make allegations because it comes across as little more than fear-mongering to distract from issues at hand. My past experience with you makes it hard for me to believe you're that kind of user, but looking a bit now I see that you and Ignocrates have some sort of issues that I'm not going to get involved with (I don't care what they are, who started it, whatever), but I would ask that neither of you allow those issues to influence your decisions regarding the continued behavior of FoR; nor allow content issues to distract from the issue of FoR's behavior (as they have abut four times now!). Ian.thomson (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't involved in that change but supported it. No content was removed from Wikipedia, and there was a broad consensus for it.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for articles related to the historical Jesus. Fearofreprisal is here with a strong WP:POV and has showed time and time again that they will insist on the WP:TRUTH even if there is a strong consensus to the contrary. Nothing in the user's behavior or Wikipedia history support they are willing to engage constructively.Jeppiz (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Suggestion: All I am saying do not think the problem is only with FoR, but rather with the topic itself. Neither side has been without fault. I would suggest mediation as a first step. - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You've now made your opposition in four different comments, all of them saying pretty much the same thing, and this far you're the only one making taking that position. You're perfectly entitled to a divergent opinion, but perhaps you could refrain from repeating it over and over again?Jeppiz (talk) 17:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Robert McClenon, It will be easier for FoR if you list the names of the articles that will fall under the topic ban. Christ myth theory will be included? Bladesmulti (talk) 17:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never seen a list of articles in a topic ban. It's a ban from the topic, not from an article. In this case, where the topic is Jesus's historicity, it would likely mean every article in some way dealing Jesus, as it's possible to discuss Jesus's historicity on any such article.Jeppiz (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz Thank you for writing. I am in Support of topic ban on Jesus's historicity, FoR has frequently made irrelevant discussions and he has been edit warring too. Now those who are talking about other users here, this topic ban will serve as an example. Bladesmulti (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Strong Oppose. Would sooner support a topic-ban for the proposer of this attempt at censorship. Trying to ban someone for proposing dispute resolution is pretty strange. It's also pretty bizarre to argue that seeking dispute resolution is trolling because, well, there is a dispute. Yet that's what is what Robert McClenon does by arguing the "only actual effect of the RFM is to continue to stir up controversy". Howunusual (talk) 19:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the point of the proposer is how it was done; for example, allegations were made of vandalism and blanking an article. A veteran editor knows better; therefore, such claims are disruptive. There was nothing wrong with the proposal of formal mediation except the timing; an RfC is still underway, so that also seemed to be disruptive. A formal mediation is not "frivolous" per se, and may yet happen before this is done. The trolling allegation, I agree, is tough to prove, and not to be made lightly. It implies someone is motivated by malice. Ignocrates (talk) 21:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have a hard time understanding the comment by Howunusual. Looking at the edit history of both users, it is clear that Robert McClenon has tried to be constructive while Fearofreprisal has been extremely disruptive. The accusation of "attempt at censorship" seems to be an unfounded personal attack with no substance whatsoever provided. Fearofreprisal is being suggested for a topic ban for their behaviour, evident from their edit history, and not for their opinions. Other users have had similar opinions but nobody have suggested they'd be topic banned as they are serious good faith users. I hope the closing admin find the time to give Howunusual a serious for their unfounded breach of WP:NPA against Robert McClenon.Jeppiz (talk) 22:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

A bit harsh! We are now attacking each other. Not a good sign. We all need to take a deep breath and start assuming good faith. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@Howunusual:: earlier in this thread (and in a few archived discussions as well), there's evidence of FoR using the article talk page for unfounded personal attacks against multiple editors, misquoting sources, and generally refusing to seek a middle ground with editors who are interested in collaboration. To call this topic ban a blatant attempt at censorship is either completely ignorant of the situation or in bad-faith against some editor involved here. Notice that Kww and Hilo48 are not mentioned in the topic ban, despite having repeatedly helping him get out of topic bans by turning the issue into a discussion of content and presenting a more moderate face to FoR's arguments. Please learn more about the situation before making asinine accusations about Robert McClenon, who has been dealing with this with way the hell more patience than he should have. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:24, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - it's hard by now to avoid the conclusion that that User:Fearofreprisal does not want any resolution - at least any that has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming the consensus. I have no idea whether the plan is to outlast the opposition and to turn the article into whatever Fearofreprisal desires when everybody else has given up in disgust, or whether he merely wants to cause drama for drama's sake, but he's switching between personal attacks (as I pointed out way above, and as since experienced by Jeppiz), wikilawyering (for example the "shortening is an end-run around deletion" line of reasoning), and supposedly good-faith requests for mediation - whatever it takes to prolong the dispute. It's high time to put a stop to this behavior. Huon (talk) 00:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac

Loganmac (talk · contribs) is one of several accounts of a decent age who has since become solely a single purpose account to attempt to skew the Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article into one in the favor of the "gamergate" crowd. In his most recent actions, he has decided to screencap a thread on the article's talk page and then post about it to his Twitter and on Reddit in an attempt to discredit the thread's author and Wikipedia's ability to cover the subject of the article. Bosstopher, the author of the thread, requested that Loganmac post corrections regarding his opinion which Loganmac has misinterpreted and Loganmac has refused basically citing first amendment rights. It is clear that Loganmac is no longer here to write an encyclopedia but further an off-site conflict, as the last substantial edit he made that was unrelated to this dispute was in 2011. If anyone is to be able to write a neutrally written article on this subject, it has to be without these wannabe Upton Sinclairs in the mix souring the collegiate atmosphere.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:21, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• "We cannot punish editors for off-wiki activities" is something I hear fairly regularly. Be that as it may, having this user, essentially an SPA, participate in the GamerGate matter is of no use, and I agree: NOTHERE. Drmies (talk) 18:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
  • On a side note does this mean there's no rule against me going onto the reddit thread/twitter and explaining how I'm being misrepresented? Bosstopher (talk) 18:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    • Correct. It's probably not a good idea, but there's no rule against it. 199.47.73.100 (talk) 18:41, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
      • Why would it be a bad idea? Bosstopher (talk) 18:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Well now Ryulong has told me "learn to fucking read" on twitter https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516651395512950785. It's twitter, he can tell me whatever he wants, I really don't care. The screencap was my own free opinion on an unrelated site. I really don't get why he got so angry about me tweeting that. And I'm not a single purpose account, I'm most active in the Spanish wikipedia, and I had another account in the 3 years "abscence" on the English wiki of which I've forgotten my password, since this account is linked to my email I looked up the password in my email. Remember that we're not accountable to what we do outside Wikipedia, just as noone was held accountable for doxxing Titanium Dragon and a trans minor editor on Wikipediocracy. Also Ryulong should know I didn't cite "first amendment rights", since I'm not from the US, which for some reason he thought I was by default Loganmac (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Whilst he could have phrased it more politely, Ryulong is indeed correct about your inability to parse a section of text. No-one there is trying to "get rid" of Kain as a source, they're saying he's over-represented in the article, which given the number of times he's referenced is a pretty reasonable point. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
          • Well clearly you couldn't read what Bosstopher had to say, Loganmac. And this is the second time I've heard someone say "I have an account on another project where I'm more active" in this debate. What account do you use there because I'm sure you can be allowed to rename your local account to match that one so they're linked. And this is entirely unrelated to whatever the fuck Titanium Dragon did. Your presence on this website is now disruptive, now that you've decided to take your concerns of it to other websites rather than attempting to discuss it here.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
        • Because nothing productive will come of descending into their gutter. Conspiratorial minded folks just aren't going to listen to your reasonable explanations. It's hard to leave bulllshit charges unanswered, but you won't be correcting the record there, you will just open yourself up for more abuse. Trust me, people have been making shit up about me for years on JFK assassination websites because of my work here, and once you get past the annoyance, you will find it all completely meaningless. You can and should, however, confront Loganmac here for his inappropriate actions. Gamaliel (talk) 20:50, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So what you're essentially saying here is "I don't like this guy's constant reiteration of his opinion, so I'll just shut him up 'cuz he hurt muh feels off wiki". M'kay. Censorship in a nutshell. 72.78.145.144 (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

This isn't Reddit so don't throw your comments in ahead of other people's. And no. Loganmac has been disrupting the project by bringing an off-site conflict onto the site and is harassing people by doing things offsite. This isn't censorship either. This is banning someone for being a drain on the community's resources because they are solely here to stir up shit, which is the exact same reason bans of this nature are being meted out at 4chan, Reddit, and other areas. This isn't a first amendment right. The world at large has the privilege of being allowed to edit Wikipedia and in this case, Loganmac has abused that privilege by harassing people through off-site channels.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:09, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

How have I've been disrupting it? When the article wasn't blocked I didn't erase all mentions of misogyny and harassment since you're right the press has made it the focal point. I tried helping reword the leading when the article was just getting started. Also, again with the first amendment, I'm not from the US, I don't have any idea what it covers nor do I care. And I didn't harass anyone. I presented a screencap and that's it, why do you put forward that reddit link? How do you know it's me? That for me seems more like your definition of harassment Loganmac (talk) 19:31, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

You didn't have to present the screencap in the first place in the places where there's guaranteed replies. And because the Reddit link contains the same screencap from the Twitter account and it was posted by a "Logan Mac".—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:34, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Why shouldn't I, I'm not allowed to critisize Wikipedia outside wikipedia? Also I wonder how did you come to find that reddit post, did you google my username?Loganmac (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I found your reddit post and twitter post, because I am an avid reader of both the #GamerGate hashtag and [to a lesser extent] KotakuinAction. My grievance is not that you are criticizing Wikipedia outside Wikipedia, it is that your posts are lies, you know your posts are lies, but you still wont apologize or issue an amendment. As it stands I'm not sure this warrants a ban, but you've made a factual error and need to correct it. Don't be such a fuddy duddy. Bosstopher (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Ryulong, you should not stoop to the level of Logan and pursue disputes outside of Wikipedia. KonveyorBelt 19:16, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  But is pursuing a Wikipedia dispute off of Wikipedia making 3 left turns to turn right?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

  I just spent about 5 minutes puzzling over the meaning of this comment -- I'm pretty sure this is a snarky way to say that "two wrongs make a right". A trout for both Ryulong and Logan, and let's end this petty back-and-forth. Shii (tock) 01:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

  All I've done is make one comment to him on Twitter and say he should be censured for having the gall to take an off-wiki dispute, bring it on wiki, and then take part of the dispute that happens on wiki back off-wiki again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Logan should apologize to Bosstopher for misrepresenting that editor's comments, which were rather even-handed towards Kain, but beyond that I feel this is premature. We are not talking about an SPA because Logan has contributed to other articles well before getting involved in this article. He has actually not made many edits to the articles and said edits are not particularly objectionable.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:38, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps not in the strictest technical sense a single-purpose account, but that's quite a gap in the editing history, from Feb2011-Sept2014, suddenly showing up again to dive into gamergate. This account is singularly focused on GG right now. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There are so many inactive accounts that have come back to Wikipedia for the express purpose of diving head first into the Gamergate debate because the semi-protection ensures that no newly made accounts can do shit. There's a user who had a 6 year old account with 1 edit on it, made 9 more edits two weeks ago, and then began heavily editing the article. There are way too many people who have these kinds of accounts and have begun editing after years of inactivity just to make sure that their side of the debate is covered on the page, which means they want to throw out any source that they believe has some vague bias against them and only institute sources that are heavily biased in their favor, because to them that's a neutral press.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 03:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That shows an amazing amount of patience. Has there ever been discussion of automatically disabling registered accounts that have been inactive for, say, a year or more? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's really patience as much as it is "Oh look I already registered here, better use it to my advantage to further this external dispute." And I don't think anything has really been said. I think I've only seen talk of it for admins who've up and vanished.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Knowing that they still allow IP's to edit, this is probably futile... but what would be the process to initiate and/or revive such a discussion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm puzzled as to why would anyone would bring up the single-purpose account essay as a reason why someone should be banned. Is there anything in the links that Ryulong has reported of Loganmac conduct that contravenes policy? Diego (talk) 11:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Being a single purpose account is often a symptom of other problematic behaviors that are not desired on Wikipedia. Such as not being here to build an encyclopedia.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 17:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you should treat the disease, not the symptoms. If the only "crime" is being a single-purpose account, this is not against the rules and therefore should not be the basis of a request to block a fellow editor (and certainly not merely because of content disagreements). WP:ANYONE is allowed to edit here, even if we don't like you. Diego (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yet there is a limit to how much we allow such behavior to continue all of the time.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the links you have provided happened within a few hours, three days ago. And it doesn't help that you keep reacting to them; you could simply WP:DENY recognition and let things cool down. Diego (talk) 11:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please close

Unless you have specific rule violations that Logan haa been committing, there doesn't appear to be a case to ban him. SPA or NOTHERE aren't a basis to vote to ban someone from the wiki, just because you disagree with their opinions. We have to assume good faith. 72.89.93.231 (talk) 01:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Actually, NOTHERE is a reason people are banned.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 06:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

A non-policy information page based on subjective judgement of someone else's behavior? No, the reasons for banning someone are in the policies linked from there. Breaching WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK, WP:DISRUPTIVE, Wikipedia:BATTLE, Wikipedia:NPA, WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, WP:DR an the other policies mentioned there are the basis why people are banned, not a mere perception that they're "NOTHERE"; you'd need to show that Loganmac has irredeemably acted against several of those and convince others that it's bad enough to merit the capital punishment. You've breached some of those yourself, so you shouldn't bee too eager to have others banned - your own behavior has been put under scrutiny as well. Diego (talk) 09:01, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:BATTLE ahs been breached considering he's only been contributing to a single article and using off-site means to pursue support for his cause on site.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for a ban on User:Malusia22

Judging from how much of a nuisance he has been, and a pain for editors to deal with (as he would hide his tracks and thus make his hoaxes look clean in the eyes of administrators and other users), I would like to ask for a consensus on whether Malusia should be banned from editing. I had a bit of a hard time when I came across this lad, and judging from the harassment and gross vandalism directed at myself and User:WayKurat, I'd say the time has come for him to be booted off for good. Blake Gripling (talk) 01:33, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never heard of this editor, and you cited no diffs.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Malusia22 (talk · contribs) was indef'd several days ago, and there's plenty of IP weirdness on his user and talk pages. There's also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Malusia22 ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That, and also the LTA case page for him. Anyway, shall we go on with the consensus? Blake Gripling (talk) 02:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I see no reason whatsoever not to ban this user considering they are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. (WP:NOTHERE) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As what I mentioned above, with the harrassment Way and I got subjected to from him, he definitely has to go for good. Also, will an edit filter to flag or tag any edits similar to the ones Malusia frequently adds or edits be feasible, e.g. a regex for "sindikato"? Blake Gripling (talk) 10:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Please provide diffs, showing these edits that are requested to be reviewed.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Group censorship and harassment

Hello, people. Weekly Shōnen Jump has been the subject of group censorship and harassment over the last few days by User:SephyTheThird, User:TheFarix, User:Koavf and User:Materialscientist, and now things have gone to a point where blocks and bans are necessary. A user [26] added content but was reverted [27] with no reason. A second user also added content [28] but was reverted three times [29] [30]. This is censorship and cannot continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sacred Soul 333 (talk • contribs) 03:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of sockpuppets of User:Cow cleaner 5000 (by the way, you're probably going to be investigated for connections to Cow cleaner 5000 soon) making argumentative edits against WP:NPOV, and the article being corrected by the upstanding individuals you named. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Well the page is semi protected, would pending changes be of any more help? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Bit of a minor quibble, but I'm not sure how changes that do not mention or involve a living person qualify as harrassment. --Richard Yin (talk) 04:02, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake sources are still fake, regardless of how many sockpuppet accounts you create to include it, Cow cleaner 5000. Attempts to vandalize the article will simply not be tolerated. —Farix (t | c) 20:40, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Said users accused of 'censorship' and 'harassment' are preventing the magazine being classified by a vandal as a terrorist organization, which CC5000 has taken to AfD several times under that claim (and permanent move protection has had to be rendered to stop several pagemoves comparing it to ISIS and Al Qaeda). The only 'censorship' going on is the removal of idiotic content and personal rants by CC5000, and the page protection is appropriate. In fact, seeing as it's been taken to several never-to-be deleted AfD's, is there a way to permanently protect it from the process so CC5000's undoubtedly lined-up roster of auto-confirmed accounts (which is why we're here even with a bunch of tools protecting the article) can't nom it again? Nate • (chatter) 04:45, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I know I shouldn't say this (it's usually wise not to get involved with sockpuppet dramas, as it puts oneself under suspicion), but come on... Nate, we've already won. We can't accomplish any more by calling them idiotic and ranting. (Them as in sockpuppetter and his/her possible read friends.) Because in the likely case we're right, it's not any use. In the unlikely case that we're wrong, and (some of) them aren't really sockpuppets at all, we'd be harrassing them with these. I mean how'd you like it if I kept endlessly denouncing you for comments made by someone else? Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 03:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Did you even delve into the page history of the article above at all, or when my comment was made? I made these comments three days ago before the OP was blocked. Sorry, but I'm not happy when someone who feels they were 'oppressed' but is instead trying to redirect from their vandalism tries to take it to ANI to get those acting on the vandalism sanctioned somehow. Sorry to be blunt, but it's stupid (and I called the content 'idiotic', not the user, who definitely knows how to game our systems if a general semi-protect is ineffective). I've been following this over the last month, and it's something that needs all the tools we have so the page isn't polluted with this nonsense CC5000 is trying to add. Anyways, all this is moot, as Sacred Soul 333 was revealed as a sock and this should be closed. Nate • (chatter) 18:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry. You were indeed 100% right I didn't see the page history.

I also shouldn't have talked the way I did. I don't even know what it is, but rereading my comment I don't sound like a friendly or very understanding person.

I think all I was bothered by was the mere fact that you explained "The only 'censorship' going on is the removal of idiotic content and personal rants by CC5000, and the page protection is appropriate." The point was already repeated... but don't worry about yourself. It's my issue this time. Nerdy Community Dude _talk^{my edits} 04:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think the "come on" I said was needlessly snarky. But there's something more about my comment it just seemed combative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nerdy Community Dude (talk • contribs) 04:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

New User Redirecting a Series of Pages

Can someone pay attention to HighWindows? I don't think he will stop.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 00:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To expand on VictoriaGrayson's request: As I view myself as capable of neutrality on Buddhist topics, (I'm not a Buddhist) I've been watching these for problems. HighWindows is being WP:POINTy in his moves of articles and editing suggestions, as is clearly seen in his edit history. He should not move articles, and I have commented on his "asking the other parent" over at WP:EAR.

The real issue here is that, as I noted at WP:EAR, while there MIGHT be an argument to be made for dropping the Geshe honorific from article titles, HighWindows is also doing disruptive things like trying to rename the 14th Dalai Lama article (not understanding in that case the honorific is "his holiness") I explained to him here that the Dalai Lama is akin to the Pope and both have name changes with their ascension to their post. (Pope Francis is not titled "Jorge Mario Bergoglio")

I explained this to him previously at Kelsang Gyatso, where HighWindows wanted to add the honorific "Geshe" to that article's title in a RM, which was declined. see here, But more to the point, to answer him, I researched the issue in Catholicism and in British nobility, where there is apt to be a longstanding policy, and found that all the Popes' articles are under their papal name, but most of the articles on Cardinals (other than historically famous ones like Cardinal Richelieu), are under their birth names - but that makes sense because Cardinals generally don't give up their name with ascension to their rank. I compared Geshes to Cardinals, but Lamas to Popes. HighWindows is now trying to move and remove the titles of other high lamas, notably at Choekyi Gyaltsen, 10th Panchen Lama, which per examples of British nobility, such as Anne Blunt, 15th Baroness Wentworth, is perfectly appropriate. In short, we have a POV-pushing editor who is WP:NOTHERE and [{WP"POINT]]y. I recommend that, at a minimum, this user be strongly warned and asked not to move articles or inappropriately remove titles where they are appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 02:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I do not claim expertise in Tibetan Buddhism, but based on what I have read in our article and in a variety of sources, Geshe is an academic title, like a degree, and analogous to "doctor" or "professor". According to the Manual of Style, we don't give articles titles like "Dr. John Smith" or "Professor Mary Jones" and don't call them "Dr. Smith" or "Professor Jones" in the body of the article. Of course, we mention their academic degrees and jobs in the appropriate section of the article. But every general principle has its exceptions, and certainly 14th Dalai Lama counts as an exception, as do articles about Popes. This is a very high visibility article about a person well known worldwide as the "Dalai Lama", winner of the Nobel Peace Prize under that title. I contend that articles about people holding the "geshe" degree should fall under our standard naming protocols described in the Manual of Style. I have explained my reasoning several times on talk pages. On the other hand, it is pointy and disruptive for an editor unhappy that their spiritual leader doesn't get to be called "Geshe Kelsang Gyatso" to then move on to articles about Dalai Lamas and Panchen Lamas to move them without discussion and consensus. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Montanabw and Cullen328.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 04:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Just for the record, I agree in principle (and probably in detail, I haven't re-familiarized myself with those rules, but it sounds correct from what I remember on that subject) with everything Montanabw is saying here and at EAR. My point to HighWindows at EAR was only about OTHERSTUFF and the fact that he has no room to complain about other people not doing stuff. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC) (cross-posted here and at EAR)

Hello, thank you all for your comments. I am afraid I haven't got time at the moment to read them all in detail but I would like to make the following comment. I am new and I have probably made mistakes, some of the names on here I recognise as people I have asked for clarification from and my questions have been ignored or responded to rather aggressively I felt. I was intrigued by the Geshe question and have, as is my nature, been following this line of debate with some interest. I actually came on Wikipedia to look at English Literature but got diverted by the whole question around titles. I did not agree that Kelsang Gyatso's title should be removed when this is how he is referred to in most academic articles, as I provided evidence for. My reliable and unbiased references were removed and unaccountably called "in-house" and biased by Victoria Grayson and Monatanabw, no explanation for these accusations was given. A different, possibly more neutral editor, later said the references were actually reliable. I was told quite clearly by several editors that honorific titles should not be used in the title and only once in the body of the text. I pointed out that if that was going to be applied to Kelsang Gyatso's page in fairness, and in the interests of neutrality, it should be applied to all Tibetan honorifics. In the discussion about this on the editors discussion page, where I raised this issue to get advice from unbiased editors, I was told that the titles shouldItalic text be removed but people don't have time to do this. I took this on as a project, using the Wikipedia list of Buddhist honorifics and titles I started to remove the titles, just as it had been done to Kelsang Gyatso's page and some other Tibetan lamas pages. Dalai Lama is on the same list as Geshe and other Tibetan titles. It is also described in the Encyclopedia Britannica as an honorific title. Clearly some people here don't agree with that, that is of course your right but I have used wikipedia and a neutral source as a reference for myself and thought this was the policy. I agree it seems not quite right not to use a title when we are so familiar with it but it was only on investigating the use of honorific titles that I discovered even the Queen and President Obama don't have their honorific titles used; I therefore thought the same would apply to the Dalai Lama. I can't comment on the Pope sorry, I am not sure if his name is listed as an honorific title on the page for Roman Catholicism or how other neutral sources, such as the Encyclopedia Britannica may classify this. I am sure removing the title has caused some offence, I said it might, but removing Geshe Kelsang Gyatso's title also caused offence and that didn't seem to matter in the face of this being wikipedia policy. I have to say that the claim that Wikipedia is unbiased and neutral does not ring at all true with me now. I feel that people are using the policies to their own ends and when someone does something that goes against their bias they use aggressive editing and ganging up, it is a shame that wikipedia allows this. It is not my decision whether the Dalai Lama's title remains or not, that is a matter for the editors to decide but I hope the decision is based on genuine neutrality; which frankly I doubt is the motivation of some of the person who lodged this complaint, or those who have jumped on the band wagon. I apologise if I have broken any rules as such but I felt I was acting on advice given and was acting in the interests of fairness.HighWindows (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A Geshe degree is different than Dalai Lama, Panchen Lama etc. A Geshe degree does not replace a person's name.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Putting in my two cents here. Just wanted to point out that @Cullen328: also did this similar reversion of Wikipedia names a couple months ago removing "Geshe" Titles amongst a variety of Wikipedia pages. Not being critical of him, but seems like a precedent? Hes quite an experienced user.. @Dougweller: did too as I just saw on the EAR page. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have an issue with "Geshe," I have an issue with trying to rename the Dalai Lama article and other WP:POINTy edits, plus mass renaming moves without discussion or clear consensus. That said, I am not going to object to Geshe title moves, so long as the article content is not whitewashed and it remain clear that the individuals are geshes, if that is verified. Montanabw^(talk) 00:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think this problem started when the title Geshe was removed. The use of Tibetan honorific titles is complex, Kelsang Gyatso is always referred to as Geshe kelsang Gyatso, as is traditional in Tibetan Buddhism, in effect the person is renamed. I have cited articles that state that Dalai Lama is an honorific title and it is in the same list as Geshe on Wikipedia. I am acting in the interests of neutrality, if you are going to remove other Tibetan Lama's accepted titles then this should be across the board. I found it interesting that some people on here had very strong opinions about the title Geshe being removed from Kelsang Gyatso's page but had no interest or motivation to remove the same title, or other Tibetan honorifics from other pages, that suggests bias and an agenda to me. My valid concern is that if a title is removed from wikipedia for one person and not others there is an inferred inferiority applied to the person who has the title removed. I also find it very interesting that people claiming not to be Buddhist and not to have an agenda get so hot under the collar about the Dalai Lama's title; this is apparently based on ancient traditional laws of reincarnation, and there is much confusion about the reasons for the bestowing of the title in this case. Even the current Dalai Lama has stated he does not believe he is the reincarnation of the previous Dalai Lamas. In the light of such confusion why do people feel this title should be treated any differently from other honorific titles, positions of political office, or inherited titles on Wikipedia, which holds itself up as a beacon of neutrality?HighWindows (talk) 09:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Montanabw it seems I cannot win with you. You accuse me of doing things without discussion and you also accuse me of "asking the other parent." You are right I did ask other editors for their unbiased opinion before carrying out further changes, as was suggested to me by neutral editors.HighWindows (talk) 09:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Attack pages

Please see User:Lithistman/Evidence and User:Lithistman/WCM diffs, my request to the user to request deletion [31], and his removal of my subsequent WP:G10 CSD requests [32], [33]. I consider those attack pages per Wikipedia:Attack page, keeping a "list of enemies" or "list of everything bad user:XXX did" on your user space is neither constructive nor appropriate. NE Ent 01:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Editor notified [34] NE Ent 01:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"Head...meet desk". And it just continues......--Mark Miller (talk) 04:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Note the disclaimer at the bottom of the page. It was created on September 24th and it is October 1st (well, it is still that date where I am). Speedy deletion should have happened on the 27th.--Mark Miller (talk) 04:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, though I did e-mail a copy to LHM. I don't think his concerns are entirely without merit (which is not to say I agree with all, or even most, of them), but keeping the list as an open-ended attack page is right out. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Did the same for User:Lithistman/WCM diffs. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:38, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Battleground mentality and disruptive editing by Coat of Many Colours

• While collecting Camille Pissarro paintings for Hafspajen a couple weeks ago, I discovered the painting September Morn and its poor, poor article. During the course of the Featured Picture candidacy for the image, Coat of Many Colours appears to have taken offence over the subject of the image, a young woman standing nude alongside a lake one early morning, and has cited analysis of the painting stating that it is an indecent image of a minor, something which was a minority opinion during the course of the FPC.

This is, as a matter of course, completely acceptable, and I recognize that we cannot all agree on all things. However, Coat appears to have attempted to derail the FPC with extensive commentary and snide remarks (describing an editor who disagrees with him as "puerile" and "infantile", for instance), causing the length of the nomination to balloon up to over 10,000 words with all the replies. This started with declarations that the painting was gratifying to paedophiles (by an editor claiming to speak for the general public and was followed by admissions that Coat was editing while drunk, to implications that I was ignoring pertinent information in the article expansion (citing... The Museum of Hoaxes, which is clearly not an RS) or applying "editorial discretion" in what information was included, accusing me of OR. When the editor's attempts to force the FPC to close as unsuccessful failed, he migrated to the talk page of the article (which I was in the middle of expanding).

On the talk page, Coat again accused me of censoring certain information (though Coat's term was me being "reluctant" to include the claimant, ignoring the issue of reference quality), and later that asking me to make a "real effort" at research (at a point when the article already had 50 references and had taken up 3 days of Wikipedia editing). Soon an IP appeared who added an extensive snippet of copyrighted material (and later, a whole abstract), then accused me of censorship when I reworked the additions to avoid violating copyright. This IP later stated that he was Coat (and behavioural evidence suggests this is correct). Coat's extensive comments have continued on the talk page (under his own account), and although the rhetoric has calmed down a bit, there are apparently still some problems.

However, the greatest issue that I've had with Coat is his implication (while editing as an IP, before the IP said that he was Coat; a possible violation of WP:SOCK) that I'm a paedophile for showing interest in the painting (how this comment implies paedophilia is explained here. He has been warned about this by Drmies (Coat's reply was "I'm going to throw you over the bridge every time you come back here, whatever your issue, whoever it is you like whose interests you are trying to protect."), and Awien, who agrees that the painting is an indecent depiction of a minor, asked Coat to apologize (Coat... gave this as a reply; note the accusation of canvassing? The post Coat is apparently alluding to was my question whether Drmies thought the IP's comments were an implication of paedophilia/COI or not), I ultimately gave up on responding to Coat's comments, as there was no apology for the grave insult, and it appears I was right to do so: Coat says no apology is needed and continues to insist that he never implied I was a paedophile, despite others' readings of his comment saying otherwise.

This battlefield mentality and inability to listen to others is not new. Hafspajen (mentioned above) temporarily retired because of Coat's behaviour at previous FPCs, and since then has banned the editor from his talk page and requested that Coat not even mention his user name, something Coat didn't do (note that this is 2 days after Hafs explicitly said "stop talking to me and stop mentioning my name"). Coat also maintains a subpage apparently meant to build or archive an attempt to build a case against Stefan2, who has nominated several images Coat uploaded as possibly being copyvios (resembles an attack page to me).

Because of the above behaviour (which has apparently taken up almost all of the user's on-wiki time for the past two weeks), and the editor's unwillingness to respond to others concerns, I think it's best that (at the very least) Coat be I-banned from interacting with me and preferably Hafspajen as well. The editor's disruption and PAs may, however, be enough for a block and/or ban - as decided by the community. I'm for it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I endorse the facts and the tenor of this report. I have been on the verge of blocking them more than once; this battleground mentality, the accusations, the snide remarks, the misrepresentations make for an impossible work atmosphere. I urge the community to take action or, at the very least, for an uninvolved admin to look into this situation. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The accusation of pedophila [35] is targeted at the painter Chabas, and since he's both notable and long dead (1937) that's not a violation of policy. From my take, this kerfuffle is the OP Crisco adding drama to victory -- and the time of COMC's commment, the voting was tending heavily towards accept, and it was as much Crisco, et. al. choosing not to let COMC have the last word as it was COMC's continued rebuttals that churned the page.. The edit warring over two sentence quotes as "copyright violation" is lame, also. Clearly, copy pasting entire paragraphs is a violation and brief phrases are not and there is gray in between, but certainly not worth fighting over, by COMC (just externally link to the quote) or Crisco 1492 (don't fuss about it if it's borderline). I heartily endorse Crisco adopting a User:NE_Ent/Unilateral_interaction_ban vis-a-vis COMC.

Additionally, since the pic easily passed feature picture, COMC comments weren't that disruptive. Since this all happened days ago -- pic was promoted 26 Sep -- it's also not an "incident" requiring urgent admin attention. NE Ent 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, Ent, but you're reading this diff incorrectly. It's not Chabas who is accused of pedophilia--nor is the accusation made that Crisco is a pedophile. Let's read this carefully: "the article" is blamed for a "deeply deeply suspect" effort to make Chabas acceptable again, and it's that part I took issue with, since it's blaming Crisco, through the article, for repairing a pedophile's reputation, and for having a "deeply deeply suspect" motivation--rather than Crisco's usual MO, which is article improvement. So this was indeed a serious personal attack, and that is what made me warn Coat. Now, that's sort of water under the bridge, but then came this edit, indicating that they obviously weren't going to leave Crisco (and his nominations) alone. This latter edit is ostensibly an oppose on a different FP nomination, but was really nothing more than an opportunity to stoke that fire again, days after I had hoped that they were going to drop the matter. Drmies (talk) 03:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Ent, if it was just the copyvios (which the editor stopped, eventually), it would have been water under the bridge. It's not though. It is an ongoing, two-week long crusade against the image, the article, and those involved in the expansion of the article, in which the user has been told to "tone down (his) wild hyperbole" (diff from today) and similar... yet it has yet to happen. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

As for "accusation of pedophilia being against Chabas"... I didn't say he "accused" me of it. I said he implied it. How? By collocating the "deeply, deeply suspect" comment with statements of Chabas' paedophilia. What other reason would one have for (consciously) doing so? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block per WP:POINT, and WP:DISRUPTIVE per the evidence provided. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse block This is a morality crusade and tossing around accusations against the painter in this manner taints the museum as well. They've held this work since 1957 and there were controversies since it was painted as their have been about many excellent and well known pieces of art. Uhm...that is part of what art is sometimes, n 1912 and still today. However a number of things being said are questionable and Drmies isn't stretching this, but I go a tad further in that this also seems to be attacking the gallery/museum for displaying it or even owning it. I am also rather disturbed by the criticism of just trying to bring a painting out of a perceived obscurity as if that was some fault here...ITS WHAT WE DO! We bring attention to notable works. We are an encyclopedia, not a political or moral message board. The talk page has been abused for a moral crusade and I think it has crossed from a debate (which doesn't really belong there) to trying to assign a sickness to anyone that admires this painting or tries to defend against some of the more obscure and even extreme criticism of some critics. How much room we give for such is one thing...but this has become something else that is just wrong on many levels.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: Just marking as a comment as I probably count as involved having supported the FP nomination but I endorse everything stated by Crisco and Drmies; COMC's standard behaviour is disruptive with a constant battleground attitude. SagaciousPhil - Chat 05:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: My response was this on my Talk page i.e. to say I defend Crisco's right to raise his concerns but I don't want to get involved. But do I need to make some response to defend my reputation. When I saw this Featured Picture nomination, which occurred early the same day September 16 my return from a month's leave abroad, a date I had placed on my Talk page, I knew at once it was quite wrong. I had edited at Cicada 3301, an article start of mine, and then turned to my Watchlist and was absolutely gobsmacked to see the September Morn nomination. It's creator Paul Chabas made his living from painting pictures of naked pubescent and pre-pubescent girls (never boys one can remark). September Morn is his self-acknowledged masterpiece. These paintings have been withdrawn from display in European museums, as has September Morn in the US. He is routinely cited in the literature as a paedophile in the tradition of Ruskin and Carroll. Of coursed I opposed the nomination, but equally I didn't want to get involved in a discussion about paedophilia. This was my oppose

Oppose, the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards. Some common-sense discretion surely advisable here. Are we also to feature the more provocative of Balthus' paintings for example? In making this oppose I exercise my right to make an oppose clearly stating a reason. I'm not prepared to debate it.

But I wasn't left alone. For the rest of it I can comment that everything of note in recent years regarding this painting appearing in the article, citing the work of Brauer, Kincaid, Dijkstra and Witchard, all comes from me. As to the accusation of impugning Crisco of being a paedophile, I dealt with that on the Talk page replying to the administrator supporting Crisco here. I referred to the article as suspect, not its editors, and indeed it was suspect because we learn from the DYK nomination (now withdrawn, and also first discovered by me and brought to the attention of the Talk page) that the intention was all along "Let's bring this painting out of the darkness that it's in!" I say let's not.

I repeat, as I have had to many times, I do not seek to censor this article nor remove the image from Wikipedia (though I don't think the one selected by Crisco is a good one). All I sought was that Wikipedia does not valorize this painting by slapping a gold star on it and Featuring it and does not publish it on its front page.

I told the administrator supporting Crisco a long time ago that I was planning to cease editing at Wikipedia. I suggest it's not too too difficult to surmise from my editing history exactly why I started this account and why I'm now happy to close it (I'm aware that the editor the administrator supporting Crisco likes has gone right through my edit history from start to finish seeking clues). You will appreciate therefore that I don't urgently feel the need to defend this ANI. I should quite like to complete a planned article start I am preparing in my sandbox for P v S and Cornwall County Council, but there are others just as capable of doing that.

Since I'm about defending my reputation here, let me clarify (once again in response to personal attack from Crisco and the editor the administrator supporting him likes that I can't be bothered to locate) that I am not an academic and I never, asserted any expertise in art history. I'm a collector and it's just a hobby. I know very well now not to indulge it in Wikipedia. I understand that is also the experience of very many new editors at Wikipedia. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 06:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a crusade and in the wrong place. You say Wikipedia should "not valorize this painting by slapping a gold star on it"? Why not? It won a gold medal of honor when it was shown in Paris. It isn't your reputation that is in question, it is your accusation of the reputation of others that disagree with critics and even yourself for the disapproval. Such opinion is fine...but that's where it ends. You cannot use the Wikipedia talk page to continue to war over what you just don't like.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it was you under an IP edit while away or another IP editor who attempted to "paint" the amount of time it supposedly took to paint the work as some odd reasoning that it was suspect. That was just ridiculous so sure, if that wasn't you..then you are not alone but...some of the comments were in no way trying to improve the article but simply make the artist out as some sick child molester. The artist painted females...women and girls. This is truly more than you just not approving of the feature status. You say: "the subject is too young for the image to be decent by modern standards" How do we know this? What age is the girl and what standard are you using? Maxfield Parrish painted young girls and young boys (and the models were actually himself by the way with both genders in many cases). As a comparison lets look at Parrish's "Dinky Bird". An image of a boy of comparable age: File:Dinky Bird by Maxfield Parrish, 1904.jpg. Is he a Pedephile? Is anyone who has a copy a Pedephile? If we found a copy worth promoting to Feature status and I supported it would you accuse me of something? --Mark Miller (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The Balthus' paintings probably won't be going to FA since the file is horrible...but it doesn't stop us from displaying the image in the article.--Mark Miller (talk) 06:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't intend to respond to individual comments here, but just this once. For goodness sake Mark, do try and concentrate. I'm not trying to censor Wikipedia but I am asking for a degree of common-sense and discretion when it comes to valorizing images, "Featuring" them and placing them on the front page. No-one in their right minds would suggest making Balthus' The Guitar Lesson a featured Picture Of The Day. You could be pretty damn sure I think that Wikipedia could kiss its ass goodbye to its donations for a year or more, certainly from the institutions I represent. The same thought really should have flickered through the minds of the crew trying to valorize September Morn here. I'm not sure how the American public will respond to seeing that on their tablets on their morning commute in to work. My guess is not a whole lot favourably. People who get it, booty I mean, and pretty well everyone in America do get pretty well much of that as they want these days, do know chicken when they see it. My guess is that they won't be well pleased, moms especially. Now I really have no more to say here. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is why I feel a block is appropriate here. I never said you were trying to "censor" Wikipedia. I said you were on a "crusade". The proof of that is your continued battleground mentality after the image was given Feature status to label Wikipedia, its editors and the artist himself. Concentrate? Coat...don't patronize me. This painting is 102 years old and comparable to the image I mentioned of a young naked adolescent boy on a swing set inspired by "Poems of Childhood" by Eugene Field. Are you going to do the same with Parrish images if given feature status? I believe so. You used the wording "that Wikipedia could kiss its ass goodbye" if images such as Balthus' The Guitar Lesson made feature status. The American public is not the entire readership here. And your perception of their limitations is insulting America and me as an artist. Please see Wikipedia:Perennial proposals. Art is subjective and some things that are shocking make you think, make you look and make you try to parse the meanings. Your morality is not the morality of the entire world or America, and certainly not Wikipedia.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)Comment COMC does not seem to understand that WP does not work by the moralities of American donors or public. The user tried to give his opinion in a matter, the consensus was against him. Respect the consensus, even if you don't agree. Wikipedia needs knowledgeable editors, even with strong points of view, but they can't be disruptive. Kingsindian ♝♚ 10:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - Kingsindian - it is not his opinion is the matter - it is HOW it is pursued. Calling people purerile, infantile, refusing to get the point, continuing long after everybody asked him several times to stop - that is his standard behaviour and it is disruptive with a constant battleground attitude. Hafspajen (talk) 11:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In case I wasn't clear above: Endorse block (was eaten up by somebody's edit conflict). Kingsindian ♝♚ 13:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I invite COMC to name the institutions that COMC represents, who it appears, are funding Wikipedia. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 10:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Also not hard to surmise from my edit history and yes we are substantial donors and yes we do have significant eyes in the project. I've said before that I've absolutely scrupulous in not seeking support for my position. The only (lukewarm) support I got was from Arwein, a chat-mate of Crisco's. But I have been discussing it off-wiki and I can tell you that absolutely 100% of the world and their children out there don't want to see images like this on Wikipedia. I do frankly find it hard to understand the point of Featuring works of art , but as Arwein says there's a gazillion and one splendid artworks out there to Feature. How sad you choose September Morn. Last here. Point away, I shan't respond. Coat of Many Colours (talk) 11:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I've been doing my best to ignore you, but "absolutely 100% of the world" is just way too much hyperbole. Did you not notice how you were in a minority at the FPC nomination? So what, those who don't agree with you are not "of this world"? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comming up with OTHER POINTS: I have a lot to add to the above. I will give you diffs on how he called me an infernal editor, how he refused to stop editing my FP nominations, how he is hinting things everywhere about me after asked him to stop, all personal attacs directed towards me, also on the same project. I was about to leave Wikipedia forever because of this editor this year in August. Will take some time because this came a little bit like a surprize, so I didn't put antyhing together - yet. Hafspajen (talk) 12:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To start with - Coat of Many Colors - Coat's first edit is from 14 November 2013. He might have had other accounts before. He is not a newbeginner - even if his account is just little less then a year old, he edited since 2013-11-14. But he knows a lot about Wikipedia. Does a new begginer usually go strait to Jimbo Wales talk page, [36], [37] start voting for administrators [38], [39] and edit Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee: [40], [41] ? Other editors still ask after two years for advice ... and they have no idea about this kind of things.

Second, and very important - he is highly disruptive. He is engaging in behavior that is unacceptable for Wikipedia and he causes loads of disruption. Before Crisco it was me who was the target. He behaved quite unacceptable towards me, he was clearly harrasing me. See this thread, User talk:Drmies/Archive 71 #...---...---... and also User talk:Drmies/Archive 71 #Concerning an editor you mentor. Here - where Demiurge1000 tried to point out something- but water of the ducks back. Hafspajen (talk) 12:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Lately - Lately I really asked to be left alone. Don't mention me. Admins did it too. And now he did it again - more snide remarks, he is making fun of my edits. =is "expoloitative" (that's not exactly how I would put it, but let it stand). Yes, I made that spelling mistake - it was an edit conflict an I was in a hurry - 21 September 2014 (UTC) and never corrected it. Like he would never do any spellig misstakes, I think I have noticed at least ten of them. Do I go making fun of HIS edits? NO. Well, I expect to be left alone then myself but it never happens: - and obviously will never happen until something more "drastic action" is needed to halt this. Why is it allowed to go and harras and pick on people, calling me infernal editor? Calling Crisco puerile and infantile ? He makes a scandal out of nothing and than he expects that people should not watch the talk page? Hafspajen (talk) 12:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse Block per WP:POINT, and WP:DISRUPTIVE - per above. Hafspajen (talk) 12:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I haven’t read the above, this is my summary of what I saw.

There are antecedents to this incident that are probably germane, a dispute over the nomination of Manet’s Olympia of which I know only that it left bad blood.

It’s hard to defend Coat of Many Colours given their intemperate outbursts, but there was serious provocation. They were faced with behind-the-scenes collusion among the proponents of September Morn via talk pages that amounts to bullying. In the discussion itself, Coat of Many Colours’ points were effectively shouted down rather than listened to and answered.

As a perceived ally of Coat of Many Colours, I was also subjected to provocation and personal attacks that I chose to ignore.

The discussion at the Featured Picture nomination has been altered after the fact, in the instance I noticed to make Hafspajen look better.

In my opinion it would be unjust to block Coat of Many Colours alone, given the behaviour of Crisco and his supporters.

Awien (talk) 12:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Could you supply diffs to support those, please, Awien? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:20, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• What serious provocation (?) - Awien? Show me just one. Nobody ever provoked C.O.M.C. On the contrary - everybody showed so much AGf, that it was almost painful - considering how rude he was. Hafspajen (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry, no "diffs", just a simple statement. Awien (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Without evidence it is very hard to take your accusations seriously. If this were actually happening you would be able to demonstrate it with diffs. Chillum 15:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have neither the time nor the tech savvy to go chasing through sometimes deleted histories. In my view, there is blame on both sides, that's it. Awien (talk) 16:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• In my view an accusation of "behind-the-scenes collusion" without evidence is something to be ignored as lacking basis. It is more than a little rude to drop such an accusation and refuse to provide evidence. Chillum 16:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block: Nothing else will give the Featured Picture project and editors there and elsewhere any peace. I too had a quite upsetting experience with Coat of Many Colours in another nomination in July:(→‎Edvard Munch - The Scream (pastel) I was personally attacked, belittled to other editors commenting in the nomination, and snarked at mercilessly by him. I was demanded over and over to strike my negative vote. Although I asked for an apology, I never received one: [42]. He also snarked and was vastly impolite to others in that nomination, including Hafspajen..We begged for administrator intervention at that time, but none came to help. I am relieved to see this behaviour coming to light. Because of my treatment by Coat of Many Colours, even though I still contribute to the FPC, I will never again cast an opposing vote and have stated it was because of the intolerable atmosphere in this discusssion:[43]. Although out of politeness to that discussion I did not name Coat of Many Colours as the editor, I hereby attest that this is the editor I am referring to in this diff. Fylbecatulous talk 13:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment User:Awien, your assertions about behind-the-scenes collusion, and provocation and personal attacks need some evidence, not just a simple statement. COMC asserts that "we are substantial donors and yes we do have significant eyes in the project". Do other editors have any views on this? Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 14:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't understand the sentence you quote at all. "we" can't refer to me, if that's what you mean. I'm just a gnome who encountered both the art project and Coat of Many Colours by chance. I happened not to have taken Crisco's userpage off my watchlist from some completely collegial interaction we had some time ago. Awien (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• So there's no evidence for your assertions then. I understand the sentence to refer to some kind of institution COMC thinks is watching us. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 19:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block Everyone is welcome to their opinion but this editor has been going on for weeks now about this painting. In the FPC he made repeated implication that the painting is there for the benefit of pedophiles. When this argument fell on deaf ears he started trying to find any other reason to refuse the image instead referring to technical faults that were dubious. He switched to an IP at one point to continue arguing.

  The comment "it's not too too difficult to surmise from my editing history exactly why I started this account and why I'm now happy to close it... You will appreciate therefore that I don't urgently feel the need to defend this ANI." seems to indicate evasion of scrutiny. Considering the shit disturbing being done I would say this is an inappropriate evasion of scrutiny and thus sock puppetry. This goes along with his IP editing.

  He says "...absolutely 100% of the world and their children out there don't want to see images like this on Wikipedia." yet nobody has agreed with his point of view at all. There is a serious case of "I didn't hear that" going on here. Chillum 14:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is the latest news, I suppose. "the administrator dramatising his infernal mentee here", that's me and Hafspajen, I suppose (Haf is hardly my mentee). And about that mentee, "I see a history of disruptive canvassing, a previous four year absence and a new identity". Yep, Hafspajen (formerly Warrington) was absent for a long time, and much lamented by some of us who enjoy Wikipedia, and now they're back, with a new name--so what? Perhaps Hafspajen is overly sensitive to being mentioned on Coat's talk page time and time again (mentioned not by name, obviously), but Coat could have just stopped: they know fully well that they're getting under Haf's skin. Whether that behavior is blockable by itself, I don't know (I doubt it), but it certainly adds to the suspicion of a battleground mentality. Drmies (talk) 18:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've been mulling over what to say here. Coat's cut a swathe at Featured Picture, hurting quite a few productive and collegial editors. I first became aware of her ("gentlelady") at this nomination, which they refer to in the diff Drmies provides just above. The invective on display there is bad. She also uploaded a competing version of the same picture, wrote a whole essay in the image description (I eventually used her research, plus my own and Hafspajen's, and wrote an article on the painting here; she refers in Drmies' diff to her continuing the battle on the talk page there; I left her preferred version of the picture in the article because honestly, I don't have the eyesight to be sure of my convictions that the other looks better), and edit warred regarding the nomination text and the placement of other images in the discussion. It should also be noted that in that discussion she assumes a stance of authority - yet in the September Morn nomination, either under the IP (which was underhanded; she did not admit for several days that it was her) or under her named account, she disclaims expertise. There is ample evidence of a battleground mentality - for example she characterizes people as a "crew" above, and in Drmies' diff she suggests Crisco 1492 deliberately nominated September Morn on the day she had announced she would return from a trip. However, there's nothing wrong with someone participating at RfA, and I suppose we should also allow people to post at Jimbo's talk page if that's their idea of fun '-) And last year she was writing and improving several articles on paintings and artists. So I tried to get her to stop making the derogatory comments about Hafspajen and pinging him, as she had said she would. I had less success than Drmies. I was mulling an RfC/U, since we have a pattern here that's in my estimation harming the encyclopedia by discouraging others' participation (and flat out hurting people) - but I didn't want to lose the editor. I'm also reluctant to suggest a ban from FP, since she's also made her own nominations and the more the merrier. That does leave blocking, unless someone else can reach her and get her to cool it with the battlegrounding and righting great wrongs. She's made comments about leaving before, but note the edit summary on what is currently her latest edit. The issue may be moot - on the other hand if she means to return, I hope she doesn't do the battlegrounding and righting great wrongs again. If it seems she has, I suggest we should act swiftly; in my opinion we bent over backwards in this case, partly because she did present as an expert, and she's done damage to the community. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment Sorry to contradict you, Yngvadottir but the image used chosen by Coat in the article is wrong, most of the reasoning around the picture is wrong. The discussion on the talk page shows a bit of this this conflict around this image. I just let all this go to avoid more scandals. As for his contributions, the bad is outnumbering the good. And it is not only about me, it is about Crisco, about all the things above and - protecting the community. His - it's a he - not a her (solid Turner man ) - his nominations were not featured, and I can't understand in what way you think he did any good with all this behaviour to the project. I firmly stand with what I said before: this editor doesn't have the training and ability to judge art or pictures. He doesn't understand art, art history, have no deep understanding of most things that Featured Picture project is about. I swear on the Bible if necessary that he doesn't. I also was improving several articles on paintings and artists, without the circus he caused, quietly and diligently. Maybe you like loosing me instead. Hafspajen (talk) 20:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hardly :-( As I say, she/he did damage. I'm referring to their contributions in, oh, October, November last year on Impressionist and Expressionist works and artists. When considering what outcome I would say I wanted at a possible RfC/U, I considered getting them to disengage from FP. But at this point I'm going to emphasise the end of my post above; if they return in another guise and resume using battleground tactics with personal attacks, we should act faster than we did. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:26, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know if you saw Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/File:Portrait de Jeanne d'Aragon, by Raffaello Sanzio, from C2RMF retouched.jpg. The edits he - he said he was a he - opposed are fully in the policies boundaries (Digital manipulation for the purpose of correcting flaws in a photographic image is generally acceptable provided it is limited, well-done, and not deceptive). And I have heard I will leave this project and never come back - at least five times by now - and he never did - and still got on the September morn, the same way like the above. And I am deeply sorry but I wan't here to be cynical enough to say - the comment A final edit from me on this account might mean A final edit from me on 'this' account. Hafspajen (talk) 21:42, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I have to echo Haffy's concerns over that edit summary... the grammatically unnecessary "from this account" strongly implies an intent to return under another guise, which (if Coat is blocked) would be a violation of our socking policies. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yeah...that does seem to strain AGF.--Mark Miller (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Exactly what I meant by "if she means to return"; I took that as the most likely meaning too, although he/she has returned under an IP without a declaration, too. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Considering the discussion above has fizzled, but a consensus seems clear, could an uninvolved admin follow through on this? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I made a mistake - sorry. The comment of Hafspajen's I thought had been removed from the Featured Picture discussion is still there. Awien (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• No worries. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• [44] 103.27.231.224 (talk) 13:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• The above link posted by an IP with the edit summary "The real reason" with no further explanation doesn't make any sense to me, so can someone explain, please? Is this the same IP address admitted to be used by COMC? Incidentally, while the article was included on the DYK section it received over 11,500 hits with no apparent comments let alone complaints. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I find it odd that yet another IP comes up, out of nowhere, from Indonesia, and posts on a COMC topic, apparently dragging Hafs back into this again. Are there any uninvolved admins out there? The disruption has gone on long enough. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't know what it is, but I can tell you what it isn't: not patience, kindness and love. Love is patient, love is kind. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes always preserves. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. Love never fails (try a copivio on that one)... and yes I am tired about is, any closing admin?Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Endorse block For trolling, upsetting other editors and making really tacky comments about his/her personal life. Xanthomelanoussprog (talk) 16:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Note Despite this user saying they were going to stop editing with this account they are still making disruptive edits such as this gem[45]. Chillum 18:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse block: I only "commented" previously as I was sort of involved in the OP; on going through the link posted by the IP and looking at the comment linked by Chillum immediately above, the behaviour is habitual and unlikely to change. SagaciousPhil - Chat 19:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Corona del Mar High School

72.194.125.162 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been censoring sourced information in the Corona del Mar High School article. He's also been edit warring today.

I came in after seeing a request for help at Editor Assistance/Requests, with no prior involvement. I have explained WP:NOTCENSORED, WP:GEVAL, WP:DUE, and WP:RS to the IP over and over.

His response, every time, is that I'm mistaken, that NPOV somehow means we should not include reliably sourced information regarding controversies, and that I'm somehow not addressing the "merits" of this argument.

Given that that's all of his activity, and the sheer blindness with which he's arguing, the IP has to be acting with a WP:COI here. Regardless, he is WP:NOTHERE to build an encyclopedia.

Could someone please "arbitrate" here? Ian.thomson (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, they're claiming that undoing their censorship is "censorship" in turn. There's no way one can assume both good faith and competence from that. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to the weight of that aspect in the body of reliable sources on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news." This article already has an extensive "Controversies" section based entirely on such isolated events. Must they, and slurs related to them, be in the introductory paragraph of this article. Does Wikipedia approve articles about other academic institutions with isolated controversial matters so prominently and redundantly displayed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 05:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I've protected Corona del Mar High School for 3 days. I'll leave the rest to anyone who thinks it needs more action. Dougweller (talk) 10:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course you should take further action! You should ensure the article is impartial and that reported events are weighted appropriately. Clearly the article in its present state gives undue weight to isolated events, criticisms, and news reports that are vastly disproportionate to the overall outstanding reputation and history of this academic institution. By way of comparison, is the famous Naval Academy cheating scandal ( http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N24/cheating.24w.html ) prominently featured in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article about that illustrious institution? Absolutely not, nor should it be. Isolated events will occasionally occur but they are not the defining feature of an academic institution. It is worth mentioning that DaltonHird, the Wikipedia editor whose edit war resulted in your protecting this page (and whose edits remain in the protected version)admittedly has a feminist POV, thus claims the school has "serious social problems resulting in several high-profile instances of sexism, homophobia, gender-related violence". These slurs do not belong in the article, especially where there already is a Controversies section repeating them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.194.125.162 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's being discussed on the talk page. I've made a suggestion to shorten the lede a bit which seems the biggest concern (the entire section hasn't been blanked, just the lede) so that's at least a middle ground all things considered. It doesn't seem like there's a desire to completely remove the controversies section. If the editor does not wish to compromise on that, then it can be escalated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Requesting block.

I'd like to request to be blocked for 3 months becuase I cannot willingly refrain from editing, and it's just so annoying considering I have to study for academic tests and then end up editing for 3/4 of, if not the whole day. StanTheMan87 (talk) 07:12, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

StanTheMan87: Have you considered Wikibreak Enforcer? - Purplewowies (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiBreak Enforcer: "User can still view/edit as an anon through their IP Address."

Not much help for the compulsive editor, imo.

Obviously the OP would need an IP block too. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 08:00, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

An associated anonblock will cover the IP issue. @StanTheMan87: Please confirm on my talk page that you want to do this and I will action.  Philg88 ^♦talk 09:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hang on a minute. Shouldn't we make sure the IP isn't shared first? Even if it's a softblock, I don't know it's appropriate to require people to register because one editor can't resist the temptation to edit. I acknowledge that technically StanTheMan87 could vandalise anonymously sufficiently to require a softblock, but I would hope they are better than that. So I'm not sure that we should start softblocking IPs on demand when the person behind it is only one user and not someone with administrative authority. (I believe we do sometimes block school IPs when someone with administrative authority says they feel it's too difficult for them to control vandalism so it'll be better if it's just blocked.) Nil Einne (talk) 13:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• StanTheMan87, I sympathize with your plight, and so does Bishonen who has, especially for souls like yours, wrote up User:Bishzilla/Self-requested pocketings. Good luck with your studies. If you're in one of my classes, signal such by drawing an upside-down monkey on your next homework assignment and I'll give you an extra sticker. Drmies (talk) 14:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Almost makes me want to re-matriculate...almost. Tiderolls 14:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'd suggest editing your Hosts (file) to send wikipedia.org somewhere else (like this page) to serve as an incentive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Or download SelfControl, if you have a Mac. If not, this is how to block a website on all browsers. (Hey Drmies, give me an extra sticker. See? Here's my upside-down monkey.) – Epicgenius (talk) 20:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor has been voluntarily blocked for three months but it seems that now the talk page is full of notices about images and copyright problems which cannot be responded to in the normal manner. As a result, this block had added a (little) bit of inconvenience for others. I hope it isn't necessary to reverse this but it's something to consider the next time this kind of request comes up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal attacks from HiLo48

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

---

HiLo48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose behaviour keeps coming up here...

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive722#User:Ludwigs2, User:HiLo48, User:Tznkai and Talk:Pregnancy.
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive742#User:HiLo48
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#HiLo48 civility
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive796#Personal Attacks by user HiLo48 after several requests to stop. Requesting action
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive818#Personal Attacks by HiLo48 against Collingwood26
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive821#HiLo48 at Talk:2014 Winter Olympics
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive839#HiLo48's incivility
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive846#User HiLo48
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive850#User:HiLo48

...and whose block log speaks volumes, is at it again. After starting the thread Talk:Queensland rugby league team#POV editing by User:Gibson Flying V (which, by the way, results in the words POV editing by User:Gibson Flying V flashing up on an untold number of lists every time someone comments on it - some form of low-effort, high-yield personal attack?) where he failed to impress anyone, he started another thread at the neutral point of view noticeboard where he similarly failed to get support. Once that was archived he decided put his toes right up to the edge of the WP:3RR line at Queensland rugby league team (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and when I called him on it his response was to start the thread Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian sports#POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team by calling me an "AFL hating editor". When I called him on the blatant WP:FORUMSHOPPING and raised the topic of his incivility he responded with more ad hominem remarks to which I responded by providing a link to Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Incredibly, HiLo48 then started two more similar threads both entitled "Anti-AFL POV pushing at Queensland rugby league team" at Talk:Australian Football League[46] and at its Wikiproject's talk page[47] where his remarks about me were repeated. An uninvolved editor, Macosal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), echoed my warning about forum-shopping and posted a notice about inappropriate WP:CANVASSING on HiLo48's talk page. HiLo48's response in the face of this other user's continued civility was to abuse/attack them a few times before deleting their notice (and his abuse/attacks). HiLo48 then made this edit, which is as perfect an example of Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point as you'll ever find, basically admitting as much once I reverted it when he started another thread: Talk:Queensland rugby league team#POV wording again. Until this point I'd resolved to ignore HiLo48's personal attacks (whilst continuing the discussion) but here gave a clear warning that no more would be tolerated (with diffs and explanations of what is unacceptable), explaining that his next personal attack would result in this report. His response was 100% ad hominem and contained accusations of avoiding discussion, holding "obviously non-neutral" views and POV-pushing. So here we are. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 10:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The summary of this recent diff nicely summarizes Hilo's attitude.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can't even be bothered reading all of that from Gibson Flying V. To make it easier for others to understand, this is a content dispute. It's all about an editor who wants to say that when two of his favourite players in his favourite sport, Rugby League, choose to play Rugby Union, that's fine, but when they choose to play Australian rules football, they are "poached". "Poached" is obviously a non-neutral word. In Australia, rugby league is pretty much in direct competition with Australian rules football for fans, so some antipathy can sometimes exist. I suggested alternatives and compromises, such as using "recruited" rather than "poached", but he won't agree. That is POV pushing, and stubbornness. I AM a person who won't give up fighting POV pushers. It's one of the biggest blights on Wikipedia. That's really all there is to this story. Now, I regard AN/I as a disaster area for justice. Editors who dislike an accused can say what they like about the accused, virtually never with any consequences, and little chance for the accused to defend himself against such nonsense. The raising of a long past block log is simply part of that, and irrelevant to the merits of this case. I won't take any further part in this discussion unless it becomes absolutely necessary. HiLo48 (talk) 11:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, breaking my promise already. In posting the above I had an edit conflict with ymblanter. What a surprise that he turned up! He is a perfect example of the problems with ANI that I mentioned above. He is a Putin hating POV pusher who brought me here some time ago because I was getting in the way of his POV pushing. He lost. I embarrassed him, and he has been after me ever since. (Do we actually ever do anything about badly behaved Admins?) His is not a good faith post. HiLo48 (talk) 11:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Um. Wow.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're trying to prove long-term behaviour, try WP:RFC/U the panda ₯’ 11:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope, it's pretty much about the past week alone. There's just a lot! Sorry if it seems verbose, I've never done this before.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You're providing links to archives from ages ago to try and prove currency? RFC/U. Your WP:BATTLE mentality is returning if you think otherwise the panda ₯’ 11:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Not to provide currency at all. But to provide context. I suspected repeat offending might mean something in cases of personal attacks.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong. You're throwing a bunch of shit against a wall, hoping something will stick. I reviewed 3 of the links you claimed contained personal attacks and ad hominem, but found nothing of the sort. False claims of personal attacks can lead to flying sticks the panda ₯’ 11:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion...Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. Which three?.--Gibson Flying V (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• This is from 2011, apparently no action; this is from 2012, plaintiff warned and then blocked; this is from 2012, HiLo gets an ITN block; this is from 2013, "nothing actionable"; this is from 2013, with HiLo unblocked and the plaintiff topic-banned. So at best there's one with serious consequences for HiLo, but they are hardly from this past week. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, Hilo48 just does not know how to behave. He is one of the users who make Wikipedia a horrible place to work, and he is doing this consistently for many years. In particular, this year he is stalking me, with the initial claim that my English is so bad he can not comprehend me, than that I am a hater of Russia, and now that I am a hater of Putin, and next time he will invent smth else which is going to have as little ground as these claims. I am convinced he is a net negative for Wikipedia, and since he shows no sign of understanding his problem - which is that he consistently assumes bad faith of the others and refuses to see any problems with his own behaviour - I believe the only long-term solution is to have him indefinitely blocked. How many people can he demotivate by his "fuck offs" and "I decide here" before he finally gets indeffed, remains to be seen.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh, and now he accuses me in POV pushing. He is probably sick. What he is saying about me is blatant lie.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

In case anyone missed it... the middle sentence by Ymblanter is indeed a personal attack. Check the cleanliness of thine own hands before launching mud the panda ₯’ 13:23, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm...I'm not that convinced that it is a personal attack, though it may well be an exaggeration. Sorry to disagree with you. Drmies (talk) 14:05, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

A very nice tactics: To completel ignore what is in the thread, but to stat with a boldface against someone who has not been taken to ANI. If Hilo still believes I am a POV-pushe, he should not continue throwing mud but start action against me for POV-pushing. Nobody managed so far to prove I am a POV pusher. If he believes my behavior is not acceptable, he should start a ANI thread. I do not see why he is allowed to lie all aound, and I have to shut up and listen to his lie. I tried once, which led him to believe that I accept all bullshit he has against me. And please DangerousPanda, when he called me a "fool" and I have taken it to ANI into a thread you were in, why did not you react then?--Ymblanter (talk) 13:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Where did I suggest that I had ignored anything in this thread? I advised that I reviewed 3 of the links provided as evidence, and found all 3 of them did not show any such NPA's. Now, returning to your own dirty hands, is there a valid reason why you're referring to me using an old, intentionally retired username? I usually find myself on your side, Ymblanter, but this bullshit tactic of your own is entirely unacceptable the panda ₯’ 15:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I apologize, I was under impression that in the thread #6 cited above you used that username. Now I checked, and you used another one. I amended my comment above.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have had my own run-ins with Gibson Flying V in the past and am fully aware of his BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is certainly not helping the situation; however I concur with DangerousPanda above that this should be raised at RFCU if there is such a long-term pattern of behaviour. GiantSnowman 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Good, if anyone opens an RFC/U against Hilo48 I will certify it.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have to say that I would too. Last week I did nothing outside of Wikipedia's suggested behaviours in regards to a textbook case of canvassing by HiLo, only to be told three times in quick succession to "Fuck off" (with varying levels of capital letters and exclamation marks) and have my motives reduced to some kind of personal grudge rather than responded to reasonably at face value. (here). I do not regard this as acceptable behaviour on Wikipedia (especially given that this was in response to a clear cut case of canvassing which HiLo seemed reluctant to accept) and this attitude genuinely did effect me as condescending, dismissive and frustrating as well as a personal attack. Over a longer term I have witnessed numerous discussions in which I personally felt that HiLo unnecessarily introduced conflict or escalated what were previously relatively civil discussions (the latter half of this discussion comes to mind).

He also seemed not overly concerned regarding any breach of Wikipedia guidelines, saying re my suggestion of canvassing "He didn't give a rats what I thought" (not in itself very civil) and rejecting numerous requests and reminders to remain civil and avoid personal attacks. Macosal (talk) 13:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo is not a net negative. I wish he had better manners, of course--there's a hell of a lot of fuck offs there but, as we have established often enough, "fuck off" on one's own talk page (including edit summaries) is allowed. It's not great, it's not indicative of collaborative spirit, but it's allowed, though a plethora of it does not reflect very well on the editor. And I say this having known HiLo for quite some time, and in at least one of the linked threads above to ANI archives I have criticized him for his comments. But overall I deny that he is a net negative. Yes, RfC must be the way to go if much of the reporting on this recent incident, or string of incidents, goes back to 2011--that can establish a pattern, but not the severity of an incident. Drmies (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This seems like a content dispute disguised as a personal attacks claim. And if the OP really did say "poached", he ought not be editing the article. Eggs and wild game are "poached". Athletes are recruited, and if the offer looks superior to what they currently have, they might switch teams. The fans might be unhappy about it, but a professional will do what he thinks is in his own best interests. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:49, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I can see what you mean, but at the same time, it seems to me that there genuinely are strong cases for HiLo having breached WP:CANVASS, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:POINT on multiple occasions all in a short space of time (see above examples), and showing little to no willingness to acknowledge or discuss this when brought to his attention (and even continuing in some of the behaviours). I understand that he felt frustrated by this discussion but that doesn't seem to justify the range and quantity of breaches. Macosal (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Accumulated frustration from such never-ending battles is why I don't edit articles much anymore. Maybe HiLo should consider vacationing from article editing also. That could mean the fanboys will win, at least this time. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Article-editing is what gives the project's usual gang of bad behavior actors cover for their actions, though. Quite a Catch-22 we're setting up here; either be a content creator and deal with massive egos & thick skin vs. being accused of "not here to build an encyclopedia", which is what they toss at the likes of you and me. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

This is a false dichotomy, which unfortunately becomes more and more popular. I am a content creator as well, and I have more overall edits than Hilo has, and three times as many edits in the article space as he has made in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If you're not here to create content, what's the point? Are these non-content creators self-appointed Wikipedia police? Are they judging those of us who create content? HiLo's got a record of ongoing whinging but doing nothing. I could bring up a dozen diffs in the last month, but nothing that quite compares to all the "fuck you"s I've seen on other pages he's edited. I was "surprised" that he tried to obfuscate his bad behaviour by calling it "a content dispute", clearly the original complaint relates to a serious of personal attacks. Having said that, and in agreement with HiLo himself, this venue is highly selective over what constitutes a personal attack. Given that many editors are given a free pass to tell others to "fuck off", the precedent has been set and this is a non-discussion. Non-creation pseudo-Wiki-police rule! The Rambling Man (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I have difficulties understanding how you conclude that I am not here to create content from the fact that I have 40K edits in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe the indentation works better now. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Again, with every one of these threads, the issue should not be "should or shouldn't a person behave this way" (the discussion never goes that way anyways), but rather "Do you honestly expect any outcome from this discussion." @Ymblanter: if you do have three times the article edits of HiLo48, you must surely have been at Wikipedia long enough to recognize the futility of these discussions. Without regard for what should happen, we need to start recognizing what will happen, and just stop having these discussions altogether. If article editing is your desire, go do that; stop dropping by ANI stirring up drama against people. Whether or not HiLo deserves to be "sanctioned" for his "behavior", you should recognize he (and really many other people: it's not unique to this one) is not going to be, and stop yourselves from starting these threads in the first place. You already should know how this is going to turn out, stop trying to believe it would turn out differently, shut down the thread, and go on with your lives. --Jayron32 15:45, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  I did not start this thread. I only started one thread against Hilo in my life, in January 2014, and I got so much shit thrown on me in that thread (which is linked above) and later that I had to unwatch the article I was editing and I was really feeling badly for weeks. This is not really an experience I would wish anybody.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• HiLo's behavior on the Chelsea Clinton talk page and a related discussion at BLPN is less than ideal as well. His refusal to listen there is considered a form of disruptive editing per WP:LISTEN. I apologize for not linking to individual comments but you really need to review the whole discussion to get the gist of it. -- Calidum 15:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Someone there labeled him a "troll", which is usually considered a personal attack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
    • That's true but it doesn't mean we should ignore several days of disruptivs editing by Hilo that took place before the comment was made. -- Calidum 16:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
      • [I screwed up an edit-conflict, second try] I was the second editor who called him such. (The first hid it under a pipe to WP:DFTT.) When HiLo48 says he's there for the "fun", and has completely given up any pretense of trying to work for consensus, and responds to serious arguments with a brief phrase and runs on to something else, then insults everyone for not noticing his "refutations", he's being uselessly, time-wastingly, disruptive. Choor monster (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, as Baseball_Bugs pointed out, it's hard to weigh-in on one side or the other of a WP:CIVIL discussion when the word "troll" is being thrown around by the accusing side; it's a charged word designed to provoke a reaction. Our editors are, in fact, human and react as such. And, I suspect, HiLo is human as well. Sounds like we all just need to move on. DocumentError (talk) 21:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Make the personal attacks irrelevant. Let's consider Jayron's point above. So, let's give up trying to restrict HiLo48. A better way is for everyone who considers HiLo48's behavior to be less than ideal to not be provoked when he goes over the mark. Instead, let's all be extra nice to HiLo, and respond to any provocations by staying cool without giving a flinch. Then if there is canvassing and he does not repond constructively to queries about that, take that up with the other involved editors. If HiLo has an outburts of anger, then consider that to be mostly a problem for himself (it's not good for his health). Count Iblis (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yes, let's all allow HiLo48 to tell other editors to "fuck off" etc, he's clearly very proud of it as it continues to do so, like a "big boy", because clearly HiLo48 needs us to do that for his "health". You're right. We should forget what others say to him and allow him to outburst however best suits him, regardless of the collateral damage. After all, I regularly tell my colleagues to "fuck off" at work, despite their or my social and mental disabilities. Not. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  He is not your colleague. Here on Wikipedia you don't have a boss who has assigned HiLo as your co-worker with whom you have to share your office. If HiLo doesn't communicate well, you are free to ignore him and continue to collaborate more with other people. If HiLo behaves like a 5 year old throwing tantrums when he doesn't get his way, nothing stops you from actually treating like a 5 year old child. Give him a candy and move on. Count Iblis (talk) 18:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Yep, you don't understand that we're working collaboratively here. If someone suddenly tells someone else to "fuck off", that's highly inappropriate. Now, as I've mentioned above, many editors here are able to do that with exemption, as they massively increase the encyclopaedic contents of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the same is true here, by any means. But yes, if I could, I'd "give him a candy". Problem is, he just keeps coming back for more and keeps the swear festival going. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

  Saying these discussions are not productive is not the same thing as saying that we should condone telling people to "fuck off" or anything else. The issue is so much not "should people be allowed to tell others to fuck off" and so much more "have we ever seen a discussion where we get mad at someone telling someone to fuck off result in anything useful being done." I don't want HiLo to tell people to fuck off, but I also don't see how discussions like this stop him from doing so. It's pointless. Being opposed to these sorts of exercises in futility is not the same as being in support of treating people badly. --Jayron32 19:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• And meanwhile, he's seriously wasting everyone's time on the CC discussions with hit-and-run and liar-liar and general sniping. Really, consensus has been reached, a dozen or two other articles doing the exact same thing without a peep of complaint for years have been identified, policy is absolutely clear, and it's being dragged on with the spectre of a completely pointless edit-war hovering in the background until someone drops a hammer, stick, or whatever. Totally disruptive, totally worthless. Choor monster (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I recommend that, when you want your claims to be taken seriously, claiming that "consensus has been reached" on an article that clearly still has numerous good faith editors debating an issue is not the best strategy.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:32, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. You are thinking of unanimity. The responses of the naysayers are lacking any coherence, relevance, and they dodge and weave everywhere. They are not "debating" the issue. They are not applying anything based on policy. I see no effort made at good faith in their contributions to the discussions. Choor monster (talk) 22:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• How is his behavior not disruptive? Of course it is, just look at this thread and the insanely long thread on BLP/N. He is wasting editors' time on stuff we shouldn't. I find it incomprehensible that some here are advocating for others to develop thick skins, instead of telling this editor to stop the bloody nonsense. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• I recall being treated very badly by HiLo48 - to the point I want no contact with him and dropped off Wikipedia for a while. Just happened to spot this while looking for something else. Legacypac (talk) 21:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
• HiLo48 has always seemed like a proactive, civil editor each time I've observed his interactions (we haven't actively edited together but I've watched several pages he's active on). After reading the diffs provided it seems like this is just a content dispute that maybe doesn't belong at ANI. Unless I missed something, I don't see anything remarkable in any of HiLo48's comments or edits. Please remember, ANI is the place to bring major incidents, not to kneecap one's editorial "opponents." DocumentError (talk) 21:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regardless of any civility issues with HiLo48, he is completely justified in objecting to the use of the word "poaching" in reference to recruiting people from one sporting code to another. A neutral term is available, but Gibson Flying V reverts any edits. In all of the many discussions on the term, Gibson Flying V is more or less in a minority of one. It's got to the point where a topic ban comes into consideration. MaxBrowne (talk) 16:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • By saying, "Regardless of any civility issues with HiLo48..." you admit that nothing coming after that belongs in this thread. The great thing about having provided links to those discussions you mention is that I save myself the trouble and embarrassment of attempting to sway other editors by describing their outcomes here. --Gibson Flying V (talk) 23:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
    • Did you actually argue for using the term "poached"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Admission that content contribution excuses incivility

"Yep, you don't understand that we're working collaboratively here. If someone suddenly tells someone else to "fuck off", that's highly inappropriate. Now, as I've mentioned above, many editors here are able to do that with exemption, as they massively increase the encyclopaedic contents of Wikipedia. I'm not sure the same is true here, by any means."

The Rambling Man [48]

This is one of those unwritten rules of Wikipedia that we're all familiar with, but I do not recall it ever being stated so plainly. Here we have an editor accused of a pattern of rudeness, culminating in a recent "fuck off" retort. "If only he wrote more Featured Articles or contributed to more Good Articles, and so on, then he could be rude "with exemption" due to his "massive" contributions. Am I the only one that sees a "rules are for thee but not for me" dichotomy here? Tarc (talk) 21:51, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

GREAT point, Tarc. It sounds like we all need to just move-on. I don't think this ANI is really accomplishing anything except to derail valuable edit time. DocumentError (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"This is one of those unwritten rules of Wikipedia that we're all familiar" There are a lot of a legitimate "unwritten" rules I suppose, but this isn't one of them. This is simply a perception that has been propagated. But anyone, regardless of content creation, is subject to civility guidelines and crossing the line enough times or showing a pattern is likely to garner sanctions. How long those stick depends on the community. There is a general, rough consensus that prolific content creators should not just be automatically blocked unless the offense is quite severe. Discussion, however is generally closed quickly. Most of the time the discussions are more heated then enlightening and people tend to be more passionate about a sanction being imposed by the anger that is natural from being the one on the receiving end of incivility, but such reaction is why most discussions about civility enforcement go wrong. That...and a good portion of the time the issue is not as much civility but not approving of cuss words on the editor's own talk page.--Mark Miller (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

"...but this isn't one of them". Sorry, but that's either hopeless naiveté or willful avoidance. Tarc (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Over a supposed "unwritten" rule? Well....I'm not just smiling over the above...I'm giggling just a bit.;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 00:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Mark Miller: There is a general rough, consensus that prolific content contributors should not just be automatically blocked unless the offense is quite severe. Discussion, however is generally closed quickly.

Can you please clarify what this means and who you' re speaking for? Lightbreather (talk) 01:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not speaking of or "for" anyone in particular. But the general consensus over a broad range of discussions on AN, ANI, WP:WER and many other locations indicates a general, rough consensus that editors with a high content count should not be blocked automatically in regards to civility complaints without community discussion, unless these are very obvious and egregious violations. The reason is that civility can be ambiguous. Of course...I could be wrong. I am not "Super Wikiman". ;-) However, I have spent a good deal of time reading through a good deal of these discussion from the past two or three years.--Mark Miller (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, this "admission" is not endorsed by me, it's a plain statement of fact, I have observed it many times here. Stating it doesn't mean I agree with it. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nope. It's a plain statement of opinion. If you feel it is fact I would need a demonstration of this. This will most likely be added to the current arb Com case as evidence. Sorry....but you have absolutely no right to claim this as fact without proof. --Mark Miller (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm fully aware that this might be interpreted as circular reasoning, but if HiLo's behavior is not an issue for other editors, why in God's name does he keep popping up on ANI on a monthly basis for incivility issues? Someone file an RFC and get this over with.--WaltCip (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to answer that one. I get in the way of POV pushers, perhaps more than most other editors on Wikipedia. I do it firmly. The POV pushers hate it. They will try anything to get rid of me. This is certainly the case this time. Sometimes my firmness has been more successful than I dreamed, when the event of them bringing me here has led to them being blocked. BTW, these POV pushers have included Admins on more than one occasion. Of course, they never get blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

A plot to discredit me?

Looking to see if an editor had replied to this comment I had added to his talkpage, I just came across this discussion, which appears to me to show User:Archon 2488 and User:Lesser Cartographies conspiring to discredit me. I believe this is Archon 2488's attempt to silence me in response to my challenging him to explain why he is spending most of his time on Wikipedia converting UK-related articles to primarily use metric units of measurement rather than the British units that the original creators of the articles used, and which are in more dominant use in modern Britain and in the contemporary sources. He hasn't had the manners to respond to that message yet. Are there any policies or guidelines that can be invoked to nip this overtly bad-faith behaviour and personal attack in the bud? ProProbly (talk) 19:34, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

WP:HARASS is fairly broad but I would suggest you don't start off with 'attempting to silence' and 'plots to discredit' when it's a dispute over the use of what units to use in articles. I know there's a relevant Manual of style section (and tons of arguments) you can point that editor to and if the revisions are disruptive and against policy, then that conduct is worth mentioning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky81682, however they've now concocted a cynical and misleading "SPI" between them, clearly designed, not as a neutral attempt to present evidence, but with cherry-picked and misrepresented content, to persuade readers to accept their false assertions. And Lesser Cartographies has canvassed likely sympathisers with this inflammatory addition to the discussion on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers talkpage. All clearly desperate attempts to silence my challenges of their joint enterprise to undermine the principles of MOSNUM. ProProbly (talk) 21:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The proper MOS is at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Units_of_measurement which is subject to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Article_titles_and_capitalisation. If there's an issue, AE enforcement can be the proper page in my view. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that the discussion in question took place on a publicly-visible talk page, and followed a similar discussion on my own talk page some months previously (relating to a previous SPI involving this editor, with which Lesser Cartographies was involved), I do not think this is conspiratorial behaviour. Both discussions related to the disruptive tendency of ProProbly to revert edits which were in line with the MOS; these reverts were justified by ProProbly's belief that UK articles should use what he considers "indigenous" units. This concept of "indigenous" is not part of the MOS and has not been seriously entertained by anyone but him; it seems to be just a stick for him to beat the metric system with. It is not relevant which units "the original creators of the articles used" because the appropriate choice of units is detailed at WP:UNITS, as has been explained to ProProbly on several occasions by several editors. His conduct has led to the suspicion that he is yet another sockpuppet of DeFacto, who was banned years ago for such disruptive agitation against the metric system.

It is also incorrect that I have spent "most of [my] time on Wikipedia converting UK-related articles to primarily use metric units". I have edited many articles relating by no means exclusively to the UK to ensure that they complied with the general MOS preference for metric units; in the vast majority of instances this was not controversial. In the case of US-related articles, I ensured that conversions from US customary units to metric units were provided. Where UK articles gave distances in miles, I ensured that appropriate conversions to kilometres were provided. His current dispute with me relates in part to the article on Donald Dewar, because he does not think it appropriate to give the height of the statue primarily in metres. A short discussion on WT:MOSNUM revealed that nobody shared his opinion on this, which he seems unwilling to accept. Archon 2488 (talk) 20:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

DeFacto sock. I'll write up the SPI on Saturday if no one beats me to it. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SPI is here. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 03:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Abuse of Processes and Editors by DocumentError

I am not an expert on complaining - hopefully I have the right board. My experience at Wikipedia and the usefulness of various articles is being harmed by the actions of User:DocumentError In my opinion he continues to use Admin actions processes, personal attacks, false promises, and forum shopping to force his point of view about Iran, Hezbollah, and Syria and ISIL on various pages. Can something be done to stop this behavior? Links to some of his activity:

Simultaneous use of Admin forums and other tools to push an agenda

• Getting the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins for a week [49] for, he tells everyone later, other than the stated reason in the lock request. [[50]]. In other words the lock was initiated to further an editing agenda.
• Merger proposal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:2014_American-led_intervention_in_Iraq#Proposed_Merger
• AfD on American-led intervention in Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq
• [[WP:ANI#Semi-Protection Evasion [Active Community Sanctions measures - Syrian Civil War]] on the same article, at the same time against User:Acetotyce Archived without action https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive856#Semi-Protection_Evasion_.5BActive_Community_Sanctions_measures_-_Syrian_Civil_War.5D
• Attempt to get a merge of the same article plus his new Iranian-led intervention in Iraq at Military History while also trying to delete the American-led article and get sanctions for the creator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#Merge_Iraq_Theater_articles
• Starting an article about Iran and suggesting starting another article about Syria to (it seems) prove the point he is trying to make with the other efforts as suggested here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627755731
• Tagging the same American-led intervention in Iraq article for Systemic Bias before hypocritically starting Iranian-led intervention in Iraq
• Move protection request - after reverting a single move - to stop anyone else from changing his page (OWN): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#2014_Iranian-led_intervention_in_Iraq_.28edit.C2.A0.7C_talk.C2.A0.7C_history.C2.A0.7C_protect.C2.A0.7C_delete.C2.A0.7C_links.C2.A0.7C_watch.C2.A0.7C_logs.C2.A0.7C_views.29
• Creating an inappropriate disambiguation page to further is goals https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2014_Intervention_in_Iraq&action=history

Attacking other editors

• Subtily attacking my username (many times) as pointed out here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627756566
• False accusations against a range of editors of "Canvassing editors, coordinating AfD votes via IRC, etc" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627756145
• calling all the editors who disagree with him "a rapid influx of a tightly coordinated group of editors" https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American-led_intervention_in_Iraq&diff=prev&oldid=627731152
• Hounding editors, including opinionating on stuff seemingly just because I comment on it - one example https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=628005684&oldid=628005076
• Commenting on editor's "colorful block histories" and scouring their pages for any dirt he can dig up. Many examples - see various links to the actions started.
• Starting a sockpuppet investigation after various accusatory comments when a glance at the user's page shows extensive conversations between two users-unlikely someone would talk to their sock puppet. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Acetotyce
• Edit Warring report against User:Kudzu1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Kudzu1_reported_by_User:DocumentError_.28Result:_No_action.29
• Edit Warring report against User:Legacypac https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Legacypac_reported_by_User:DocumentError_.28Result:_No_action.29
• Direct Request to which the Admin User:EdJohnston had some instructive comments and DocumentError continued to make attacks on other editors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:EdJohnston#Systemic_Bias_Tag

Anyway, I've learned that Wiki tools can be abused and that there sure are a lot of them. This took a bit of effort to assemble. I missed some other stuff that is disturbing. Watching this activity go on is too frustrating so going to let people with more power than little me deal with the situation. Legacypac (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Just one comment: Legacypac accuses DocumentError of abusing "admin actions". For the record, DocumentError is not an admin. --MelanieN (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• to clarify - I mean overusing/initiating too many Admin processes. I modified the word at the top to prevent confusion Legacypac (talk) 23:29, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

MelanieN, that is correct. To the absolute best of my knowledge I am not an admin. If I have recently been made an admin, bureaucrat, steward, or been elected to the board of directors, and failed to notice that, I apologize. DocumentError (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, this is really too long for me to address point-by-point. LegacyPAC has spent a lot of energy on this, it appears, and I appreciate his effort; my lack of a point-by-point response is not intended as a slight to the work he's invested here. I'll just tag three items, as that's about the time I have to invest in this right now:

-The first complaint of his is that I got "the 2014 military intervention against ISIS page locked to editing except by Admins." I have no power to lock pages from editing, Kudpung initiated the lock after reviewing the merits of my request. If the assertion is that Kudpung is my sockpuppet or meatpuppet, I suggest that be addressed in SPI and Kudpung be notified of the accusation.

-I am not user:Willy on Wheels, and I believe it's customary to offer diffs of "edits to another wiki where he admitted it" [sic] instead of just shotgunning these accusations out. Here is the editor interaction report of "Willy on Wheels" and myself: [51]. Also, I am more than happy to submit to a checkuser. (Edit - it appears this accusation has now been deleted since I posted this: [52]. Sorry for confusion.)

-The two 1RR edit warring reports that resulted in "no action" - cited as evidence of my ill behavior - both resulted in "no action" by EdJohnston after I had withdrawn the reports with the intent of de-escalating the situation, which I explained in each instance and as the links LegacyPAC has provided indicate. If the complaint is that I should see all 1RR reports through to the absolute bitter end, I'll take that under advisement, though I don't believe that's a very community-building way approach to WP.

If there is something else that someone feels is particularly noteworthy, please let me know and I'll be happy to address it. Ultimately I have a feeling this has something to do with a request for article move protection I recently made, here: [53]. Thanks. DocumentError (talk) 23:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The IRR withdrawals were reinstated, and the withdrawal only occurred after evidence was posted that DocumentError was beyond the 1RR himself, so essentially a skin saving move to "deescalate". In the post above he again misuses my username (which I noted in the first post as inappropriate) implying association with an American organization started long after I started using my username. This is further evidence of misconduct. Legacypac (talk) 23:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

To your first point, no, I don't believe that's quite correct. To your second point, I sincerely apologize I misspelled your username and I ask the community to go lightly on my grammar "misconduct." (?) As you know, a lot of editors have misspelled your username, Beeblebrox has even commented to you on the likelihood of this occurring during your WP career. DocumentError (talk) 23:40, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Precisely they commented on my user page, which is where you got the idea to intentionally and consistently mistype my name as a form of harassment. Legacypac (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, got it! DocumentError (talk) 00:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

DocumentError has been persistent in this behaviour and it must be addressed. He reported multiple editors to the 3RR noticeboard in defence of his position over an article he too Edit Warred on 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq, brought me to ANi earlier for the same dispute, most diffs to support my claims are linked there. Clearly making jokes on my username diff and starting an SPi on me and another new editor. I have stated above, I have had enough with it and I feel like I am not welcome here at all with the way I'm being pulled around here, I create an article, it gets CSD'ed, merge tagged, AF'd and then ANi and an SPi. I came here to work on articles and help wiki expand but it appears that's not the case anymore. On secondhand brining claims of editors block logs and rubbing it in their faces may be viewed as personal attacks. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If by "multiple" you mean "2" - then I am guilty as charged, as per my conversation with LP, above. Also, I think Acetotyce forgot to link to the diffs on the SPI I initiated regarding him and "another new editor" (the "another new editor" is using an alt account formerly registered to Acetotyce). I'm certain this was an inadvertent oversight by Acetotyce; the diff is here: [54]. DocumentError (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not an oversight attempt, the template is on my talk page, and your template accusing me of Canvassing when I was notifying involved editors in the ANI request you started earlier. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And the SPi is linked in the opening list already. I read somewhere editors are not supposed to dig up old blocks and sanctions on other editors, not sure what that is called, but that is another big behavior problem here. User:RGloucester also suggested sanctions in one of the forums, maybe they will comment here. Legacypac (talk) 00:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Unless something has changed, it's called "an editor's block log is public information." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If I should not have mentioned the block histories of you, or Acetotyce, or whomever it was I erred by mentioning (sorry, I'm kind-of losing track here), then I, of course, apologize. DocumentError (talk) 00:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't have much to add to this other than that I hope DocumentError's behavior changes. I'm glad the dispute has died down now, but it was deeply unpleasant for a couple of days earlier this week. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. It was, indeed, for all parties. As per my note above to Acetotyce, I apologize if I inadvertently mentioned your block history in public. I'm glad we're able to focus on content creation again. Thanks, Kudzu1! 03:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't "inadvertent" at all. I find it difficult to accept your apology when you decline to accept responsibility. You made a number of personal attacks on me, including but not limited to suggesting that I have some sort of a checkered past on Wikipedia by bringing up a block that was in effect for less than one hour more than three years ago multiple times. I think you're smart enough not to repeatedly insult and defame fellow editors "inadvertently". -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry you don't feel you can accept my apology. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 03:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

And I'm sorry you didn't make an acceptable apology. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, got it! DocumentError (talk) 03:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Continued W:GAMING including these actions "'Walking back' a personal attack to make it seem less hostile than it was, rather than apologizing." and "Mischaracterizing other editors' actions in order to make them seem unreasonable, improper, or deserving of sanction." and "Stonewalling or filibustering – repeatedly pushing a viewpoint that the consensus of the community has clearly rejected, effectively preventing a policy-based resolution." This is evident in the multiple processes started to push until he gets his way by trying getting an article locked from editing or moving while trying to both delete and merge and sanction editors over the same article) Legacypac (talk) 04:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh my, that's a lot! Would you mind adding this to your main list above? I think it would be easier to keep track of all these if they were in one place. Thanks so much, Legacypac (feel free to delete this comment after you've moved it) - DocumentError (talk) 04:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: Regarding the "unlikely someone would talk to their sock puppet" commentary by Legacypac above, I point out that it is not unlikely. It has been done often enough that a person talks to their WP:Sockpuppet to avoid or decrease suspicion that they are a WP:Sockpuppet. And speaking of WP:Sockpuppets, after DocumentError commented in this WP:ANI thread about me listing highly disruptive WP:Sockpuppets on my user page, I looked into his edit history and found it very likely that he has edited Wikipedia before editing as DocumentError; this is the first edit he made to Wikipedia as DocumentError, and the vast majority of truly new Wikipedia editors do not make an edit like that (I mean, correct citation formatting in addition to using a WP:Reliable source), unless that editor is a well-instructed WP:Student editor. His other early edits show the same type of inside knowledge of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. So take from that what you will. Flyer22 (talk) 06:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind comments about my correct use of proper citation, Flyer22. I have taken special effort to correctly format my references. While it's a little extra work, I think it's worthwhile, especially to help recover references that expire from link rot. And I'd already forgot about that thread regarding the list you were keeping on your userpage; while I'm sorry you didn't agree with my opinion regarding it, it was definitely an invigorating discussion we had with Elaqueate, Caden, Davey2010, Rutebega, John, Carrite. et. al.! How have you been doing? DocumentError (talk) 06:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Topic ban

Given how this has gone, can I respectfully request that DocumentError be sanctioned with a 1 year topic ban under the Syrian Civil War Active Community Sanctions. (I think this covers the conflict in Syria and Iraq, including ISIL.) Much of his behavior is essentially edit warring using processes instead of just reverts. If this is not the place to request that, please advise where that is. Thank-you for your kind attention to the matter. Legacypac (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, you got it - this is one of two correct places to request other editors be banned / blocked. (You can also make such a request to ArbCom, IIRC. Details for contacting them are available at WP:ARB.) DocumentError (talk) 00:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Per my statements above, that includes hounding me and doing every little attempt to remove the article I started. --Acetotyce (talk) 00:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I think your word choice in the first iteration of your comment better reflected the crux of the situation - [55] :) DocumentError (talk) 01:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support - Due to persistent use of processes to try and stop other editors who disagree with them from constructively editing along with portraying the others who disagree with them as members of a conspiracy. SantiLak (talk) 01:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose - While I don't believe "using processes" is sanctionable, and I'm not sure use of 4 "processes" in the last 6 months meets the general definition of "persistent," (particularly considering that StanTheMan87 was unable to recently find relief at ANI after 14 "processes" were used against him in 30 days), who can argue with 3 "Support" votes hitting this discussion in less than 20 minutes? Did someone flash the bat signal, or what? (joking reference to off-wiki comms that was the topic of one of the "processes" - [56]) Nonetheless, I'm going with Oppose for now.DocumentError (talk) 01:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Typically one does not get to !vote on their own topic ban. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing, It would have been really interesting if he had said support here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I did originally !vote "Abstain" out of a preponderance of caution ([57]), but then changed it to "Oppose" after reading Gaijin42's !vote. :) DocumentError (talk) 03:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry - my first time at this dance! Corrected. DocumentError (talk) 03:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

One most certainly MAY !vote in their topic ban. Heck, we've had editors !vote "Support" in their own the panda ₯’ 10:07, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well in that case, I'm un-striking my strikethrough! :) Either way, if anyone feels it would help de-escalate the situation or assuage LP if I didn't !vote, LMK and I'll be happy to re-strike my strikethrough. DocumentError (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support – DocumentError has done nothing in this dispute but edit both disruptively and tendentiously. He has shown an inability to work together with editors in a controversial topic area. Given this inability, I believe there is nothing that can be done but topic ban him from that subject area until how he learns to edit cooperatively in other areas. The evidence has been provided, both in this AN/I and in the previous one. His behaviour has not alleviated in the time that's passed. RGloucester — ☎ 01:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yikes! Looks like I may be joining you in topic ban land! [58] Save me a spot by the window! :) DocumentError (talk) 01:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've never been "topic banned" from anything. I was blocked once for 24 hours in my nearly three years of being here (and if one looks into it, it was actually a very silly incident. I'm a silly person, though). That's a fairly decent record. Regardless, I don't think you're in a position to be evaluating the merits of other editors. Instead of that, why don't you respond to the concerns other editors have about your actions? RGloucester — ☎ 02:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

My mistake, you were blocked by Callanecc in June, not topic banned. Sorry for the error - it was just a little levity, not an accusation! DocumentError (talk) 02:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose While there may be some behavior that could use some correction, I do not see any activity in these proposals that cannot be handled by normal process. I see no problem in many of those diffs, in particular the "attacks" are not. to the point where I would almost consider WP:BOOMERANG especially since the post is characterized as an admin WP:INVOLVED issue which is completely not true. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment: While I support the idea of some disciplinary action against DocumentError, I'm not sure a topic ban is the best way to address the issue. I agree he has edited tendentiously, but I've dealt with much worse in that area. The main issue I have had with him is his inability to play nice with other editors (the faux-cheerful, passive-aggressive tack he's been taking lately notwithstanding), up to the point of making false suggestions of sockpuppetry (I'm not referring to the spurious SPI, but rather these outbursts) and conspiracies against him (I refer to this particular unpleasantness, among other wild accusations of being attacked by a "tightly coordinated group of editors" and similar claims). I think this behavior is not really topic-specific; his battling has seemed less ideologically driven than motivated by anger over not getting his way. And instead of reacting by trying to work toward consensus, despite multiple good-faith entreaties, his reaction was to act like all of the editors who disagreed with him were conspiring against him. That battleground attitude led to what I would regard as the abuse of a number of administrative processes, a great number of personal attacks that mostly stemmed from a failure to assume good faith, and a lot of wasted time and heartburn on everyone's part. It could be the best way to resolve this is simply to let sleeping dogs lie, but I don't feel like DocumentError's battleground attitude has subsided -- hence the cloying, obsequious tone he has adopted here and elsewhere, while still taking potshots like falsely suggesting RGloucester above was topic-banned. I don't really have a recommendation other than that this antagonistic behavior should not simply be ignored. -Kudzu1 (talk) 03:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kudzu1. For the record, I have the same "faux-cheerful, cloying, obsequious" tone in all ANI threads in which I participate (this is the first in which I've been a party, but I frequent those of others), as I find a cheerful tact is best to de-escalate often heated engagements: see here, here, here, and basically everywhere else. I can try to be more of an ogre in the future. RAWR! :) DocumentError (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose The behavior in question looks like it can be handled via a dispute resolution. This should be a wake up call though to change how you interact with other editors or you might end up here again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. The fundamental problem is DocumentError's battleground behaviour and tendentious editing. RGloucester — ☎ 03:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

What would a topic ban be useful for then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As I noted, I only responded to the first 3 of LP's 19 complaints, so I can't address all of them, but his first complaint was that I nominated a page for protection against IP editors and an admin subsequently protected that page. While I understand your side in the Iraq War content dispute did not want the page protected, I have to, again, strenuously object to the the idea that an admin protecting a page constitutes "tendentious editing" by me, unless the contention is that I secretly control the admins here. DocumentError (talk) 03:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, the particular issue there was that you misrepresented the reason you stated for requesting that protection to advance an argument in the AfD on 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq. An honest mistake, I assume? -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Maybe that was it - I guess? The protection was applied by an admin two days before the unrelated AfD was started. Out of a preponderance of caution, I have pinged Kudpung (locking admin) no less than 4 times to let him know of Legacypac's concerns (each time he raises them, in fact); I suspect if he felt I had bamboozled him he might have chimed in at some point to the various denouncements LP has made against me across the Wikisphere in ref to the page protection. But, so far the only editors expressing issue are the "side" opposite "my side" (hate those terms but a horse is a horse) in this content dispute. I certainly invite others to contact Kudpung, however. He's surely the only one who can let us know if I manipulated him to put page protection on. What are your thoughts, Kudzu? DocumentError (talk) 04:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not what I said. You asked for page protection for one reason, and said on the AfD you requested it for another reason. I have no way of knowing your intentions when you originally asked for protection and am not inclined to accuse you of manipulating Kudpung, but you did note that you were the one who requested and obtained protection on the AfD and state that it was because of pro-U.S. POV-pushing, rather than the reason you stated, because of disruptive IP editors. -Kudzu1 (talk) 04:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Correct. It was because of disruptive IP editors. The nature of the disruption was pro-U.S. POV-pushing. I'm not trying to be combative but saying I was being tendentious and need a 1-year ban for requesting page protection, when an admin decided that said protection was actually warranted and applied it, seems a tad spurious. You guys have made 17 (at my last count) separate complaints about my application for page protection on the article over the last 3 days, and yet 0 applications at RUP to have the protection removed. With all due respect, I think that kind-of speaks for itself ... DocumentError (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how unregistered editors repeatedly trying to add the United Kingdom to the article is "pro-U.S. POV-pushing". It seems like a stretch to me. I'm not saying you were wrong to RPP, but your stated reason to request doesn't square with your later characterization. That's all I'm saying. -Kudzu1 (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The UK and USA are part of the historic bloc, so that's perfectly consistent. But now this is kind-of getting a tad bit silly; the request for protection was ruled as having merit by an uninvolved admin, and that should really be the end of the discussion. If you feel the admin ruled unfairly, the least disruptive thing to do is to file a RUP. The most disruptive thing you can possibly do is complain 17 times across 4 different Talk pages, nominate the editor for a 1-year ban, but never file any RUP. We're going to leave it there, Kudzu. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 05:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose - Use second opinions, RFCs and all other tools for WP:DR. We all find editors that are difficult to deal with (and I may be difficult to others as well), but that does not mean that we need to ban people because they don't get along. Grow up, make your skins thicker, and remember that Wikipedia does not need you. Stop editing for a week and come back refreshed and you'll be surprised when you get back on how well Wikipedia improved without your unique skills and contributions. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose. Nothing actionable or deserving of a topic ban. If anyone wants to point me to the most "damning diff", I'll consider changing my mind. But from what I've seen so far, I can't agree to a topic ban. Viriditas (talk) 04:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Counter-proposal

In the spirit of WP:BOOMERANG observed by Gaijin42 above, I would like to make a counter-proposal to the topic ban. My counter-proposal is that Legacypac be given a 1-year topic ban from Syria-related articles under Active Community Sanctions for disruptive editing. To make this concise, I will just cite 4 examples, but can provide additional ones, on request:

- On 4OCT2014 he unilaterally and without discussion blanked the page Siege of Kobane, Syria with the note "kill messed-up page." Kkj11210 had to revert his unilateral decision to remove all sourced content. [59]

- On 2OCT2014 he unilaterally moved the page Iranian-led intervention in Iraq (see: [60]) even though a discussion about that move (that, in fact, he initiated) was ongoing and no one had registered a !vote in support of such a move. (see: [[61]]). He left the parting shot "Iran leads no one." before taking this action (which was promptly undone). DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

- Legacypac is already has previously been under a 1-year WP:BLPBAN by Salvio "for repeatedly violating WP:BLP despite being warned" (imposed just last week). [62] and his edit pattern has not improved.

- He has engaged in a pattern of extremely combative interaction with other editors, typically peppering his comments with things like "Perhaps Drmies should not be an Admin anymore. How do we arrange that? I'm disgusted" [63] or frequently lobbying other editors in content disputes with him be banned/blocked (his nom of me is just the latest), for which he's previously been advised, without effect, by Dennis Brown not to get his "panties in a bunch." [64]

All the best - DocumentError (talk) 18:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

All false statements - please see full response a litte lower. Legacypac (talk) 19:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe that the first two actions are disputable and raise a concern but the latter is just throwing more oxygen to the fire from past lessons. We can get along better and I believe WP:DR is the place to go for this issue rather than Ani. There are currently WP:1RR sanctions placed on Syrian Civil War articles which you have violated as well. I also raise that your behavior on Talk:2014 American-led intervention in Iraq and 2014 American-led intervention in Iraq is unacceptable. Then again we don't have to take it as far as a topic ban. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As a very general rule, one provides diffs when throwing around those kind-of accusations, Acetotyce. Also, you've already registered your opinion about me in the above titled "Topic Ban." Can I ask you to please keep comments about me there for efficient accounting? Feel free to go ahead and delete this comment once you've moved it. Thanks! DocumentError (talk) 18:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have struck down my comments regarding you. Apologies for that. --Acetotyce (talk) 18:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Support I think this a good counter-proposal to a topic ban for either user. SantiLak (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Let me add that DocumentError reverted my response to his false accusations against me. Unbelievable. Legacypac (talk) 18:54, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct. You edited my comments to break them and insert your own commentary above my sig. Please see WP:TPNO if you need information as to why we don't generally do that. DocumentError (talk) 19:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

In response to the false accusations against me made above:

• 1. the page blanking was to deal with a duplicate page. the editor who reverted was not aware of the problem and is now working cooperatively with me to fix the problem. Nothing :to complain about.
  
• . Moving the page to a better title is not actionable. DocumentError reversed my move and immediately sought move protection to preserve his preferred title. Point againt :DocumentError's own behavior.
  
• . Pure false statement (since amended after I objected) about me being topic banned. I am not under any topic ban.
  
• . How many hours of searching through diffs did it take him to dig up a completely unrelated statement from 18 months ago? Careful what broad assertions you make about other :people without evidence. This kind of Unbelievable behavior and false accusations against anyone that does not like his behavior demands action.
  Legacypac :(talk) 19:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmmm. Not that many hours, this is kinda your M.O. for how you treat other editors when it comes to this topic. Here are more recent examples, since you asked: accusing other editors of "bias toward Syria and Hezbollah" [[65]], saying "someone might sue you" [66], saying "What a pain in my ass. Gotta love Wikipedia. aybe I should just quit and leave the nastiness to others." [67], saying "I think I'll go something more productive with my time than watch this BS" [68], etc. Here's another example of your unilateral actions against consensus, apparently to shut-down discussion on topics you find objectionable: improper WP:SNOW close that had to be reverted - [[69]] You also have a tendency to phrase things in terms of "winners and losers." Most recently, among a host of examples, above you exclaim "Point Against DocumentError" and declaring "this demands action!" (an unusual phrase you've used 7 different times against different editors, when you've found yourself in content disputes). Ultimately, this comes down to the fact you've been a bit like a Whirling Dervish. I don't think this is a sanction as much as a short break to allow you an opportunity to just deflate a bit; you can pursue other subject interests in the interim. DocumentError (talk) 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is getting more than a little tiresome. The above is more examples of off topic, old (year+), and mischaracterized statements. Bringing up a failed SPI against me? The original Whirling Dervish comment had nothing to do with me, but was made about DocumentError by an Admin concerning some of his actions that resulted in this ANi. I'd appreciate being able to get back to editing Wikipedia and not have to deal with this BATTLEGROUND activity. Cheers, Legacypac (talk) 19:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Not sure 3 days ago is "old," [[70]] but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. Kind regards - DocumentError (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Brooklyn Eagle

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

---

Brooklyn Eagle (talk · contribs · count) started a discussion at Talk:Thomas More a year ago after a series of reverts. I told them "It is not the job of editors to philosophize about St. Thomas More" in December. They took offense to that comment.

Since then, Brooklyn Eagle made several exceptionally long-winded arguments on Talk:Thomas More about some perceived bias in the article with a few other editors including Johnbod and Tlhslobus, to no effect. Since it was apparent to me Brooklyn Eagle was not here to build an encyclopedia I chose to ignore the situation. Brooklyn Eagle went to my talk page to incite my response. I made a good-faith effort to bury the hatchet saying "In conclusion, if you felt I claimed you were writing original research, consider that rescinded." I replied on Talk: Thomas More and explained I didn't want to be part of the discussion anymore. The issue more or less dropped in January 2014.

Last month, Brooklyn Eagle showed up at my talk page again raving about my issue with their original research efforts in the previous year. I made it abundantly clear I wanted them off my talk page as I'm not arguing it any longer. They persisted. At this point, I can only assume I'm being trolled. I had intended to take this issue to WP:RFCC but the process seems to require the other editors to get re-involved when this process works just as well. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of anything else, posting "you make people's blood boil" and "grow a pair" to Chris Troutman's Talk page can in no way be viewed as acceptable behavior. Still, considering BrooklynEagle only averages 2 edits per month, I don't really see how the maximum sanction realistically possible for a first transgression of this type (what, maybe a 24 or 48 hour block?), would accomplish much. I have posted a message to the user's Talk page asking he better police his behavior in the hope that voluntary intervention might yield positive results and alleviate the issues with which CT has to deal. DocumentError (talk) 01:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As DocumentError has suggested, their infrequency of editing makes sanctions difficult to apply. I suggest just taking the high ground and reverting and ignoring them unless something more serious appears. At this point, it's just venting. Blackmane (talk) 05:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

But it seems, at least to my admittedly biased self, that the symbolic and possible educative value of officially telling him he has been wrong is potentially immensely important and useful for both him and the rest of us. The point is that quite likely he doesn't even realize that his behavior has been inappropriate (as I assume it has, and in more ways than just those explicitly mentioned here, though that could of course be unfair bias on my part). Tlhslobus (talk) 06:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think you bring up a valid and reasonable point that merits further discussion, Tlhslobus! DocumentError (talk) 06:28, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DocumentError. There's also the point that if he persists in offending after that, it becomes a second offense (presumably making him eligible for heavier penalties), instead of remaining forever a first offense that is only punishable by first offense penalties. Tlhslobus (talk) 06:51, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Excellent point, Tlhslobus. On second consideration and based on the reasons you've outlined, I think I agree with your approach. DocumentError (talk) 06:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, DocumentError.Tlhslobus (talk) 07:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind validation of my suggestion, Blackmane! DocumentError (talk) 06:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's simple pragmatism, one can't do anything about someone who only stops off every now and then. However, a sufficient history of it and even a sporadic editor like Brooklyn Eagle can be dealt with through longer than normal blocks. Blackmane (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• A block right now would be the least useful solution for an infrequent editor, a long block needs justification on its own merits--saying "we'll block six months since they rarely show up" is not yet valid, in my opinion. If the problem is personal attacks on Chris Troutman's talk page, that's fixable: I just left them a note telling them to stay away and a future offense can be met with a block--this thread should be warrant enough for a long block. In fact, an indefinite (not infinite!) block is a possible option since, in that case, they refuse to abide by clearly established behavioral guidelines, and we can easily say "you don't come back until you address this behavior".

  Problems on the article talk page can be handled with some diplomacy as well. Off-topic content can be hatted or removed, personal attacks can be deleted: we don't need ANI to enforce that since it's covered under the regular talk page guidelines, though if such action is necessary one can always link back to this discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Fetx2002

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oh_Se-keun https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Sun-hyung https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-kyu https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Min-goo_(basketball)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Floquenbeam

I'd like to ask you to interrupt access of the user Fetx2002 who continues to change the official profile to a bit different one to wiki. U-tima (talk) 08:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

From previous experience with these two, U-tima is abusing multiple accounts and I've blocked the account (and all the socks, I think) from editing. Fetx2002 is edit warring too (and, IMHO, is wrong about the underlying formatting issue), but I don't have the heart to block someone for edit warring when they're reverting someone freely edit warring with socks. Instead, I've protected the 2 pages for a week, in the (vain?) hope they start using the talk page. If the person behind U-tima shows up at the talk page and discusses this, I'd be inclined to not block the new account. Also, I'll let Fetc2002 know this thread is even here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong

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

---

This user has been harassing me in and off site over the Gamergate controversy article.
After discussion with users Masem, The Devil's Advocate, Diego and others, we were agreeing Intel pulling off ads of Gamasutra had to be mentioned [71]

For some reason only half of it was in the article at the time. That there was a thing called Operation Disrespectful Nod, a boycott of sorts to advertisers

I decided to include a phrasing by Masem with proper sourcing of the Intel matter, only to get reverted in no less than 10 seconds by Ryuolong [72] He stated "check the talk page to see why it isn't included", I did, there was nothing, I asked him on his talk page. He reverted my comments. [73]

To top it off, he HIMSELF decided to add the Intel mention some minutes later, this he disagreed with no less than 5 minutes before [74] He kept including a quote by a The Verge author when no agreement nor even a MENTION of it was discussed on the talk page, so I deleted this, only to be reverted seconds later [75] At this point I realized I was being part of an edit war so I quit. But this is the least of it

User Ryuolong has been constanly uncivil to new editors and people he calls "Gaters", he told me on social media to "learn to fucking read" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516651395512950785
Since then I've seen his twitter account (since he mentioned me, I had no interest in looking up his name as he did with me), where he has called GamerGate supporters

"gamergate douche" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/515077120431628288
"gamergate fags" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/515077648251224066,
"toxic people" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516529858176761856
"shitnuggets" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/517046919063814144
"priviliged white guys" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516814925444825088
"fucking middle class straight white men" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516811560560234496
He calls the Vivian James (the GamerGate "mascot" of sorts) drawing "nice shit avatar" https://twitter.com/Ryulong/status/516528138159792128
And countless other examples

On wikipedia he called me "wannabe Upton Sinclairs" [76]

He says "And your mouth is still writing a check your ass can't cash when it comes to the stuff you're spewing" here [77] to another user

In a quasi doxxing remark to user Torga, he says "when the shit hit the fan and there was a thread on reddit calling out for people with existing accounts on Wikipedia to get the GamerGate page skewed in their favor, you answered the clarion call". This user never linked to his reddit account After discussing with Torga over if it was doxxing or not, Ryulong tells him to "put up or shut up" in yet another example of his uncivil and rude behaviour [78]

When he's not insulting people he finds ways to swear for no reason, like here he tells me "don't pull this shit" [79] Or here [80] "Would you gaters stop kvetching about Leigh Alexander and how you think she's biased? Jesus fucking Christ" in an unproductive form of arguing

Also, as you can see above after I posted a screencap criticizing Wikipedia as a site, he looked up my twitter and reddit. He posted on ANI for this in an attempt to get me topic banned, yet knowing this was ONLY offsite behaviour, he tried to state I'm a SPA He then posted on the GamerGate talk page "so basically it's time we showed LoganMac the door" [81]

It's worth noting, this is a person who already got desysopped for "inappropriate off-wiki behavior" [82] and whose uncivil behaviour has been remarked by several other users

And as I've come to find out this user has a long history of abusive behaviour which begs the question how is he even allowed to keep his account [83]

He's been warned by several other users like Titanium Dragon [84] on his uncivil remarks, just one example user PseudoSomethinghere [85] states his rudeness.

"Should Ryulong be found to be seeking any user's real life identity, he may be banned from Wikipedia." [86] Loganmac (talk) 08:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac is one of several dormant accounts who have come to Wikipedia for the express purpose of pushing a point of view on Gamergate controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), an article that is an area of contention in the video game playing community. I have been terse with him and other editors of this type due to the constant disruption that the article has come under. In addition, my behavior on a completely separate website that has nothing to do with Wikipedia (rather than several IRC channels that are loosely affiliated with Wikipedia) has no bearing on what is happening here, because I was being harassed for several days by the pro-Gamergate crowd because of what I was doing here, and I unfortunately decided to respond to them. Also, I do not see how that "real life identity" thing is of any relevance here. And I did not look up your Twitter and reddit accounts. Someone on the talk page posted links to them after he found out you were purposefully misconstruing what he said him offsite, which is the whole subject of the thread higher up on the notice board. And I did not "dox" anyone. I used the global contributions tool built into the Mediawiki software to see what other accounts Torga possessed on other projects. I have no idea if he possesses an account on Reddit. I was making a blanket statement concerning the several disruptive single purpose accounts that sprang up. This is a frivolous request and a blatant attempt to have me silenced on a topic that Loganmac wants me eliminated from and it should be shut down.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 08:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, you need to be careful here; this thread is about you, not Loganmac. Casting aspersions on other editors will look bad on you rather than help you. You need to answer for your actions here, and you've been less than distant and calm. Please read again WP:COOL and start following it to the letter for a while, it will help everybody involved. Diego (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Are you new here? The behavior of editors who file complaints at ANI can and will be scrutinized just as much as the person they're complaining about. Maybe a boomerang has come back and hit the person with unclean hands. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

What I meant is that there's an open thread above for Loganmac above, and there's where Ryulong should place his comments on the other editor's behavior. At ANI, attacks are not a good defense, and neither is "...but, but, I've been provoked" a reason for misbehaving. Diego (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. And it certainly doesn't help that Ryulong is the one who filed the thread against Loganmac to begin with. If there are merits for a boomerang, it should be other editors who push for it, not the one being subject to the ANI. This goes for Loganmac too, of course. Diego (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Coping with the WP:SPA activists at the Gamergate articles is beyond human endurance—Ryulong and a handful of others are trying to maintain WP:BLP and WP:DUE and WP:RS but they have to repeat every argument ten times, and then repeat them another ten times when a new enthusiast arrives. Breaches of WP:CIVIL are regrettable, but they would not occur if the community were to topic ban several of the SPAs. Johnuniq (talk) 10:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong is one of several users who has come to the Gamergate controversy article for the express purpose of pushing a point of view on an article that is an area of contention in the video game playing community. He has referred to users who has disagreed with him as /v/irgins on more than one occaision, and has shown some major issues with ownership of the article. Even while the article is undergoing dispute resolution, Ryulong has steadfastly refused to allow any implication that the article might have neutrality problems, reverting attempts to tag the article despite ongoing dispute resolution over this issue - dispute resolution he has characterized as a farce and refused to participate in, claiming, despite my and others repeatedly pointing out that sites including Forbes, The Telegraph, Tech Crunch, and even Taiwanese paper Digitimes noting that the point of view he advocates for is not the only one on the issue. Given that there have been issues with harassment of people reporting on this, frequently by people using similarly derogatory language, up to and including harassment of Wikipedia editors on this issue (the Wikipediocracy doxxing incident), it is a bit of an issue. He claims that it is a "minority viewpoint", despite the fact that an enormous number of editors have come by noting the issues with WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. He has some ownership issues over the article, and reacts aggressively and derisively to people who question the neutrality of the article.

He needs to participate in the DRN, which is the appropriate avenue for this discussion. Titanium Dragon (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon was previously banned from the article due to the fact he could not keep within the bounds of WP:BLP. This is just him piling on due to a current content dispute with him on the page because of his insistence that the article lacks a neutral point of view or that it is giving undue weight to one side of the debate and not the other when this is not something that Wikipedia can correct due to our own policies and guidelines. I am not participating in the WP:DRN thread because it is simply an attempt at forum shopping by editors who are attempting to POV push. I am not exhibiting WP:OWN on the article. And this is just Titanium Dragon extending the content dispute into another venue. The fact that he rewrote what I initially wrote concerning Loganmac is really childish. His claim of me using "/v/irgin" is ridiculous; it's what the users of 4chan's /v/ board call themselves on their own, just like you have "/b/tards" or "/pol/acks" or "/fit/izens" for other boards. And for fucks sake, you are just repeating the same shit that was said to me constantly over the past week on Twitter when I was harassed time and time again by new gamergaters on this issue: I am not advocating any fucking point of view. Simply because I have noticed that the misogynist harassment is an aspect, as is described by multiple god damn sources on the article itself, means I am an SJW or whiteknight and do not think that the ethics concerns have any merit. That is what you are insinuating and that is a fucking bold faced lie. That is what everyone who went out of their way to find my god damn barely used Twitter account said to me. I should not have to deal with this garbage anywhere. Not on Twitter. Not on Wikipedia. If anything comes out of this discussion, it better be topic bans or site bans for the bulk of the single purpose accounts (either newly created or dormant accounts who have turned into single purpose accounts) who are insisting that Wikipedia is wrong despite the fact that so many other editors have pointed out that their insistence is incorrect but it has to be said every day because someone else comes along and makes a new thread on a topic which was discussed hours before.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 10:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither me nor Titanium Dragon have ever stated GamerGate has nothing to do with misogynism, my few edits on the article prove that on Wikipedia I'm neutral about it, yet Ryulong has stated several times against the journalism ethics aspect and generally diminishing its nature as just a harassment campaign orchestrated by evil sites like 4chan and reddit. Still what I'm really arguing about here is not his bias, he could be the most fervient anti-GamerGate editor, I don't care, if only he behaved in a civil manner and learned to disagree in a proper way Loganmac (talk) 11:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I most certainly have not done anything of that sort. I acknowledge both sides of the debate, but one side can't be written about as easily as the other due to Wikipedia's policies.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• If, as Loganmac has already said, "It's twitter, he can tell me whatever he wants, I really don't care" and "Remember that we're not accountable to what we do outside Wikipedia", why bring all that up? Woodroar (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

To show that he made the effort to find me on twitter and insult me, and to show his general uncivility to GamerGate supporters, both on and off site Loganmac (talk) 11:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That is a load of shit and you know it. Bosstopher posted your Tweet and your Reddit comment here. I shouldn't have said anything to you on Twitter but I did, and you already dismissed it as Woodroar points out. And I was contacted offsite by multiple Gamergate supporters and harassed for days. You can see I spent hours on Twitter when I rarely ever use it because people kept messaging me about this shit and how I'm the big bad Wikipedia editor. At least the toku fandom on /m/ is more consistent and tolerable for why they hate me.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Don't you see a pattern here man, it's not an organized campaign to harass you, look it up, Twitter has archives, KotakuInAction has archives, IRC has logs, noone decided to "harass you", they're simply looking at your actions and having an opinion. And as you say, this is not the only "fandom" you've struck a nerve of. Also as a rule of thumb, you don't have to reply to anyone on twitter, SJWs insult me there too, I just laugh it off Loganmac (talk) 11:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I shouldn't be fucking contacted on my personal Twitter account for my behavior on Wikipedia. And one group of nerds' opinion on translating Japanese into English is a different situation.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's a lot of off-site chatter about this topic area, do we really care? They talk about me too in a lot of places. Don't sweat the petty things. Tarc (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a force 10 in pottery. When did skins get so thin... Blackmane (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Experience in the past shows me that Ryulong does tend to get worked up on topics they have a strong interest in and become short on words and edging on edit warring - what is a common urge for most when dealing with the incoming SPA/IP accounts due to off-site canvassing to "fix" the apparent bais on the article. But that said, I have cautioned them that they are being perhaps too terse and rude, presuming accounts are SPA or the like without evidence, jumping at reverting edits that other editors have discussed on the talk page, and the like. There's no immediate ANI that I can see, but there definitely needs to be caution given that continuing that type of behavior can become disruptive if not checked. --MASEM (t) 14:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Devil's Advocate took part in canvassing on the Escapist forums here [87], be wary of (other) new editors --5.81.52.21 (talk) 14:43, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Loganmac are you serious ? Wikipedia can't do anything about something that happened off-wiki. We may as well close this up, since anything off-wiki is out of bounds in wiki. KoshVorlon Rassekali ternii i mlechnye puti 16:03, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor says stuff on twitter: film at 11. Protonk (talk) 18:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There is considerable off-site chatter going on about making the Gamergate article more 'neutral,' and a lot of it centers around trash-talking contributors who are trying to keep the article free of outright policy violations and prevent it from being whitewashed by the scores of SPAs and POV pushers who are descending on it in response to that offsite canvasing. Ryulong is getting extra-special attention from the mob on twitter, for some reason, and I can't blame him for losing his patience. -- TaraInDC (talk) 20:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In all fairness, there is an ongoing campaign of harassment against people who report on the subject matter, ranging from DDOSs, doxxing, to syringes being mailed to journalists reporting on GamerGate from the perspective of it being legitimate, so it is hardly surprising that people are concerned when people who come on Wikipedia and start calling users who are editing the article virgins and misogynists - the same sort of abusive language used in an attempt to silence people elsewhere. The fact that Ryulong has had action taken against him in the past as relates to threatening to (and actually) blocking users, back when he was a sysop (before he lost it as a result of his behavior), probably plays a role in the additional scrutiny directed towards him when he advocates for banning users he disagrees with. Titanium Dragon (talk) 21:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For fucks sake, Titanium Dragon. I have not called one person a misogynist or a virgin in regards to anything that's happened. I've used "/v/irgin" (with the forward slashes) as that is what users of 4chan's /v/ call themselves. Anyone who goes to 4chan knows this and a good portion of the Gamergate social movement comes from 4chan. And the events of my arbitration case have no standing on whether or not I can tell if someone is being disruptive on an article. Stop using this against me because you should still be banned from the page and not unbanned on a stupid cop out technicality. The only people who have been accusing me of doing any sort of wrong in this situation and that I should be punished for it are you pro-Gamergate editors because I've been made out to be a scapegoat, as was evidenced from the constant harassment I'm dealing with through my Twitter account (someone messaged me within the past few hours with some garbage pro-GG link). I'm not going to stand for this garbage from you either.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

suspected banned user edits

The user User:Klaus_Barner was banned about a year ago for disruptive editing. This edit (from before the user was banned) shows the IP with prefix 84.157 making edits in close proximity to an earlier and a later edit by User:Klaus_Barner, indicating that the IP starting with 84.157 is in fact User:Klaus_Barner himself. In the past few days there have been several attempts by IP's starting with 84.157 to delete sourced material. This material is very similar to the material that User:Klaus_Barner tried to delete himself in this edit, before being banned. What would be the appropriate course of action to deal with the edit-warring by the IP? Tkuvho (talk) 08:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Based on your description, the user deleting sourced material cannot be positively identified by a IP, but only the IP prefix. So, the 3RR noticeboard is out. Your best bet is to file a SPI inquiry here, listing all the IP addresses making suspect edits, and User:Klaus_Barner as the sock-master. In this SPI you should ask a range block be applied. If you need help doing this, or want me to do it for you, ping me with the article in question, Tkuvho. DocumentError (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Tkuvho, there's not much point in doing an SPI for such dynamic IPs, since the banned user isn't using each one more than once or at most twice. It looks obvious that it's him using these IPs, and jumping to new ones all the time. I've blocked the 84.157.64.0/18 range for a week. I'm having trouble checking out possible collateral damage (tool not working right now), so you're welcome to contact me if you have further trouble. Bishonen | talk 14:18, 3 October 2014 (UTC).

@Bishonen:, the collateral on this anon-only block is minimal. There shouldn't be an issue with extending the block if the disruption starts back up after the block expires.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 15:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• Article is semi-protected, but that alone doesn't guarantee article improvement. The experts need to decide (and make clear on the talk page for future reference) whether the edit itself (which I just reverted, for formality's sake) has any merit. If it's a good edit, it needs to be reinstated, on its own merit despite its origin--it's as simple as that. Drmies (talk) 15:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Fake data being added by User:Hamzahk53 (another Jagged85 in the making???)

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

---

Not only this this user consistently violating WP:MOSISLAM by replacing the word "Muhammad" with "Prophet Muhammad" like here: 1 he has also done other serious violations similar to what Jagged85 did

Collapsing very long list of examples

summary First I want to say this mentions only about 5 of the 20-50 articles he edited. From his history page it looks like he has edited 20-50 articles and i dont have the time to fix it all His main violations are as follows: 1. Adding fake references that do not mention what he wrote 2. Adding unreferenced data and in many cases the unreferenced data was added after he deleted referenced data (i.e his replacing referenced data with unreferenced data) 3. Removing references (i counted 2 occasions so far) and replacing with "citation needed" tag This fellow seems to be trying to add a "Defensive flavour" to muhammads military campaigns by adding UNreferenced information about muhammad being persecuted and attacked first. Despite over whelming muslim sources like this clearly mentioning that thise battles/oeprations were offensive, see here for offensive defensive breakdown of muhammads battles from islamic sources. Also for the offensive miltiary campaigns muhammad took part in, he seems to be adding the unreferenced idea that muhammad participated in those offensive military camapigns to force the opponent he attacked into a peace treaty. Even when he adds references they are fake, the references dont say what he claims they say. --Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Adding completely fake data and claiming it is mentioned in reference here he added: This troop was sent 7 to 9 months after the Hijrah (migration to Madīnah). However, there are differences of opinion among the early Islamic scholars on the exact timing of this operation. Some authorities hold that it was the first caravan raid the Prophet ordered being the first military action in the history of Islam. While, the others comment that Sariyyah Baṭn Rābigh was the first operation Muḥammad ordered entrusting ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Ḥārith with its commandership. − According to Ibn Isḥāq, "Some people say that Ḥamzah's banner was the first awarded by the Messenger of Allah to any of the Muslims. This was because he had dispatched Ḥamzah and ‘Ubaydah at the same time; this confused people." − − Ibn Kathīr commented that Mūsā ibn ‘Uqbah quoted Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhri as saying that the Prophet had dispatched Ḥamzah before ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Ḥārith. He maintained that Ḥamzah's mission came before the expedition to al-Abwā'. And that when the Messenger of Allah returned from al-Abwā’, he dispatched ‘Ubaydah b. al-Ḥārith along with 60 Emigrants. − − Al- Wāqidī’s opinion was: "The raid made by Ḥamzah in Ramaḍān took place in 1 AH; ‘Ubaydah's expedition came thereafter, in Shawwāl in the same year." − Ibn Isḥāq quoted from Ḥamzah’s poetry indicating that his banner was the first awarded in Islam. Ibn Isḥāq stated, "If Ḥamzah did speak this, then so it was for he only ever spoke the truth. But Allah knows best what happened. What we have heard from scholars was that ‘Ubaydah was the first. and claimed the source is "Al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Kathīr, volume 2, p237" , but the source doesnt mention this. here he added: The Meccans would not leave Muḥammad at peace even in Madīnah. After their attempt to assassinate Muḥammad became futile, they were infuriated and sought to take vengeance after his successful escape. They were desperate in stopping him with whatever means possible. − − To their utmost concern, they also saw that Muḥammad was gaining control over the principal trade route to Syria & Egypt by signing non-aggression treaties and forming alliances with the neighboring tribes (Banū Ḍamrah, Banū Juhaynah) of Madīnah. In a letter to ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy, the would-be king of Yathrib, Abū Sufyān ibn Ḥarb & Ubayy ibn Khalaf threatened him for giving refuge to the Ṣābi‘ūn (i.e. heretics) and would wage war against Madīnah unless he either killed Muḥammad or surrendered him. He gave the source as "Ibn Sa‘d, aṭ-Ṭabaqāt 2: 9" but the source doesnt even mention this. This source in fact is a source from the dark ages (7th century) so its absolutely ridiculous that he would claim that it mentions everything he says. here he added: Criticism of western view − The state of Madīnah at its incipient stage had insignificant military strength to organize any offensive attack on the Quraysh, much less at the interval of nearly every 2 months. By making the first move, it would have been irrational & unwarranted for Muhammad to deliberately provoke his fierce opponent that was much superior to him in strength and other capabilities. In fact, the vulnerability & helplessness of the Muslims at the early stage of migration was revealed in the following verse of Qur’an: (8:26) − Therefore any claim of the commentators who narrated that the objective of the early invasions was to relieve poverty by raiding the Quraysh caravans is unsupported. It is not plausible to send only 30 riders over a caravan of 300 armored men. this is just his opinion Removal of referenced data and replaced with unreferenced data and opinions here he removed REFERENCED data and replaced it with the following unreferenced data and opinions: With the escalating military threats posed by the Quraysh of Mecca, the Prophet took the initiative of securing the protection of the Muslims by gaining as many allies as possible, especially within the vicinity and the outskirts of Madīnah. Therefore, the purpose of this expedition was solely diplomatic as well as missionary. So any account of raiding Banu Ḍamrah of Waddān is unauthenticated. creating new articles which are POV fork of existing articles and adding unreferenced apologetic information here he added: This operation was organized as a series of expeditions in order to intercept the caravans of the Quraysh, wealthy merchants of Mecca who were involved in the oppression and persecution of the Muslims. This wasnt referenced and is a POV fork of Caravan Raids#first raid here he added: This operation was organized as a series of expeditions in order to intercept the caravans of Quraysh owned by the wealthy merchants of Mecca who were involved in the oppression & persecution of the Muslims. The purpose of the raids was to weaken the economic backbone of Mecca so that the Quraysh would lose their offensive capabilities against the Muslims and eventually be forced to make an agreement of peace. Again no references and is a POV fork creating new articles which are POV fork of existing articles and adding unreferenced apologetic information here he stated: This troop was sent 7 to 9 months after the Hijrah (migration to Madīnah). However, there are differences of opinion among the early Islamic scholars on the exact timing of this operation. Some authorities hold that it was the first caravan raid the Prophet ordered being the first military action in the history of Islam. While, the others comment that Sariyyah Baṭn Rābigh was the first operation Muḥammad ordered entrusting ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Ḥārith with its commandership. − According to Ibn Isḥāq, "Some people say that Ḥamzah's banner was the first awarded by the Messenger of Allah to any of the Muslims. This was because he had dispatched Ḥamzah and ‘Ubaydah at the same time; this confused people." − − Ibn Kathīr commented that Mūsā ibn ‘Uqbah quoted Ibn Shihāb al-Zuhri as saying that the Prophet had dispatched Ḥamzah before ‘Ubaydah ibn al-Ḥārith. He maintained that Ḥamzah's mission came before the expedition to al-Abwā'. And that when the Messenger of Allah returned from al-Abwā’, he dispatched ‘Ubaydah b. al-Ḥārith along with 60 Emigrants. − − Al- Wāqidī’s opinion was: "The raid made by Ḥamzah in Ramaḍān took place in 1 AH; ‘Ubaydah's expedition came thereafter, in Shawwāl in the same year." − Ibn Isḥāq quoted from Ḥamzah’s poetry indicating that his banner was the first awarded in Islam. Ibn Isḥāq stated, "If Ḥamzah did speak this, then so it was for he only ever spoke the truth. But Allah knows best what happened. What we have heard from scholars was that ‘Ubaydah was the first. He claims the source is "Al-Sīrah al-Nabawiyyah, Ibn Kathīr, volume 2, p237" (exactly the same as source he gave for other articles he created), but source doesnt even say this. here he added more fake apologetic information: The Meccans would not leave Muḥammad at peace even in Madīnah. After their attempt to assassinate Muḥammad became futile, they were infuriated and sought to take vengeance after his successful escape. They were desperate in stopping him with whatever means possible. He claims the source is "Ibn Sa‘d, aṭ-Ṭabaqāt 2: 9" but the source doesnt mention this. Of course it doesnt because the source is a primary source from the dark ages. here he stated: After being informed of this imminent attack, the Prophet immediately dispatched a group of 30 Muhajirūn led by Ḥamza ibn ‘Abdu’l-Muṭṭalib to intercept them Again he claims the source is "Ibn Sa‘d, aṭ-Ṭabaqāt 2: 9" Above he mentions an "imminents attack" but the primary sources and reliable soruces in the existing article all mention it was an offensive attack and ambush that muhammad carried out and there was no "imminent attack" He also added his personal opinions here: Criticism of western view − The state of Madīnah at its incipient stage had insignificant military strength to organize any offensive attack on the Quraysh, much less at the interval of nearly every 2 months. Again no reference and he just claims Muhamamd did not carry out "offensive" attacks although the reliable sources say they were. All of this is a POV fork of Caravan Raids#Third raid. He removes references for reference data then adds "citation needed" tag Here he removed the following: The purpose of the raid was to plunder this rich Quraysh caravan. and replaced it with: According to western scholars, the purpose of the raid was to plunder this rich Quraysh caravan He also removed these refs Mubarakpuri, Saifur Rahman Al (2005), The sealed nectar: biography of the Noble Prophet, Darussalam Publications, p. 244, ISBN 978-9960-899-55-8</ref> and List of Battles of Muhammad . Firstly these refs are islamic sources and he claims they are western scholars. He also claims that the purpose was not to punder, even though this islamic source mentions in many occasions throuought its book that muhaammad raided the caravans of his enemies for "booty". This is an instance where he is refusing to "call a spade a spade". more fake data and total exaggerations here he stated: The leaders of Quraysh were agitated by the gradual strengthening of the Muslim alliances. In their series of attempts to wipe out the Muslims, they sent a small raiding party under the leadership of Kurz ibn Jābir al-Fihrī who decided to make a guerrilla attack in the outskirts of Madinah. [Kurz later accepted Islam and became a martyr during the Conquest of Mecca in 8 AH.] He is claiming that a single robber wanted to wipe out the entire muslim population so muhammad ordered this attack. This edit was made on the article Invasion of Dul Ashir, but the incident of the robber named Kurz ibn Jābir al-Fihrī who wanted to rob muhammads camels happened in the Invasion of Safwan, some months after the Invasion of Dul Ashir. So he is claiming that an incident that happened in the future was the justification for the incident that happened in the past. WTF !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! removal of references and replaced with "citation needed" tag here he added a citation needed tag at end: Muḥammad knew when this caravan had departed from Mecca and encamped there for about a month for this caravan to arrive at the ambush point. But the Meccan caravan had already passed some days before when the Muslims arrived. but its was already referenced with " Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum (The Sealed Nectar) p 245" which he removed. more fake references and exaggerations here he stated: The leaders of Quraysh were agitated by the gradual strengthening of the Muslim alliances. In their series of attempts to wipe out the Muslims, they sent a small raiding party under the leadership of Kurz ibn Jābir al-Fihrī who decided to make a guerrilla attack in the outskirts of Madinah. [Kurz later accepted Islam and became a martyr during the Conquest of Mecca in 8 AH.] He uses the reference "Ibn Ḥajar, al-Iṣābah" which is a primary source from the dark ages and for which he gave no page number

Please add comments below

Please add comments here--Misconceptions2 (talk) 16:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

TLDR Amortias (T)(C) 17:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

So you will ignore until a cleanup tag is needed to fix all the mess he created and created in the future like the Jagged 85 cleanup tag ?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 18:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It would help if you removed the text following all the here links. It would make it easier to read and people can follow the links as nessecary. Amortias (T)(C) 18:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I will say that although the OP appears to not have a good handle on how ANI works, and how to best formulate a complaint, it does appear that there may be many problematic edits involved here. I am somewhat surprised there isn't an active arb or DS in this topic area that can be applied (I checked, as far as I can see there isn't). Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is a warning template for "intentionally adding false information", and adding fake data is of course eminently blockable. I'll have a look. Thanks Gaijin. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Well, this is not a clearcut case of "fake data"--at least not to me. I see problems with possible POV or unverified information, and an utter lack of edit summaries and talk page edits, but these are topics I have no experience with. I see that CambridgeBayWeather has "tidied up" some of their edits, and I wonder if they have anything to offer. Drmies (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Not much to add but I would point out that they have only made two edits since 25 February. This in March, which was later removed, and this in June, which still stands. In other words this seems to be fairly stale. Also unlesan edit is really obvious vandalism I wont make administrative edits because I edit a lot in this area. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 20:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The fact that he is being disruptive is clear here . He removed references for data like "Muḥammad knew when this caravan had departed from Mecca and encamped there for about a month for this caravan to arrive at the ambush point. But the Meccan caravan had already passed some days before when the Muslims arrived" and "They expected to ambush that caravan there" and then added a "citation needed tag". Removing references and adding citation needed tag is clear disruptive editing--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Can someone help with disruptive editors at Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson?

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

---

Although there have been several editors who want to use the Talk:Neil deGrasse Tyson page as a soapbox, one in particular Moynihanian has been disruptive and wholly unproductive. See for instance, diff, or diff. Several editors there have tried to collapse his rants, see diff, for instance, or diff, only to be undone, see diff. I warned him on his talk page to stay on topic diff, which he simply deleted diff and add this to the Neil deGrasse Tyson talk page. These arent the only examples. If an uninvolved admin could take a look, that would be appreciated. Please note that the Tyson talk page is listed as being under discretionary sanctions. Thanks in advance. Bonewah (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing anything about this editor. Wikichecker shows exactly 2 of his 191 edits so far have been to article space. WP:NOTHERE comes to mind. Kingsindian ♝♚ 17:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in editing Wikipedia's articles. You run a site that doesn't believe in facts; that is full of propaganda and advertising; that is dominated by roving bands of Wikilawyering, Wikicensoring flashmobs; that is actively hostile to expertise of any kind; and which is banned by academic institutions worldwide for its unreliability, lack of neutrality, inconsistency, and continual bias. I am familiar with plenty of Wikipedia articles with plainly incorrect information, and that violate your own rules, and that have gaping holes. But Wikipedia doesn't want help; it wants to repel help. The ONLY proper way to deal with Wikipedia is to make sure that the "editors" and "administrators" know that, each time they're caught in the act, people are going to notice. But even that would seem to be too much for the lot of you. Moynihanian (talk) 19:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• NOTHERE is correctly invoked by Kingsindian. I read over various talk page discussions in The Human Stain, an article not devoid of wiki controversy, and the same sort of ranting occurs in Talk:The_Human_Stain/Archive_2. I hatted a thread/rant they started on the deGrasse Tyson talk page, and there's more material there that could/should be hatted. Though I note that this editor is not the only one with a soapbox, they're certainly the most...vocal one. Drmies (talk) 17:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The user in this case has harassed me on my Talk page twice, in violation of Wikirules. Of course, because he's part of a Wikiclique, you won't enforce your own rules. It's no wonder that Wikipedia has a terrible reputation, and suffers from drastically declining participation among serious people, all while being flooded with advertising and propaganda. Have it your way, children. You know you will, anyway. Kick me out of your sandbox. Moynihanian (talk) 18:59, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not harassment. No one is oppressing you. You are free to play elsewhere, in another sandbox. Drmies (talk) 19:41, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I think my real sin is not attending Wikihigh's online pep rallies and student council meetings. Dang, no school spirit! In fact, he's even rooting for the other team! Moynihanian (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• In related news, I removed a "remark" by Moynihanian from the deGrasse Tyson talk page, which was reverted by Andvphil, again removed, now by Black Kite, and reinstated again: you guessed it, "censorship". In addition, Black Kite is a vandal, and I am, I think, a "moral moron"--see User_talk:Andyvphil#Overweening_Admins. What is this world coming to? Tsk tsk. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
  • Ha ha! I'd say that when you delete an entire section as "off topic," while making your own comment in the deletion notice, therefore blocking out all comments but your own, that's about as clear as an example of Wikicensorship as it gets. Tell us, what made your comment so vital, while deeming all others "off topic?" I guess when you're part of a Wikiflashmob, you're entitled to inflated self-regard? Moynihanian (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• I've blocked Moynihanian as WP:NOTHERE, Andvphil for 24 hours for disruptive edits/personal attacks that are ongoing, and I've closed TheFederalist.com AfD as keep. Can the drama level please go down now?--v/r - TP 21:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Notice of RfC at WT:BP

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

---

There is a discussion, Should a "High content contributor" subsection be added to "When blocking may not be used", at WT:BP for Wikipedians interested in the WP blocking policy. 18:37, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• For those who like participating in this kind of thing, the thread exists, but note that I've removed the RFC tag. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

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

ANI "fuck" count for today;

Who gives a fuck?
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Apologies to Drmies. I highly doubt that this fucking high visibility page does not need such a fucking pointless thread. Blackmane (talk) 01:01, 4 October 2014 (UTC) The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 41. Sooo civilized. - theWOLFchild 19:11, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Fucking sweet. GiantSnowman 19:13, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 42... I feel like that number has some kind of meaning. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC) 43, you forgot the one in the section heading. Amortias (T)(C) 19:19, 3 October 2014 (UTC) No, only 26 fucks today. 27. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Depends on your reading of the word today, did he mean how many fucks on the page today or how many fucks were added today. Amortias (T)(C) 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Also 46/29 Amortias (T)(C) 19:34, 3 October 2014 (UTC) I think there is a bit too much fucking around here over the word fuck. It's like we have no fucking encyclopedia to build. I mean don't you think...fuck it, whatever. Let's spend our day counting fucks.--v/r - TP 19:44, 3 October 2014 (UTC) I'm tempted to write a Greasemonkey or Javascript plugin for this purpose to put a counter up in the corner. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2014 (UTC) Personally, I don't give a fuck. --John (talk) 19:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC) ... "yawn" ... Martinevans123 (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC) How many fucks could a woodchuck fuck if a woodchuck could fuck wood.... --Mark Miller (talk) 21:55, 3 October 2014‎ (UTC) Someone really fucked up with these 58 fucks. Does anyone else know about the 17 shits I don't give about? – Epicgenius (talk) 00:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Removal of RfC tag from RfC

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

---

I created a serious RfC [88] and the tag was quickly and unilaterally removed.[89] I would like it restored, as well as the notices that I posted to publicize it. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 19:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• According to Floquenbeam, "I don't care if this thread is left here to fester or not, but I've removed this from the list of RFC's. You are not going to hassle people who sign up for the WP:FRS with a pointy bad-faith RFC. Volunteers who are actually willing to help solve actual disagreements deserve better". Seems fair to me. Sorry Lightbreather. Drmies (talk) 19:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It's a dead serious RfC, and there is no rule that says one must respond to every RfC they are notified about, is there? I used the rfc|policy tag - not rfc|bio or rfc|reli or some other, inappropriate rfc tag - for people who are interested in commenting on policy-related requests. I am asking a second time for the tag to be restored, so that we may discuss this policy on the policy talk page... Or would others prefer that it get discussed here at ANI again for the umpteenth time. It is a policy that comes up regularly, and it needs to be discussed. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 20:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Why is this issue constantly swept under the rug? So much drama could be avoided if we simply made a decision on this issue and stuck to it. Chillum 20:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Because the result is what we have no. We evaluate it on a case by case basis. We do not need hard and fast generalized and sweeping rules that lock us into uninformed, unintelligent, and irrational decision making.--v/r - TP 20:15, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Have you looked at the proposal? What is generalized about it? (If the RfC isn't restored there soon, I will copy the proposal here - since it looks like it's going to get discussed here again.) Lightbreather (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The proposal isn't generalized. The rule that you are trying to get written in stone is.--v/r - TP 20:25, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't thought of it this way before, but maybe this is a case where the admins are using undue influence to effect a policy that they like to interpret a certain way. (For whatever reason, which I'd rather not have the discussion devolve into.) The fact remains, the community at large should vote on this. If the community says, "Yes, high-content creators should be blocked by different standards," then put it in writing and quit letting the admins decide (via some unwritten rule) that's the standard for this "special" population of editors. Lightbreather (talk) 20:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

That's a pretty big change. Besides, it's going to amount to some serious opposition, given that there are dozens of high-content contributors who are liable to get blocked a lot. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I surely think discussing it on that page makes more sense. For instance, what do you mean by "That's a pretty big change"? If it's already an unwritten rule, it's no change at all. We only need to put down in writing what is currently unwritten. There are a lot of smart people on Wikipedia, who have handled all kinds of real-life workplace policies. THIS CAN BE DONE. Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the RfC might have been viable with the question: "Should the extent of a user's contributions be a factor in decisions regarding possible blocks of that user?", or something to that effect. Your wording was pointy because it didn't stand a snowball's chance of passing and you knew that. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I am restoring the RfC so that the discussion may continue there, instead of clogging up ANI. Lightbreather (talk) 21:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

• There is no consensus in this thread (which I was not notified of, by the way) for reverting the RFC closure; indeed, while it's probably too early to call it, I'd say the "preliminary" consensus is pretty clearly to leave it as a normal thread, not an RFC. It is unethical to come to ANI to request something, and then when people disagree, you do it yourself anyway. "Clogging up ANI" doesn't matter; nothing productive happens here anyway. But treating WP:FRS volunteers like pawns in your civility war game does matter, and makes your claim to care about how we treat other editors ring pretty hollow. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:30, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
• Right. And Lightbreather, first of all this is not good tactics, and second, you keep saying "discussion", and for a discussion you don't need an RfC tag. Why ANI? Why not the Village Pump or something like that? Copying the proposal here would be seriously disruptive: this board is already dysfuntional enough. And nothing is being swept under the rug here: it's pretty clear that the very terms used in the RfC are arbitrary and undefinable, and it will close as...let me check the winds...there are winds...leaves are rustling...water still flows downward...yes, no consensus it is, at best.

  Besides, I'm about to offer my own RfC: that admins with low content contributions need to hand in their bit. Discuss. Drmies (talk) 21:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

  • Adminz 4 life! ‑Scottywong| chat _ 22:58, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The Rfc-in-question, should be allowed to run its course. Assuming there'll be no consensus for what the Rfc is proposing, what harm could it do? GoodDay (talk) 23:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

It ran for about 3 hours, and got 7 opposes and one support (and the one support was by the same user that started the proposal). Anyone who has been here for a significant period of time can easily predict the result of such a discussion. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 23:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I know. GoodDay (talk) 23:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

YAPECCT

Yet another pointless Eric Corbett Civility Thread

This is convenient. When I saw the pointy Rfc thread -- and the link to the totally improper close of the recent ANI Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_Eric_Corbett, I was tempted comment somewhere, but didn't want to start a thread here, and the blocking policy talk isn't as widely watched as other places, and Eric's been Jimbo banned (last I knew) from the Founder's talk page, so it would be rude to post there.

Eric and I have been onwiki about the same amount of time. We disagree over what proper conduct is. From my perspective, we get along fine -- I mostly ignore him and he mostly ignores me. If Eric were violating the Wikipedia civility policy, I'd be more than willing to rat him out. Unfortunately, we don't have a policy, we have pillar-meme which some of us use to guide our own behavior, many of use to address the obvious trolls and vandals. But a policy? No. A policy is something we mostly agree on and act accordingly. As Arbcom 2012 stated:

Throughout the project, breaches of the expected level of decorum are common. These violations of the community's standards of conduct are unevenly, and often ineffectively, enforced. (1,2)
— English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee

Subsequent to that Beeblebrox attempted the Sisyphian task of actually having a policy Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement, but it ground to a halt... (See also my three year old essay User:NE Ent/Notes on civility).

Anyway, people (e.g. Black Kite in the prior close) keep bringing up arbcom. Arbcom's (at least past editions, not sure about Arbcom 2014, but I suspect they'll have the same opinion) have made it clear they are unlikely to take a case unless dispute resolution procedures have been followed. Specifically Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Eric Corbett remains a redlink. So if you think corrective action is required "screw your courage to the sticking point" and write the RFCU (warning: be prepared for a whole slew of Ad hominem attack, best ignored per Other duck). But please do not file ANIs, RFCs, ACs, LMNOPs .... NE Ent 22:32, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

For the record, I don't have a problem with Black Kite's closing of that thread, and I appreciate him mentioning me as one of the editors in his closing of that thread. I provided the links that I provided to give context to the matter. By that, I mean that I often don't like it when we are speaking of something and yet don't name what we are speaking of, but I also don't think that Lightbreather was focusing on one editor. She has been on a mission to make Wikipedia more civil for some time now, as currently shown at the WP:No personal attacks talk page, where I have consistently disagreed with her on her proposals. Like I've told her, I'm used to incivility on Wikipedia and have developed a thick skin regarding it, though I can fall for the WP:Bait at times. Sometimes, I am less than civil on Wikipedia, but I will be trying harder to make sure that doesn't happen. Though I often disagree with Lightbreather, I admire her attempts to make Wikipedia more friendly. Flyer22 (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I probably wasn't clear -- closing the ANI thread was good, suggesting arbcom as a next step was not. NE Ent 23:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're perfectly OK with invoking ArbCom when it suits your purposes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If not hostile means friendly, then I guess you could say I'm trying to make it friendly. Thanks, Flyer22, for recognizing that it's not about specific people... It's about this project insisting that an aggressive boys-club culture is the norm here, and if you want to stay you'd better grow thick skin and not start "drama." It may have worked in the first few years, but it does not any more. Lightbreather (talk) 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This isn't about Eric Corbett, who is only the poster boy for the larger problem: incivility on Wikipedia and this absurd notion that as much as can be done about it has been done; that if we can't come up with an all-encompassing set of rules all at once that everyone can agree upon then we shouldn't even try a few that are very easy to agree upon. For instance:

Any editor who makes comments like these about another contributor or contributors is blockable. Examples:

1. You, [username], are a cocksucker.
2. You, [username1], [username2], and [username3] are cunts.

This isn't rocket science, people. Workplaces do it all the time. And this (above) ought to be an easy-enough-to-agree-upon first step. Lightbreather (talk) 01:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally, I consider calling anyone names rude, whether the name be "cocksucker" or "poster boy." I have never said any of 1. I consider Eric's behavior is acceptable, 2. nothing can be done about incivility, or 3. Wikipedia doesn't have a civility issue. (What I've actually said is User:NE Ent/Notes on civility), and what I'm saying now is ANI and pointy RFCs about "high content contributor's not being blockable" is not a path to solving anything. Any editor wishing to help form consensus should focus on restarting the technically open but moribund Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Civility enforcement. Any editor /admin concerned about Eric's behavior should be starting the RFCU, not opening ANI threads or attempting drive by blocks, or considering / blaming arbcom. NE Ent 03:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

If if this isn't about me, how do you explain the fact that my name appears nine times in this subsection alone Lightbreather? Eric Corbett 15:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather, if you think rudeness and incivility run off women editors, you must be very young and you probably haven't spent much time in the real world of real employment. In my decades of employment, while men can be rude at times, when it comes to flat-out incivility, my "fellow" women are the ones who can stab you in the back while smiling. I've faced true discrimination and systemic bias in my real world work, some from male bosses, but many of the worst perpetrators were women bosses who resented another queen bee in their hive. So if you think running off older, curmudgeonly people like Corbett will create a more civil environment here, you are sadly mistaken. The most uncivil editor I am dealing with right now has never uttered a "bad word" in gigabytes of bandwidth, but has run off quite a few other editors due to his actions. This is the wrong stick, and I'd advise dripping it. Montanabw^(talk) 19:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

Assistance requested

I made an error and referred to Gandydancer's comment on the Talk page of SW3 5DL as an "email" . I made that error further down on the same Talk page, in this dif

It was a pretty obvious mistake in context, but SW3 5DL actually quoted in further on in the conversation, in this dif stating that Gandy had made the remark in an email.

After Gandy called my attention to my error and SW3's use of it, I went and edited my comment, noting the change with strike outs and underlines, and commenting that I had changed it and why, per WP:TPG.

SW3 reverted my edit with edit note: "You can add a comment but do not change your comment after someone has responded to it."

I added a quote from the TPG to his Talk page explaining that it is OK, the way I did it, in this dif and then restored the edits to my comment in this dif.

SLW removed my explanation in this dif with edit note "rmv disruptive comment; Jytdog, don't post here again, thanks; I'm sure you don't mean to be, but you are being disruptive" and then reverted again in this dif.

Since I would like to honor his request to not come to his Talk page, yet per the TPG, the change I want to make is important since SLW is using my mistake in an argument with Gandy, I would like to be able to edit it and I think (?) I should be allowed to. But I am not sure what rules apply since of course SLW can do as he likes on his Talk page. And I don't want to edit war.

Please advise. thx Jytdog (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I'm both uninvolved, and unlikely to ever become involved, in these topics, so I don't mind attempting to mediate this if no one else wants to do that, but will hold-off in case there is a finer point of Wikilaw that requires an admin's involvement. DocumentError (talk) 01:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you are correct, SL3 5DL can do what he likes on his talk page, and the fact that he removed your comment means that he read it already. Don't mistake emails and talk pages again. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Aye to that. And it's not like I had a choice here. He's been to my bloody talk page 20 times altogether. That's it, done and done. Thanks for the comment. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

of course you had a choice! you always have a choice. i made a mistake. i apologize for it, of course. please allow me to correct it. Jytdog (talk) 10:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No user owns "their" talk page. All pages are to build the encyclopedia. If an error occurred and someone tries to cross out that error and correct it this should be allowed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've been watching this from a distance. What SWS reverted was not Jytdog changing a comment he had made after she had responded to it, but rather Jytdog adding a correction to a mistake in a comment he had made. His addition of the correction seems to me to have satisfied Gandydancer's legitimate request that he make the correction. SWS subsequently reverting Jytdog was not particularly helpful, but does not change the fact that Jytdog acted in good faith to fix his mistake. Gandydancer asked for a correction, Jytdog made the correction, and whatever happened after is no big deal. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

As long as this incident has been brought up here, I'd like to mention that SW3 5DL has accused me of, to quote, "Personal attacks, disparaging an editors contributions, calling an editor a 'mother fucker', encouraging other editors to engage in battle, especially via off-Wiki channels, edit wars, and refusal to engage on the talk page with only a few editors". None of this is true and I most certainly did not call him a "mother fucker" and I had no intention of calling him a "mother fucker". I was using a play on words, but it had nothing to do with English words, as I thought would be obvious since the words that I used were French and not English. I do not mean to defend my inappropriate behavior - I was wrong to discuss SW3 5DL on Jytdog's talk page - but now I am left with a statement that I used foul language and am unable to deny it since he has asked me to stay off his talk page. Gandydancer (talk) 00:29, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Speaking of the F-word

Bender235 appears to be on a mission: since it can be verified precisely what Jameis Winston yelled from on top of a table in the student union, those words must be included in his Wikipedia article. Oh! censorship! The phrase "yelled an obscenity" is apparently an ambiguous statement, according to Bender: we are"specific and neutral", which means, then, that we are not supposed to have editorial discretion and we print everything exactly as we find it. By the way, "obscene remark" etc. is all over the interwebs--it is just as verified and unambiguous as Bender's F-word.

A discussion at WP:BLPN did not deliver a solution, and it is my contention that we should, in the absence of a clear agreement, not print the actual obscenity and err on the side of caution. Also, really, those arguments about "ambiguity" and "value-free" are just a bunch of bullshit. For the life of me, I'll never understand why we need to print everything we can possibly verify. I'm no prude, but holy fucking moly, this is asinine. Also involved in this: in my corner Collect (now blocked for an unrelated matter), possibly Tryptofish, and Otterathome. In the other corner, next to Bender, Nomoskedasticity. Possibly in no corner at all, Calidum, who showed some judgment in this edit. So we have Bender and Nomoskedasticity edit-warring against four other editors, with nonsense arguments. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Drmies, are you sure you can't censor the words, like "f*** her right in the p****"? Non-ambiguous to those who are old enough to swear, and yet kids won't be exposed to words that pertain to sex and sexual organs. Good outcome for everyone. Maybe you should suggest that. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Hmm. I doubt they'd let that stand (bleeping is a lot closer to censoring than paraphrasing, in my opinion), and I don't much care for the signage, though I appreciate the suggestion, Epicgenius. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I would say there is a different problem with the quote. Namely, that it can't be verified that he actually said those exact words. Some students tweeted that is what he said, but second hand quotes being attributed as a direct quote is a BLP no-no. I would also argue that the exact words are not needed has have Collect and Drmies. Arzel (talk) 03:14, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The Guardian gives those exact words. Your argument applies equally well to saying that he "yelled an obscenity" - this is also secondhand, unless any of the reporters were there when he said it. --NE2 08:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fart her right in the pants? Remember that Wikipedia is read by people from all over the world with various levels of English comprehension. There's no excuse for being deliberately unclear. --NE2 06:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, if that's their interpretation, though I doubt that there's a single adult that won't click on the reflink if they wanted to see the uncensored text. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:29, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there are BLP concerns, as the quote is reported in reliable sources, and the "scrubbed" version is even in the NYTimes. But it is well within editorial discretion to summarize things without the direct quote. I suggest an RFC as there does not appear to be an ANI issue that needs immediate attention. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Since Winston got suspended for a game because of it, it would seem appropriate to quote him precisely. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Especially since stating that he was suspended because he simply "yelled an obscenity" makes the school look petty. It's important to give the exact obscenities in the context of the rape allegations. --NE2 08:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I think this is the wrong board for this discussion. It strikes me as a straightforward content dispute. Even if there's a policy basis for including the actual words said, or otherwise precisely matching a particular source, there's nothing about it requiring administrative intervention. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

This is not an isolated case, however, and there appear to be several editors who will insert "fuck" in every article, even though the major news agencies do not use the phrase. [90] "shouting an obscene comment" (New York Times), [91] "yelling sexually explicit language demeaning to women." (Deseret News), [92] (SI), including AP, etc. he "fuck" is found on such great sites as BuzzFeed, and "The Frisky." Where the weight for major sources does not use the explicit obscenity, Wikipedia should not be used to amplify the obscenity. Using the tabloid sites is against common sense here, and, as I noted, this has been a repeated issue on BLPs. Collect (talk) 12:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I get the sense, @Drmies:, that you're the one on a mission. To how many noticeboards and talk pages will you carry this incident? I can only repeat what I already stated numerous times (yet you seem to have not understood): "obscene" is a value-laden label. Different things are obscene to different people. Lawrence Summers' hypothesis, that there may be differences between men and women in the distribution of intelligence, may be a "sexist" statement to some, but not to others. We don't write "Summers was critized for a sexist statement". We write the statement, and let the reader decided. --bender235 (talk) 15:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am neutral in this, I only removed it because it was sourced to an unreliable site. User:Bender235 should be strongly warned for inserting negative content sourced to unreliable wiki type sites[93], and so should User:Nomoskedasticity for restoring those edits. A obvious violation of WP:BLP. I have no comment on whether the quote should be included, as I have not looked at the full picture of the incident.--Otterathome (talk) 18:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

JFYI: Know Your Meme was my source for that phrase being a meme. When you know a better source for things like that, give me a notice. Also, the phrase itself was mentioned by myriads of people on Twitter, and echoed in WP:RS like The Guardian. Case closed. --bender235 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Anyone who asserts that I have been edit-warring should be required to provide diffs. Since this won't be possible -- or rather, since any diffs provided will show that I have not been edit-warring on this issue -- the editors who are asserting this should retract or be sanctioned. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:25, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• I'm here because Drmies pinged me. I agree with editors above who say that this isn't a conduct issue, but rather a content one where a content RfC would be a good idea. As for the edit-warring, if one looks at the page edit history between Sept. 21 and Oct. 3, there has been a slow edit war over removing and adding back the quote, but I do not think anyone is in violation of 3RR, nor do I really see a need for full protection. As I said at the article talk, I do find the vehemence of the editors who want the verbatim quote rather puzzling. As far as I can tell, there is reliable sourcing that the person said it, and that being the case, I don't think it violates BLP to report it. As a purely content issue, count me as preferring leaving the quote out. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

User:AndyTheGrump - threatening behaviour, ongoing refusal to assume good faith.

User:AndyTheGrump removed a number of adequately sourced entires in List of deprogrammers‎ [94] under the guise of violations of WP:BLP. I had previously re-enstated the names, however I had then gone ahead and added references as requested by other editors in order to comply with BLP.

User:AndyTheGrump removed these new additions (which had taken me a few hours to research, btw) - and couldn't adequately explain why, despite repeated requests. He has threatened me with banning[95] and has made several personal attacks against me, calling me a liar, and qualifying my mistaken addition of a duplicate source as intentional trickery. [96]

After calling for a RFC on the article in question[97] Andy decided to add a non-neutral comment within the filing, effectively poisoning the well against me in the eyes of any eventual neutral third party.

This user is disruptive, uncooperative, and refuses to see things objectively. Zambelo; talk 04:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You changed the sub-title from notable deprogrammers to known deprogrammers, and unlike the initial list, none of your additions have articles. So Grumpy might well be concerned that you're creating a list that does not pass muster, one way or another. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I hadn't even noticed the title change, actually - I was focusing on trying to integrate and format the new references... Zambelo; talk 05:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

You need to first create articles for the individuals you're trying to add, and prove their notability. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Zambelo has already created several articles on this topic concerning individuals of questionable notability (judging by the currently-running AfD's) - I don't think that more of the same would be a good idea. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I don't disagree. I'm just saying he's doing things backwards. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, I've created one or two and contributed to others. The issue I've had is that the article stubs have been nominated for deletion just weeks after creation. And as I've mentioned, there has been a concerted effort to delete anti-cult movement-related articles by certain editors. Some of these individuals may not be notable enough to merit an article (and some are, but let's not get into that), but are certainly notable enough to be included in a specific list on the topic, as they are referenced in secondary sources as deprogrammers/exit-counselors. Zambelo; talk 06:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Accusing other editors of nefarious motives is not the way to win support. If you create an article on any subject, it is subject to the "notability" question. Being "known" and being "notable" are not necessarily the same thing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I was in the process of filing a report here [...]

(as I had informed Zambelo after a recent post at WP:BLPN) - my report follows:

As a previously-uninvolved person, I recently came across two related threads at WP:BLPN [98][99], concerning the actions of User:Zambelo, who has been adding, against a clear consensus, names of (presumably) living persons to a List of deprogrammers and Template:Opposition to NRMs. Given that the source being cited for incusion [100] merely names these individuals as being included in "Rolodex files" of the Cult Awareness Network. it seems self-evident that reliability is open to question, never mind establishing the level of notability required to merit inclusion in templates ands lists. Despite the issues with this source being made entirely clear at WP:BLPN, Zambelo chose yet again to add the names to the list [101] - citing the same questionable source twice under slightly different names where previously it had been given once. Since this was not only clearly a WP:BLP violation, but grossly misleading, I reverted it, and warned Zambelo that were the names added again without consensus, I would raise the matter here. Though Zambelo has not as yet done so, s/he has repeated the same stonewalling behaviour and refusal to address the legitimate concerns over sourcing that were raised at WP:BLPN, and has deleted my response to a RfC that s/he started at Talk:List_of_deprogrammers [102]. I note that this is not the first time Zambelo's behaviour over this issue has been raised here [103], and I further note that User talk:Zambelo contains much evidence of previous questions relating to edits concerning cults, new religious movements and the like. Frankly, it seems evident to me that Zambelo has far too much emotional involvement regarding this issue (why, I don't know - though it doesn't really matter under the circumstances), and given the sensitive nature of such topics, combined with a clear inability to listen to the advice of experienced contributors, I have to once again, propose, as was done in the previous ANI thread that Zambelo be topic-banned. I realise that there was little traction for this proposal in the previous thread, but it seems to me that his/her behaviour since suggests not only an unwillingness to learn, and to listen to advice, but also something which was not previously apparent - a willingness to engage in fundamentally dishonest behaviour, as evinced by the duplicate citation of a single source under slightly differing names. Given that we frequently place our trust in contributors when it comes to accurate reporting of sources (e.g. when material isn't verifiable online), such dishonesty must be considered significant in such circumstances, and that this, combined with a general battleground attitude, provides sufficient grounds to exclude this contributor from topics that need careful and circumspect editing, and adherence to the highest standards. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Reply: As I mentioned, I had added new references, a fact that Andy has completely disregarded. The discussion on the BLP noticeboard was in relation to the template, and I have adequately explained myself there as well as on the talk page for the Opposition to NRMs template talkpage.

As much as andy would like to obfuscate the issue, combining the discussion regarding the template with the discussion of the list, they are two separate issues, with separate ongoing discussions surrounding them. What we are discussing here is the reversal of the referenced content on List of Deprogrammers, and the then ongoing refusal to listen to reason. In contrast, I have always been part of the conversation regarding these issues: in fact it was to comply with the BLP questions[104] that I researched and then added new references supporting the inclusion of the names, a well-intentioned edit that Andy instantly reverted citing BLP violations [105] - and has refused to answer why.

The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors - and this was never discussed on the article pages in question, and there was no attempt at getting outside look through a RFC: it went straight to the BLP noticeboard. The source you cite here is a secondary source mentioning the rolodex, not the rolodex itself, btw.

Instead of removing entries that he had an issue with, Andy decided to revert the entire edit, which I had spent hours looking up. When asked why, he refused to answer, saying only that there was a "duplicate" source, without going into any more detail.

If there was an issue with a source, why not remove one of the duplicates, and remove the entry if it was in violation of BLP?

My "behaviour" has never been an issue. It is easy to verify that I have made nothing but constructive edits to articles relating to New Religious Movements, while there has been a sustained attempt to destroy them over the past week by several editors. The only emotional attachment I have with the articles is in relation the the amount of time I have spent on them, only to have them torn down by a small concerted group of editors over the past week or so.

I propose that Andy be topic banned, and banned from contacting me in future.

I'm happy to answer any questions in relation to specific edits. Zambelo; talk 05:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"The source may have been questionable, but it was under discussion, and was a reliable secondary source. There was never any BLP violations - let's just make that clear here - all entries were correctly sourced, despite the POV of other editors" - that just about sums the issue up here. Zambelo has decided that a mere mention on a Rolodex file is enough evidence of notability to merit inclusion in a controversial list, and anyone arguing the contrary is doing so because of 'POV'. And I should be topic banned for this 'POV', should I? For arguing that the source shouldn't be used, after coming across the issue at WP:BLPN? And expressing an opinion concerning a topic I can't even recollect contributing to before? My comments regarding this issue have been confined solely to WP:BLP issues regarding notability, and to the suitability of sources - I've not expressed an opinion one way or the other concerning the topic, and quite possibly don't know enough about it to do so. Evidently though, the mere fact that my opinion (as a long-term contributor familiar with policy) differs from Zambelo's when it comes to the inclusion of these particular names based on questionable sources is grounds for a topic ban? Nope - and I have to suggest that this ridiculous proposal to ban me from a topic I have shown little evidence of being interested in will be seen for exactly what it is - further evidence of the battleground mentality of a contributor clearly incapable of neutral editing - a contributor with an axe to grind, and with little inclination to do anything but engage in the very POV-pushing that s/he accuses others of. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Your proposal to topic ban Andy will not fly. And I see nothing in this thread that warrants that Andy be topic-banned. And on a side note: When Andy states something about a WP:BLP issue, he is often, if not usually, correct. Flyer22 (talk) 06:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I rescind my proposal for a ban - I'm sure Andy thought he was doing the right thing based on the limited information he could see on the BLP noticeboard. In this case however, he is wrong. Zambelo; talk 13:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• This looks like a content dispute in general, and specifically a violation of the way lists are supposed to be created, especially lists of living persons. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see that Andy has acted improperly here and there are certainly no grounds for a topic ban. I suggest that this discussion returns to the talk page of the article(s) in question where it belongs.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I have made a report asking for Zambelo to be topic banned. Should we not at least discuss the matter? AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:32, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. (And I'm not even going to comment on the silly tit-for-tat proposal concerning Andy). In the past few weeks, several AfDs have been running in which Zambelo diplays a basic misunderstanding of what reliable sources are, what constitutes in-depth coverage and time and again fails to comply with AGF. As Andy says, their apparent emotional involvement with the topic is simply too much. --Randykitty (talk) 10:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please Note that Randykitty isn't neutral in this, and has a COI in this matter, having, over the period of the past week or so proposed multiple articles for deletion that I had been working on. I would invite any editors here to look at his editing history over the past week.

As I've already mentioned, I have no emotional involvement in the content, but I dislike people wasting my time. Proposing multiple articles for deletion, and ganging up as a group of three to ensure they are deleted is both unethical and bypasses due process. Zambelo; talk 11:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Oh YES! Please follow Zambelo's advice and compare my edit history with theirs (last week, last year, any period you like). Meanwhile, Zambelo could read up on the difference between COI and involved. And as far as I am concerned, I only got involved (in the WP sense, as simply !voting in an AfD normally does not make one involved.) because of Zambelo's tendency to accuse everybody who disagrees with them of having a POV. --Randykitty (talk) 11:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Please also note this attempt to circumvent an ongoing AfD heading for deletion. --Randykitty (talk) 11:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

That wasn't circumventing, that was me agreeing with Drmies proposition to merge the article, since the article was clearly going to be deleted, despite new references being added. "Circumventing", that's a bit rich coming from an editor who has been consistently bypassing deletion procedures. I've made a statement here sharing my concerns, along with those of other editos regarding COI and editors involved in Landmark editing, which lists the articles targeted relating to the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article, about a documentary critical of Landmark. I think it's rather plain what is going on here. Zambelo; talk 12:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

OK, Zambelo, I've had it, this is one personal attack too many. Your "evidence" at the ArbCom request is that I !voted deleted where you thought that was wrong. You have been warned more times than I care to count to assume good faith. Please either provide evidence of me having a COI and circumventing deletion procedures or apologize. Barring that, I will call for you to be blocked. --Randykitty (talk) 12:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It isn't a personal attack, it's a remark on your editing history. I apologize if you feel it's a personal attack. My comment about you circumventing deletion procedures was a remark on your disinterest in discussing references, while actively seeking to delete multiple articles simultaneously, without giving me a chance to properly discuss the issue, the references, or the deletion proposal. I've brought this up numerous times in the AFDs[106]. Zambelo; talk 13:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Block requested. Perhaps an uninvolved admin could have a look at the above paragraph, just compounding the personal attack on me. I note that this is not the first time and that Zambelo has been warned to assume good faith multiple times. --Randykitty (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Suggest Block - support TBAN as absolute minimum. *Support topic ban for Zambelo. User violates BLP, repeatedly pushes the same poor sources, reacts antagonistically to any disagreement, and seems entirely too emotionally involved in the small area they have chosen to edit to contribute neutrally there. If some of "their" articles have been deleted, well, that speaks more to the nature of the POV "walled garden" they were tending than any "gang of three" they imagine exists. User seems only capable of viewing disagreement as signifying membership of an opposing cabal - they should consider that the reality is that this is not the case, and that other editors are merely trying to maintain a neutral, BLP compliant encyclopedia. Begoon ^talk 11:59, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  Which sources are poor? How was this determined? There was never a discussion regarding the sources, the articles were simply listed for deletion, leaving me scrambling to try and save them, because there are in fact notable in the scope of New Religious Movements - which you would know if you looked at the sources I was providing. I have been a constructive editor to many New Religious Movement articles, not because of some supposed emotional attachment, but because I find the topic interesting. Maintaining a BLP compliant wikipedia is fine - and I have complied barring a few reversions in two articles, (which btw, I hold were adequately sourced, but which Randykitty et al. refused to discuss) - and even then after eventual discussion (which they chose to hold directly on the BLP noticeboard instead of the talk page) I accepted the consensus and went looking for more sources to comply with BLP issues raised - the references I found were from noted academics - religious scholars specialising in New Religious movements - so your assertion that I "push the same poor sourcesW is unfounded. All of what I say here is easily verifiable - I don't know what motives, if any, the three editors had to delete the articles without first attempting to discuss the issues or even look for sources, but I do know that out of 13 articles connected to the original Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous only 3 now remain after two weeks of deletions, by the same people who were pushing to delete the Voyage au Pays des Nouveaux Gourous article in the first place. Zambelo; talk 13:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The sourcing issues are well described by Andy above. There are many additional examples in the linked discussions and articles of inappropriate sourcing, often due to (AGF here) a misunderstanding of when primary sourcing is appropriate - clue: very limited circumstances. You start from the wrong place, Zambelo - you have something you wish to include, then try to work out how you can shoehorn it in, and fight like hell with anyone who disagrees. Then they are enemies. Is it a gang of 4 yet? Or 5? Don't forget Andy. That's not what we do here - we see what reliable sources have deemed worthy of mention, and include it, if and only if it is due, relevant, BLP compliant, and improves and serves a neutral article. You have the cart before the horse. I fixed your comment formats/indents again - please try to use proper indents etc. Thanks. Begoon ^talk 13:44, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The "gang" was in reference to the editors pushing for deletion, and bypassing due process. The articles were being deleted because of notability concerns, and so I attempted to demonstrate notability by integrating new references into the article - because this is how you show notability - through secondary sources. Don't be snide, please. Zambelo; talk 14:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

"Don't be snide please"? I've fixed up your comments here 5 times now - don't be lazy and inconsiderate please. You've made a personal attack on Randykitty. Don't attack folks please. You asked for a topic ban on Andy. Don't come here with ridiculous trumped up demands to try and head off a legitimate complaint please. Is that enough pleases yet? I could find more. Begoon ^talk 14:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• And please stop talking about deletions bypassing due process. Each and every deletion has been after a regular AfD that was open for at least 7 days. Nothing improper here. --Randykitty (talk) 14:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban on all articles related to religion. cults and psychological counseling, very broadly construed. First of all, the editor is way to emotionally invested ever to be able to edit in this topic area with sufficient detachment and objectiveness. Second, the editor has demonstrated a high level of battleground behavior and even sneaky trickery on several AfD's, and seems incapable of working cooperatively and civilly with editors with who he disagrees, of which there are several other seasoned editors besides Andy. His "gang" comments in this thread are particularly disturbing. Third, there is a major lack of competence as far as our policies and guidelines are concerned, especially WP:RS, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, and no apparently willingness to address that deficiency. Fourth, WP:NOTHERE and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS apply. And last of all, the editor has made quite a mess that needs to be cleaned up by multiple AfD's. Sorry, but I would also support an indefinite site ban. I've seen this type of editor before and the experience was harrowing. Let's nip this in the bud. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Support indefinite topic ban of Zambelo on all articles related to religion, per Dominus Vobisdu. This sort of behaviour and this sort of editor is nothing new and I (clearly not alone) am tired of it. Encyclopedia, not soapbox. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
• Comment Strong arguments have been made for a topic ban which I support, though I do not think Zambelo is the only one guilty of violations. We might need to put in places stronger policies for sensitive topics. Articles related to religion are always sensitive and people have a tendency to want to block those who do not share their own POV. Dominus Vobisdu suggest an indefinite topic ban based on violating several policies. I'd be inclined to think the same should apply to the user, who is happy to ignore ongoing discussions to push their own WP:POV, more interested in reverting than discussing, and with a blatant disregard for WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Just like they accuse Zambelo of nothing being here for the right reasons, Dominus Vobisdu is quite clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute to religion in an WP:NPOV way. We'd need more users who are willing to discuss and find consensuses, less users who revert at sight without providing any topic-related arguments just because it suits their WP:POV. Policies that would limit blanket reverting without discussing, or discussing without providing factual arguments, may be helpful on many sensitive area.Jeppiz (talk) 15:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

So did you have a comment on this discussion about Zambelo, or a recommendation as to how to proceed? I'm not clear from what you say. Begoon ^talk 15:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, apparently I mistakenly deleted the first part of my comment before posting. I said that I fully support a topic ban for Zambelo based on the evidence provided here, but that I think the blame is not only on them. That was not the exact sentence, but the essence of what was deleted. I then proceeded to say how articles related to religion are always sensitive and that some who accuse Zambelo, particularly Dominus Vobisdu, appear to behave no different themselves.Jeppiz (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

No, don't be sorry. My fault entirely. I didn't see the part where you fully supported the topic ban, which I appreciate, and I erroneously focused on the part where you discussed the other !voter instead. Peace. Begoon ^talk 15:43, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I now re-edited my comment to make my position clearer.Jeppiz (talk) 15:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That's much clearer now you added the first bit. I'm sorry for my confusion. If you have concerns about another editor, I'd generally recommend a separate process because there are, believe it or not, a few other folks as slow on the uptake as me, when rushed, who could get similarly confused. Cheers. Begoon ^talk 15:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support topic ban for Zambelo. This user has a very poor understanding of our sourcing requirements and is extremely belligerent. Zambelo has disrupted multiple AfDs with underhanded tactics to try to avoid an inevitable delete consensus on articles Zambelo thinks they WP:OWN. Any disagreement is met with ultra-defensive ranting and accusations of bad faith. This user is clearly not a net positive. Reyk _YO! 21:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

There may be fundamental WP:BLP issues in our coverage of 'deprogramming'

Having looked into the underlying topic here - that of so-called 'deprogramming', I have to suggest that there are fundamental WP:BLP concerns raised. Specifically, the 'deprogramming' article states in the lede that "Deprogramming is an attempt to force a person to abandon allegiance to a religious, political, economic, or social group. Methods and practices may involve kidnapping and coercion. The person in question is taken against his/her will, which has led to controversies over freedom of religion, kidnapping and civil rights, as well as the violence which is sometimes involved, and deprogramming has been shown to result in PTSD". On this basis, the inclusion of any person in a 'list of deprogrammers' amounts to an accusation of criminal activity - clearly a breach of WP:BLP policy unless the individual has been convicted of such activities. Were it not for my prior involvement in this discussion, I'd be tempted to blank the 'list' immediately. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

And looking at the 'list of deprogrammers' article again, I note that the present version (with the questionably-sourced individuals discussed removed) provides only one citation for a criminal conviction - where it states that Galen Kelly was "Convicted of kidnapping Debra Dobkowski in May 1992". Our article on Kelly however states that the kidnapping conviction was overturned. Given that Zambelo had edited the Kelly article five times, I think we can safely assume that s/he had read it - and accordingly I think we need an explanation from Zambelo as to why the 'list' describes Kelly as a convicted kidnapper, given that s/he must have been aware that this statement was false. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Some cleanup help please

Some help cleaning this up please. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 08:47, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

On a related note, an admin should delete Template:Db-notability-notice, Template talk:Db-notability-notice, Book:kk, and Book talk:kk under CSD G6 so that Template:kk and Template talk:kk can be moved over to Template:Db-notability-notice and Template talk:Db-notability-notice without leaving a redirect. zzuuzz, as you are an admin, could you do that? – Epicgenius (talk) 11:15, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

It's easier to just revert the page move without leaving a redirect and delete the target page in the process—admins can do it all from the page move interface. So that's what I did. Everything should be back to normal now. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

@HJ Mitchell: Thanks. I did not know that. – Epicgenius (talk) 12:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. I was about to head out. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I propose that this website and user should be looked into under disruptive editing, self promotion and unverifiable websites sources

It is located here Tahoe Park, Sacramento

This user Sirrebral. They are not only being self promotional but are not including verifiable citations that can be viewed they are dead links which pop up a pay for site to view where their citations came from.. There is no way to know if these sources are verifiable. They have removed actual verifiable websites and citations of other users repeatedly as they said it do not fit in their subheadings..which it did.. but they removed it anyway.

I removed Sirrebral citations and writing due to it being self promotional and lack of viewable website citations for most of what was written. In order to see the citation would require a reader to pay an outside website to see if their reference applied to anything about what they wrote. They changed it back to the self promotional paragraph again under 1990's -Present which they are being very insistent upon keeping even though their website citations are not viewable. The reader has no way of know anything they are saying is true or is referring to the citation. Espada12 (talk) 10:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Espada12

Please see the Talk:Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California page for background concerning this matter. Also, please consider that Espada12 was previously User:TahoePark preservation before an admin blocked the latter account and notified them that "promotional editing is not acceptable regardless of the username you choose". I think that the edit history of these two user accounts speaks volumes about the intent of the user to continue making contributions that are promotional in nature. I would hope that this person would concentrate on utilizing their website until such a time as they can provide corroborated evidence that their newly formed organization has produced real solutions to the problems that they seek to address. Thank you. -- Sirrebral (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Again this user is insinuating I am one in the same person they are wrong and I do not represent the organization. This is just their way to get back at me for making necessary corrections recently. They did this to other users too. I can't believe they followed my account to a new page I just created to launch a new attack and get the page deleted. However I did wish to post regarding a neighborhood association on their website. And they have attacked me. They do not want to have anything edited anything about TPNA which is the neighborhood association which is in the same neighborhood I believe they represent. They clearly do live in Sacramento. They cannot provide ANY valid citation proofs in the TPNA paragraph as they pop up weblinks that makes the reader have go to a pay website to prove what they are saying is true and not made up.

This is just a tactic of retaliation to not only remove a new article I recently posted about an association they don't like art but to not allow others to post anything or remove TPNA writings on the Tahoe Park website which are in violation and which again since I believe they represent TPNA is self promotion. I am requesting this user be banned for blatant attacks of retaliation, Disruptive editing and refusal to adhere to citation policies for valid links Thank you (UTC)Espada12 (talk) 21:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)Espada12

@Sirrebral: have you got anything in the way of evidence to support your claim that these are one and the same editor. Even if they are this isnt nessecarily an issue as they were advised in thier block notice they might want to start over. @Espada12: The edits do appear to be promotional (intentionally or otherwise) it might be worth discussing potential edits on the talk page to build consenus from other editors before inclusion as a voluntary measure. Reading not advertising might be beneficial to make sure youra ware what can/should over what can't/shouldn't be included. Amortias (T)(C) 21:40, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Amortias I believe the suspicion is based on the block date and first edit dates of the two editors and a bit more. User:TahoePark preservation was blocked by Alexf on October 3. User:Espada12 then made their first edit on Tahoe Park, Sacramento, California on October 3rd and their second edit was to Alexf's talk page almost immediately. [107]. I think this may not warrant an SPI or a user check. Because the block was over the user name not the content this seems innocent, obvious...but no real issue.--Mark Miller (talk) 00:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

repeated talk moving

the editor Jmh649 has repeatedly moved/deleted my talk page discusions on ebola west Africa, I have asked him to stop and I am notifying you to please help. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

First of all NO COMMENTS were deleted. You can see the dif here [108]. The issue we are facing is new users rather than joining the previous discussion on the topic feel they should simply start new sections about it over and over again. Would recommend per talk page etiquette that you join the already ongoing discussions rather than start new ones. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

you are correct some new editors do and I agree with this practice ( I though have been here for some time as per my user page indicates), the "80 contacts" are new in reference to the new situation in Dallas.In any event, I will drop it, in the best interest of the article.As I respect other editors so should be the same for all.thank you.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Editor adding refspam

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

---

Graemekahn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This editor is adding references to a blog despite warnings to stop. [109] Judging from this link added here the blog posts are copy-pastes from other sources including Wikipedia articles. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:50, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry this is my first time using Wikipedia and was trying to find missing citations for a computer lesson. Sorry my teacher has told me wrong instructions how to do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graemekahn (talk • contribs) 15:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Interesting set of articles you or your teacher has chosen. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:00, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• I don't see any attempts to engage User:Graemekahn on his talk page, just a set of templated warnings followed by a report to ANI. Is that really the best you can offer by way of helping a new user who is making mistakes and doesn't know his way around? (That question is directed at User:NeilN, who raised this report, and at those who templated Graemekahn's talk page). Neatsfoot (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  No, strike that, with my apologies - after an (edit conflict), I see that this guy has been adding links to sex-related sites, so the school teacher thing doesn't wash. Neatsfoot (talk) 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

  • I also replied to his edit requests. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

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

User Dragonrap2

I'm not sure if this is the right board, but I'll start here and if necessary I hope someone will send me to the right place. Dragonrap2 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly over a period of months converted almost every list he can find into a table. This includes lists with one or two items, See Also sections, References sections, and External Links sections. I have given him several requests and warnings to stop (both in edit summaries and on his talk page) with a request to read MOS:TABLES, as have many other editors. After one of my warnings, he sent me a barnstar telling me to stop editing. He stops for a day or two after several warnings, then resumes converting every list to a table. Here is one the latest examples of this behavior. He also has been warned several times to stop adding unsourced content. I have spent hours fixing the messes he created. I hope someone can convince him to stop. Thanks. 107.15.192.226 (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Dragonrap2 indeed seems to be adding tables everywhere. This editor also vandalized the Barack Obama article here by adding Hillary Clinton as his successor. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Next time, WP:AIV is where you report vandals. But yeah, this user can definitely be blocked for unconstructively editing. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:31, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tamil topics and a family in Jaffna

Dear Administrator - there is a user obi2canibe who keep adding tags that i must have inline resources to the article Tissanayagam Family I frankly don't understand why as i have quoted as much material as could be possibly expected He also keeps removing any content on any articles that deal with Jaffna and Sri Lankan Tamil's Please do check - i don't know if i am in violation of any Wikipedia rule - if i am please let me know - But this guy seems to have a problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehanbastians (talk • contribs) 16:33, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Tissanayagam family seems to be the family article in question. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 16:58, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

91.152.119...

It might be good to apply a temporary range block, to Finnish off the recent IP-hopping vandalisms. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:45, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I've put down some /24 range blocks, and will continue to do so. It's probably related to 88.113.159.0/24 and co from the other day. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)