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

WP:CIVIL, edit warring, and user talk page violations by The Banner

This post is a request for a simple warning to the title editor on the subject of edit warring, civility, and adherence to WP:CONSENSUS, and that he be required to remove material added to his user Talk page stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS and expressing a negative view of other editors in apparent violation of the user Talk page guidelines.

On the article Organic food, The Banner repeatedly restored material to the lede that had been removed by other editors, who had offered the explanations that it was poorly sourced and covered material not addressed in the body of the article as required by WP:LEAD. The material was repeatedly restored with the explanations:

• That the removal of the material in question was "annoying"
• In response to a request that he discuss his concerns on the Talk page, he reverts again stating that the editor (myself) making this request was engaging in "whitewash"
• Reaching his third reversion and unable to continue, he finally comes to the Talk page and again accuses me of "whitewashing inconvenient information".

This event seen in isolation is certainly not the largest behavior issue of the month at Wikipedia, and I probably did not help the situation by failing to recognize that an edit described by The Banner in his edit summary as a reversion actually contained new citations. But it is troubling in the context provided by his user page, which

• States that he intends to pursue his individual ideas about what is best for the encyclopedia irrespective of consensus. As I understand it, this is a violation of user page guidelines
• Features a picture of an individual being run over by a truck, with the caption "Unconventional but effective support for Wikipedians involved in the War against Vandalism, POV-pushing, Spamming and bad faith edits". Overall the page expresses a lack of confidence in other editors with respect to their good faith and / or competence and reinforces the previous comment about ignoring WP:CONSENSUS.

I respectfully request a simple warning regarding adherence to WP:GF, [[WP:CIVIL}, WP:CONSENSUS and that he be required to remove material stating his intent to disregard WP:CONSENSUS from his user page. With respect to my own behavior in this incident, I'll stipulate that it was not by any means perfect, and that I undertook 3 reversions in 24 hours for what I believe to be the first time in my career as an editor here. I'll do better in the future. Formerly 98 (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

It would be far better when a large bunch of editors start looking at what is really happing at the article Organic food. To my opinion the article is hopelessly POV and unnecessary vague and negative due to the constant removal of anything positive. The article is victim of misusing of WP:MEDRS, that is used to remove everything what can remotely seen as a health claim, like the chemical contents of an item. Even when you publish a statement sourced by an item published by an university or agricultural college, it can be removed as being in conflict with WP:MEDRS (while organic food is about agriculture, not about health or healthcare).

The article is completely ring fenced and there are always a few people at hand to step in and help out. The consensus Formely 98 is not a real one, just one of a good organised and very loud group. The many discussions on the talkpage are proof of that.

In fact, in this case it is Formerly 98 who is POV-pushing and removing a sentence that is backed up by three sources. And he removed it without an explanation but with a warning that I could be blocked. That warning is what is very friendly described as "unfriendly behaviour", I have saved him the word starting with a "b" and containing a "y". This AN/I discussion seems the reflection of an editor not winning the discussion on arguments... The Banner talk 17:28, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner became frustrated a long while ago in the organics articles, that other editors (Like me) insist that health claims about food need sources that comply with WP:MEDRS, and he has taken to personal attacks about "whitewashing" etc for quite a while. He has been asked many times to stop. Difs of his disruptive comments:

• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif
• dif

It just goes on and on (there are many more of these). I've just been letting it go as I have had enough of drama boards. But Formerly just asked Banner to strike Banner's last personal attack of "whitewashing" which Banner blew off, writing "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". Since he seems unable to contribute constructively to the topic anymore, I suggest a topic ban for him. Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

And this fits perfectly in the way the people operate there. This is not trying to discuss things, this is plain bullying. The Banner talk 01:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact, just give me that topic ban. I accept it. The only thing it proves is the moral bankruptcy of the CABAL operating at Organic food, who do not care about the encyclopaedia. Too bad they sacrifice a potential good article to their own ideas and refuse to start meaningful discussions, bu know how to waive with policies, guidelines and essays to bully everybody away. Is six months enough for your vindication? The Banner talk 02:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner on the chance that your opening words were not meant in irony: if you will agree to voluntarily stay away from the organics topic I will withdraw my recommendation and we can avoid more drama. Do tell. Jytdog (talk) 07:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not frustrated about MEDRS, I am frustrated about the misuse of MEDRS to remove everything that is positive, making this article overly negative and vague. The Banner talk 04:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The Banner (and to explain the background a bit more for the closer) I understand that you really believe that eating organically produced food makes you healthier. But the science doesn't support that belief. Most of that is just due to the messiness of reality -- the variability of the food produced by any method, and the difficulty and expense of studying the effect of eating foods so barely different, in such a way that produces really definitive results. Based on WP's PAG, we just cannot make the kind of definitive statements you want to make, based on your belief. I am sorry you are so frustrated with that, and I am sorry that you have allowed your frustration to make you a disruptive presence in the organics articles. You really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack and wrote "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 15:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a very interesting statement that you make here. In fact you say that the scientific research is unreliable due to many factors that can not be taken into account when testing food due to the messiness of reality. Still, you use it as a reason to remove sourced content. Why?

I have many times asked for a proper reasoning about why WP:MEDRS is used on an article that is clear in the remit of agriculture. The answer was always health-claims. But unfortunately, the definition of "Health-claim" commonly used is rather fuzzy. And it is interesting to see that many so called "health-claims" are rejected due to the scientific research that you just called unreliable due to the messiness of reality.

It is also interesting that you now go into personal remarks about what you think I believe. Unfortunately, you are wrong in your line of thinking. Combined with the "gauntlet", I just see a failure of AGF. It would be rather spectacular when I get a topic ban due to the sourcing of unsourced text. The Banner talk 17:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. The Banner has been edit warring on this page in the past (though never quite crossing 3RR ) and warned about it [3]. The main issue appears to be that the editor is very reluctant to go to the talk page as multiple reverts seem to occur first when a dispute arises rather than going to the talk page once a dispute is apparent. These edit summaries demonstrate the main incident I've been involved in:

1. Myself asking for discussion on newly added content without a source: "removing per WP:STATUSQUO. If it's going to be included, continue to discuss and reach consensus on the talk page on an appropriate source and proposed content relevant to the source."[4]
2. Reverted. My response: "Multiple users have pointed out issues with the sourcing of the content on the talk page. Please join the conversation rather than edit war."[5]
3. "Reverted. My response: Again, please join the discussion on the talk page if you feel strongly per WP:BRD. We need a source, not reverts here." [6]

So, that was three times I had to ask for talk page discussion where everyone else was at least while The Banner kept reverting. This was awhile ago, but it looks like this pointy behavior is continuing. Looking at the user's block logs for things like edit warring, disruptive editing, and battleground mentality, they should know better, but it doesn't seem like past history or more current warnings have helped in this article either. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban The Banner has already blown off all requests to revert or remove personal attacks, and seems unable to operate per WP:CIVIL and WP:CONSENSUS. I no longer think a warning will suffice. Formerly 98 (talk) 03:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban as well as a block. Editors should be given a second chance but not when they are not going to change and keep doing the same thing after being blocked. 23.27.252.213 (talk) 12:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It looks] that you got yourself blocked, mr. IP. The Banner talk 15:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Topic Ban As constant violation of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:CONSENSUS is unacceptable.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning this user completely This editor has an overall detrimental effect on Wikipedia. I have had a lengthy series of interactions with this user. In general he has been the least WP:CIVIL, the least collegial individual I have met in my 7 years on Wikipedia. He is a mass editor, primarily interested in inserting his WP:POV, his censorship, executed by his deletion of content. His constant tactic is to attack his accusers. I have collected a legacy of his hostile interactions with other users, which when I had it as part of my sandbox he successfully had deleted. So I have a lengthy page off line documenting at least 38 hostile interactions with other editors. Just let me know how to post that for your reading enjoyment. His favorite targets are relative novice editors. He is an excellent wikilawyer. He knows his tools, his intimidation tactics have scared most of them away--many have gone away permanently as in, they have stopped editing for wikipedia. I wasn't intimidated and spent weeks trying to protect content he was trying to delete (what he below calls following him around). I was successful 100% of the time in AfD debates-which shows the standards of work I deal with and shows how misguided he is. He still succeeded in speedy deletions, changing tactics before I could jump in. And ultimately he succeeded in attacking me. He found a friendly admin to tell me to back off, which I courteously did.

The Banner has been blocked already 10 times that I can find. The user below has shown a link to each of those blocks. What were the reasons? Disruptive editing, 3RR, Personal attacks or harassment.

The main message is: He has been given multiple second chances. Lightweight punishments keep getting suggested. He does not learn from them. Below he is literally sticking his tongue out at me; at all of the disciplinary actions that have taken place previously. Childish but true. They have had no effect. Look at the overall product of his work, you will find single minded obnoxiousness. His path of destruction will continue until we do something serious. He is the worst form of cyber bully and wikipedia does not need this as a representative. Reporting of the facts of his actions should not be regarded as a personal attack. Trackinfo (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this narrow topic ban would help. See his mass deletion of relevant content in nearly all topics you can think about. Also how fast he is given warnings and blames others of an edit war etc. I support Trackinfo s opinion. FFA P-16 (talk) 16:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Everything from "Support banning this user completely" to the signature was added by Trackinfo; it's not that the siteban advocate failed to sign. Trackinfo, go to Special:Contributions/The Banner and underneath "User contributions" you'll see a section For The Banner (talk | block log | uploads | logs | filter log), or something like that; that's the easiest way to reach https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AThe+Banner. Nyttend (talk) 02:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, how many times are you going to ask for my complete removal, Trackinfo? You did it already several times and they all failed. Could you please be a bit more realistic and stop following me around? You have been warned before by an admin: [7] and here [8]. The Banner talk 03:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never asked for you to be banned completely in this forum before. On insignificant AfD and talk pages, yes. Now is the appropriate time, when others are also showing serious issues with your consistently bad attitude. Now is the time for someone with authority look at your overall negative body of work. They should look at your consistent incivility. Look below at your responses to Jytdog. That is a typical reaction from the Banner. His talk page is archived, 47 editions so far. Go to any one of them and you will probably find at least one other editor complaining about his edits, usually about deleting someone else's contributions, usually followed by uncivil conversation where Banner is always in the right (though he can be quite civil when his opponent retracts). His edits are constantly against the consensus of others involved with those same articles, but only one dominating personality can win those arguments, with Banner calling the other party on accusations of the techniques HE USES to bully his opponents. The concept is called Psychological projection. Look beyond this one case, this is a bad apple. And Banner; while I may not be bothering your daily activities, if you are not banned; each time you are brought back to ANI (and you will be, you've been here often) I'll be back urging your removal. The short message that you've never listened to, I'll say it here publicly: Clean up your act. More than 50 people offended by your "work" telling you that your deletions are improper, that you are obnoxious, uncivil, disruptive etc etc are not wrong. Everybody else is not crazy. You are. Trackinfo (talk) 22:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support indefinite topic ban. This editor has been persistently disrupted the organic food article with their disruptive WP:IDHT behavior. Yobol (talk) 22:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose The diffs demonstrated do not strike me as particularly astounding. The editor seems to be arguing against consensus in certain discussions, and the conduct represented do not strike me as particularly horrible or aggressive. One editor against five is in the minority and as long as they accept that consensus is against them, then that's fine. They are not disruptive. That's what has happened so far with what I garner. Additionally, people citing WP:CIVIL really need to point out -which- diff that's about. The ones presented do not make me remark that 'The Banner' is uncivil. Also, people citing 3RR edit warring violations need to cite reports where they actually reported them. Tutelary (talk) 22:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Tutelary thanks for your comments. Based on what is presented here I see how you could say that, as I neglected to bring evidence of disruptive behavior to the articles themselves. Here is some (by far not all) evidence on that front:
  • reverts removal of OR with no edit note
  • adding biased sourced (http://www.organicitsworthit.org)
  • edit warring to keep biased source
  • jumping in in order to edit war with edit note "no need for censorship of positive things"
  • again jumping in to edit war and again on same content
  • again jumping in to edit war with edit note "Sorry, this relevant as the MEDRS-guys often claim that a difference is not significant when they remove sources not to their liking"
  • there are many many more of these. Basically as the editing community (what he calls "the MEDRS guys") works to keep the article neutral and accurate and well-sourced, Banner operates disruptively to try to keep non-neutral or badly sourced content in the article. His behavior has just devolved to disruption. I haven't even pulled in things from the other organics articles yet. Thanks for raising the question of editing behavior. Jytdog (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
    • No, Jytdog, my complaint is that you are NOT keeping the article neutral but overly negative by refusing information and sources. You are trying to win a content conflict not by addressing the stated concerns but by chasing away critical editors or in my case trying to topic ban me. The Banner talk 23:08, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually I have been tolerating your disruptive editing and uncivil behavior. Again, you really threw down the gauntlet when you refused to strike your personal attack on Formerly and when he asked you to strike, wrote to him, "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. In my view that leaves the community little choice but to pick the gauntlet up and topic ban you. Jytdog (talk) 01:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are showing plain bad faith by assuming something that is not even close to the truth. The Banner talk 12:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Not true? Difs.

1) you again make personal attacks about whitewashing in edit notes and on Talk

2) you are directly asked to strike the accusation/personal attack by Formerly a first time and again a second time

3) you write "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up"

very true and backed by difs. and i have provided diffs above of disruptive Talk editing and disruptive article editing. its all there. I am not assuming anything. And with RfC/U gone, this forum is the only we can deal with your pattern of bad behavior. Again, you basically dared WP to take action against you instead of simply striking your personal attack and changing your behavior. I think it is time the community took action, since you cannot control yourself. Jytdog (talk) 13:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your bad faith statement You have lost your self control and are revelling in it. And why are you not commenting about the part of research that is unreliable "due to the messiness of reality". Did you corner yourself with that statement? Come on, Jytdog, the only thing you want is to shut down a critical voice. Not because I am disruptive but because I am inconvenient. The Banner talk 12:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The diffs are there to see and I am describing your pattern of behavior. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The lack of self reflection on their behavior is more evidence that this topic ban needs to be placed. Yobol (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

And do you really think a topic ban will improve the article? Or is it just step one to scare away all other critical voices? Jytdog stated above that most scientific research is unreliable, still only scientific research more or less positive is shot down, not the scientific research that is more or less negative. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue here is your behavior, not the article's content. Jytdog (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, the problem is the content and the use of different systems to measure notability of new info. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Support a narrow (article specific) topic ban. Those advocating community bans here are among the first to resort to personal attacks, confess to collating "sh*t-sheets" and have atrocious AFD contribution records as immovable inclusionists. But the attitude here with regard to specific topic areas is problematic and Jytdog has made a reasonable case for a topic ban, limited to those articles where there have been problems. But anything broader than that seems unwarranted. St★lwart¹¹¹ 08:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've amended my position (reversed it, if you would). The ongoing discussions here have been enlightening and I'm quite glad they've remained open. What we've seen since my first contribution (2 weeks ago) is further and further refinement of the "issues". They still include The Banner's behaviour (in part) but watching those pushing for his topic ban interact without his active involvement in the area suggests there are other major problems here and many of them relate to content, not conduct. Those that do relate to conduct apply equally to some of those of both "sides". A plague on both your houses, if you like. There are many who seem to jump to personal attacks before WP:BRD and The Banner has been one of them in only a handful of related instances. I no longer think that applying a topic ban to him alone would resolve any of the substantive issues here, and so doing to would be contrary to our policies. This needs broader and more broadly applied restrictions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would define the topic as "organic food". Concretely that would be Organic farming, Organic food, and Organic milk. Those are currently the articles about organic food where Banner has been acting disruptively. I would also include Organic farming as the same kinds of disputes have broken out there and that would be a place where Banner could easily carry on this behavior. Jytdog (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC) (amended per below Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC))

Thanks for supplying evidence that this is just a case of silencing. In regards to Organic farming, I have never edited there so I don't know why you think I was disruptive there. My last two edits on Organic milk were in July 2014, reverted by one Jytdog. Before that I have an edit in December 2013 and a few older, nearly all reverted. The Banner talk 13:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

That's a good point, that you have not edited the Organic food article. I amended the statement above. My apologies.Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, we institute topic-bans to prevent disruption so including an article in a topic ban because someone "could easily" be disruptive there is unlikely to be supported. It's not something I would support anyway. Organic milk looks similar - he has edited there, but not disruptively and not extensively. The problematic article would seem to be Organic food. St★lwart¹¹¹ 14:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Some comments by The Banner mentioned here indicate the editor is trying to "defend" the topic in general, so I don't think discussing a topic ban outside of just the article is entirely out of the question. Considering the editor has had problems with similar behavior in the past based on their block logs and those comments they've made, someone could make a decent case that the behavior is likely to keep occurring in closely related topics. That's also partly because there are a few different organic related articles out there. I'd personally just look for broad topic ban on organic food, but if the narrow approach is pursued, a short leash approach should be taken through a very direct warning that more bans will follow if problem behaviors pop up in other related articles as part of the remedy. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And other articles/topics can always be added later if Jytdog's predictions prove accurate. If The Banner wants to prove him right and so migrates the same behaviour to other articles, he would only have himself to blame. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:09, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I'd just like to stress my main point there was that there's a history of this behavior not improving despite blocks already. A topic ban helps, but is a band-aid for a more widespread problem. Because of that, an admin warning would seem like a good minimum action besides a narrow topic ban in case the behavior isn't changed for the nth time. The behavior appears to be relatively widespread in addition to the very pointed examples for this article, so it seems like some ratcheting up is needed if these cycles of block/bans and going right back to the behavior issues afterwords continue. No one has really made a great case for wider community bans like you mentioned (nor do I think they are called for right now), but it does seem like there's enough to keep a short leash if this behavior keeps coming up in the future elsewhere. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is in WP's interest to ban him from the organic food topic, but even just a ban from Organic food would be an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 15:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

A neutral article is in the interest of Wikipedia, not silencing a critical voice. The Banner talk 23:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way: this edit, in which you removed a POV-tag, is rather symptomatic for what is happing on this article. I am definitively not the only one critical about the neutrality of the article. The Banner talk 22:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If reliable sources say that organic foods are healthier than we should include that in the article. And I'm sure that there are probably many. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

This is why ANI can be difficult. Mr. Guye reliable sources say that we cannot say that organic food is healthier. That is exactly the point here. Your "probably sure" is not how we do things in WP. Please actually read the article and the sources cited there, and please see the discussion on the talk page about sources. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Remember that this conversation is based on editor behavior. If it were just a content dispute, this conversation wouldn't be at ANI. Kingofaces43 (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

LOL, only because you refuse to admit that it is in basic just a content dispute. Talk:Organic_food#Neutrality is again evidence how MEDRS is misused, in this case to brush away a POV-tag. The Banner talk 23:27, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem is how you behave in content disputes as outlined above. Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting, so permanently saying NO in a content dispute is allowed, as that is what happening here. See for example this one: You can't place a POV flag if the basis of the POV challenge is a challenge to WP:MEDRS. Its wikipedia policy. {https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_food&diff=642669126&oldid=642668116] In my opinion, that is misusing a guideline (as MEDRS is not a policy as claimed but "just" a guideline) The Banner talk 00:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. If The Banner has long-term civility and edit warring issues across the encyclopedia, then first of all a topic ban from natural foods is not going to address that. Second, I would question (but have not checked) how many of those editors favoring a topic ban are the ones who are having a content disagreement on this article, or who have had run-ins with The Banner in the past. That certainly entitles them to an opinion, but inasmuch as they are involved and there is clearly a heated content dispute afoot, that kind of !vote is not an appropriate way to apply behavioral sanctions. At a very minimum, anyone deciding the issue should discount the vote and look at their actual edits and comments. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  My brief experience wading into this article suggests there is a serious problem with POV editors camping out to establish a scientific rather than encyclopedic approach. As such, I have re-added a POV tag. This is all a legitimate matter of content discussion, but not a good place to allow a science cabal to assert ownership of an article about a subject largely outside the scope of science. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I have been further warned not to add a POV tag. My attempt to describe the science there as science, etc., have been reverted. It's clear that there's a weird ownership issue on this particular article of smarmy science types who believe that the supremacy of peer-reviewed journal articles extends to food and taste. It's bizarre. Whatever civility problems The Banner may have, they've hit a dysfunctional editing environment here at this particular article. - Wikidemon (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  And going against that is what is called "disruptive behaviour" here... The Banner talk 14:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  Wikidemon the proposed topic ban is focused on the problem I am aware of. I interact little with Banner and have no comment at all on Banner's behavior elsewhere. That is a distraction from the issues at hand. Further, long-term disruption by an editor cannot be boiled down to a "content dispute". That is a mischaracterization - this is about behavior, not content. My sense is that you have not spent time investigating the history of the article and the discussions on Talk and the way that Banner has behaved, nor looked at the diffs we have provided. I encourage you to do that before you make the kind of judgement you are making. Jytdog (talk) 15:01, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

  I would be frustrated too if an article was hijacked in this way on my watch, and I am indeed somewhat irritated by my brief exposure to the dysfunctional editing environment there — I just have the good sense to recognize lost battles rather than WP:BATTLE them. So, again, if TheBanner has a long term editing problem with how they react to reasonably perceived unencyclopedic editing practices, in this case a misplaced scientific focus of an article about food, then that ought to be addressed dispassionately by uninvolved editors, not used by the editors in question to enforce their point of view. Possibly this is no more than a dispute over the subject of the article, with neither side blinking but one side having a local consensus by numbers. The page is just fine as an article about the scientific evaluation of foods certified as organic, it would make a fine subsection or child article. It could be that the broader topic including the history, economics, production methods, politics, culinary evaluation, social perception, and so on, is a different article. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

When it comes to actual content, you're butting heads with very similar issues that editors have when first entering topics such as climate change, evolution, etc. Working in scientific topics is tough, especially when it's a new area for an editor. Folks at the talk page have discussed how you can start into the topic if you want, but being an encyclopedia means we reflect the science as our focus, and that has been upheld time and again. [9] Those are all things that if you want to discuss, that's better left at policy pages or the actual talk page. Here though we are discussing the behavior of The Banner. Whether a content dispute is "valid" or not is irrelevant when we're discussing when an editor acts inappropriately. Inappropriate actions are so whether someone thinks they are justified or not. There are dispute resolution options when someone wants to approach things civilly, but the whole case being brought here is that the user does not approach things civilly and users are tired of that specific disruption. If it was a content issues, we wouldn't be at this noticeboard. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikidemon I have looked over your contribs and I see you like to write about gastronomy, and were probably expecting a more "foodie" article on organic food. The essence of organic farming and organic food is its "purity" - that food produced organically is better (for the land, for the workers, for the consumer) because of how it is was made. In my view, people who want to learn about organic, want to understand how it is different from conventionally produced food. Much of that is handled in the organic farming article but things specific to food are addressed in the organic food article. Whether there are differences between organic and conventinally produced food, and what they might be, are questions that can be investigated with science. Now there may well be a "foodie" orientation that could add value to the article - I am not sure what that would be, but maybe content about organic restaurants, content bringing in overlaps with the Locavore movement (it appears that what differences in taste with regard to organic may be attributed to those overlaps)... stuff like that. There are ways your perspective could add value to the article. But that stuff is quite separate from what Banner has been doing, which has been disrupting the article because he has wanted content to be included that organic food is more healthy and that eating it makes people more healthy, and those claims have generally not been supported by reliable sources, and Banner has turned to disruptive behavior in protest. Jytdog (talk) 14:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And again you are making things up, Jytdog. It is not a protest, it is plain concern about how a few people can keep an article POV and overly negative by applying a guideline (not a policy as is often claimed) that should not be applied at all. And what you do is just trying to silence a critical voice. The Banner talk 11:22, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• My point on the topic ban proposal is exactly as I say, that: (i) if The Banner's run-ins with other editors are broader than this one topic (which they may be if you do an archive search , then shooing them away on an article-by-article basis isn't useful; and (ii) complaints and !votes coming from one side of a POV dispute should be weighed carefully. The whole question of science and food comes in only inasmuch as this is a bona fide POV dispute, not one editor pushing fringe content. Being an encyclopedia means applying a scientific POV to claims about science, not to all of human knowledge. Whereas the "essence" of the organic food movement may be about meeting consumer desires for health, and environmental and social responsibility, the realization of those desires is an industry, a certification, distribution and retail channels, and a genre of food, which means that any intersection with science is only partial. - Wikidemon (talk) 15:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

What I have been saying all along is we should look at this user's overall pattern of negativity. I have zero involvement with this topic. A small topic ban will not solve The Banner's general hostility to the opinions of other, well meaning editors (essentially forcing his POV); his constant incivility; and his mass deletion of relevant content. I fear this is about to fall off the ANI list into the archives with no resolution and he'll continue to get away with this pattern of activity . . . that is at least until he is back here again--as the above notation demonstrates he's apparently been in ANI 48 times already. Trackinfo (talk) 20:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

And what is the relevance of that? Are you so desperate to get me blocked that you start using every form of harassment to get what you want? While you have been warned by an admin to stop harassing me multiple times? Want to keep gambling with that? The Banner talk 12:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I do think that this narrow topic ban would help at the article in question at least. Problems in other topics just establish the editor has been made aware of the problem behavior many times for the purpose of this ANI. If someone wants to pursue issues in a wider range, probably better to take a similar approach to WP:ROPE and see what happens after action on this specific topic. This has been open for 11 days now with one oppose actually asking about behavior with some good conversation following that, so maybe it would be helpful if an admin would give their assessment of consensus at this point unless more folks have comments on The Banner's behavior? Kingofaces43 (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I would agree WP:ROPE would give everybody a chance to either see a correction in his behavior or to finally rid ourselves of him. What it takes is follow up. Like I said, he's been in ANI 48 times, this has been here you say for 11 days and yet nobody has taken the action to look at his record. Yes, its massive. He is on the cusp of being a top 1,000 editor and there are literally thousands of edits he's made that are protested by other editors; in hostile retorts to those protests; or defending his actions here and elsewhere. So let him hang himself, but it takes serious follow up, essentially a full time job. I tried to follow him for just a short period of time and it is too much labor to fight every hostile thing he does. And he bites. Of course, I'm not an admin. I did it the right way for an editor. For each erroneous deletion, I came back with multiple sources. That takes the defender much more work than his snap delete policy. So the investigation could be exhausting. He is great spouting off policy excuses, he will wikilawyer you on every point, repeatedly, but its all Bullshit. When do you say, enough is enough? He has already used up more than enough rope for me. Trackinfo (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Trackinfo, how many times are you warned to stop harassing me? I guess you did not get that message at all. The Banner talk 12:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

So folks, my appeal to get an Administrator to seriously look at this guy will get you this: " This is your only warning; if you purposefully and blatantly harass a fellow Wikipedian again, as you did at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. The Banner talk 12:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)" Trackinfo (talk) 14:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't forget to tell that admin Drmies has already told you twice to stop harassing me. Trackinfo! The Banner talk 16:22, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Note - Banner's disruptive behavior of making personal attacks has been continuing, even as we are discussing his behavior here:
  • dif not getting it, saying this ANI is about content. "I have accepted by now that it is hopelessly POV and that you can get topic banned by pointing at that. "
  • dif just today: continuing the personal attacks, "Because you fail to acknowledge that it is in fact a content-conflict as that would be inconvenient for your cause". He doesn't even understand the problem. WP:IDHT Jytdog (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Irrefutable proof of...something.

• • Jytdog, are you serious? You call those statements "personal attacks"? The Banner does, it is true, use strong language every now and then, but I see nothing here that is even worth discussing, and I get the feeling that some (who aren't editors of that article, for instance) are just looking for an excuse to get Banner in trouble. Now, if the aggravating circumstances are to be found in some words and a picture on Banner's user page, I suggest that Formerly 98 removed the image from their talk page that proves without a shadow of a doubt that they are a troll. I'm kidding. Drmies (talk) 22:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

You have to admit, I'm a good-looking guy....:>) Formerly 98 (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Formerly 98, I was pleased to be able to copy something fun and immediately appropriate here. Thanks for making my argument for me! Seriously, I don't think you'll gain much traction here from Banner's user page, which is probably why no one who isn't involved with the organic bit seems to have commented here... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Maybe its just me Drmies, but I'd say there is a difference between posting a tongue-in-cheek self portrait on one's userpage, and declaring one's intent to ignore Wikipedia guidelines and edit war on the other. Formerly 98 (talk) 04:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It's been stressed multiple times above and elsewhere to The Banner that a content dispute is not an excuse for behavior like this, but they keep going back to saying this is just a content dispute. Attempts to direct them towards the issue of their behavior in a helpful and good faith are met with hostility as can be seen in the responses throughout this poist. In the example diffs I gave above, I also left The Banner a warning on their talk page after constantly refusing to come to the article talk page, followed by The Banner leaving a warning on my talk page about edit warring for trying to get them to start discussing [10]. I tried to stress that the reason their reverts were being reverted was because they were ignoring repeated requests to come to the talk page [11], but it seems by that exchange that this user is more interested in going after those who point out their problem behavior. As Jytdog mentioned, definite IDHT behavior than acknowledging a problem, so it doesn't seem any amount of discussion will alleviate the issue, hence why we're here. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Kingofaces43, what I see is three diffs from August of last year where you revert the addition of apparently verified content with a somewhat lame reference to STATUS QUO--one man's status quo is another man's impeding progress. If those reverts are the extent of Banner's disruption (a half a year ago), well...and have you noted that, if Banner is edit warring there, then you are too? Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Drmies, I wouldn't call it blatant edit warring on my part (at least in comparison). How else are we supposed to respond when an editor ignores a current ongoing discussion? Remember that each time I had to ask for the talk page discussion to continue or for The Banner to rejoin the conversation rather than edit war contrary to the current discussion. The whole problem was that The Banner was trying to circumvent the discussion. The spirit of WP:EW is that we try to engage in discussion when there is a disagreement on content (as I was doing). I was trying to re-engage The Banner in discussion to bring them back to the conversation each time rather than trying to fight for content. Perspective matters here, so it's helpful to remember there was already discussion going on before the linked reverts.

Basically, another editor added the content unsourced, discussion ensued. They brought some sources they thought would work, but the sources didn't' support the content as there was some orignial research going on to make the statement. There was quite a bit of discussion about this under the Perceptions heading I linked you to. The Banner had been involved in that conversation too, so he knew about it. At that point there was no consensus for a source that worked for the content and we were in the process of finding sources that would work. That's why I removed the unsourced content (the status quo comment) citing the ongoing work at the talk page since we were actively trying to rework the content and find sources. That's pretty standard practice for challenged new content, especially if unsourced while its being discussed and reworked. Keep in mind this was all before the reverts by The Banner, so there was plenty of talk page discussion. Then he tried to reinsert the content with the source that had been challenged already. I reverted pointing him back to the ongoing talk page discussion that he had already been involved in, but the reverts continued. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Also just to be clear, I never claimed this was the only incident of disruption at the article. I just gave it as a single example of the problematic behavior that I've experienced to keep things concise. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Drmies thanks for commenting, and for injecting some fun into the discussion. {i love that self-portrait :) } As I wrote above, I've been ignoring Banner's constant focus on contributors not content on Talk and the nasty remarks he keeps making, and his edit warring to retain any piece of crap content that is added as long as it is "positive" about organic food, and have asked him to contribute constructively. But when he threw down the gauntlet I felt he crossed the line. He has thrown AGF completely out the window and has not used any DR processes and has just degenerated into disrupting the article. It's time for him to go. At any point in this discussion he could have said, "hey, ok, i've been acting like a dick because i'm frustrated. sorry, I will use DR processes and chill out on Talk." he has come nowhere even near that - instead he is now making martyr-ish remarks. really it's time for him to be topic banned. Thanks again. Jytdog (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• Jytdog, I just don't see it. We've topic-banned plenty of people on this very board, but I don't see how Banner's behavior is a matter of reproach in the first place. I have skimmed the talk page and I may have missed a note or two, but what I expected to find there was some serious hardcore discussion of sources, and I don't see it. And the other thing I expected was maybe an RfC or two about the specific wording of this change or that, and I don't see that either. One could easily flip the tables and say that one editor is here being gang-tackled by a group of editors who also (note Kingofaces's linked edits) removed sourced content--and, one should add, this is supposed to be a two-way street: did you all seek dispute resolution? Finally, I don't see the personal attacks or the persistent focus on contributors, not content, that Banner is accused of. Can we not use our time more productively on the talk page? Have you considered 3O, or soliciting the opinion of some MEDRS experts? Later, Drmies (talk) 00:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking questions here Drmies (I'd rather see that than just support/opposes). I won't have time to respond to much else than this until later, but if you're referring to my three diffs up at my support post, you might have misread the situation. The content was originally unsourced by another user, and some discussion was already ongoing with multiple editors at the time before The Banner even added it, but there wasn't consensus that it was appropriate for the content well before my links. We basically were discussing a lot, but The Banner seemed to decide to just go ahead and add/revert the sources and content in. It's a little ways back (and a bit of read), but the conversation was here [12]. I'll comment on the other things later tonight when I'm back if no one else addresses them by then. Kingofaces43 (talk) 00:40, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi Drmies, we have been putting up with this for two years now:

• in November 2012 Banner first edited the article, leaping into an edit war (see the history here, around November 2012 to include sources like http://www.factorfizzle.com to support content on the safety and nutrient value of organic vs conventional food.
• Banner's first comment on the article Talk page was also back in November 2012, and he asked, "why MEDRS"
• his first response to the first answer went right to "Blatant nonsense" [13]
• Actually I was wrong about no DR. Zad68 opened a mediation that failed back in December 2012 over all the ruckus and edit warring Banner caused then.
• there were efforts to frame an RfC (here and here that failed - and if you read those, you can see why.
• I got involved in late December and suggested a compromise - namely to handle "chemical" differences (of which some can actually be identified) separately from "health differences" from eating organic (none have been identified) (see here). That compromise has endured since then.
• but Banner has been railing against the use of MEDRS for health claims about organic food for two years now. Please walk in our shoes. And you are ignoring his dare when asked to strike yet another charge of whitewashing: "Why should I? You have already brought me to AN/I, so let us see how that ends up". So what will the community do? How do we live with this guy who cannot hear that we need to use MEDRS for health claims? (a two year case of IDHT) Those are not rhetorical questions - I am really asking for your advice. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Interesting approach. Why don't you tell that I initiated a possible RfC twice but that "you guys" (to give a short summery of the different people involved) could not accept my proposal? And why is there constant trouble at Organic food about stuff being removed? Quite often it were others adding stuff and seeing it removed on grounds of "failing MEDRS" or the polular "WP:OR". Is it not possible that something is wrong with the tight application of MEDRS when so many people have trouble with it? Only this year (just 19 days old) it happened to three other users to see their edits reverted by mr. Jytdog. We are talking about food, but sources from agricultural colleges and universities are often rejected as unreliable of failing MEDRS. And scientific research was, according to you, unreliable due to the "messiness of reality" but still you accept some scientific research, especially when it is vague or negative about organic food. You should apply the same rules for all scientific research, not cherrypicking the best ones for your goal. The Banner talk 13:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

MEDRS is policy. If you don't like it, the appropriate response is to work to change the policy, not to ignore it and and attack the characters of those who apply it. That's pretty much the way it works here and at any other organization for that matter. If you decide the rules don't apply to you because you don't agree with them, sanctions usually follow. Formerly 98 (talk) 13:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

(MEDRS is a guideline, Formerly!) There is so much more to Banner's bad behavior. I guess I am going to have to catalog the whole ugly history. That will take some time. But here is another example - a totally WP:POINT-y nomination for deletion back in November 2012. Sheesh. And it hasn't gotten much better. I will bring a whole slew of diffs on Talk and the article later. Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Are you really that desperate to get me topic banned that you have to go back more then two years to find excuses? Sheesh. The Banner talk 01:40, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

It's called "establishing a pattern". If it goes back two years, then the time period is not the deal-killer you're making it out to be; quite the opposite, in fact. --Calton | Talk 05:26, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You can also look at it from the other side: they claim that the article is neutral and the use of MEDRS is valid. But there is a pattern of other people who also claim that the article is not neutral and that the application of MEDRS is at least heavy handed. The Banner talk 16:29, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Questions?. I'm a little surprised there hasn't been any action yet after this long considering we've had pretty clear personal attacks/civility issues and edit warring The Banner resorts to, especially when consensus is against them due to reliable sources, due weight, etc. Considering that, are there any questions about something that isn't clear about the specific behavior issues for other folks reading here? What exactly are people looking for to make a decisions one way or another?

The Banner just can't accept that their behavior in attempting to deal with content they disagree with is problematic and tries to claim they are being attacked instead in some fashion instead of trying to avoid the behavior problems. [14] Past history (apparently 48 ANIs) shows this behavior is a persistent problem, so I'd like to see if we can get some kind of resolution so those of us at the article don't need to keep putting up with continued personal attacks and aspersions whenever we do something The Banner doesn't agree with. It seems we have more than enough for the proposed warning by Formerly 98 at a minimum, and a topic ban seems like a no-brainer for anyone who's had to deal with the behavior first hand at least, but what kind of information are uninvolved editors looking for? Hopefully answering that can bring this to a close if something is unclear. Kingofaces43 (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - A topic ban is drastic and excessive for this incident on organic foods. The inserted statement at that article, while true, is vague in meaning, so it says little. I've also seen problems around MEDRS, as I have a history with it, and have seen other editors have a history with it. There were times where I believed there was false consensus, and eventually seen those articles grow more neutral. I've seen editors come and go, and had this belief there was NPOV, when they inserted something reliable, but it was removed because it wasn't a review, or they didn't have access to the review. The whitewashing remark looked like the perceived actions, and not necessarily a personal attack. I propose resolution to seek out a good source to include what organic has over natural foods. - Sidelight12 ^Talk 04:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been mentioned before, this has been an ongoing issue, not an isolated incident just to make sure that is clear. From your response, it seems like you might have taken just a glance at a few things (completely understandable given the length of this). The reason The Banner is being discussed is because of their behavior, not a content dispute. Voicing a concern of whitewashing is one thing on a talk page (variable in appropriateness), but edit warring citing white washing by users rather than specific reliable source or weight concerns is a problem because it contributes to the history attacking editors. The snipes are very directed at editors and not content if you follow the diffs and the talk page discussions linked above, and below by Jytdog. What do you think is the best way to prevent the behavior issue regardless of dispute with that in mind? Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm just an outside observer here but I've been on the receiving end in the past of what felt like a tag-team effort by Jytdog, Formerly98 and KingofAces43. Spending a few days studying their edit histories is very informative. They, plus some other editors like Yobol(and a few others), seem to work as a team. That's my impression. And their edits tend to be beneficial to the big end of town, never the other way around. It could be coincidental, but thought it worth mentioning. Under these circumstances, Banner should receive the benefit of the doubt. MLPainless (talk) 13:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Just a quick note for anyone trying to determine consensus, but it would seem like MLPainless has a separate ax to grind here as they aren't commenting on The Banner's behavior in their opposition. They've run into frustration in tackling WP:FRINGE topics at Talk:Vani Hari and Talk:Sunset Yellow FCF somewhat recently, which is what their above comments are based on. The editors that have interacted with MLPainless are largely from over at WP:MED (e.g. [15]) when problems at those articles were discussed there, and those editors came to check things out.

As a science editor, I for one get very tired of people passionate about a topic casting aspersions like above (shills, white-washing, etc. from some other editors) whenever they don't agree. It's a distraction at best, which is why we're hoping for some kind of action in the case of The Banner to get them to stop the behavior. If they actually want to discuss content instead of lashing out, then that's what we're looking for. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's an example of what I mean: within 3 hours of my comment above, user "Formerly 98" went through my edit history and deleted/modified edits I made at Atrazine, edits that tended to raise some flags of concern about a hugely profitable pesticide. If you look at that article's history, you'll see him and Jytdog (and Kingfaces43) removing all possible comments that cast a negative light on Atrazine. Their editing is almost entirely exonerating of the chemical, despite numerous primary studies showing problems. Those studies, even when there are several, by different researchers, all pointing to a similar conclusion, are tagteam deleted on the grounds of "not a secondary or review study". And even when I included a review study, it was deleted on the grounds that the review study was "polemic".

Now I don't care that Wikipedia is being expunged of any trace of doubt about profitable chemicals, and that all evidence for organic food is being deleted under the guise of MEDRS, but I'm not going to resile from commenting that it is happening, and that it's a shame. I've also looked at Banner's history and I really cannot see what the fuss is about. He can be a bit gruff, but not to the point of topic banning. This seems like yet another content dispute in which the corporate view is being rammed through. MLPainless (talk) 23:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Sure The Banner has an obnoxious personal style, but that is not a crime on Wikipedia. I am more concerned about the allegations of corporate tage-team spamming. It takes two teams to edit war. IMHO it is the proposer who needs a good spanking for wasting our time here. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Banner's history on the article and Talk

This is quite a wall of text. but it seems that folks aren't getting the history here. So here it is.

• article Banner came in hard and edit-warring, pretty much vanished, and has come back since the fall getting more and more nasty.

• 18 November 2012 adding content about nutrition based on primary source
• 22 November 2012 edit warring to retain content added by him and another editor
• 23 November 2012 continues edit warring
• 24 November 2012 continues edit warring
• 24 November 2012 edited out PSCI content on homeopathy and placed POV tag
• 25 Nov 2012 edit warred to keep tag in
• 29 Nov more of same
• 30 Nov nominated for deletion
• 30 Nov POINTy deletion of sources
• 2 Dec after bunch of crap content based on crap sources was reverted, Banner edit warred it back in this is the first of a pattern of doing this, as you will see
• 4 Dec more edit warring
• 4 Dec article protected due to EW
• 22 Dec taking out good source
• 23 Dec edit warring over that source
• 24 Dec edit warring over same source
• 24 Dec edit warring over same source
• 24 Dec article protected again
• 20 Jan 2013 my first slew of edits, after Talk discussion, that mostly resolved the issues that had been edit warred over
• 22 Mach constructive edit reverts vandalism/test edit
• 29 June constructive edit reverts addition of dubious content
• 3 Dec 2013 constructive edit reverted addition of dubious content
• 21 July 2014 back to edit warring over MEDRS
• (note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
• 20 AUg 2014 Banner edit wars to keep OR/unsourced content in article after it was reverted
• 25 Aug more of same
• 25 Aug 2014 more of same
• 28 Aug edits by me that resolved the issues until another editor validly challenged some it
• 18 Sept Banner edit wars over that, calling "censorship"
• 6 Jan 2015 [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Organic_food&diff=641172464&oldid=641160886 banner returns to edit warring to revert removal of badly sourced content, with edit note: "The permanent habit of removing things is quite annoying..."
• 6 Jan edit warring to keep that content in, again (but with nice edit note)
• 6 Jan edit warring again now with nasty note again: to counter the whitewash and POV"

• talk page

Am just giving sections for the hell that broke loose when Banner 1st entered the article, with much vitriol on his part.

• 24 Nov 2012 Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Removal_of_.22Health_and_Safety.22_section Banner proposes just removing Health and Safety section.
• 26 Nov, Zad opens section to discuss Banner's tagging edit warring Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Details_of_specific_POV_issues.3F
• 4 Dec Montanabw opened discussion after article was locked for edit warring Talk:Organic_food/Archive_2#Article_protection
• All of archive 3 is just ugliness, all around Talk:Organic_food/Archive_3
• series of constructive comments when I entered and started moderating the dispute
• 30 Dec 2012 16:33 reasonable
• 31 Dec reasonable, helpful
• 1 Jan reasonable and reasonable
• 1 Jan back to "I have strong the impression that two editors due to their personal believes, misused WP:MEDRS to prevent anything positive in the article. Exactly the same is happening at Organic milk (and is locked too)."
• 2 Jan reasonable
• 2 Jan turning back to broadside against MEDRS, oy and more of same and more and more
• 2 Jan 22:25 very reasonable
• 2 Jan 22:13 sharp but reasonable and again
• 3 sliding back into unconstructive - conspiracies
• 3 Jan constructive and again
• 4 Jan - I proposed a compromise here
• 6 Jan 2013 2:19 nice comment on Talk after my sandboxed proposal
• 6 Jan 18:14 nice comment on proposal
• 7 Jan bitterness about past war
• 8 Jan in discussion about independent sources, attacks MEDRS again and brings up dread "citations on google scholar" argument
• 9 Jan 1:58 now saying MEDRS sources are corporate/corrupt
• 9 Jan 2013 series of reasonably constructive edits here
• 22 Jan 2013 03:37 constructive contribution on merge discussion here
• 22 Jan 3:55 constructive contribution' keeping wacky content out
• (note in August another organic enthusiast showed up - an organic farmer new to WP, who started adding all kinds of unsourced (based on his authority) and badly sourced content)
• 20 Aug 2014 20:26 makes cynical comment about MEDRS, interrupting efforts to teach new editor about sourcing and OR
• 20 Aug 20:38 more of same
• 20 Aug 20:57 more of same, arguing about OR to keep "positive" content in article
• 20 Aug 21:10 in response to my frustrated comment, accuses me of "strangling" the article
• 27 Aug 14:41 justifies his edit warring on the basis that "It is quite annoying to see everything positive removed in this article with every time other rather poor excuses."
• 27 Aug 15:10 just more personal attack in the midst of edit warring
• 28 Aug calls article "an anti-organic blog.... The agricultural viewpoint is nowhere in the article. And it are farmers and growers who produce organic food, not medical scientists."
• 29 Aug Bizarre rant: "To the point that even chemical comparisons have been removed as being health claims. Sometimes it gives me the eerie feeling that when Monsanto claims that Agent Orange is perfectly safe, it is believed straight away. But a claim that Agents Orange is dangerous, should be backed up with thousands of sources but 95% is rejected immediately as unreliable, for instance because the sources are Vietnamese."
• 29 Aug explains why he is talking about Agent Orange, finally
• 4 Nov complains again about MEDRS being "misued to keep valuable information out of the articles"
• 1 Dec claims we have a "keep it out of the article" policy
• 6 Jan 2015 admits he is edit-warring in unsourced content; accuses other of "silencing" and whitewashing"
• 6 Jan in respond to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Organic_food&diff=next&oldid=641176345 request to talk in a civil way, asks question about NPOV (which was wasn't mentioned before as reason for deletion]
• 6 Jan arguing over MEDRS
• 6 Jan discussing edit war after the fact, claiming other editor reverted "not with explanation" (there was here and here)
• 7 Jan the throwing down of the gauntlet
• 15 Jan trying to use my statement about "messiness" to fight the application of MEDRS, oy
• 16 Jan asked a semi-real, albeit POINTy question about something I said
• 17 Jan playing the martyr over ANI
• 19 Jan 2015 sarcasm & personal attack

There you go. You can see the whole thing there. Like I said - came in ugly. got frustrated, and now comes back mostly in WP:POINT-y ways, making personal attacks and disrupting discussion. Please topic ban him. I will settle for a strong warning to 1) stop discussing contributors and discuss content, with a topic ban the next time he does so; and 2) to use WP:DR tools to deal with his concerns instead of venting on the rest of us and edit warring. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 02:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

It is a nice list of my edits. I guess each and everyone was reverted...

And it is interesting to see that Jytdog gets irritated when I used his own words "due to the messiness of reality" to question the content of the article. I am willing to believe the "due to the messiness of reality"-statement but than it has to be applied on all content, not just the inconvenient content. The Banner talk 00:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I note an interesting gap between end of August 2014 and beginning of November (after almost daily attention in August) in his attention to the article that corresponds to my issues with him. Starting September 1, he nominated a slew of articles for deletion, documented by @Tomwsulcer: here that I suggested were, as a package, in bad faith. I explained my concern on his talk page. Tomwsulcer also commented and was deleted. @Milowent: also tried to talk sense to him to deaf ears here. I laid it on thick here and his response was to delete it within 5 minutes. He went through the four stages of warning me in 6 minutes here to here, which is certainly not the way the system is intended but got to the point that by the technicality he could use the stop or get blocked threat (which he used repeatedly, see above). So I had an active, conscious vandal, deliberately trying to force his POV through AfD nominations. I challenged all his bad faith AfD nominations the proper way, by adding sources he deliberately failed to find from the first pages of Google when attacking these articles. I won every case, which clearly shows he is the one out of line. Originally I tried to show how each individual bad faith nomination was not a singular event but part of a package. Apparently according to user:Drmies, disclosing these facts, suggesting the offender should be stopped, are personal attacks. So I had to back off. I gave a few key notations in this summation for brevity, there's plenty more.

The general point is, he didn't calm down and stop being obnoxious, he only diverted his efforts toward me for a couple of months. When I backed off, he turned his attention back to the article in question. There is an obvious pattern of behavior here. He's a moving target causing trouble to multiple users wherever he goes and as I have said above, is in need of serious disciplinary action (or psychological help) beyond this one complaint. Somebody please go through his history (contact me and I'll be glad to guide you to the dirt I have, both my interactions and his conflicts with more than 30 other users) and make a reasonable determination if we want this person constantly making hostile edits and interactions as a representative, as a member of our team. Do we want him to take ownership of any article he chooses to get involved with? Do we want more 3RR violations, more civility disputes, more wikilawyering to force POV and points into articles of his choosing? It is obvious even from his comments here, he will use any tactic and tool possible to bully his "opponents" to get his way. If you just topic ban him on this one topic, it will not solve the problem, he will just take his show elsewhere. After he has assaulted another editor with his barrage of tactics, they might get to the point that they find their way back to ANI with him and we do this dance again. Trackinfo (talk) 11:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't be bothered to find the AfDs I was referring to in my warning--what was problematic was the personal attacks you made in those AfDs. "Personal attack" is a matter of tone, and I think you have a problem finding the right tone every now and then. Drmies (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In fact I was trying to ignore your silly quest to get me blocked. I tried to ignore your personal attacks and harassment. But yu won't give up. And accusing me of a bias against articles related to pageants is not true. There is clearly a problem but you seem to ignore it. And the problem there is, amongst others, this: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mrdhimas/Archive. And yes, I have send your attack page to MfD (Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Trackinfo/sandbox/Banner). How long do you want to go on and on and on? The Banner talk 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I forgot to note above that I made a good faith effort to discuss this issue headon with Banner and with the new editor I mentioned above, Redddbaron (a farmer who is new to WP and its sourcing guidelines). That discussion is here: here] It sadly devolved into personal attacks. Jytdog (talk) 14:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

It would have been better when you offered this link: Talk:Organic food/Archive 5#concerns about bias...., an interesting story of not listening to the real content problem. You are willing to listen to everything, except anything that questions the application of MEDRS and flawed neutrality of the article due to the strict application of MEDRS. You talk about everything here, except the content problems. The Banner talk 05:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, the focus of this ANI is your behavior. There are many ways to resolve content disputes which you have not attempted to use for over two years now - you have reduced yourself to making disruptive, heckling, SOAPBOX comments like this and disruptive reverts in the article like this. Your contributions have not been constructive for a long time now. Jytdog (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You are bluntly ignoring the fact that the talk page of Organic food is now filled with accusations of the article being POV. The behaviour that you dislike so much, is nothing more than me keeping pointing at how POV the article is. Instead of doing something about the POV, an opinion shared by many others, you just try to silence somebody you never managed to silence before. The fact that you even try to close the talk page of organic food for discussion is quite serious: see here. The Banner talk 16:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

requesting close

This has gone on long enough and we have crept to the top of this page. Can an admin please review and close? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I just requested a close at the "request close" board here. Jytdog (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi

User page

Winkelvi (talk · contribs) is using his User page to criticize, without naming him, User:Coretheapple, with whom he is an edit-war over on Bess Myerson, currently discussed on WP:AN3. Winkelvi has used his user page to criticize other (unnamed) editors, in violation of WP:POLEMIC, one month ago over an incident reported here, and was told, here, this was a violation, and an admin reverted his User page. Seeing the new attack, I reverted it twice, making sure the edit history was clear as to the reason. Winkelvi insists on keeping the attack. At this point, I leave it to admins. Choor monster (talk) 17:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Untrue. My comments in my user space are not now and never have been directed toward any one editor. Choor monster is, in my opinion, using the AN3 report to attack me there and here as well as harass me at my User Page by editing it not once, but twice (the second time after I told him to stop). This report and his edit warring at my User Page is about retaliation and trying to create drama in my direction, nothing more. Choor Monster wants to see me blocked and punished, plain and simple. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

POLEMIC applies regardless if it is directed at one editor or a group. -- Calidum 18:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it doesn't matter whether the criticism was introduced with specific others in mind or not. Quoting from WP:POLEMIC as to what's not allowed: "Material that can be viewed as attacking other editors, including the recording of perceived flaws." Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Diff added: [16], note that the problematic language is more than just the words currently at-issue (ie, bolded by the diff). The words which were added during the WP:AN3 dispute are the one's I can confidently identify with the dispute. I presume the other attack language was added over some other incident, but I have no interest in tracking this nonsense down. Choor monster (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

• Just saw the "ping" of my user name. As I understand it, the language in question is [17]. Yes this is obviously a guarded reference to my report at AN3, but given his past record at that board, and his being blocked based on a "list of diffs" at that board in the past, I'm not sure how anyone other than Winkelvi is harmed by drawing attention to it. Coretheapple (talk) 15:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's not a question of harm, whether to others being attacked or to Winkelvi embarrassing himself: it's simply not allowed. His restoring the polemics is explicitly considered a form of disruptive editing. See link above to last month, when similar "anonymous" childish polemics on his user page were noticed and deleted by an admin. Also note Winkelvi's edit summaries: massive hypocrisy as he claims WP:OWNership. Choor monster (talk) 15:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

---

I never did get why the original POLEMIC complaint here did not rate compared to the previous POLEMIC referred to above that was removed. At least his newest criticism of editors comes with a soothing nature illustration. Perhaps it's a defense against trouts? Choor monster (talk) 19:51, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

He is using his userspace to criticize, without naming, me now. [18] This revision was added after he was warned for edit warring again just yesterday and asked to stop editing All About That Bass for a week at User talk:Winkelvi. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The user has just confirmed to the WP:WIKIHOUNDing accusations by reverting me here. Note that they never edited this page before that one and out of nowhere reached to revert my contribution. MaRAno ^FAN 08:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary says that he is removing content not contained in the cited source. This is not wikihounding. -- Diannaa (talk) 15:29, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether it's a good or bad edit is irrelevant in the definition of wikihounding. In fact, part of the reason WV shows up in ANI a lot is because of his atrocious habit of prolonging conflicts with specific editors. He'll be in some conflict, repeatedly Template an opponent (usually unaware of any hypocrisy on his part), asked to stay off the opponent's Talk page, respond by saying it's his right and duty (again, pure hypocrisy), and then find (or even bait) some borderline infraction of the opponent so he gets to Template the opponent's Talk page again. Not officially wikihounding, no, but his inability to rise above "nyeah nyeah nyeah" behavior has become endlessly tiresome. On his Talk page right now, his left hand is promising to never edit war again because he really really gets the message, while his right hand is defending his (for-now-blocked) aggressive, incompetent, and ultimately pointless reversion of a minor addition to Sally Field. Choor monster (talk) 20:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes of course it's wikihounding. If I did that I'd be roasted over a slow fire. Re your Sally Field reference, I think you're referring to this revert. He is correct that it is unsourced. On his user talk page, he defended that by paraphrasing WP:BLPSOURCES. However, by so doing, he shows that he does not understand BLPSOURCES. Policy requires removal of material "challenged or likely to be challenged." But the passage in question says that Sally Field was going to host TCM! It is not at all controversial or likely to be challenged. He should have tagged it (or better still, taken a few seconds to find a source, such as [19]) and not hit the revert button. This kind of thing keeps on happening again and again, and Winkelvi reacts by apologizing profusely to administrators, pledging on a stack of bibles not to do it again, and then doing it again. Coretheapple (talk) 21:44, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikihounding is defined as introducing conflict on more than one page beyond any initial interaction, pages that could only reasonably be found by scanning an editor's history. I haven't see that: WV is careful to stick to one new page per opponent.

(I replaced my "reversions" with "reversion".) Note that his previous reversion on the Sally Field article cited WP:CRYSTAL incompetently: forward-looking announcements are allowed. That's right, he edit wars without knowing policy. A few weeks ago, he edit-warred deleting references because he was unaware that foreign language sources are acceptable.

I think nothing less than a 1RR restriction on WV will work when the block is finished. And he has to permanently agree to stop misusing the word "vandalism" and "harassment". And probably respect every last request to stay off User Talk pages. Otherwise, these time-wasting absolutely repetitive reports are just going to keep on coming and coming and coming. Bleah. Choor monster (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the wikihounding rule is quite that narrow. If I check out the contribs of a user I'm in conflict with and then pop up to revert him, I'm at least violating the spirit of the rule and gaming the system. MaranoFan is no angel but he's not a serial vandal who needs to be followed around to revert misconduct. Coretheapple (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

If by "hound" you mean this little guy, well sure. Choor monster (talk) 23:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

That's about right. Coretheapple (talk) 23:26, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Oso mudslide

I am not involved in any of the pages mentioned here, but I have encountered Winkelvi (aka WV) at 2014 Oso mudslide, where he was notably aggressive with contentious edits, several times amounting to edit warring. This is a persistent behavior; the comment by Bbb23 (below) that "Winkelvi can be difficult at times" is an understatement. I think you will find Choor Monster's comment prophetic: without action beyond temporary blocks (which WV admittedly just waits out) these reports will "keep on coming and coming and coming". ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I have been asked to provide more detail on my previous comment. Winkelvi's behavior at 2014 Oso mudslide shows a pattern of aggressively deleting other editors' work that falls just short of edit warring. E.g.:

• here (13:08 25 Mar and subsequent) with Mongo;
• here (02:19 26 Mar and subsequent) with Lattetown;
• here (11:26 01 Apr) and subsequent with Mongo;
• here (01:29 10 Apr and subsequent) on material I had added;
• here (02:50, 11 Apr and subseqent) (massive deletions);
• here (23:31, 19 Apr and subsequent) with Forestrystudent (many edits on 19 April, some of which are questionable, but I didn't wade through them);
• and again (15:41, 26 Apr and subsequent).

I point out that the problem is not the edits themselve (some of which I aggreed with), but in the aggresiveness in pursuing them, which discourages other editors from participating. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 02:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can verify I experienced bullying from Winkelvi when contributing to 2014 Oso mudslide...

• Winkelvi's first post to make me aware of editing dispute policy (after he reversed my edits) was combative and threatening. [20]
• After becoming more familiar with the edit conflict policies I pointed out that he made disruptive edits and went back and forth with him about how they were disruptive.[21]
• When I referenced "Jimmy's Rules" to describe disputes and the relative prominence of opposing views from Neutral POV Winkelvi's reply was disrespectful: "Jimmy's rules"? Thanks for my morning laugh."
• Ironically he further engaged in Wikilawyering while accusing the other editors who disagreed with him of doing the same. — Lattetown (talk) 02:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Bess Myerson

• • • OK. Putting aside this matter, I'd appreciate it if administrators could monitor Talk:Bess Myerson. The article has been protected but there are still issues. Coretheapple (talk) 18:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt administrators have been monitoring it and the article for a couple of days now, Coretheapple. Yes, there are "issues". Not the least of which is your refusal to work cooperatively with and cease being uncivil toward me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:21, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, then it is a good thing they are there. Peace. Coretheapple (talk) 18:40, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way, to clarify: when I said there are "issues," I was referring to the copyright violations that you have said are present in the article. You said in a talk page post a few hours ago: Oh, and one more thing: interestingly, the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article here. I don't know when it was put in or who did it, but obviously, it will have reworded here considerably when the article is unlocked. Can't have any more copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources than we already do, eh? You have not substantiated this very serious claim, by providing the name of the webpage and the text that was you say was duplicated, so that it can be fixed. Also you imply that there are other copyright issues that would also need to be addressed if they exist. I raised the issue a few hours ago and you have yet to address this issue. But yes, there are editor behavior issues, that is correct. Coretheapple (talk) 19:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi has made 57 edits to the talk page of Bess Myerson[22] and 117 edits to the article itself in just the last two days,[23] six of which have been explicit reverts. I believe that Winkelvi should take a long break from this article (and possibly others as well) or the community should separate him from the topic. His obsessive editing of the article and talk page has not improved it, only disrupted it. I attempted to address this problem on this talk page only to be told that my comments were "inappropriate" and that I was trolling and creating drama. Further, the editor has tried to make a number of false claims against Coretheapple to distract us from his problematic behavior, while at the same time, running to an admin's talk page to try and start a false RfC against Coretheapple. I'm wondering if this is a returning user with a cleanstart account, because this bad behavior seems very familiar. Viriditas (talk) 04:51, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why Viriditas believes his unsolicited opinion on my editing is relevant or why he thinks he knows what he's talking about in regard to any of the things he mentioned above, but he's getting so much wrong, it's nearly comical. Out of the blue (never having edited the Myerson article, that I can tell), he came to my talk page not once, not twice, but three times with claims that I was harassing Coretheapple. Which is totally incorrect. His edits to my talk page (where he admitted in the first comment, "I don't know what's going on between you and Coretheapple...") are found here [24]; [25]; [26]. His comments were totally inappropriate and became harassment, in my opinion (as are his comments above, the more I think about them). As far as the RfC he referenced where I was asking for advice at an administrator's talk page, the RfC was to be about a content dispute, not Coretheapple. Lastly, his suggestion I am a sock is ridiculous and I'd really appreciate him striking the accusation above. What he's doing is, in my view, surreal drama. If there was truly an issue with my edits or alleged disruption at the Myerson article, I would have been blocked for it days ago. For whatever reason, it appears Viriditas is interested in seeing me sanctioned for something, anything he can come up with. And I have no idea why. Like I said, this is all out of the blue. And weird, if you ask me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:12, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Addendum: Looking more closely at Viriditas' Wikipedia history raises more questions for me than gives answers. I was looking to see if he and I had ever really crossed paths in the past (possibly explaining his need to see me sanctioned). In so doing, I couldn't find anything where we had actually edited articles together previously, but I did find a VERY extensive block log that ranges from 2007 until September 2014. His longest block was three months for edit warring and disruptive editing. A one week block was for "feuding with another editor, persistently making unsubstantiated accusations, and other disruptive editing" (sounds not much different from what he's doing to me). Of the 12 blocks he's received in 7 1/2 years, the majority are for edit warring (what he's accusing me of), most are that coupled with disruptive editing, several are for behavior toward other editors. Considering this record and the drama that goes with it, I should not be surprised that he is coming at me in the fashion he is. Although I still don't know why he's decided to target me. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:43, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned to winkelvi directly on his talk page (although Im sure he will delete it ) An IP account does not indicate vandalism, nor should it. This is discrimination. If you feel that ever user of wikipedia should have a registered account then lobby wikipedia to change the rules and block all IP users. You shouldnt take it into your own hands to revert all changes by IP's because they are IP's . or fail to check their sources because they are IP's. Or generally mistreat users because they are IP's .You should treat IP's the same as registered users until there is an offcial wikipedia statement that says IP's should be treated in a different way to registered users. You shouldnt unilaterally impose your own predujiced policies. WInkelvi (see his contrib history / diffs) repeatedly picks on noob IP users and scares them away from wikipedia by his bullying / edit warring tactics. I find this unfair and disproportionate.181.64.192.86 (talk) 03:29, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment from new drive-by: I was alerted to this discussion by a respectful and non-canvassing message left on my talk by WV, who I don't think I have met previously. I took a look at the Myerson article, and it seems to me that the resolution of this issue is pretty much what is happening: full protection of article, with all edits subject to broad consensus (not necessarily unanimity) until everyone has settled down and learns to work together. Seems that is the solution. I find that topic bans are not terribly useful or helpful, they just provide more fodder for drama. A grownup to monitor the dispute should settle this. I don't see much more than the usual spat between two editors who are both convinced that they are correct and are getting pissed off at each other. Montanabw^(talk) 19:50, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Two editors? You should look closer at that page and this discussion.I am an uninvolved editor, as is Viriditas, and the talk page shows WV at loggerheads with various editors. Since you were explicitly canvassed by Winkelvi your comments should not be considered even if they reflected reality. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:42, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I am discussing the original dispute between Coretheapple and WV. I've never met either of them before. The fact that one of them asked me to swing by does not negate my views. AGF. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

At Talk:Bess Myerson and in the article, it has been Winkelvi versus myself, User:Bus stop, User:Alanscottwalker, User:7157.118.25a, User:NE Ent, and User:Classicfilms. Coretheapple (talk) 22:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

As I was named here, I guess I should respond. Mountanbw's, opposing of article bans on principle is not responsive to the issues at hand (and I hope will not be taken into account), if you oppose them on principle then get such bans stricken from policy. In the meantime, the User:WV's behavior will more than likely continue dragging the editing environment down and it is small limited actions such as this that can turn it around before it is too late. Alanscottwalker (talk) 23:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I can respond as well. I dropped by the page a few days ago and made a lone post about the substance of the debate. From my perspective CoretheApple does appear correct that Bess Myerson hosted Miss America contests, and there is good sourcing supporting that.[27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] I don't plan on getting involved other than to briefly share my take on the evidence though, evidence that hopefully helped resolve the contention. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WV "versus" NE Ent? Who knew? Certainly not me. I started discussing the edit after seeing this here thread (see Talk:Bess_Myerson#Break) and it didn't seem terribly difficult to come to a resolution. If "You've persuaded me with logic. Thanks for taking so much of your time to help work this out. I appreciate your patience, kindness, and efforts." is what "versus" looks like I should find more "enemies." NE Ent 00:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, it's that it took AN/I involvement to get to that minor edit, that demonstrates the disruptive problem with the WV approach. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:13, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to your opposing his plagiarism claim via this comment. Was I mistaken? Do you think there was plagiarism? That's the most important thing to come up on the talk page and, as far as I can see, not a single editor supported him in that. Coretheapple (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

WV falsely accused me of being an SPA when I made some edits to the Mike Huckabee page that he didn't like, right after I started an account. That's why I dropped by the Bess Myerson page when seeing him involved in a controversy on it, I was curious to see if he treats everyone like he did me. Given my past history with him I don't think I should be voting on this. I'll admit I am not thrilled with his approach however, and that is putting it mildly. --7157.118.25a (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Looking at the link NE Ent provided above, I found one exchange that makes me question WV's competence to edit -- or simply a willingness to be a rules-wanker: Classicfilms points out that Myerson is dead, & thus WP:BLP no longer applies, to which WV states "BLP articles remain BLPs and BLP policies and guidelines stay in place in regard to the article for up to two years". Uh, BLP means "Biography of a Living Person", & the exception WV quotes is for contentious content. Stating that a Jewish person encountered anti-Semitism in the 1940s is not contentious -- & was a very common occurrence. (BTW, it is generally accepted that African-Americans encountered prejudice in the 1940s, too.) -- llywrch (talk) 01:17, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Right. As noted by the diff's WV turns the uncontentious into the contentious - thus they need to reform or they will be regularly seen as incompetent or disruptive - the pedia does not need such contention over nothing - we have enough of the other kind. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:37, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

... which I would suggest is unlikely to happen if warnings of edit warring are followed by still more warnings when he edit wars and violates 3RR. Or as happened today, something a little less than a warning. I've lost count as to how many warnings he's received for edit warring. Two in the last month I believe, before this latest episode? Coretheapple (talk) 23:23, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Bess Myerson topic ban

Winkelvi's obsession with Bess Myerson has led to him making hundreds of disruptive edits to the article and talk page in only a 48 hour period. This obsession has disrupted the topic area, created animosity among users, and led to him making numerous false allegations and accusations, including edit warring. Winkelvil's obsessive behavior, lack of good faith, and inability to recognize the views of others requires some time away from this topic to allow editors to work harmoniously again. Therefore, I propose a three month topic ban for this purpose. Viriditas (talk) 05:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support as proposer. The disruption of Talk:Bess Myerson is the worst I've seen in a while. Winkelvil lacks the core competency needed to edit and discuss in this topic area. He has wasted the valuable time of many editors and has taken zero responsibility for his role. A topic ban is the best solution at this time. Viriditas (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

"Obesession"? What obsession? I was editing the article just as much as Coretheapple. Less, I'm pretty certain. Further, his claim that I have made 100s of disruptive edits at the article is absurd. Look at the Bess Myerson article history, look at my edits there. 117 edits at the article, and very good edits to boot. Coretheapple has 152 edits at the same article Viriditas claims I'm "obsessed" with. The surreal nature of Viriditas' proposal and accusations against me boggles my mind. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 05:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Your disruption was recently substantiated on the 3RR noticeboard, and the current talk page features it in spades. Further, several editors have repeatedly asked you to modify your behavior, including myself and Cullen, and your response in both cases was to tell us to fuck off, metaphorically speaking. Neither my behavior nor Coretheapple's, or anyone else's for that matter, is the problem here. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support The false plagiarism claim, discussed on the talk page here, is just the latest indication that this editor is disruptive to an extent that can no longer be tolerated. His attacks on Viriditas' character are par for the course. Coretheapple (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oh God. I just reviewed the talk page, as I wanted to edit the article and it is fully protected. The discussion here is pinged. Normal discussion on that page has completely broken down, and this editor's utter absence of clue is appalling. Support topic ban, a permanent one. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:28, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. I don't see anything here that needs to be handled at ANI. This topic went from alleged user page probblems and POLEMIC to "false" claims of plagiarism on the Myerson page. I see several editors here who don't like the way Winkelvi conducts themselves. Mind you, Winkelvi can be difficult at times, but this report is not even constructive.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Why the scare quotes? It was a false report. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I was never really sure about that "polemic" claim, but the points that Viriditas makes are well-taken. He is not an editor of the article, does not claim previous interaction, and evidently became concerned after seeing the activity on the talk page. Ditto Figureofnine. I'm also wondering why you don't feel the plagiarism and copyvio claims were groundless, as they clearly were, and were disruptive and above all were total wastes of time. At the most there is one phrase in the article that might need tweaking. But his claiming, in an highly inflammatory manner, that "the Miss America webpage for Bess Myerson has content that identically matches and almost identically matches what's in the Myerson article" and that there were "copyvios and verbatim lifts of content from online sources" was jut plain false. If the false plagiarism/copyvio claims were the only problem I don't think we'd be here. Coretheapple (talk) 18:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Talk:Bess Myerson indicates that WV does not get the WP:RS thing and is unwilling to learn because they "know" the sources are wrong. I suggest they drop the WP:STICK. NE Ent 19:08, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Distracting material. Please return to Bess Myerson issues.--Bbb23 (talk) 20:36, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I "get" WP:RS just fine. As someone on the Autism Spectrum who sees the world differently than neurotypicals (such as those in this thread), I'm just seeing RS from a slightly different angle. And there's nothing wrong with that. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I am an old goat with bad eyes who sees the world even differently than you do. But I am bound by site policies and so are you. Coretheapple (talk) 19:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I am an old goat with bad eyes as well. And I never said nor implied I'm not bound by policy. In fact, as someone on the Spectrum, I'm likely much more aware of the "rules" in relation to my behavior in Wikipedia as well as in life. That's a hallmark of those of us with ASD. We are honest, we are straightforward in our behavior, and we are rule followers who have a hard time fathoming why anyone wouldn't be. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC) I have a hard time fathoming why you are giving us a self-serving description of your character. The only thing that matters is your behavior on the page. Coretheapple (talk) 19:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)Because the only thing that makes sense to me regarding the treatment (behavior) I've been receiving and the accusations I've been subject of since I came to the Myerson article is that my motives and edits at the article as well as my comments on the article talk page have been completely misunderstood. If that's the case (and I believe it is), then explaining and asking for some understanding is warranted. Wikipedia editors aren't expected to androids that respond and behave in a canned manner, every one of us is a human being with a life story. It stands to reason that our life stories will color our editing as well as our interactions with other editors from time to time (or even more often than from time to time). The editors that don't fall into the typical category... are they to be dismissed and tossed aside and topic banned or should they be accepted and worked with in spite of their differences and the misunderstandings that may surround them? Sometimes I think Wikipedia editors get so wrapped up in editing and the various peripheral things surrounding their efforts that we forget everyone here is a real human being. What's more important, editors or edits? Remember, without editors there would be no edits. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Winkelvil, you are not medically qualified to assess the mental states of other users, and even if you were, you would not be able to do it in this thread. Your comments about neurotypicals in this thread is so far over the line, that I think you should be indefinitely blocked until you are able to understand and recognize the problem. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC) "Neurotypical" is not a reference to "mental states", it's a common term used that references those not on the Autism Spectrum. Apparently, from your comments, it's obvious you know nothing about Autism. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:47, 11 January 2015 (UTC) Your medical claims couldn't be less relevant to this discussion. I am sure that there is a neurological explanation for much misconduct on Wikipedia. So what? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:58, 11 January 2015 (UTC) It most certainly is a reference to a mental state, and you have no business assessing, diagnosing, or commenting on who is or who isn't neurotypical in this thread. The only business you have here is responding directly to the concerns about your behavior, which, as far as I can tell, you have ignored, denied, distracted from, and brushed off. Do not make any further comments about autism or neurotypicals in this thread. You seem to do so only to denigrate others and justify your bad behavior. It's not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 20:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC) All I'm seeing is more ignorance on what Autism is ("medical claims" is one example). I'm also seeing yet another misunderstanding regarding what I've said. Editors on the Spectrum are in Wikipedia, and it's time the neurotypical editors get used to it and start to understand what it means. Just like in the real world (which Wikipedia isn't). I will not be dictated to by a non-administrator regarding comments about ASDs in this thread or any other. It's not a verboten subject. Such demands are discriminatory and I hope someone with an influential Wikipedia voice takes notice. I will NOT be quiet about discrimination. Ever. I suggest all of you read User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact as well as Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors and [35]. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:15, 11 January 2015 (UTC) But Viriditas is correct. You gave made no substantive reply. You HAVE brushed off, ignored, denied and distracted from the issues evident to NE Ent, Viriditas and myself, as well as to involved editor Core. Your invoking a medical condition is in extremely poor taste, and Viriditas is correct that you are in no position to diagnose the medical state of other editors, who may well be struggling more than you claim to be but are not advertising it quite as flamboyantly as you do. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:29, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

(@NE Ent). It's a bit more than that. The user does not appear to be reading sources, or has been reading them and not understanding them, and generally ignoring/disregarding/not grasping what is said to him. I had never previously encountered this person until he appeared on my user talk page a few days ago concerning my edit summary here[36]. Ms. Myerson had suffered a bout of ovarian cancer, and someone had tagged it "When?" I looked at the reference at the end of the sentence, added when she had cancer, and said in my edit summary "Rather than tagging "when," more constructive to look at the footnoted article, which gives the date." Winkelvi went on my page to say as follows

Re: this edit and edit summary [7], it's actually more appropriate to put the content in the article than in a footnote. Casual readers or readers unfamiliar with Wikipedia goings-on-in-editing are unlikely to look at a footnote and will wonder the same as I: when? where?. We're here to inform readers not force them to look deeper for content that can just as easily be inserted in the body of the article.[37]

As you can see, I very clearly and explicitly did not call for text to be put in a footnote, and I did not do so. I simply said that the answer to the "when" question is in the footnoted source. There were two other replies, both misunderstandings on his part.[38] At no time did he acknowledge error or misunderstanding, he just charged on, and as far as I know he believes to this day that he was in the right. What happened on my talk page is no big deal, but having this person hammer away on the article talk page and in the article itself and not getting the point is disruptive. He blames this problem on everything and everybody except himself. Lamentably this editor's position seems to be that "that's the way he is," and I guess it's just our tough luck if he's disruptive. He is just a burden that we have to bear, and if we don't like it we can lump it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:21, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually, looking harder I see there's an actual conflict between sources, which is I believe was the point WV was making. Obviously not a discussion for here. NE Ent 21:50, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but you see, the problem was that WV treated the situation as a zero-sum game, that he was "right" and the various obits describing her as host were wrong, and said on the page[39] that "Myerson was never the show host" in the face of all the sources that were offered up. Coretheapple (talk) 22:07, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

NE Ent, I've worked on hundreds of articles. Sources tend to conflict everywhere, and I expect to find that problem in every article. It's not a real problem, because there are tried and true methods to determine how to best represent conflicting sources. For the most recent example of how User:Tryptofish and myself handled conflicting sources, see Talk:David_Rioch#Two_conflicting_sources. The point is that one does not need to disrupt a topic area and engage in edit wars to deal with this. The exchange between Tryptofish and myself consisted of only several comments, with collaborative editing continuing unimpeded. The problem under discussion in this thread, is not concerned with such easy issues. We are discussing the behavioral problems of a user who lacks the competency to deal with conflicting sources. Viriditas (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support The editor, WV, has shown incompetence - and is an edit-warrior,[40] and they should be embarrassed for the way they have handled themselves beginning with their attempt to censor the word "antisemitism" from the article,[41] and the statement in their first talk-page comment: "I hope to get to looking further into the references and finding the answers" Here's good advice, don't edit, if you have not looked into the sources. Then their flat-out contradicting the sources that use the term "host" in a way the editor personally disagrees with and their false claims of plagiarism against other editors p[42] [43], but most of all their utter inability to work with others. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose I believe we're reaching We have reached consensus on the "host" issue on the article talk page. NE Ent 02:52, 12 January 2015 (UTC) NE Ent 03:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What? 100's of words and days of arguing, for that? And the "host" thing is only the latest. Alanscottwalker (talk) 03:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

One down and how much to go? We still have WV opposing the passage concerning Myerson's experiences with anti-Semitism, partly because we don't know that the "No Jews" signs she saw were directed at her! I'm serious.[44] Coretheapple (talk) 03:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support Repeated edit warring from user:winkelvi and a complete disregard for other users. He does not appear to read sources, or revisions and just cares anout "winning". He does not understand the colaborative nature of wikipedia and is unwilling to concede academic points. I would ban him from the site for 10 days. 186.9.81.168 (talk) 03:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Bbb23's analysis of Winkelvi and the scope of this topic ban is probably correct. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

What analysis? And what does it have to do with scope? Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I've unhatted the portion of this discussion in which Winkelvi gives essentially a "medical defense" for his conduct in the article. I agree that it is a distraction, but he really has nothing else to say, apart from attacking Viriditas. This discussion was hatted after Winkelvi made an appeal to BBB23, who is a participant in this discussion. Participants in discussions should not be moderating those very discussions to remove or hide material put there by the subject of the discussion. Winkelvi's response is very much relevant and that is his only response. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 16:36, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree that it's relevant. Whether it should be hatted or not is sort of a separate issue. Hatting does tend to "hide" material, and yes, it is used to hide irrelevant material. But when the irrelevant material is, essentially, the "case of the defense," then why hide it? It's a distraction, but that in itself is relevant, as it indicates how he behaves in talk page discussions. Winkelvi's response to this ANI report has been to smear Viritidas, who has never been in conflict with him so far as I know, and to bring this discussion to the attention of an editor he apparently is on good terms with.[45] The hatted discussion, which was commenced by Winkelvi raising his medical condition, was in sum and substance an appeal for sympathy on the grounds that he has a medical situation of some kind. But what I find a bit illogical is that he claims to have done nothing wrong. If he has done nothing wrong, then what is the pertinence of his autism or whatever it is he claims to have? He wants to have it both ways. Coretheapple (talk) 17:57, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• Figureofnine, Coretheapple, I have reinstated Bbb23's hatting. There is no "hiding"--if something can be shown by clicking, then it is not hidden. The material is distracting and not to the point. You may claim that Bbb is involved because he commented, but I disagree: that does not meet the burden of WP:INVOLVED. Besides, you would then have to argue that the hatted material reflects poorly on Winkelvi and that hatting it somehow helps his case, and that Bbb is actively working to help his case--you will find that this is impossible to do. Finally, this is the Administrators' noticeboard, and if an administrator decides that it is a good idea to hat something, then you are just going to have to accept that. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Draconian solutions do not work as a rule, and where the reasoning does not remotely support a Draconian solution, I invariably oppose such. Bbb23 is correct here. Collect (talk) 12:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you been to the the Myerson talk page? An editor like this can exhaust other editors. This one reminds me of User:Wondering55. Users like that need to clean up their act immediately or they can be immensely damaging to the project. Ultimately he had to be sitebanned. What's proposed here is mild, not Draconian. He claims to have a form of Autism and maybe he's telling the truth. But we're not neurological professionals and it's not fair to ask us to carry that kind of burden. I wouldn't even attempt to edit that page with Winkelvi active there. Life is too short. Bbb23 says Winkelvi is "difficult." That's easy for him to say. How about a little empathy for editors who have to cope with the Wondering55s and the Winkelvis? Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:37, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

What's draconian about it? Calling it "draconian" does not make it so, and is not reasoning. The purpose of some time away from this topic, is so editor/and the Pedia may not wind up in more disruption. WV, edit warred, does not read sources or misrepresents sources; disputes that undoubted RS that contain the same things as other reliable sources should be followed, accuses other editors of plagiarism that is unsubstantiated, causes days of talk page back and forth over inserting an "a" before "host", when no one was opposed to an "a". Collect, it is your !vote that has provided no reasoning. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm separating this subsection from the one above it, as it was brought by a different user and is totally unrelated. As for the topic ban, I didn't originate this ANI (and to be frank I am not sure I would have come here in the first place, as this is really cut out more for the old "RfC/U," now terminated, than for a drama board.) Anyway, once Viritidas, an uninvolved editor, started this, I had thought that the Bess Myerson talk page spoke for itself. But it's not reasonable to expect editors to wade through mountains of text. If we need diffs of disruption and edit warring, we can start with this user's revert-warring. [46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. Now I raised this previously at WP:AN3,(see [56]) and the result was page protection. Winkelvi viewed that as a vindication of his "good editing," to use his words. I can provide further examples of his "good editing," and I guess it's necessary because I can see Winkelvi only worsening if his behavior is not curbed. He has absolutely no understanding of the disruption that he has caused, as borne out by the exchange here with User:Cullen328 on Drmies' talk page. Coretheapple (talk) 18:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose: Topic bans generally don't solve the problem and usually are just fodder for others to keep baiting and attacking the person so restricted. Full protection of the article, applying the principles of WP:BLP to it due to being about a person recently deceased, applying WP:RS and WP:V appropriately, and supervision by a highly respected admin who has the authority to institute immediate 24-48 hour blocks for bad behavior should do the trick. Most of the time, people's tempers simmer down and they figure out how to work in an appropriate way. If not, WP:ROPE applies to escalating behavior. See my additional comments above. Montanabw^(talk) 19:57, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment: This is fairly common behavior for Winkelvi, aggressive edit-warring based on misreading of sources, picking-and-choosing what can be used for sources, and so on. So a TBAN here is just a silly band-aid. Choor monster (talk) 20:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support This is a fairly narrow topic-ban; hopefully it will motivate Winkelvi to reign in some of the issues that have been charitably described as "difficult." OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:43, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. As if this couldn't get any stranger, Winkelvi has decided to take this puppy to 11 by claiming that the supporters of his topic ban are actually the problem because we're all supposedly autistic like himself, but we're hiding in the closet. According to Winkelvi, the problems he's encountering here are due to his detractors engaging in autistic-related behaviors.[57] Can we get an indefinite block now, please? It's one thing to obsessively identify with your own personal neurodevelopmental disorder as the total measure of who you are, but it's quite another to start diagnosing other editors. Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

And then there is his claim here that "there is still a less than AGF attitude toward us" in this discussion. "Us" being people with autism.

That is outrageous on a number of levels. First, he raised the issue of his autism here as a defense for his bad behavior[58]. Basically his position here has been "I haven't done anything wrong, but if I did it's not my fault." Second, the reaction to his statements about his autism, even among his supporters, is that they are diversionary and irrelevant - clearly far short of "not showing AGF" to autism sufferers, whatever that means. After finding his play for sympathy here didn't work, and started to backfire, he has "taken it on the road," canvassing all the editors who signed some kind of autism declaration, and attacking editors here for discriminating against him based on his self-identified medical condition (which nobody here knew about until he raised the issue, and view as a diversion). Coretheapple (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Totally uninvolved editor. A topic ban is the last thing that should happen. Reading the talk page of the article and the edit history shows that there is a problem, not working together. This isnt all on Winkelvi, and some of the comments towards him show there is a war mentality tone on the talk page. Not enough to bring here, but its there. His edits dont appear to be that much of a problem, and he conducts himself well in a discussion. The page protection, forcing the editors to talk and agree, is probably enough. AlbinoFerret 17:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi recently posted this on the talk page of a user he has canvassed, making reference to this discussion. Since he is posting on user talk pages in lieu of participating in this duscussion, I think this might be of interest:

. . . Even more egregious is one of those editors stating I am "self-identified" as having Asperger's -- in other words, I really don't have it and am lying to gain sympathy. That comment really hurt when I first read it, but then I had to chuckle, because editing in Wikipedia could never be important enough to tell such a story. But, truth be told, to say something like that is just a slap in the face of everyone on the Spectrum, everyone with special needs whose disability or "different-ability" isn't immediately obvious. That kind of thinking, plus the general feeling expressed among a number of those in the thread that being on the Spectrum = incompetence and editing with them is a "burden" and "waste of time", is truly bigoted against those with special needs. It's discrimination, plain and simple.

--Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, hopefully WV is actually listening - several see WV individually as incompetent because of how they have acted, and would say the same about any editor. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I guess the question is what to do. If he is topic banned, that's fine for Bess Myerson but then the problem gets shifted to another article or articles. There is a new report below on his behavior in Meghan Trainor, totally unrelated to Myerson or anything else. A review of the noticeboards show his name popping up again and again. There is this, for instance, on the Administrators Noticeboard in April titled, "Disruptive, Authoritarian Editor," brought by yet another editor involving yet another article and also seeking a topic ban. Coretheapple (talk) 18:31, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Despite being reported on here, this user is continuing to do the very same thing that several users are finding problematic right now on All About That Bass. Meghan Trainor articles are a mess as a result of this user. The user insists on content disputes every time he is reverted and then remains completely ignorant during the disputes itself. That and his constant "playing the victim" act and picking on and harassing other editors is essentially Winkelvi's problem, as well as his inability to admit when he is at fault. It really is time that an admin intervenes properly, if this issue has not only being brought up now but by several other editors on this very same noticeboard and others in the past - this user's disruptive editing is clearly a continuous pattern and should not receive lenience because he is a "Veteran editor" who plays the victim with his medical condition. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know the particulars, as I have never heard of this Trainor or her work in my life, but I do see a slo mo edit war at All About That Bass, the merits of which are beyond me. Realistically, editors are granted great leeway, and this one knows how to work the system so that, with one exception, his edit warring comes under the 3RR threshold and/or don't attract blocks. It is up to uninvolved administrators to determine if his serial "issues" need to be dealt with, or will just be shrugged off for another day. Coretheapple (talk) 20:38, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Since I'm now watching your page, having posted a note there, I noticed that he left you a canvassing warning[59] that warned you against posting inappropriately on user talk pages. In his notice he refers to this note by you on the WikiProject Songs talk page and this note by you on the talk page of a "list" article. Winkelvi just doesn't "get" WP:CANVASS, and putting that unwarranted notice on a user talk page in the midst of an edit war just inflames things. The fact that Winkelvi did this just after he himself was warned for canvassing[60] is discouraging. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the drama from both article pages, since it's clear this user is just being plain attention-seeking, throwing unwarranted warnings and accusations around and playing the victim. WP:CANVASS refers to user talk pages and bias, which these articles are clearly not. Winkelvi has even gone on to harass another user User:MaranoFan on his talk page and accuse him of tag-teaming. I honestly don't know in what aspect a user can be more disruptive and harassing than this one. Even with his "veteran editor" status which he has thrown around yet again on User talk:Winkelvi, talking down on other editors, the user persistently violates Wikipedia policies and contradicts them as evident in this new WP:CANVASS chapter of this user's drama. The user has made 13 reverts in the last 24 hours.- Lips ^{are movin} 06:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Canvassing

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

---

I happen to watchlist Buster7, with whom I have interacted many times, and what do I see but this post] from WV, citing their shared signing of some kind of autism declaration, seeking "advice" and linking to the "topic ban" discussion. It is not, of course, canvassing, he points out. Perish the thought.

In checking his contributions I see a slew of similarly worded posts seeking "advice" from other persons he has identified as sharing his alleged autism affliction. See also [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

Note this follow up note[70]. No, not canvassing!

Note that he completely misrepresents the character of the topic ban discussion. "Currently, there has been a discussion for a few days at AN/I regarding my ability to edit." It is a discussion of his behavior on one talk page, with a topic ban, not a block, proposed and discussed in the preceding section. The autism element was one that he introduced, and which I think is widely viewed, even by his supporters here, as totally diversionary and irrelevant. He is now exploiting that self-serving alleged medical issue in a sordid play for sympathy.

I haven't much experience with WP:CANVASS, but if we're going to allow this kind of notice to other editors I'd like to cherry-pick some editors I think might agree with me, ask them for "advice," and coincidentally alert them to this discussion with a skewed rendition of events (and a caveat that it is not canvassing, perish the thought). If it is not allowed, I think a block is in order. Either way I'd like to know if this is allowable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:10, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Explicit violation. Winkelvi violated the canvassing guideline with the sole intent of influencing the outcome of the discussion in his favor. He performed a mass posting consisting of a biased message against the participants in this discussion. Favoring one side, he contacted a partisan audience of people who he felt would be sympathetic to a decision favoring his desired outcome. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Note, I have warned Winkelvi here. If he does it again after receiving this warning, he could be subject to a block depending on admin discretion. I think the major problem that many of us have with Winkelvi isn't his personal struggles or mistakes, but the fact that he doesn't seem to learn from past errors and continues to repeat them. Wikipedia:Competence is required. Viriditas (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Here's Winkelvi's response to your canvassing warning:he deleted it. Coretheapple (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Look, Coretheapple, whatever the merits of this complaint (I haven't read that far down yet), this is nonsense. You're suggesting--what? what are you suggesting? If Winkelvi deletes the warning, that means they read it, and that is all there is to it. You can draw any conclusion you like, but this kind of rhetoric seems to be doing nothing but poisoning the well, and it's really not helping your case. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

His referring to canvassing in his posts indicates that he is familiar with the rule already. So while this notice is appreciated I don't feel that it is necessary. Besides you can't "unring the bell," and his effort to skew this discussion through canvassing has already begun to work in his favor.[71][72][73][74][75]. His canvassing has already gotten him participation in his favor in two parts of one active partisan weighing in on these discussions, and more on the way I'm sure. The only question, as I said previously, is whether this is a violation of the canvassing policy, in which case what are the consequences for Winkelvi, or whether our lying eyes deceive us on that point. If they do, I'm off on a trek for "advice." Coretheapple (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• I swung by here due to WV's post. If that was canvassing, it's not the worst I've seen. I'd give it a 3 on a 1-10 scale. (minnow slap) I know we are supposed to just post a link with a simple FYI, but WP:CANVASS is really a flawed policy that tends to be used as a bludgeon more than a shield. Here, I see a frightened editor without a lot of friends who is digging a hole and having trouble not digging. I'm looking at the situation neutrally, and IMHO, it's time to just get back to the page in question and if there was a problem on this user's talk page. Montanabw^(talk) 20:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by serving as Exhibit A for how effective his blatant canvassing has been. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 20:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:AGF here, buddy, I'm not your enemy. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That may very well be, but Montanabw is an experienced editor and someone I greatly respect. We may disagree with her, but her points are worth considering. However, at least two editors have tried to approach Winkelvi in a friendly manner to help work this out (myself and Cullen), and we were both given the cold shoulder. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And that is a concern, as both Viriditas and Cullen are experienced and reasonable editors. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I could recruit a half dozen respected editors with the opposite position. That's why we have canvassing policy. Its purpose is to prevent consensus from being skewed just as Winkelvi is doing here. At best he is gaming the system. Canvassed input should be struck out and Winkelvi should be given an appropriate block. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 21:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:CANVASS doesn't preclude alerting interested editors of a relevant discussion, the ideal is to notify people on both sides and without stating a position at the notification. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please, you can't be serious. WP:CANVASS calls for neutral notifications to "concerned" editors, defined as follows: "Editors who have made substantial edits to the topic or article; Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics); Editors known for expertise in the field; Editors who have asked to be kept informed." None of the editors that Winkelvi notified in lengthy, utterly non-neutral polemics were even remotely "concerned" with Bess Myerson. None of them had edited the page or participated in any of the discussions on the page. They were selected because each of them, including yourself, had placed their names at User:ThatPeskyCommoner/The Autie Pact, in a completely inappropriate (and in your case, effective) play for sympathy from editors he overtly wanted to intervene on his behalf. To dispute that he wasn't canvassing, and that your posts on his behalf here haven't been the result of canvassing, is just plain silly. Coretheapple (talk) 04:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if the Wondering55 analogy that Figure made earlier is valid, as there are clear differences, but still I could go to the talk pages of all the editors who supported me on that editor and say, "Look at this ANI discussion.[link] Does this remind you of the lengthy dispute we had with Wondering55 over the Fort Lee lane closure scandal? Mind you, I'm not canvassing, not asking you to go over to the ANI discussion, and I am not contacting you because you are administrator. I am just wondering how to deal with this particular situation. Thanks in advance." (WV threw in the "administrator" language in his post on an administrator's talk page.) If that wording is OK, I'd like to know and I will act accordingly. I think it's canvassing, but maybe I'm wrong. However, if it is OK to "advertise" in this manner then I will do it too. But if it is canvassing, even a "three on a scale of 10" as one of the canvassed editors says, it needs to be dealt with. Coretheapple (talk) 22:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User name

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

---

In addition to the above problems, there is also an issue with the chosen user name, "Winkelvi", and the policy of WP:IMPERSONATE. The name "Winkelvi" refers to the Winklevoss twins, and is only used to refer to them. It is therefore curious that the user has chosen this name in violation of the user name policies. Viriditas (talk) 04:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit late in the day to be complaining about them after they've used this account name for two years? Blackmane (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There's no statute of limitations on Wikipedia. I just found four-year old vandalism in an article; should I just leave it? How about a sock puppet who's been getting away with it for three years? Should we just let them keep doing it? Your argument proposes a time limit on bad behavior, but there isn't one. I find it strange that the user is editing as "Winkelvi", when that name is used exclusively to refer to two BLPs. Why is the user allowed to use this name? Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I checked this and the second thing that comes up for theis username is his Wikipedia userpage. The twins are Winklevii with two ii's. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Er, check again, making sure you eliminate wikipedia.org in your search results. "Winkelvi" with one "i" is just as common and is used quite often by media sources. More importantly, such a search result establishes that the name "Winkelvi" was in use to refer to the twins before the user created his account here. Viriditas (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikievi shows About 3,930 results (0.41 seconds) Did you mean: Winklevii. Wikievii shows About 36,200 results (0.24 seconds) Including results for Winklevoss. So Google thinks the ii verson means the Winklevoss twins, but that the single i version to be a mistake or this not famous user. So I think the accusation is a stretch. If you really want to fight it, there is a special board for that. Legacypac (talk) 05:34, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

No, actually Google thinks "Winkelvi" refers to the "winklevoss twins", as that terms shows up when you type "Winkelvi" and points to Winklevii. Clearly, the search results show that the term "Winkelvi" is widely used as a synonym. Further when you eliminate wikipedia.org from the search results, you find that "Winkelvi" was in wide usage before the account was created on Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, we don't need to use different "boards" to discuss this problem. The Wikipedia account name "Winkelvi" was created in April 2012, many years after the above sources had already used it and the term was in wide circulation as a synonym for "Winklevii" and "Winklevii" for obvious reasons (these alternate spellings are extremely common in English, for example, compare "Winkle-" and "Winkel-") Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

• Google makes clear that "Winkelvi" refers to the twins, and has been used in that sense thousands of times. I wasn't clear on that until I saw the Google search results. Of course he turns up high in the rankings. Wikipedia always does. I don't have enough experience with user names to know if it's permissable, but let's be clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 19:25, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
• The WP:IMPERSONATE link says, "you should state clearly on your userpage that you are unrelated to the well-known person." I'd say if WV adds that disclaimer, end of problem. Montanabw^(talk) 20:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Montanabw, you are not doing Winkelvi any favors by misquoting policy as if that would help the discussion. The above clause only applies if "Winkelvi" is his name in real life. Choor monster (talk) 20:40, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree with your interpretation, and your tone is also not helpful to your own position, but this discussion is a side issue to the one above, I'm sure there is a better noticeboard for that concern than here. Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

My question is as it states, how it relates to your straw men is irrelevant. This extra section is classic ANI. One issue starts and is discussed then something else is pulled into the mix, then another and another until it gets to the point that everyone just gives up. Is their username related to the discussion about their behaviour? Somehow I don't think so, if you have a problem with Winklevi's username, raise it on WP:UAA. Blackmane (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Like Montanabw^(talk) 08:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Meghan Trainor

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

---

This editor began making my Wikipedia experience very unpleasant, starting with trying to dictate a consensus discussion against me on Talk:Meghan Trainor with some very snide remarks. He then went on badmouth behind my back, accusing me of sockpuppetry on User talk:SNUGGUMS and then on his own talk page which he later deleted. The user makes very insulting edit summaries, and seems to want to derail every article I edit, of which he has shown no previous interest in before. It is all very suspicious and coincidental. Meghan Trainor has now failed GA and is locked, and it seems Winkelvi has now shifted his attention to All About That Bass which is also conincidently now a GAN where he has again invoked in insulting edit summaries and snide nitpicking. Any unbiased editor will add all the above together and comes across this editor is going out of his way to look for drama with me or chase me away from editing and undermine my editing as much as possible. He has no interest in music or Meghan Trainor as visible in his previous contributions, yet now all of a sudden he does. The user continously warns me on my talk page every time I revert twice without breaking WP:3RR, ironically when he is doing the exact same on the exact same article, such as on All About That Bass. He is going out of his way to depict me as a "fanboy" who can't edit objectively which I am not and I am so sick and tired of this! His excuse on his talk page of Asperges should not allow him to obsessively single out and pick on other editors and insult them! Can an admin PLEASE intervene because one can only take so much! - Lips ^{are movin} 06:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

A few things in response:

• I've never referred to this editor as "a fanboy who can't edit objectively".
• Whomever looks into this editor's comments, please look at the talk page for the article All About That Bass here: [76] and see the interaction between him and me. You'll find none of what he's claiming. In fact, I go out of my way to explain to him in two separate replies that my comments and edit summaries are not directed and him at all.
• This editor's frustration has been days in the making due to a number of talk page discussions where he has been using personal attacks against editors who don't agree with his edits and edit wars that he has been taking part in. Because he's new, several editors (including me) have been quite patient in trying to work with him and reason with him regarding his editing, edit warring, peacock wording, bloating articles, and the scathing talk page comments he directs at others. One look at the edit history of his talk page shows that he's received several warnings over the same articles, all related in one way or another to the singer, Meghan Trainor. (talk page history here: [77]).
• I'd like to point out, as well, that the reporting editor who brought this here never informed me on my talk page (as is required) that he created this report. Weirdly, another editor moved this report from Lips to merge with this week old discussion. A report that (as another editor pointed out) is classic ANI: something gets reported, others keep adding to it with new and different accusations. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 06:27, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Here he deleted his comment "Wow, Lips. You've only been here three weeks and you already have a fancy username signature three barnstars and duded up user page, you're nominating articles for GA status, and now you're going to DRN? That's quite a lot of Wiki-activity for such a newbie" after I replied and used the edit summary "removing drama" when he aggravated the drama in the first place with his comment.
• On User talk:SNUGGUMS he wrote "Anyone think it's weird and a little suspect that someone who has been here less than a month is expertly decorating their user space and nominating articles for GA? Just saying."
• On Talk:Meghan Trainor he made snide remarks to me "Please familiarize yourself with how to communicate appropriately and politely in talk page discussions. So much all bold lettering is basically the same as shouting." Yet editors on the same page called my editing "bullshit" and also used bold wording to highlight a point. He also went on to reply with remarks like "Obviously, she doesn't write all of her own music as you claim", "I have no idea. I thought we were talking about the Meghan Trainor article." and "An hour ago your proof that she qualified to be called a singer-songwriter was that she writes all of the songs she performs. That was quickly proven to be untrue. Now you're changing the criteria. Not too convincing."—all of which are snide remarks and ignorance to the fact of Trainor co-writing all her music.
• He speaks of I've been warned "several times" yet I've only been unfairly warned by him twice and one other user once. Ironically, he himself is also edit warring on the same article, as well as number of editors who revert him, yet they received no warnings whatsoever.
• He says I never notified him of my report of him on here, however, he responded before I could even do so. See the time difference between my report (06:14) and his response (06:27). Even more manifestation that this user tries to play the victim when he is at fault.
• After I nominated All About That Bass for GA which I worked very hard on editing and am the primary contributor much like I was on Meghan Trainor, he decided to post the following on the article's talk page: Two topics "Long quotations" and "Very overwritten" and went on to deem it "basically one of the most bloated articles I've ever come across", and even went on to make this comment " I'm here to help expand and improve an online encyclopedia. Hopefully, that's your purpose for being here, too." He then claims his responses are not aimed at me and plays the victim when he very well knows I nominated both articles for GA and am by the far the biggest contributor to both articles as per each article's stats.
• In his nitpicking of the article he used edit summaries such "remove peacocking" when that what he removed was in fact the precise wording of the source used and not WP:PEACOCK at all. He also goes on to say "This is an encyclopedia not a fansite" - a direct dig at me when I am by far the article's biggest contributor. He also insists that I am posting false information as to whether "All About That Bass" is one of the List of best-selling singles when it is in fact listed in the 6-6.9 million section itself. He also per his POV accused me of WP:OWN on Talk:All About That Bass and WP:OR on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and reverts edits I make on "All About That Bass" where unsourced content is added and then accuses me of edit warring afterward with a warning on my talk page when he infact has been reverted by another user as well.
• Again, like I said, all these occurrences are all very coincidental. I am all for constructive criticism and improving of Wiki articles but the way this user goes about doing it is very suspicious especially since I edit mainly Meghan Trainor articles of which he has all of a sudden decided to "improve". This user has a habit of talking down on editors and throwing his "Veteran Editor" title around as done on another editor on Talk:Meghan Trainor, and generally is involved solely in his own provoked disputes and acts of "playing the victim". I see this user is also mentioned as a problem on this very same noticeboard, so he must obviously be doing something wrong. I also per accident stumbled upon this comment by another editor on User talk:Viriditas - " user:winkelvi is a bully and harasses everyone view Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:213.7.149.151 (Result: Semi) and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Winkelvi reported by User:Coretheapple (Result: Protected) or just look at his contrib history its full of edit warring disputes." which I also completely agree with.- Lips ^{are movin} 07:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• Moved to preexisting section, with agreement of initiator of this report[78] Coretheapple (talk) 15:14, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This user is still partaking in an unnecessary edit war on All About That Bass and derailing the topic which is a WP:GAN, and insists on reverting unsourced content, factual errors, vague wording and non-song article MOS back into the article, and insists the formentioned be discussed on the article's talk page, but the user remains completely ignorant to these faults pointed out on the talk page, removes warnings from his talk page, and has already been reverted by 3 different users within the last 24 hours. See [79] and Talk:All About That Bass. A quick scan through This also reveals that I am not the only one experiencing these problems with Winkelvi, but several others are as well. - Lips ^{are movin} 18:36, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

• I see Winkelvi's observations as constructive at the song article "All About That Bass". Anybody interested in Meghan Trainor would certainly be interested in her ginormous smash hit song, so it's not much of a case of hounding. My advice to Lips Are Movin is to accept the talk page advice at its face value, and try to see the article more objectively. It certainly was a patchwork quilt of awkward fan prose before you got to it, but you added long quotes[80][81] which were seen by Winkelvi (and myself) as undue or peacock or redundant, and when they were removed, you were able to work with that;[82] I suggest you continue to do so. Binksternet (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet: I do agree with some of the improvements Winkelvi has made such as the long quotations which you pointed out and I have stated so on Talk:Meghan Trainor, but his latest re-adding of unsourced content and unexplained removal of important content such as that is among the list of best-selling singles and the years of the album and EP's release, and adding of WP:WORDS and WP:VAGUE are against Wikipedia policies and can't be viewed objectively. This has not only been reverted by me but two other editors as well. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:10, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

@Binksternet and Lips Are Movin: I move that we immediately put a topic ban on Winkelvi for Meghan Trainor. The editor is currently disrupting Title (Meghan Trainor album) and we need to place the topic ban before he gets to work on derailing my GA Lips Are Movin. Marano ^fan 07:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor is now edit warring and disrupting Title (Meghan Trainor album), Talk:List of best-selling singles and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. Clarifying that what Winkelvi is essentially doing here is defined as WP:WIKIHOUNDING. - Lips ^{are movin} 07:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Trying to keep Wikipedia encyclopedic is not wikihounding. Given Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are Meghan Trainor WP:SPAs [83] [84], more neutral editor eyes on the articles would be beneficial. NE Ent 11:43, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

@NE Ent: The point is that I don't think that Winkelvi's eyes are neutral either. He in fact seems to hold a grudge against editors of Meghan Trainor's articles. Also, I am not a WP:SPA, A quick look through my contribs will reveal significant contribution to Taylor Swift, Selena Gomez, Jonas Brothers and many other topics. Marano ^fan

@NE Ent: If you perceive us as WP:SPAs, why don't you take your concern to the SPA investigators. You will find out that we are in fact not. I'm not surprised at your accusation either seeing you are one of the users Winkelvi WP:CANVASSED as stated in this section. Winkelvi has been anything but neutral to Trainor articles, persistently edit wars without consensus, and adds unsourced content, removes sourced content, adding WP:WORDS, WP:VAGUE, and is WP:HOUNDING editors involved on Trainor articles, especially me. O/T: Her articles are hardly non-neutral either. - Lips ^{are movin} 12:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

After dealing with tag-team edit warring from both MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin yesterday, I filed a 3RR report [85]. Today, I offered a good faith proposal to both accounts. No response as of yet. My hope is things will resolve as far as the edit warring and other editors being kept from editing the Meghan Trainor-related articles due to the ownership taking place there. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 21:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

...with the result that you and another editor were warned for edit warring. Coretheapple (talk) 03:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Coretheapple, Binksternet, and Lips Are Movin:Winkelvi is back to making bogus rewording to a GA Lips Are Movin. We need to get an immediate TOPIC BAN please. The article is just on the verge of getting reassessed. Marano ^fan 05:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It is very time-consuming and frustrating to "co-operate" with an editor like Winkelvi, who is a persistent WP:WIKIHOUND evident in his latest dramas with myself, User:MaranoFan and other editors in Meghan Trainor-related articles. He is an edit warrior who has just been warned in his own report at WP:3RR. He insists on being ignorant and playing dumb regarding every single bickering dispute he begins which waste's everyone's time. The user has an inability of communicating with editors in a way that's polite and civil, and is blind beyond his own arguments in his self-created disputes. He needs to begin owning up to his behavior, stop playing the victim, contradicting and abusing Wikipedia policies such as WP:CANVASS like he did on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs. He continously throws warnings around unwarranted on the talk pages of users, but when he gets a warning he denies it, deletes it and uses a WP:PERSONAL edit summary when doing so. He continuously accuses users of WP:SPA, WP:OWN and WP:OR etc and needs to stop with his snide, WP:PERSONAL edit summaries and accusations, and arguing and singling out of editor's wrong-doings (and then later playing dumb to it) in a way that quite frankly rude and insulting - all the above is evident in the talk pages and revision histories of Meghan Trainor, Talk:List of best-selling singles, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs, All About That Bass and Title (Meghan Trainor album). I am very willing to cooperate with editors and have never had an issue with one before until this user. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi is now edit warring with another editor and derailing Meghan Trainor again, despite a consensus being reached on Talk:Meghan Trainor, this after the article was unlocked last night. He has also decided to derail a GA-class Meghan article "Lips Are Movin", and has decided to add himself to every Meghan related talk page as a user who can help with verification when he himself has never added any sources and positive content to any Meghan-related article, except for derailing and causing animosity in every single one - even more evidence to his WP:WIKIHOUND behavior. - Lips ^{are movin} 06:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if he is, the way he is being baited, such as by giving him a taunting "barnstar," and this kind of thing, and bringing a case against him for 3RR on his own page (which is exempt from 3RR) makes it hard to identify what is happening. It muddies the waters and obscures his behavior in pages where he is the only bad actor. What is inescapable is that he keeps getting enmeshed in noticeboard squabbles over and over and over again, involving different pages and different sets of editors, such that it might at some point be necessary to to have an WP:Administrators Noticeboard/Winkelvi. Coretheapple (talk) 15:09, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Winkelvi's WP:WIKIHOUNDING of MaranoFan is essentially what's resulting in MaranoFan acting this way though. All he has done is create animosity and time-consuming drama across Meghan Trainor articles and for their contributing editors. - Lips ^{are movin} 15:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I actually consider what happened as WP:EXPLODE. Please forgive me for a brief panic attack. MaRAno ^FAN 16:16, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever. You guys have got to get a grip. At this point, regardless of the merits, this entire topic has become radioactive and I don't see any administrator wading through these discussions. Coretheapple (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Meghan Trainor topic ban

The article has been page protected for the second time. Since no action has been taken, I am moving into an immediate discussion, which I have been asked to move here. @Lips Are Movin, IPadPerson, Joseph Prasad, 11JORN, and Btljs:

• Support a topic ban. Marano ^fan 15:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support: See also the sub-section above. The user is a WP:WIKIHOUND[86][87][88][89][90][91] and edit warrior.[92][93][94][95] - Lips ^{are movin} 17:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. The discussion above is pretty ridiculous. What I see here is a case of rapid edit-warring, little discussion, OWN complexes, and editors who are taking disagreements a little too personally. If the article has been fully-protected twice within a month, perhaps that's a sign that all editors of this article – MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin included – need to do a better job of cooperating. I see no reason why anyone should be banned from Trainor-related articles at this time. –Chase (talk / contribs) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@Chasewc91: I would just ask if you have completely summarized yourself with his edits. A lot of editors have had issues with him. His autism causes him to make repetitive edits of a similar fashion. A topic ban would probably help him recover from his obsessions and repetitions. He thinks of Wikipedia as his dictatorship when it is clearly not. MaRAno ^FAN 17:56, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support - His autism doesn't really give him any excuse for edit warring and other disruptive behavior. I left him a polite message on his talk page earlier, but he ignored it and harrased me on my talk page saying that I am not welcome on his talk page. User:MaranoFan then reverted the message, but then Winkelvi restored it, harrasing me again. I don't think he is WP:HERE to contribute to this encyclopedia in a orderly manner, so of course a topic ban would help. IPadPerson (talk) 17:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I'm not familiar with the Meghan Trainor situation. This ANI report originated when one user reported an issue with Winkelvi's user page. Viritidas then raised the issue of Winkelvi's conduct at Bess Myerson, for which I had previoussly and inconclusively reported him at AN3. The edit-warring, disruption, tendentious posts and various nonsense (such as a phony plagiarism complaint) that Winkelvi caused there seem to have dissipated at Myerson and Talk:Myerson for the moment at least. Meanwhile, other complainants have popped up on completely different articles but very similar complaints. If you search the noticeboards, there's a pattern of Winkelvi drawing complaints for various kinds of very similar-sounding problems, such as in this complaint here from a user named Vuzor in April entitled "Disruptive, authoritarian editor." That involved yet another set of problems in yet another article. There are multiple edit warring complaints, both by him and against him, including one in which he was warned just today.[96] But another editor was warned as well. There is a pattern here of Winkelvi inflaming situations and generally showing poor judgment. He shows absolutely no understanding of the animosity he causes and the degree to which it results in repeated and time-consuming disruption. Coretheapple (talk) 18:36, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment I am uninvolved with the pages. I Oppose this ban because its a content dispute. The AN/I page appears to now be the latest battleground for this dispute. No party in this dispute is blameless. The wikihounding is baseless as the articles are all on one artist. One of the editors calling for a bloc/ban are overly involved in the topic "Lips Are Movin" is the name of a Meghan Trainor song, taking that name clearly shows they are a fan. Their edits all revolve around Meghan Trainor, her songs, her page, location on charts. This sounds to me like a clear showing of WP:Advocacy. Its clear that MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin have a shared outcome in mind by filing bogus 3RR reports linklink2 and commenting here. If anything a boomerang should hit them. AlbinoFerret 18:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

@AlbinoFerret: The fact me and MaranoFan are fans of the artist have nothing to do with issue here. Meghan Trainor articles are anything but fan prose and we have hardly disputed or edit warred with any other editors until this user came and wrecked havoc everywhere. WP:WIKIHOUNDING states Wikihounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on multiple pages or topics they may edit or multiple debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work. This is with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor. Wikihounding usually involves following the target from place to place on Wikipedia. - which is precisely what this user has done to me and MaranoFan over the past few days. - Lips ^{are movin} 19:01, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• • I favor the boomerang. Lips and Fan are taking a bad situation and spreading the badness everywhere with their own brand of childness and logomania. Renaming headers here is just plain rude, and the refactoring was thoughtless. Filing completely spurious 3RR reports is time-wasting. And bringing up WV's A+ and remotely "diagnosing" his edits is absolutely beyond the pale. No exceptions. Accurate or not, it is 100% irrelevant: report on good edits or bad edits, good behavior or bad behavior. Choor monster (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
    • • That's not entirely fair, because Winkelvi raised the "autism defense" himself in the topic ban discussion. Had he not done that, no one would have known or cared. Most people now know and still don't care. Coretheapple (talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
        • Exactly. And I speak as someone WV once tried it on me, and it flopped. WV tried it here and it flopped. An admin hatted it off. It is absolutely not relevant. Choor monster (talk) 14:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • The renaming of sections is to avoid confusion. Also, this cements Winkelvi as UNCONSTRUCTIVE, thus confirming the problem is with him and not with Me or Lips or others. Also, the user has been reverting WP:UNANIMOUS consensus on Meghan Trainor. MaRAno ^FAN 19:14, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bottom line: I (or Meghan Trainor-related article editors) don't hold any grudge against Winkelvi. But if he hadn't interfered, Meghan Trainor would be a GA today (instead of being fully protected for a month). I commend him for editing despite his medical condition and would greatly be interested if there was any solution without the Topic ban. MaRAno ^FAN 19:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• • • • This section renaming was totally unnecessary and did not "avoid confusion" since there wasn't any. It was just childish venting. To be honest, if WV's "interference" prevented the article from being GA, nobody cares whatsoever, and nobody wants to hear about it. You're only convincing people you Trainor fans are ridiculously out of touch with how WP works.
      • In short, the grown-ups in the room were discussing WV, and then you and friends came in here and set a remarkably lower standard. Choor monster (talk) 19:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Please be civil. I have renamed the section. Also, you are no one to judge a person's maturity based on their musical interests. MaRAno ^FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I am judging peoples' maturity here based on what they post here. Let me guess, Trainor fans are considered immature everywhere, and I'm just echoing that judgment? I wouldn't know, and frankly, I wouldn't care. Choor monster (talk) 20:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As an example of what's going on, consider Lips_Are_Movin#Reception_2 which is POV all positive comments; WV attempted to insert a balancing critical opinion from a RS and gets reverted [97]. NE Ent 19:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I would point out here that this person is completely ignoring my edit summary:"All the ...s and WP:PARAPHRASE needs to be worked out before this review sees the light of GA criteria." I did not blind revert anyone. [98] Also to point out, Winkelvi has been sucking up to this user for support. MaRAno ^FAN 20:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

One example where he has constructively edited does not make him innocent to where he has persistently disruptively, and unconstructively edited and harassed users.[99][100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112] - Lips ^{are movin} 19:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. I'm involved here, having reverted Winkelvi on the Meghan Trainor page. But I can't support a topic ban. Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan have done nothing other than bait Winkelvi. I also have concerns those two editors are either the same person or (more likely) know each other offsite and are coordinating their efforts. -- Calidum 20:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide evidence to these claims and accusations though? - Lips ^{are movin} 20:13, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

See WP:XS, WP:IDART, WP:EWS, and WP:ALWAYS. -- Calidum 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

As an outside observer, the user interaction data regarding Lips Are Movin and MaranoFan are interesting. only (talk) 20:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

It's also worth noting that Lips Are Movin's first edits were significant expansions to All About That Bass, and that s/he has edited Trainor articles almost exclusively – the lone exception appears to be Pretty Hurts (song). –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:33, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Out of the 800 or so edits only 20 or so are not on Trainor articles. This leads to the possibility of a WP:SPA. AlbinoFerret 02:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Winkelvi about whom this discussion is has disappeared. I plan on doing the same thing. Good luck to all of you. All the authority remains with administrators. MaRAno ^FAN 20:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment It seems as if Winkelvi is being wikihounded by editors, who are baiting and biting him to outburst; there also seems to be a lot of talking behind editor's back, and discussion of editors rather than editor's editing (which I find to be hypocritical of some who complained of said-behaviour being done onto them). And to those mentioning his clearly advertised Asperger's syndrome is quite disturbing. If you knew anything about said-syndrome, you'd know it affects how a person interacts in both social and non-verbal communications. The user's talk page has become a complete attack on the user, and baiting for him to react in a certain way. Per this, and what I've witnessed happening on Winkelvi's talk page, I oppose this block. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 20:45, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
• Apologies for the blanking. Mobile Opera Mini tends to do that often during edit conflict. Anyway, I've said enough here. It's clear that Winkelvi has friends in high places and sucks up to them everytime he is reported at a noticeboard. I've wasted enough time on this WP:WIKIHOUND. - Lips ^{are movin} 21:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:WIKIHOUND is based on following another editor. Most of the time this is provable because editors edit diverse topics. But all the articles cited have to do with one musical artist, Meghan Trainor. Its just as likely that Winkelvi is interested in that artist, and not following you. I think the accusation is a solution in search of a problem. AlbinoFerret 01:49, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Different proposal – how about an interaction ban for Marano/Lips and WV? –Chase (talk / contribs) 21:43, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• But what's the point of doing that? It doesn't take much of a crystal ball to see that Winkelvi will be back before this or some other noticeboard, on the above articles or others, as surely as God makes little green apples. Last week he was warned for edit warring. Today he was warned for edit warring. He was warned previously. When do the warnings stop and the blocks begin? Coretheapple (talk) 22:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. This is an example of the people on one side of a content dispute trying to get rid of legitimate opposition. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean by "legitimate opposition"? This thread discusses just one editor in particular. IPadPerson (talk) 00:34, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

I mean both Lips and Marano in a content dispute with Winkelvi, who voices legitimate concerns about the articles in question. Binksternet (talk) 06:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Duh. We have two fans here who are stifling the work of someone who (at least in that Title article) was actively trying to improve an article. See my note on Talk:Title (Meghan Trainor album): I didn't realize, when I was making a few minor edits, that I was really repeating some of what Winkelvi had been doing--in other words, good job, Winkelvi! I didn't know you had it in you! The baiting of Winkelvi and the ridiculous edit-warring on their talk page is just so much harassment (and bringing up the autism thing in this discussion is just a red herring). I have no opinion on whether the two fans are each other's socks or not, and that they're SPAs is of little concern (there is no "SPA investigator"), except that they know more about this bubblegum pop artist than they do of Wikipedia's guidelines.

  I've had my share of difficulties interacting with Winkelvi. They can be short-fused and a bit too tenacious, at least they have been like that in the past; I think they have improved a lot in the last year or so. And here, I think Winkelvi is just being harassed, that the thread is seen as a convenient hook to hang a content dispute on. It's shameful, and I want Lips Are Moving and MaranoFan to know that I have no problem blocking either one of them if they continue this campaign and this tag-teaming--and it seems that they have found a third editor, if the edit-warring on Winkelvi's talk page is in indication. Winkelvi, do not respond here or elsewhere to accusations about behavior; keep playing the ball, not the man. It's all about the bass--the rest is just so much treble. Some admin will come by and close this, and perhaps the rest of the thread. Drmies (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

• And IPadPerson, I understand you're not interested in my commentary, but you'll have to live with it anyway: your behavior there was inexcusable. At least MaranoFan can claim a certain amount of ignorance with regard to talk page guidelines; I don't believe you can make such a claim. Drmies (talk) 02:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Winkelvi, Lips Are Movin, MaranoFan all blocked 48 hours

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

---

Related to the above sections, I have blocked the 3 parties for 48 hours for their continuous edit warring related to multiple pages over the course of the last week. As always, I welcome administrator review of my actions; though, I think this time some sort of consensus should be reached to undo the action as it has been the source of numerous discussions in the last few days. I won't be as avail in the next 12-15 hours, so decisions can be made without my input, if needed. only (talk) 11:48, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

MaranoFan is protesting his block on his talk page, but I would encourage people to look at his role in edit warring over the last two days and the multiple warnings editors gave him, asking him to stop. He ignored all of them. More recently, MaranoFan was reverting Winkelvi's user page in an attempt to harass him. It was my impression that unlike MaranoFan, who has become increasingly abusive, Lips Are Movin was making some progress in the right direction, but that editor didn't stop reverting when asked to take a break either. Winkelvi filed a false vandalism report against Lips Are Movin today, and then engaged in a bit of IDIDNTHEARTHAT when it was explained to him that Lips Are Movin was trying to redirect a page, not vandalize it. In any case, good blocks all around. Viriditas (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

All 3 are protesting; MaranoFan and Lips Are Movin officially through unblock templates, Winkelvi just through discussion at the moment. Again, I'll leave this up to consensus here as I will be sparse from here out for the rest of the day. only (talk) 12:03, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

And, FWIW, the "blanking" by Lips Are Movin was a mistake, as the user neglected to add the redirect target, which was fixed in the subsequent diff by MaranoFan. This was explained to Winkelvi several times, but I'm surprised to see he's still calling it vandalism. MaranoFan should serve out the block; his/her behavior has been atrocious, ranging from edit warring to harrassment, to outright abuse. I won't comment on Winkelvi's block, but like I said above, Lips Are Movin has shown interest in improving his/her behavior. Viriditas (talk) 12:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this revert was one of the edits that resulted in this block, but if not, it is an example of the hair-trigger reverting and WP:COMPETENCE issue that was a problem at Bess Myerson. An editor added a sentence to an article, appropriately sourced and formatted: "As on January 2015, it has sold 171,000 copies in the US." OK, he made a mistake ("on" instead of "of"). Instead of fixing it, Winkelvi hit the revert button, with the edit summary, No rationale for content addition given, as written, difficult to understand. Since when does one need a "rationale" to add routine information to an article? The reverted editor responded with puzzlement on Winkelvi's talk page, and Winkelvi responded "You gave no explanation in an edit summary and what you wrote wasn't gramatically correct, making it difficult to understand. Please see WP:EDITSUMMARY and WP:COMPETENCE for more of an explanation." Did Winkelvi truly not understand this sentence and truly feel that it required a rationale? Does he really feel that such routine material needs to be justified in an edit summary, and that failure to do so warrants removal of the material? Coretheapple (talk) 14:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He also has an incompetent trigger-finger regarding Vandalism. See [113] where he reported an IP for snarking on WV's Talk page about an instance of blatant hypocrisy. To WV, that counted as harassment in addition to vandalism. To the AIV admins, it was all just a waste of time. As for the supposedly bright line that 3RR crosses, by repeatedly going soft on him on something that definite, admins have taught WV the wrong lesson: he sincerely believes that the block is all about the bad reversion. Choor monster (talk) 14:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi has agreed on his user talk page to EdJohnston's suggestion, and after his block expires will have a voluntary self-ban from all articles in which he has had disputes since June 23, 2014.[114] That would include Bess Myerson and all the other articles discussed here.Coretheapple (talk) 17:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• Winkelvi has withdrawn his promise to stay out of articles where he has had disputes[115], and it is being argued out now on his user talk page. If I follow his argument correctly, he is upset that his promise did not result in an immediate unblock. He says, inter alia, I just feel duped, taken advantage of, and like a complete fool for doing what was asked. I believed it to be an actual agreement that would lead to being unblocked sooner. I don't like being made a fool of nor do I like being lied to. Because the other side of the agreement never materialized (and looks like it probably was never going to), I no longer feel obligated to follow through with my side of the agreement. Coretheapple (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• While it's tempting to do color commentary, there's enough eyes on the problem now. As the blocks expire, it might be better for everyone to give these users a wide berth and let WP:ROPE take precedent. Viriditas (talk) 10:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well yes of course, but if Winkelvi agrees to the very topic bans we've been discussing ad infinitum, then it surely needs to be noted in this thread. Ditto any changes in that. Coretheapple (talk) 15:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for Clarification: Was There a Topic-Ban?

I am trying to see if the moderated dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor can be resumed now that the three editors are off block. My understanding is that Winklevi, Lips Are Movin, and MaranoFan were all blocked for 48 hours for edit-warring. There have been repeated statements about a formal or informal topic-ban on Winklevi, but I see no evidence that any topic-ban was ever formally imposed or informally accepted. Is that correct? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:48, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

A topic ban was informally accepted yesterday, during his block. Winkelvi promised to abide by a voluntary topic ban from all of the articles in which he'd been involved in disputes[116], but then reneged after a few hours[117]. Coretheapple (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Then there is no topic-ban, so he may participate in moderated dispute resolution. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Sure. But I would suggest reading all of the foregoing before diving into this pool. Coretheapple (talk) 00:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

As the substitute volunteer moderator at the dispute resolution noticeboard, I did a general close of the dispute resolution of Meghan Trainor. The article is still currently protected. Discussion at the talk page can continue, as can an RFC either at the talk page or at a project page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Closing discussed here. Coretheapple (talk) 05:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Way past sell by date

Could someone else close down this twenty day old thread? If you can't get something to stick on an editor in one-third that time, it's time to gently set your stick on the ground and find something else to do. Note Coretheapple has been keeping the thread alive (see post above) and then claiming there's a "new" viewpoint [118] and canvassing others to comment [119] NE Ent 20:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh please. User:J. Johnson posted without anyone "canvassing" him, concerning disruption at 2014 Oso mudslide, an article nowhere else mentioned in this topic, commenting on Winkelvi's behavior there [120]. I posted a note on his page after he did that. You ought to know better than to make such an accusation, or to take it upon yourself to archive an ANI topic in which you vigorously side with the subject. The discussion has gone on a long time because of the subject's behavior and long record of disruption, most recently by behaving tendentiously at DRN[121] I know you like him and side with him, and that's great. I think that it would help the project a great deal more if you helped him, rather than shut down discussion about the serial problems he causes. Also I think that you're not quite correct about nothing "sticking" on this editor, whatever that means, as you may be aware that he was just blocked for 48 hours for edit warring, and made a promise to adhere to a topic ban and then reneged on it. So no, this ANI topic has not exactly been an exercise in wheel-spinning. Coretheapple (talk) 20:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with User:NE Ent, and I, like User:Coretheapple, think that the editor in question has been troublesome, but can we allow this thread to hibernate? If the editor in question does anything new, a new thread can be started. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing on Soka Gakkai page

This concerns editor Ubikwit. On the page Soka Gakkai. The Soka Gakkai is a lay religion based on the Buddhist teachings of a 13th century monk. It was originally aligned with – though a separate entity from – a clerical sect called Nichiren Shoshu. The latter excommunicated the Soka Gakkai in 1991, and there has been no connection since.

At issue, currently, is the content of placement of the “Beliefs and Practices” section of the entry. The administrator, Shii, along with 4 other editors (plus myself) agree, at least to some extent, that there is sufficient scholarship supporting the independence of Soka Gakkai belief; and that, as a consequence, it’s “Beliefs and Practices” subsection can precede the “History” subsection, in which its former relationship with Nichiren Shoshu is covered.

This would be consistent with Wikipedia’s treatment of other newer religions.

Editor Ubikwit reverts every attempt to change the content of the positioning of this subsection. He does do with nodiscussion of the issues[page], and has been asked numerous times by various editors to refrain from doing so – to no avail. The last time he reverted with no discussion (January 18th) I undid his revert and asked him point blank on the Talk page to discuss before he reverted again. He did not discuss, but once again reverted and left me a "warning" on my Talk page.

He is accusing me of advocacy, but the Advocacy guidelines indicate that advocacy can mean hoping to portray something in either a positive or negative light. The Soka Gakkai entry was, at one time, heavily negative. What I (and some other editors) have tried to do is achieve balance, using acceptable and credible academic sources. The information that reflects negatively remains, but positive information has been added. Ubikwit seems to be of the opinion that negativity is "neutral" while positivity is "advocacy". However, the administrator has expressed satisfaction with the changes that have been made in recent months. I have tried to discuss this with Ubikwit, but have received no response, other than his insistence that my sources are being self-promotional.

The current discussion of this on the Talk Page is in the subsection “Citation Has Gone Missing”. An earlier discussion of the same topic is still active in the subsection “Another major reversion”. In the Archives (18), here, there are two subsections on the issue: [and Practices First]”, in which, btw, the administrator states “We already had a discussion about this and I believe Ubikwit is in the minority. There is no clear format among religion articles, for example, Bahá'í Faith and Christian Science have beliefs sections first, while Scientology has it otherwise. In the SG article there is a good argument that SG beliefs are unfamiliar enough that they can be explained first and may help provide context for the History section. Shii (tock) 19:22, 8 November 2014 (UTC”. But it had to be addressed again in the sub [of Subsections]: started by still another editor.

It was also addressed here (17) in [and Practices Again]”; here (16) in “[Stab At Beliefs and Practices]”. And [[122]] (15), I think, is the first attempt, on August 26th. You will see in all that discussion very little of Ubikwit, and many mentions of his un-discussed reversions.

We have a consensus among a vast majority of active editors. We have sources that support what I am trying to do. We have made arguments for the changes, and there have been no academic arguments made against the changes. Yet Ubukwit keeps reverting the changes. He ignores others’ comments, and he doesn’t seem to care about what the consensus is. He just keeps reverting, over and over, with no regard for what research has been done, what other editors say, what arguments are made on the Talk page.

What can we do to ensure the best Soka Gakkai page we can? Can we stop this disruptive editing?

Here [[123]] are the changes I made, starting with "Soka Gakkai believes..." Here [[124]] is the current entry after Ubikwit's latest reversion - nearly half way down the entry.

Thank you for your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

What is a "lay religion"? Is that not a contradiction? BMK (talk) 02:19, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Close, but not always. In this case it more or less means that the group was founded in a schism from the ordained priesthood, and that none of the members are necessarily priests or clerics. John Carter (talk) 02:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Learn something new every day. BMK (talk) 17:10, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken (talk · contribs) Actually, the schism didn't develop until long after the founding of the group as what is known as a Hokkeko. There is no such thing as a "lay religion", only lay groups associated with an established religion.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

This is a huge mess that will not see resolution and I doubt any of the overworked admins here want to step in. If anyone wants to understand what the problem is, I left a message at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_79#Dorje_Shugden_controversy about why these kinds of articles are likely to decrease in quality over time owing to a lapse in academic standards. I won't be repeating that here.

Ubikwit and I, the two long-term editors involved with this page, are basically no longer engaging with the large-scale rewrite by SPIs that uses academic but incomplete sources. Indeed, I don't think there is anything we can do about this article within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Ubikwit has simply resorted first and foremost to revert warring, and I have basically absented myself from editing. RIP Wikipedia Shii (tock) 21:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is bit of a joke to accuse Ubikwit of disruptive editing. I do engage on the talk page just like on the Ikeda page … I do no large edits unless SGIists go ab bit too far. I said often enough that on the quality scale the article is deteriorating big times. The sock puppet issue does need to get tackled. As soon as debates and controversies get heated some editors vanish and a new one appears out of the blue. Strange indeed. --Catflap08 (talk) 22:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think I would refer to reverting the attempts to restructure the article in a wholesale manner so as to promote the SG to Wikipedia refers as "revert warring", but I have reverted such attempts, twice now, to preserve NPOV, etc. It should be noted that there was a discussion after the first attempt, but then Daveler attempted to go against consensus and try to restructure the article in exactly the same manner, and subsequently reverted my restoration of the consensus status quo.

There are a number of advocates operating on the article, attempting to promote SG in an outreach manner, appropriating Wikipedia to that end. I would be in agreement that there is sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry going on, but like Catflap, the amount of time I have to devote to this article is very limited.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 00:04, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Should the problem continue, I really think that this case, and the other one Shii mentioned, and maybe a few others could all be presented to ArbCom for if nothing else discretionary sanctions. The biggest problem areas we have, at least to my mind, are, pseudoscience, new religious movements (broadly construed), and modern scientific or minority scientific views of early history and religion. John Carter (talk) 02:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

No doubt. I wouldn't mind seeing a boomerang for the preemptive strike Daveler16 has attempted here, though. The statements he makes above about consensus, for example, are diametrically opposed to the facts. Not only is he pretending not to hear, he is misrepresenting the state of affairs in an attempt to unduly influence the content dispute.

In my opinion, he should have been topic banned long ago.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:00, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If you want to more clearly propose sanctions in a subsection below, maybe particularly indicating the specific nature of sanctions proposed and the reasons for them, such a proposal may get enough input to generate some sort of positive results. Personally, I have to agree that some sort of boomerang is possibly called for here, but am not myself sure just what terms should be applied. John Carter (talk) 15:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I think the major problem with this group of SPIs is that they are adding large amounts of reliably sourced (by strict WP standards, although lacking in a bigger NPOV perspective) material that supports their bias, which has led to an overly long, messy, and barely coherent article. The material is not bad per se and they are not generally removing critical material, as an earlier, far worse editor did. Nothing they have done merits a topic ban or block, although this continues to be a contentious discussion with too much reverting. Shii (tock) 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be excusing the blatant attempts to convert the article into a promotional pitch for the Soka Gakkai that the "group of SPIs", as you call them, are engaged in. I certainly hope that you are not referring to my reverts of the multiple attempts to place the "Beliefs and Practices" section before the "History" section.

Moreover, there have been continual attempts at obfuscation and deletion of critical material over the past several months, including the reference to "brainwashing", for example. To counter that I had to order two out-of-print books in Japanese online and post text from them. And it currently appears that a similar effort may be underway at the Daisaku Ikeda page about the Ogasawara incident ("Raccoon dog" priest incident), which Catflap informed me of. I posted Japanese text related to that under the relevant Talk page discussion, because there appear to be sourcing issues, though I don't have time to go through that material in detail.

Who knows where all of these SPIS SPAs come from, but they certainly have much more free time than I do, and there appear to be multiple distinct groups of SPIS SPAs covering different but related articles, such as those on the Soka Gakkai article and those on the Ikeda Daisaku article. Who has time to investigate such ongoings? Apparently that is not something that admins are tasked with, and regular editors like myself and Catflap do not have the time to engage such a large "group of SPIS SPAs".

It is clear that Daveler16 and Brandeburg have been continually engaged in advocacy, and in some cases going against consensus; here, accusing me of violating consensus is an underhanded tactic that I would think should amount to some sort of violation. It was totally retaliatory after I left a warning about WP:ADVOCACY on his Talk page. It's a false accusation about my conduct made with the intention of getting the upper hand in a content dispute, which they have lost (i.e., consensus is against them) and refuse to acknowledge. They haven't started any RFCs, etc., and are simply trying to game the system.

For any uninvolved admins looking at this, here, for example, is a list of five freshly minted SPIs working on one of the articles at issue, since December

Elemential1

Basicallyyes

Findemnow

TokyoSunrise

LovLove

Daveler16 along with BradenburgG are the two main SPIS SPAs working on the Soka Gakkai article, while BrandenburgG has been editing the Daisaku Ikeda article as well, but has made 90% of the edits on the Soka Gakkai article since December. Daveler16 recently attempted to carry out a major refactoring of the article against consensus by slipping it among the recent flurry of incremental edits by BrandenburgG. That had been reverted before and discussed, and consensus was clearly not for such a refactoring.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I continue to hold that these SPIs [edit: SPAs...] are acting in good faith and simply don't realize that they the article that results from their efforts is an imbalanced and essentially biased one. If I were being paid hourly to edit Wikipedia I would happily engage with them and formulate a new policy in order to get this article under control. But we do it for free... Shii (tock) 17:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Shii may well be right. The reason I mentioned pseudoscience, new religious movements, and modern politics and economics as being among our most problematic areas is that those seem to be areas where WP:TRUTH, in one sort or other, most often arises. People who are, sometimes for good reason, very, very interested in something in which they have very strong beliefs, of whichever sort, and want to tell the world about how wonderful it is, are among the most frequent newer editors at such topics, and, in those cases where they have read everything published by (for instance) SGI but nothing from any independent sources, they also tend to think that they are among the most and best informed on the topic. Convincing them to the contrary is often extremely difficult, if not impossible in some cases. John Carter (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

arbitrary break

While I don't doubt that those areas are problematic for the reasons mentioned, there are policies, and some of those have been referred to repeatedly.
That is partly why, unlike Shii, I don't see all of the editing at issue as being done in good faith.
This issue started way back in early October, and much discussion had taken place before the most recent repeat of major refactoring and subsequent revert, which was a replay of October. The following is a collection of some of the representative moments and comments pertaining to the content dispute and conduct, starting with October.
Way back in October, Daveler16 revealed a plan
My comment in response
Followed by Shii
first reversion of BOLD major refactoring of article (moving Beliefs & Practices to top) without consensus
1st Talk page discussion following BOLD edit and revert
relevant comment by John Carter
followed by WP:OR comment by Daveler16 revealing his overall disposition
Daveler16 removes RS-sourced material, replaces it with POV promotional text
Daveler16 misrepresents source in trying to decontextualize Beliefs & Practices section
Discussed here on talk page Daveler16 failed to address misrepresentation
Then he leads one to believe that he didn’t read the edit summary in which I state the page number, even after I challenge him on the evasion
from “Another major reversion” Talk page section, all of which should be read
BrandenburgG makes a comment providing historical context to refute me
I reply
Finally, this section “Big Problem?” should also be read
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:06, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with some of the statements above. I believe Daveler's description and complaint are 100% valid. I don't think Ubikwit and Catflap recognize the extent that their personal lenses affect their contributions.

Let me get personal here because I've been mentioned several times. I consider myself a new editor to WP, about a half year. I am being accused of being a SPI or a SPA and frankly I don't know what they mean.

I've been working hard on this article and I believe I deserve some credit for my time and efforts. I consider myself to be sincere, hard-working, reasonable and honest. I recognize my biases and faults. I believe some of the descriptions of my work above are mean and discouraging.

However, my motivation for working so adamantly is traced to when I came across the SG article. Frankly speaking, as a SG member I was horrified. It was not NPOV by any means!

• For example, the accusations that the SGI was a cult appeared 4 times in a single article, starting from the opening paragraphs. This is quite horrific especially when the entire scholarship about cults has discredited the notion that there is any such thing as a cult.
• People like Toda and Ikeda were treated in ways that ignored their contributions and grossly exaggerated their faults.
• The beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai were explained in ways that were unrecognizable to SG members.
• Scholarship from the 1960s and 1970s was predominating and used to describe the current organization; recent and emerging scholarship was being ignored.

As was mentioned above, I have added sources and have not deleted anything to the best of my knowledge. I believe the sources I have used are excellent and complete. Where I have used scholarship improperly please notify me and I will immediately apologize and edit.

I do agree with the above editors on two points:

1. I admit to working too fast and furious. This was only pointed out to me by Catflap a couple of days ago. I recognize her point here and understand that such a pace makes it hard for others to critique and I apologize. I must tell you that my wife fully agrees with Catflap on this point.
2. I agree that the article is too long and has many stylistic issues.

The solution that I would like to propose is drawn from conflict resolution techniques. I recommend that two and only two editors work on condensing the article and making sure the resulting article is balanced. This work could take place on someone's Sandbox. The two editors should represent different points of perspective to assure balance. BrandenburgG (talk) 00:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no "blatant attempt to convert the article nto a promotional pitch for the SGI". For a very long time, the article was little more than a hatchet job on the SG, with nearly every other paragraph containing phrases like "brain washing cult" and "fascist" and "cult of personality" In fact, this is an international, widely respected movement(with critics, yes, which no one is denying) that has established educational institutions in various countries, has partnered with the U.N, the Simon Wiesenthal Museum, Morehouse College, and others, on various projects. None of that would be possible were the SG as sinister as Wikipedia formerly made it out to be. The SG's honorary president has carried out dialogues with Arnold Toynbee, Rene Huyghe, Aurelio Peccei, Linus Pauling and others - people who are not easily duped or brainwashed. To introduce balance - reflecting that, perhaps, some writers have perceived the movement as positive is not "self-promotion" or "advocacy".

Likewise, until a few months ago the Beliefs and Practices of the SG were depicted solely in terms of how they relate to other secyts of Buddhism - especially Nichiren Shoshu. Just a little research found that the SG has beliefs are separate from Nichiren Shoshu's, and always have been, and that these separate and original beliefs are what motivates its practices. There is no reason whatsoever that the B&P section should begin "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework...", especially since about a fifth of bthe "History" subsection is taken up with the former association - and it's constant history of disagreements.

"Advocacy", remember, can also be negative, and that is what seems to be going on here. There seems to be a faction that wants to ensure that the overall impression of the Soka Gakkai gleaned from Wikipedia is that it's sinister in tactics annd derivative in doctrine, and that's why reverts continue in the face of scholarship and consensus.--Daveler16 (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Uh, this is a content issue rather than a conduct issue, but one of the odd things about this case is that any sect claiming to be the "true Buddhism" ideally should be "derivative in doctrine". Soka Gakkai, in contrast, has a large number of interesting new doctrines aimed towards turning lay believers into practitioners. Hence the confusing term, "lay religion". Shii (tock) 02:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I will like to agree on what you said and this falls on cultural and education movement of Soka Gakkai. I will like to provide my view on this moement.

If Soka Gakkai is an "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" organisation, why did Singapore and Malaysia approve SOka Gakkai to establish the school in the country.

Please bear in mind that Singapore had one of the most restrictive law when it come to human right. They have managed to ban many extremist organisation as well as terroist in their countries. Among them are Jemaah Islamiyah, Falun Gong, ISIS. How come Soka Gakkai was not charged under Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act for being "brain washing cult", "fascist" or "cult of personality" in Singapore. Instead why did the Singapore government every year keep inviting SGI to participate in the National Day Parade performances.

There is a reason why there are too many citation in Soka Gakkai as well as Daisaku Ikeda. It is because there are some editors who like to reverts all the contribution which do not have any reliable source at all. One of them is Scandiescot (talk · contribs).

There is one more editor who also refute Catflap and Ubikwit quite a lot of time previously and the person is Margin1522 (talk · contribs). Kelvintjy (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Might also point out that Ubukwit has participated more here in 2 dayys than he has for a month on the relevant Talk page. Catflap earlier mentioned Ubikwit on the NPOV Noticeboard, and this was one of the replied: "Looking at the article, I am seeing a considerable amount of verified content being deleted and then restored (1, 2), as well as a good bit of discussion on the talk page. Questions about sources should be taken to WP:RSN. I only see one comment on the talk page by the above editor, but many comments by User:Daveler16; this causes me some concern.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2014 (UTC)"/ That's [[125]], btw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Daveler16 (talk • contribs)

Since my name has been mentioned, maybe I could give my perspective. I arrived at the article by chance, answering a request to fix an AGRL on the talk page. I was rather shocked by article, which struck me as a blatantly POV attack page. Readers were complaining. After fixing the AGRL, I made one edit trying restore some balance to the description of the organization’s founder. It was immediately reverted (diff), which was one indication of where the problems were coming from.

As background, this is an organization with many political and religious enemies in Japan, especially on the extreme right-wing fringe. There is an anti-Soka Gakkai industry with its home in the tabloid press – about as far as you can get from reliable sources. To the extent that the article uses those sources, it’s going to be biased and not up to WP standards. For a while, while I was contributing to the article, my main focus was trying to get rid of the worst of those sources, by explaining on the talk page how bad they are and replacing them with better ones. It was like pulling teeth. Once, in the only time that I have ever resorted to dispute resolution, I asked for a third opinion. The decision (here) was to remove the source. Since then the source has been restored, as if the 3O had never happened, and we are back to where we started. But I’ve left it as it is and haven’t pursued it further, because I think there are bigger problems.

The biggest, IMO, has been edit warring and reversions. Especially by Ubikwit, who must have dozens of reversions in his edit history, usually with nothing more than a curt edit summary. However, it’s better than it was. I’ve spent a lot of time arguing on the talk page that all editors should be allowed to contribute, and in fact all participants are now able to contribute. I don’t support any kind of ban on Ubikwit. He has shown many times that he will accept edits and suggestions as long as the sources are good enough.

Nor do I support any kind of boomerang against Daveler16. Thanks to his contributions, the article is far better balanced than it used to be, and complaints are down. The point of this discussion is whether the section that he contributes to should come first in the article. He’s argued for that many times on the Talk page, and tried to execute it, and been reverted every time. My own opinion is that I’m not against it, although it would require a major rewrite of the article. IMO this kind of major restructuring needs consensus on the Talk page, which may never come. So my advice is to just accept that and concentrate on making the "Beliefs and practices" section as good as it can be. There are many other associated articles and no lack of work that needs to be done.

As for the content, I agree with Shii that the article is getting very long. Although the contributions from the new editors are welcome, I'd like to ask them to realize that they may not all survive, as is, in some future version that will fairly represent all of the many points of view that exist about this organization. – Margin1522 (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: This ANI filing seems a bit like a content dispute. And would people please for heaven's sake wikilink the wiki acronym WP:SPA and spell it correctly, rather than making people, including new editors, guess what it means? Just glancing at the article, I find it mind-numbingly long, especially the History section. It would do well to try to summarize and be concise throughout. That said, my understanding, if I'm not mistaken, is that Nichiren (and by extension SG?) are the largest religions in Japan, so maybe some length is justified. It is concerning if there are a lot of WP:SPAs bloating and skewing the article, and that should be watched out for and WP:NPOV preserved. On the other hand, we need to avoid having the article be overly critical, or having WP:UNDUE weight placed upon the criticisms. I do find it a bit odd that the word "cult" is in the lede three times, which seems a bit prejudicial. Also, I think the article needs to differentiate better between SG in Japan and SG outside of Japan. Right now it doesn't do that well, and most of the criticism stuff seems to be about SG in Japan, which to my mind shouldn't be conflated with SG in the rest of the world. Softlavender (talk) 06:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

It is probably the case that most of the material in English relates to SGI, not SG. Breaking the present article down into two separate articles might be something to consider.

The word "cult" appears three times for sound reasons. The first mention documents that is a frequently found attribution; the second is a recent attempt to describe the group in related terms and deny the attribution (included per NPOV at the insistence of pro-SG editors); and the third relates to the role of Ikeda as a charismatic leader of the group(s). I don't see anything prejudicial there.

The article is not "mind-numbingly long" because Nichiren is the largest religion in Japan (a spurious claim), it is too long because it has been bloated with fluff that has been inserted in a manner such as to obfuscate central points and subvert the encyclopedic quality of the article for the promotional purposes.

Here is a concrete example of recently added text that could easily be removed from the article, and has a promotional bend.

Ikeda promoted the Soka Gakkai as an institution promoting culture through his own personal initiatives, the Min-on Concert Association, and massive cultural performances. The emphasis on participatory culture underlies the idea that by improving oneself, one also improves the world.[118][119] In 1971 Ikeda began publishing his poems including an ode to mothers entitled "Mother," the nature-themed "Pampas Grass," and "The People," a Whitmanesque tribute to the common person.[120] Many of these poems were included in a 1978 volume translated by Burton Watson.[121] His essays and addresses moved from doctrine to contemporary themes and using Western references.[122][123][124] in the 1970's Ikeda claims he took up the hobby of photography.[125]

Clearly, a single sentence would be more than is merited by the material as part of a "History" section, and the entire section could be retitled "Buddhism Humanism", but there seems to insufficient RS material on that, as the pro-SG editors have been challenged on the Talk page to produce it in the past when trying to assert that "Buddhism Humanism" was a doctrinal "belief" or the like. For that discussion on that one has to start with Archive 15.

In that section, called "Beliefs and Practices", because it addressed material being inserted into the corresponding section in the article, there was the following exchange.

1. Daveler16 asserts that I didn’t explain why I undid his edit, which implies he didn’t read the edit summary
2. I post excerpt of relevant passage in reply to Daveler16’s assertion
3. Daveler16 replies
4. I reply to Daveler16

So the insertion of the above-quoted passage and section seems to be an attempt at a workaround simply with the aim of ADVOCACY. The above-passage itself, which is part of a section that was created in its entirety by BrandenburgG over a period of a couple of days starting with this edit from January 17 is WP:UNDUE, and what might merit being included in the article should be integrated elsewhere, even in the preceding section, for example. I hope that this illustrates an aspect of the problematic.

This problematic relates to a conduct issues falling under WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT, etc., and not a content dispute.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 07:33, 09:51 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to say "ugh" at that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage, and if that is an example of what the WP:SPAs have been adding to the article, and if they are the cause of the mind-numbing length of the article, then I would support a WP:BOOMERANG to the filer(s) of this ANI, and some serious admin intervention and oversight of the article and the WP:ADVOCACY, WP:NOTHERE, WP:IDHT editors and editing that are occuring there. I salute Ubikwit and Shii for having had the stamina to deal with it this long. It's time they got some support, especially admin support, whatever form that takes, which might include topic bans for the worst offenders. Softlavender (talk) 10:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

OK, I learn something new. I just read about single purpose advocacy and I plead guilty. My focus on WP has been on SG-related articles. I see the need for generalized participation as an editor and I agree to abide. Through my participation editing I have come to see the significance and responsibility of editing and I want to promise a long-term commitment.

Secondly, I need to explain the rational for writing "that vacuous, almost meaningless and promotional passage." Two editors have advocated consistently for prominent use of the "C" (cult) word. There has been extensive discussion continuing with Ubikwit's posting above. But his sourcing is quite questionable and this was raised over and over again. He refused to budge on his position. Let's look at two of his sources Furukawa and Yanatomi. Such a serious charge--"cult of personality"--and all Ubikwit cites are two Japanese sources that no other editor can refute because of language barriers. Also, let me mention, one author's work is almost 30 years old!

He also refused to alter the citation of Macioti, a noted Italian sociologist, whose entire book explores the SG in depth and comes to the conclusion that it is not a cult. (page 124: "It should be clear to all by now that Soka Gakkai is not a "sect." It is not a small, two-faced cult, characterized by obscure and hidden agendas. Rather it is a movement that has given life to varied associations, all of which are engaged in promoting culture, and raising interest around the theme of values—and a movement that demands to be examined more closely by using scientific methodologies and instruments of evaluation.)

He also refused to budge on using the Lewis citation to somehow legitimate "brainwashing cult." Lewis write, "For over half a century, one of the most controversial new religions in Japan has been Soka Gakkai. Although this group has matured into a responsible member of society, its ongoing connection with reformist political activity served to keep it in the public eye. Until relatively recently, it also had a high profile as the result of sensationalist and often irresponsible media coverage. Apparently as a direct consequence of the social consensus against this religion, some scholars have felt free to pen harsh critiques of Soka Gakkai--critiques in which the goal of promoting understanding has been eclipsed by efforts to delegitimate Soka Gakkai by portraying it as deluded, wrong, and/or socially dangerous....Soka Gakkai also spread to the United States and Europe, where it aroused controversy as a result of its intense proselytizing activities. Although it was never as controversial as groups like the Hare Krishna Movement or the Unification Church, Sokka Gakkai—which in the United States went under the name Nichiren Shoshu of America after Soka Gakkai broke with Nichiren Shōshū—was not infrequently stereotyped as a brainwashing cult, particularly by anti-cult authors."

This is highly problematic and misleading. The entire Lewis chapter tries to delegitimate the SG as a cult. This is in fact the thrust of Lewis's work as an "anti-anti-cult" scholar. The one phrase Ubikwit holds on to is about the US and not Japan or worldwide. It is full of qualifications noted by Lewis.

So the opening paragraphs, which are all that many WP readers look at allege cult and brainwashing on the flimsiest of evidence.

My efforts as an editor of the "history" section have been to show that even if the movement had incidents of cult-like behavior in the 50's, by the 60's these had started to change. By the 70's there was a radical reassessment and swing toward a movement of "peace, culture, and education." Is this just promotionalism? I don't think so. I think it is essential given the serious charges of cultism. And if I show the peace, culture and education literature, don't I have to document it with sources.

So show me how to write it better instead of trying to cut off my hands. BrandenburgG (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I think BrandenburgG's comments might be a little hard to follow if you don't know the history of the article, so I'll try to explain it a bit here. (1) The greatest source of friction in this article has been the term "brainwashing cult". If you scroll down the bottom of the same talk page as the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above, you'll find the section titled Brainwashing cult and James R. Lewis. That's where I make a 7-point argument for getting rid of it, as the most offensive term in the article and also one of the most dubiously sourced. The response, mainly from Ubikwit, is essentially WP:IDHT. If we're going to consider that a conduct issue here on AN/I, then we need to know that we have two sides here, both quite entrenched in their opinions, so WP:IDHT is going to happen. (2) About WP:ADVOCACY, please note how BrandenburgG framed it, as a reaction to the perceived POV in language like "brainwashing cult". If we can make progress on the language that provokes the reaction, then we can also make progress on the advocacy. BrandenburgG has indicated that he's aware of these issues now, so I think that they can be handled without topic bans or oversight. (3) As to whether Daveler16's contributions are WP:ADVOCACY or WP:NOTHERE, and generally about civility, I'd like to take another look at the exchange that Ubikwit quoted above. First, please look at our article on Buddhist humanism. You'll see that this term has considerable currency in the literature. It's not nonsense, by any means. But nonsense is what Ubikwit calls it – twice, once in his edit summary and once in the exchange on the talk page. It's an aggressive and confrontational style of arguing. It's not impossible to deal with, but it does generate a lot of heat. So what this suggests to me is (one) that Daveler16 is not engaged in any egregious special pleading or untoward WP:ADVOCACY in that passage, and (two) that everyone needs to calm down, be polite, and listen to what the other side has to say. Let's try that first, before talking about boomerangs and topic bans. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

The post by Margin1522 requires this to be taken even further back into August of 2014.

In the same Talk page archive to which Margin1522 refers, there is a thread preceding the one Maring1522 referenced that addresses the use of “brainwashing cult”, but I guess that Margin1522 didn't read that.[126]

response to inactive SPA (2 NRUs) FetullahFan that they take it to RS/N

With respect to Margin1522 attempts to dismiss RS based on its publication thirty years ago, see the following comment, which was made prior to Margin1522’s comment in the aforementioned preceding thread.

replied that date of Yanatori publication was largely irrelevant regarding attempts to dismiss it

I subsequently acquired both the books by Furukawa and Yanatori in Japanese, and posted the relevant portions on the Talk page here

Margin1522, who also can read Japanese, responded somewhat glibly with basically dismissive comments referring to “hyperbolic language”, and goes so far as to misrepresent what Yanatori says regarding Ikeda's encounter with Zhou Enlai (Yanatori basically relates the opportunistic photo op, etc., as having been used in SG educational/recruitment material for brainwashing purposes (i.e., for inculcating adulation for Ikeda in the minds of SG adherents)) here.

In short, with respect to the "brainwashing cult" characterization, as the current lead shows, there are at least 7 cited sources, including English and Japanese from the 1960s and 1970s. Obviously that represents a notable POV that must be represented in the article according to WP:DUE, WP:WEIGHT.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:38, 19:11 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I feel inferiority here as a newcomer, I see a steep learning curve about WP terms. Albeit, I think Margin1522 frames my opinion well. The "brainwashing cult" accusation in the opening paragraphs is harsh and insulting. It is a nuclear option given that the entire science about "brainwashing" has been discredited (see "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mind_control#Legal_issues.2C_the_APA_and_DIMPAC" for a start) and that the references are so skimpy. Ubikwit, perhaps you and Margin1522 can read Japanese, but 99% of we WP editors on the English site can't. Your source belongs on the Japanese WP page where it can be fully vented and analyzed for accuracy.

I want to address Shii now. I have had several candid interchanges with you on Talk pages. I respect your dedication and neutrality. I have always given careful consideration to every one of your suggestions and I think I have followed through each time. If you felt I was too OCD, I believe a mention of it would have served me well. Further, when there was a lot of debate on the opening paragraphs--and I think this was right around the time I started editing--you were the one who gave wise counsel to start with the article and then return to the opening paragraphs. I've been merrily doing that ever since and I should have been cautioned that I was going too fast. As a lead editor I feel that was your responsibility to do so then and there instead of publicly questioning my sincerity on this administrator's noticeboard.

That's all I want to say for now. BrandenburgG (talk) 19:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

BrandennburgG (talk · contribs) If you feel that RS characterizations of the Soka Gakkai being a "brainwashing cult" are "harsh and insulting", perhaps your emotional attachment to the subject prevents you from editing in an objective manner according to Wikipedia's content policies.

I'm fairly certain that you have been warned about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH on the Talk page, but you appear not to have read the relevant policies/guidelines. That is evident from your assertion above about "the entire science about brainwashing" being discredited. That is not an acceptable manner in which to attempt to dismiss reliable sources.

While I don't have a problem with editors trying to add balancing material demonstrating positive aspects of SG, that must be done in a manner according to the relevant content policies. Moreover, ADVOCACY is prohibited, and there have been numerous warnings on the Talk page regarding advocacy and promotional material.

I think that you and Daveler16 need a long break from editing in this topic area.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Margin1522: Your statement at the beginning of your "7-point refutation" bears quoting here

On the question of whether to take this to the WP:RS/N notice board, I don’t think that’s the right place for it. Lewis uses the word "stereotyped", so I think it's pretty clear that he doesn't agree with this idea. But the dispute here is about whether reliable sources are being used responsibly, and that's not what WP:RS/N is about. Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" belongs in the article at all, much less the lead.

As pointed out above with respect to your addressing of other issues, you appear to adopt a strategy of side-stepping facts in order to promote a POV not in accord with the sources. The simple fact here is that there are a total of 7 sources cited for the statements in the lead. I don't see where your attempts to dismiss any of them is based on policy. In fact, your statement that

"Personally I don't think "brainwashing cult" "belongs in the article at all"

sums up your emotionally biased predisposition toward the sources.

Like Daveler16 and BrandenburgG, it is obvious that you have an emotional attachment to the subject, and probably should abstain from editing it. Since you can't seem to resist the temptation to do so, maybe a mandatory break would be in order.
--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Another Break

This is, actually, about conduct; but I think content disputes explain the conduct and that's why so much has been written about content. For instance, the Lewis book says, essentially, "SG gas been accused of being a cult, but it is not" - but then is cited to support "SG has been accused of being a cult". Similarly, an L.A. Times article evaluates both sides of the Ikeda-as-cult-leader question, and actually contains these words from a religious scholar : "He is not a cult leader". But an editor made a choice about which argument to cite that article to support, and again, it was "It's a cult". This indicates an advocacy, or at least a prejudice that colors the eidting.

So to the matter at hand. Since August there have been 6 sub sections on the Talk page concerning "Beliefs and Practices" Here are some excerpts: [[127]]; Suggestion is first made, Catflap08 and I have a discussion about, and the only time Ubikwit's name appears is when it's noted that he reverted with no discussion. Later, he writes: "The reasons were explained in the edit summary".

Edit summaries are not really conducive to discussion. Also, by definitiion, they do not precede the revert, as discussions of reverts are supposed to do.

Later in that thread, I note that Ubikwit, on the one hand, supports the Lewis reference Mentioned above to affirm what it actually refutes, but does not think a statement about SG practices he does not like can be used to explain that practice. Again - evidence of bias, evidence, perhaps, of an agenda.

[[128]]: Administrator Shii wrote: “One way to address Daveler's concern could be to move the "history" section lower in the article, which might coincide with a larger rewrite. Up until the rewrite began I understood SG to be the result of a fierce split with NS. I now understand that post-1991, SGI thinks of its history primarily in terms of its three leaders, and its relationship with NS is something that is in the background and not as important to self-presentation (since SG was always keeping the faith when NS supposedly lost it). Accordingly, the messy "beliefs & practices" section should be rewritten to explain why people come to SG and the message it gives to its members.”

The next day he wrote: “There is no need to be so petty about this. First, I have already said, simply elaborating Wikipedia policy, that SGI sources are acceptable for self-description of religious views. They are not acceptable to define the narrative of SGI's history; we do not allow any religious group to determine history." I should point out that no one (to my knowledge) was trying to use SG sources in the History sub section. But there was objection to allowing SG to define its own doctrine. I think this is resolved, but, again - bias displayed against SG.

On October 20 Ubikwit was told: Let's not be overly historicist. If the major question people ask about SGI members is "what do they believe today?" then the answers to that should reasonably come first. Shii (tock) 23:38, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

And Margin1522 wrote, on another but related topic: “I also think the article is better than it used to be, and that we can start thinking about removing the neutrality tag. The obvious thing that still needs to be done is the words that some readers find offensive, especially "brainwashing" and "cult". There is no difference between "Ikeda-centric ethos" and "cult of personality", except that one is an insult and one isn't. Not that we can't mention this language, but we need to make it clear that this is language used by SG's enemies, whatever their agenda may be, and that it isn't endorsed one way or the other by Wikipedia. That in itself will make it less offensive and less likely to trigger allergic reactions."

[then here] Margin and I duscuss: He says "In principle I'm not opposed to having this section first. But the way it is written now presumes that a lot of information has already been introduced. The first sentence is "Until the 1991 split with the Nichiren Shōshū, Sōka Gakkai existed within the Shōshū framework as a hokkeko, a form of lay organization." None of that has been introduced yet. If we are going to go this way, I think we had better start with a summary of the basic tenets of Nichiren Buddhism and only then introduce what is specific to SG."

To which I reply "You're right" and say I'm undertaking that task. And after I do, there is this exchange: Margin 1522: "Well. You didn't get a chance to rewrite that paragraph, did you? I must say, you've displayed admirable patience through all this. As for me I'll leave it for another day. Better not to write in anger. – Margin1522 (talk)" Me: "Easily fixed. I see that, once again, for the umpteenth time, a major change is made without discussing it.--Daveler16 (talk) 15:56, 8 November 2014"

To summarize all this: As you can see, I'm not the only one who thinks it's a mistake to portray SG beliefs through the lens of another sect, and to bury that sub section after History. You can see also that there seems to be a rather strenuous effort to prevent this from happening, and in general to keep the entry negative.

A number of solutions have been suggested. May I add another? The "Beliefs and Practices" secti0on of the Soka Gakkai entry should be written to reflect the beliefs and practices of the Soka Gakkai, not of another sect, as they are now and have been for years. Then, let Ubikwit edit what I (or someone else) may write on that basis - not on the basis of reverting, or inserting the views of another sect. As I (and others) have found academic sources - of recent vintage, not the 60s - to verify the independence of SG doctrine, Ubikwit could find recent academic sources to argue that SG beliefs are derivative of Niichiren Shoshu - if that's what he wants to do. That would be so much better than merely reverting, and could (and should) lend itslef to productive discussion that will vastly improve the Soka Gakkai entry. --Daveler16 (talk) 04:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Incidentally, I'm not sure why Shii (talk · contribs) made those comments, the actual diff of which is this as they seemed somewhat out of bounds, particularly the point about only recounting the SG's beliefs as per the SG since 1991, presumably ignoring the history from 1930 to 1991. Wikipedia is not primarily concerned with how SG conducts its "sellf-presentation. Wikipedia has policies/guidelines including WP:Primary etc., that pertain to the use of primary sources. In fact, Shii goes on to say

  For example, here's a really dumb question: the five concepts on this page seem to be key to SG's social message, but none of them are on this Wikipedia page. Has anyone seen a source out there that explains this? It would be way better to start the article with this religious message than with the history of the group.

The fact that the so-called "five concepts" and details about the writings of any of the leaders are missing from the article is a glaring flaw indeed, but I found Shii's statement about starting the article with the self-presentation of the "religious message" of the group to be highly unusual. And I will point out that Shii never objected to the reversions of the refactoring, nor was there any collaborative rewrite.

His comment was also way out of character considering the email he sent me on August 19, 2014, which I am prepared to post here (assuming, that is, that doing so wouldn't violate policy) or in a provide to Arbcom, whichever is appropriate. As an "Admin", one would expect Shii to be a little more circumspect and not to make statements on sourcing that appear to be prejudicial and possible contravening WP:RS as well as WP:NPOV.

My sole comment in that thread, in reply, has remained consistent.

That would not be encyclopedic, and Wikipedia is not intended to serve the aims of proselytizing for religious organizations. Furthermore, the beliefs and practices have developed over time.[129]

So, Shii, what have you got to say in response to these questions? You've been fairly quite during this discussion, with the possible exception of opposing BOOMERANG.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that the issue here is not an NPOV one but simply about which subject heading serves readers more. There isn't a policy about whether history is more important than ideology, or what should come first in article sections. BTW, I won't be voting in these proposed resolutions unless if more than one uninvolved admin weighs in on this whole thing. Shii (tock) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The issue of "which subject heading serves readers more" is likely something that should be determined according to the prominence of views in reliable secondary sources. With a group as controversial as SG, and with a history that is obviously intimately connected to the controversy as well as the beliefs and practices, the issue should be relatively straightforward. It has nothing to do with how the SG decided it should conduct its "self-presentation" starting in 1991, though that in and of itself is a part of the groups history.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 17:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas for this POV, there are a large number of religious studies sources (currently being added to the article by BrandenburgG) that describe SGI as a primarily new, present-day phenomenon where beliefs and practices are more important than history. Now, I view this as scholarly approach being irresponsible, in slightly the same way that pre-1995 scholarly support for Aum Shinrikyo was irresponsible, but my POV doesn't matter Shii (tock) 19:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alas? Did you just say, "Alsas"? Give me a breask. There are several holes in your reply.

First, any new sources that have been added were not there when you made the above-quoted comments in September.

Second, Those sources have not been evaluated.

Thirdly, as you point out, the sources relate to SGI (Soka Gakkai International), not Soka Gakkai.

Why haven't you mentioned the email you sent me in August? Do you think doing so will make it go away? Mr. Harvard Admin?

I'd advise you to measure your statements carefully, because this is going to Arbcom, and you're already sunk.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@ ShiiHold on – define the term “new”. Japanese new religions? Definitely one of them. Where in the time line you set “new”? SGI dates back to the 1930’s so there is quite a bit of history. --Catflap08 (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

To recap, there has been continual and unabated ADVOCACY through the insertion of promotional text and attempts at whitewashing any RS material critical of the SG or its leaders. The pro SG editors have consistently refused to engage in processes such as taking sourcing related questions to RS/N. Instead it can be seen with respect to two issues that they exhibit the same pattern of editing conduct repeatedly: first, there is the attempt to perform a major refactoring of the article against consensus and on the sly; and second, there is the attempt to promote SG as a promoter of "Buddhist Humanism" as a belief or practice without any concrete sourcing and in a manner that violates WP:ADVOCACY. There is also the third point about the two iterations of "cult" used to describe the Soka Gakkai by various sources. I take that to be a sourcing issue, and that the POV in both cases ("brainwashing cult" and "cult of personality") is self-evidently a POV that needs to be in the article based on the sources. Though the mention of those points is not made in an UNDUE manner, there have been continuous attempts to whitewash it and a refusal to take sources to RS/N. I would go so far as to suggest that the above-quoted promotional text posted by BrandenburgG itself demonstrates the type of adulation for Ikeda that is representative of the cult of personality surrounding Ikeda discussed by the sources, but this is not something that BrandenburgG has been able to recognize.

I'd like to suggest a WP:BOOMERANG topic ban for Daveler16, and also for BrandenburgG, the main offenders. While Margin1522's disposition doesn't reflect a willingness to engage processes like RS/N, for example, at least he has not tried to flood the article itself with promotional material, so I will forego suggesting a topic ban for Margin1522.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 06:15, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I guess I escaped nomination because my work on the article itself has mainly been confined to busywork in the footnotes. About RS/N, sure. This might be difficult for the other editors since two of the books are in Japanese. But if it would help I would be happy to translate the two passages that you were good enough to post, and we could see whether third-party editors consider those to be reliable sources. Lewis I think is an interesting case. When an academic quotes strongly POV sources, to what extent do we need to include the academic's own analysis and conclusions? That's a question that should be settled if it hasn't been already. (Note: these are all sources for "brainwashing cult".) – Margin1522 (talk) 16:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No need to thank me. The purpose is to halt the disruption to Wikipedia caused by the promotional conduct, which violates numerous policies, as described in this thread.

The two Japanese sources are undoubtedly reliable sources, as they are by well-known authors, both investigative journalists, etc. They are both used on the Japanese Wikipedia article as well. Regarding Lewis, etc., that should have been taken to RS/N long ago, before FettulahFan disappeared.

Mind you that I would imagine there are other Japanese sources for the "brainwashing cult" description, but I haven't bothered to look--or even read the Japanese Wikipedia article (I just confirmed that Furukawa and Yanatori are used there). You have to realize that the writers in English that address the issue are picking it up from somewhere, and that somewhere is most likely Japanese texts. It is not clear that some of the authors writing in English are actually writing about SG as much as SGI, which probably encompasses the scope of their exposure.

At any rate, this is a Talk page discussion, not AN/I.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Once again I have to Ubikwit on his poor behavior. He sidesteps every point I make and then excoriates me on being an unworthy editor for other reasons. He refuses to acknowledge my charges that cult and brainwashing are extremely serious allegations (especially in opening paragraphs!) and should be substantiated by qualified sources. In order to move forward nothing else should be discussed right now besides the quality of the four sources used to substantiate the allegation: Lewis, Macioti, Furukawa, and Yanatori. A clip of Lewis was used to substantiate "cult" even though the entirety of his statement disproves that fact. A clip of Macioti was used to substantiate "brainwashing" even though the entirety of her book disproves that fact. Given the extensive literature on the SG the use of Furukawa and Yanatori is insufficient to justify a claim of brainstorming. I repeat, use them in the Japanese Wikipedia article where they can be publicly vetted; to substantiate this claim Ubikwit should be charged with finding other sources.

I feel bullied by Ubikwit. WP should be a safe place to work. I am making a very precise claim about sources and he responds to viciously attacking my capability to serve as an editor. To me this is killing the messenger because he doesn't like the message. BrandenburgG (talk) 11:11, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic bans proposed for Daveler16 and BrandenburgG

Indefinite topic ban for Daveler16 from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

• Support As proposer.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above discussion is too long and difficult to read. I won't support a topic ban based on walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It is that. The incidents have there origins back in August, and are at least threefold. For an easy to grasp dimension of the problem, please read the comment in which the ce represented by this diff occurs.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Daveler16's contributions have been well written, well sourced, and IMO have improved the article. I'll add that he has displayed admirable patience and willingness to collaborate, which has been very welcome. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indefinite topic ban for BrandenburgG from all articles related to the Soak Gakkai

• Support As proposer.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:12, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - The above discussion is too long and difficult to read. I won't support a topic ban based on walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. May need topic bans for (possibly all) other SPAs as well. I also recommend SPIs be filed against all the apparent sockpuppets (not saying they are his sockpuppets, but sockpuppets of each other) involved in editing the article. Possibly also a page semi-protection. And also reverting the page to a version before all the SPA POV bloat got added in. May need topic bans for other (possibly all) SPAs as well. Softlavender (talk) 10:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• No longer necessary - BrandenburgG has recused himself from the article. Shii (tock) 23:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Although I have recused myself from this article, let me point out procedural problems. I think they are important because I believe WP would want to narrow the gap between new editors and more experienced ones. In my case I never heard of Single Purpose Advocacy. Yes, there were discussions about advocacy and biases but they were among a million words, some threatening, that were going back-and-forth. I don't recall WP:SPA came up on talk pages. And I did not receive warnings from the page's administrator that my editorial privileges could be revoked for my behavior and what this all entails. Therefore there was no chance to reflect and/or learn. I received only one warning from Catflap08 that I was editing too quickly and I quickly responded and agreed to slow down.

Regardless of the outcome my situation, I think senior editors should take more time, care, and patience in pointing out to junior editors how things work here. Otherwise there will be collateral damage: well-meaning editors who sincerely want to learn and grow will get pushed under the bus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 16:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am not sure if the topic ban will be of much use, the process to investigate sock puppetry is not an easy one either. In both cases the effects may only be temporarily. I would prefer WP:PCPP--Catflap08 (talk) 19:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – Not needed as BrandenburgG has for now left the article. – Margin1522 (talk) 17:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I oppose removing the contributions of Brandenburg16 and Davelar16. Ltdan43 (talk) 21:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

The fact that I am now on trial is ominous and Kafka-esque. I have worked hard and sincerely to create a BALANCED article. As a new editor I have shown a capability to grow whenever my faults have been shown. I cannot express myself yet through WP:THIS or WP:THAT so I have to use plain language. In casting your votes please answer the following Yes/No questions: ·The article before my entrance was seriously flawed and unbalance. YES/NO ·Since my arrival the article's balance has improved to the point that administrators removed it "article in dispute" categorization. YES/NO ·The description of an organization as "brainwashing cult" is serious and should merit the highest sourcing. YES/NO ·The four sources listed (Lewis, Macioti, and the two Japanese sources) were being seriously misused or are not accessible to English readers. YES/NO ·Ubikwit has been unprincipled and unrelenting on this matter. Furthermore he has sidestepped this specific issue whenever it has been raised (including right here) YES/NO ·All of my postings have been backed by highly regarded sources. YES/NO ·Bias is OK as long as it is controlled (i.e., Catholics can edit articles on Catholicism, Muslims on Islam, etc.) YES/NO ·WP readers right to a balanced article supersedes all other charges if an editor demonstrates an ability to grow. YES/NO

Therefore I am proposing that my rights to edit continue.

Is this real? I know it might take an entire weekend to read this whole thing, but I would like to hear from an administrator who has done so. Did I suggest a ban on Ubikwit? I don't think I did, and that is certainly not my intention. When did Brandenberg? I just want a stop to his disruptive editing. He has evidently chosen a very aggressive response, which does not involve any serious attempt to understand the problem, or to suggest a solution other than "my was or the highway".

I just posted on the SG Talk Page that other editors might want to check out this discussion, but now I regret doing so: is anyone who may think the SG entry is being kept deliberately negative going to be "banned"? If anyone disagrees with U*bukwit, is there going to be a "vote" on whether or not they can edit any more? Could we return to civility and try to solve the original problem?--Daveler16 (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Alternative proposal: Before everybody bans each other from editing. Why not close the article yet again for a period of one month? The most problematic issue here is that we do have editors working on the article that are adherents of SGI. I keep my own editing on the two, in my opinion, most problematic SGI related articles to a bare minimum – unless certain tendencies resurface to whitewash certain critical issues or discredit sources. It should also become policy that only registered editors, no novices and IP’s, should be able to edit the article. This would be a measure bearing fruit only in the future though. In the end the only solution is to raise certain protection levels indefinitely and have the article(s) more closely watched by admins. Yet again I have to repeat something I have been saying for years now – the fierceness with which editors with a more or less close affiliation to SGI agitate reaffirms some critics who say that SGI cannot take criticism full stop. I cannot see how the article is overly critical of SGI --- even the criticism section was binned by someone. --Catflap08 (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08's proposal is not a terrible idea (though a shorter period seems more appealing to me). However, editors have to face that there is such a thing as "negative advocacy", and that certain editors are guilty of it. I have seen no effort - none - to purge the history of criticism from the article. All I have seen (and done myself) are efforts to restore balance. It is that - saying something, anything that is in any way positive, or that cancels out the criticism - as "advocating" and "promotion". It only appears that way to you if you are advocating the other way - for negativity. --Daveler16 (talk) 17:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I sometimes get the impression that some believe the article is only balanced when criticism is absent. I do longer want to go on about that … but rather see an admin closing the article. --Catflap08 (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@User:BrandenburgG: Please go to the Special:Preferences page and fill in an email. Shii (tock) 20:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@Shii Have you just made public my email address to logged in users?--Catflap08 (talk) 20:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No, I wouldn't be able to do that if I wanted to. Not sure what you mean. I just want to contact BrandenburgG privately about the tone of his posts on this ANI page. Shii (tock) 20:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to apologize for some rash behavior. I just withdrew my request regarding Ubikwit. I was overly and needlessly emotional. Thank you to Catflap for coming up with some positive ideas.BrandenburgG (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Catflap08: I have no idea who may have advocated all mention of criticism being "absent" before the article is balanced. Meanwhile, I'm going to heed Shii's advice below, and hie myself to the Talk page. --Daveler16 (talk) 02:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

This is completely absurd

This is an article with few editors, all of whom are familiar with what collaboration means. Indeed, if you look at the talk page right this second, you will see there is very little disputation going on there at all, and a lot of good-faith collaboration. Most of the arguing at this point has started because this ANI was posted. It is exasperating to hear threats to raise this to Arbcom; it's like threatening to call the police when your kids argue with you. Let's use the talk page first and discuss specific issues for the article moving forward. Shii (tock) 20:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I have to disagree the conflict within this article fills the respective archive(s). I have been around for quite a few years and due to my own former affiliation with Soka Gakkai have stayed clear to edit the article, and the one on Daisaku Ikeda, too much. I was always clear of that and now and again since we are as you said dealing with an “article with few editors”, I would actually like to know who is an adherent of SGI – funny enough quite a few editors have been silent about that. And as soon some fall silent other appears out of nowhere – focused on SGI and Ikeda. There is one guiding motive in the article in the last past moths and years – get rid of critical remarks and if unsuccessful negate the integrity of sources being critical. This worries me big time – and no I did not file this to Arbcom.--Catflap08 (talk) 21:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

But the question is, have other methods of dispute resolution failed? I say no. If everyone will agree to allow each other to edit, I think there are some big questions to look at which can be resolved in an open RfC. Shii (tock) 21:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Active SGI adherents will gain the upper hand on the article and if that is Wikipedia’s purpose so be it. --Catflap08 (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Good grief. I thought we were editing - didn't realize it was an "upper hand" proposition. I like Shii's comments, ad will be seen next back on the Talk page. I started this is hopes of putting an end to disruptive editing and reversions; I had no idea it would turn into a book length jumble. I still hope that we can get a resolution, that I be allowed to edit as research leads me (and of course the same for everyone) and that consensus will be honored.--Daveler16 (talk) 02:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing can occur from various angles. It may result in an article that is promotional and there are clear guidelines on that. Please also note WP:SPA --Catflap08 (talk) 06:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Apologies and self-reflection

I want to apologize for my lengthy and sometimes angry words on this board. I wish I could say that I acted with rashness because of my ignorance about dispute boards. Unfortunately, I've been dealing with the same self-victimization and anger issues in my entire non-virtual life. I'm aware of it and keep chipping away. I think I should do here what I do in real life: apologize, back-off, and self-reflect. In real life such action has helped me repair and usually strengthen relationships.

Therefore I have decided to not edit the article for a month or two. (On occasion I might drop a word or two in on the talk page.) As I had promised I will also involve myself in helping other articles, thereby learning more about WP processes. If you have any suggestions for WP volunteer work I could do, please let me know.

I wish the remaining editors my best. Overall I think we have done important work and I respect everyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandenburgG (talk • contribs) 13:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Request template namespace topic ban for Sardanaphalus

I have been increasingly concerned about Sardanaphalus (talk · contribs)'s template editing lately. His template editing was recently mentioned in an ANI thread, after which I removed his template editor right. However, I've found that the problems aren't limited to protected templates. While most of his template edits are fine, a significant minority have problems, and given Sardanaphalus's fast rate of editing and tendency to not get consensus on template talk pages, this has resulted in quite a large build-up of templates that need to be fixed. I have noticed the following patterns in Sardanaphalus's template editing:

• Logic errors and bad parameter names that could have been spotted with better testing. For example, a wrong parameter name at infobox company[130][131][132] and a missing includeonly tag in infobox shopping mall.[133]
• Creation of template redirects and large-scale editing of articles to use the redirect name, bypassing the requested move process. (This is the matter that was discussed in the previous ANI thread.)
• Formatting errors, making text or tables bunched up or unreadable.[134][135][136]
• Creation of unnecessary template forks, for example Template:Semisub (TfD) and Template:End&startflatlist (TfD).
• Adding unnecessary subtemplates and parameters to templates. This makes processing templates slower, which in turn increases the time taken to save pages. For example, see this edit to Template:Collapsible option, the corresponding edits to Template:Mono, and several additions of the {{{1}}} parameter to navboxes to use the parameters added to Collapsible option.[137][138][139][140][141] Sometimes increases in complexity are fine, but I'm concerned that this is being done on a large scale without any discussion.
• Changing the function of parameters based on other parameters in the template, e.g. [142] and the edits to Template:Mono linked above. Once such a parameter scheme is added, it is hard to fix, as you need to go through every transclusion of a template and check that it doesn't use the new scheme, or add a special tracking category to find the transclusions that need changing. Again, schemes like this can be useful sometimes, but Sardanaphalus tends to add them without discussion in places where they aren't needed.

All of this wouldn't be such a problem if Sardanaphalus took on board advice he was given after problems with his template editing were brought up. However, he tends to revert rather than using the talk page,[143][144][145] and sometimes resorts to edit warring to keep his changes in templates.[146] Most importantly, advice on his talk page doesn't seem to have resulted in any change of behaviour. For example, after this thread that I started on his talk page last week, he is still making edits with the exact same problems.[147] I don't see much improvement after other recent threads either,[148][149] and I see quite a few complaints going back in his talk page history.[150][151][152][153]

I'd like to propose a topic ban from the template namespace for Sardanaphalus, to prevent further bad template edits and to allow us to start cleaning up the old edits without having to worry about cleaning up new edits at the same time. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. I had noticed that Sardanaphalus has the wrong approach to editing templates before this report. A minor example is seen in the history at Template:Hegelianism where Sardanaphalus is editing the live template as if it were a contentious article which requires edit warring and pointy edit summaries to overcome POV pushers. Bold editing is one thing, but templates really do require care and collaboration. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - Sardanaphalus can seem quite productive, but he has trouble collaborating. He has very strong ideas about how things should be done and as such, he doesn't take ctiticism very well. That makes it very hard to fix his mistakes. When he does acknowledge an (obvious) error, he will often revert to his own established methods. His layout always based to fit on his own screen (1680 wide), and in such a way that it becomes illegible on smaller screens. He uses and creates templates like {{!-!}} and {{!-!!}} that are completely redundant to wikimarkup and make table/template editing exponentially harder, yet at the same time acuses experienced template editors of "thinking like progrmammers". I would be a good thing if Sardanaphalus would experience Wikipedia more as a reader... on small screens. Or at the least, he could do with some coaching. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 09:21, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Please take a look at User talk:Tryptofish/Archive 24#Template:Aquarium. Not too long ago, I reverted an edit by Sardanaphalus at that template, and they reached out to me at my user talk, and our subsequent discussion was very collaborative and improved the template. As a single anecdote, it seems to me to be contrary to what I'm reading here. I do however recognize that Sardanaphalus does an awful lot of template editing and that this is something where consensus is very important. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • He used to inquire about my reverts, and I would answer best I could, even though he should have brought up any issue on their respective template talk pages instead. However, any advice I give him is simply ignored or very soon forgoten. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support Sardanaphalus has a habit of reformatting template code in such a manner that makes comparison by diff very difficult. Consider this edit from earlier today: the effective change is the addition of two {{{colheaderstyle|}}} but whilst the first of those is obvious, the second is disguised by the newline wrapped in <!-- --> markers which makes it look like some code has been removed and some very different code has been added. It has reached the point where I have refused to process their protected edit requests because it is so difficult to determine if their desired "minor" change truly is minor. More at Template talk:Shortcut#Protected edit request on 4 December 2014, Template talk:Information#Navbox version and Template talk:Div col#Code layout. They also nag me for not processing edits that I disagree with, see User talk:Redrose64#Template:Information, User talk:MSGJ#Advice, please..? and (by proxy) User talk:Edokter#Template talk:Div col. Sometimes it seems that a strange effect somewhere is the result of a Sardanaphalus edit - but it takes some time to trace it, see Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 132#Linebreaks in infoboxes. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
  • You may also note from today's editing [158][159] that his use of the sandbox is not very effective; he seemingly moves every edit to the live template immediately, negating the purpose of the sandbox. If the transclusion count is high, this will unnecessarily strain the job queue, and in cases where he does not use the sandbox at all, may introduce disruptive errors on live articles. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:00, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment. Sardanaphalus has asked some questions at both my user talk page and Mr. Stradivarius' talk page, and I would prefer that no final decision be made here until Sardanaphalus has responded here at ANI. At the moment, I'm neutral about the ban proposal, pending what I might hear subsequently. One possibility that I think we might want to put on the table is a topic ban from editing templates, but not from editing template talk pages. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I agree that editing the template talk namespace should be allowed. Thinking about it, I would extend that to allowing the editing of template sandboxes as well, as without editing template sandboxes it is hard to make effective template edit requests. I'm also wondering whether editing /doc pages in the template namespace should be allowed, but I note that there has been some controversy about Sardanaphalus's editing there; see this section on his talk page, for example. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

  I looked at that discussion you linked to, and before I say what I think, I had better stipulate that I'm mostly ignorant about the technicalities being discussed there. However, just as a matter of two editors communicating with one another, I'm not seeing anything that bad about the way that Sardanaphalus replied to Edokter. After reading Edokter's reply to my first post just above, I wondered why the two of us had had such differing experiences, and it now seems to me that it takes two to tango. Anyway, I'm receptive to a more limited ban that prevents editing templates and template documentation, but permits template talk page edits and edits of draft templates in sandbox space – but above all, I'm eager to hear back from Sardanaphalus. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  I should clarify that I never intended my proposed topic ban to include the template talk namespace - while it's related to the template namespace, technically it is not a part of it. Regarding Edokter, I agree that he could have handled that interaction better. I have noticed Edokter becoming increasingly frustrated with Sardanaphalus over the last few months, and this frustration is clearly evident in his recent interactions with him. It is not surprising to me that Sardanaphalus has reacted negatively to Edokter's complaints. However, Edokter is very knowledgeable about MediaWiki technical matters (much more than I am), and the technical points that he has brought up in discussions with Sardanaphalus are sound. I would say that his frustration is a symptom, rather than the cause. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  I've been thinking about the proposed topic ban scope, and I've come to the conclusion that we should allow Sardanaphalus to edit /doc pages for templates that have been updated due to edit requests that he makes, but not in other circumstances. The reason is pretty simple - after a template has been changed, it is often necessary to update the documentation with details of new parameters or new functionality, and it seems overly bureaucratic to require Sardanaphalus to do this on another page and then have another editor copy the documentation over. However, I don't think that this should be extended to allowing editing of all /doc pages unconditionally, as Sardanaphalus has been known to go systematically through /doc pages and change the formatting, and some of those edits have been contentious, as discussed above. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 00:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Template:Cue I've had concerns about this user's ability to edit templates for some time as well but would only support a topic ban if the following is considered: I've seen some of their edits to templates, and they certainly have the logical ability to figure out how to properly do it and only lack the patience of making sure that it is right in the sandbox and making sure the changes are what the community wants in cases where a change might be objected to. As many may know, I've had issues and struggled with some of these things myself in the past and some would argue on my behalf that I have grown from them. Telling this user they can't talk about templates at all may very well drive a capable editor away, and that's harmful to the encyclopedia. I'd suggest that the closer of this discussion consider allowing Sardanaphalus the option of obtaining a mentor that is knowledgeable in templates and code and willing to be a middleman / filter for Sardanaphalus' ideas and changes. I'm fairly certain that the community would not see me fit for the job, and I respect that opinion despite not entirely agreeing with it, but I ask they give him a chance to find a mentor that is suitable to the community if he wishes to not be entirely topic banned from templates. Thank you for hearing me. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 21:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Now I say this with some regret. I am convinced Sardanaphalus is a good faith editor with intelligence and technical knowledge. But I am also convinced that he is sloppy in his work, has difficulty collaborating, and has technical blindspots, particularly with resolution. While I support this TBAN I would like the following provisos to be considered: to only be restricted from templates not created by him, to have no restrictions to template talk or sandboxes, and to be allowed to collaborate with Technical 13 to suggest changes which are then carried out by Technical 13. --Mrjulesd (talk) 11:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I largely agree with what Mrjulesd just said. It seems to me that it has been long enough for Sardanaphalus to post a substantive response, and I take the fact that it has not happened yet as reason for me to not wait any longer and Support a limited ban. Because templates appear on multiple pages, edits to templates require a reasonable amount of care and consensus. An editor who has this much difficulty responding here needs some boundaries with respect to editing templates, but it does not have to be a "punishment". I, too, trust Technical 13 to serve informally as a mentor; for that matter, I would also trust Mr. Strad. I would like the ban to apply only to edits of templates (created by anyone) and to template documentation. No edits there. But edits would be unrestricted at template talk pages and draft/sandbox templates, and any editor in good standing (not just the mentor) could agree to implement changes to templates and documentation. And I sincerely wish Sardanaphalus happy editing going forward. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  Since my comment above, Sardanaphalus has posted at some length at my user talk, and also posted the two sets of questions to editors above. I've read all of that, carefully and with an open mind, and my opinion is not changed, because what I'm seeing is a combination of having difficulty accepting constructive criticism and having difficulty communicating effectively with other editors. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Working toward an alternative outcome

Hello. I have been trying to work out a promising way to contribute to this thread, so I apologise if this initial post appears belated. Mr. Stradivarius endorsed the idea that linking/copying the conversation I started on his talkpage should be a good first step, so, with the exception of its Template:Tnfs, I've quoted it below. Thoughts, please..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

== Request ==

Regarding your proposal: Though I've found a certain amount of information about this situation, I've yet to divine or find advice as regards what's considered an effective way for the... indictee? to proceed. I'd appreciate, therefore, your advice/assistance.

Sincerely,
Sardanaphalus (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

As Tryptofish advised you, you should post a comment at the ANI thread. If you don't comment there, it will probably lower other editors' opinions of how well you collaborate with others. For things to go as well as possible, you need to a) show that you understand what the complaints about you are, b) accept responsibility for the issues brought up that are your fault (apologising helps here), and c) show that you are committed to improving your actions in the areas that you accept responsibility for (an action plan will help here). Though I started the thread about you, I don't actually want to see you topic banned if it can be avoided. I started the thread because I thought that a topic ban might be the only way to get you to change your behaviour after you seemingly ignored advice from myself and others. Perhaps this is all just a communication problem and can be sorted out through discussion - if that's the case, then so much the better. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for this message. In short: yes, I feel there's been an accumulation of misunderstandings, misinterpretations and unfinished conversations, some of which<aside>perhaps many of which</aside> have been prompted, I think, because of my attempts to take advice on board. I'm heartened to read that you don't want to see me topic (namespace?)-banned if it can be avoided; this is what the question at the end of a follow-up to the above that I'd been drafting had addressed ("...is there any kind of outcome other than the one proposed that you'd prefer to see / like to see..?").

Do you think, therefore, that linking and/or copying the contents of this thread to the ANI thread<aside>to see if/how anyone following it responds</aside> is a good initial post for me to make there..?

With my thanks again, Sardanaphalus (talk) 09:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

PS Despite, for instance, LT910001's own userpage, this may also be timely.

Yes, I think that linking to this conversation as part of your initial post would be a good idea. You should also try and address my points a, b and c above. But you shouldn't make the post too long - the thread will go smoothest if it is a conversation rather than a series of walls of text. Also, you should comment there soon, preferably today - the longer you leave it, the more it looks to other editors like you are ignoring the thread. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 10:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm required elsewhere for a while now, so will make the post sometime later today. Thanks for your confirmation. Sardanaphalus (talk) 11:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There's really nothing for the rest of us to add here. What is needed is for you to say whatever you are going to say. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm still not confident about what's best for that to be. Given Mr. Stradivarius's points (a) to (c) above, I'm thinking I should work through what's been said in the main part of this thread in order to demonstrate, I suppose, that I don't "understand what the complaints about [me] are"<aside>more accurately, to demonstrate that I feel their basis isn't as clear-cut or perhaps as well-founded as it may otherwise seem</aside> but I think that's likely to generate one of these "walls of text"...? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The general sense I get from this comment is that, in essense, you do not agree with the complaints. In other words, you feel you are doing nothing wrong. That is unfortunate, because that may indicates there is no intent to change on your part. What we are asking of you is to adhere to some basic principles that we expect from anyone editing Wikipedia. One of these principles is to take advice from others instead of fighting them and perceiving criticism on your edits as personal attacks. You have been given lots of advice on technical matters, but it appears to have fallen on deaf ears, as you generally do not show any change in editing. Also, if you feel you need a 'wall of text' to address these complaints, that is also not a good sign. So at this point I think a topic ban on Template:-space (meaning live templates only, not including template talk pages, /sandbox and /testcases pages), combined with some other technical restrictions, and coaching, is what is needed to improve the quality of your edits. Accepting a coach would be the only way to lift this ban in the future. Before deciding this, we'd like to hear your view (as concise as possible) on these complaints on your edits. I emphasized "edits" because I want to stress we are not discussing you as a person. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Does anyone endorse the train of thought in this message's first half..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 14:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It all boils down to...

...this, I think: no more than a handful of editors<aside>and one in particular</aside> thinking, I guess, that I understood something, or that they'd explained something to me<aside>or "advised" me</aside> while, in fact, I didn't understand something, or they hadn't explained something, or mistook statements<aside>or assertions</aside> for explanation. And, as a consequence, despite "most of his template edits [being] fine", it looks like these few editors will have someone banned<aside>not blocked or whatever, but banned</aside> from a namespace – not a topic within a namespace, but a namespace. Does all this mean I've made mistakes and/or misjudgements? Definitely. Do I apologise for doing so? Absolutely. I hope that's not too concise or robust. Sardanaphalus (talk) 23:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the above statement helps at all. There is consensus in this thread to ban you from the namespace. The only thing which may possibly prevent this going ahead is to voluntary agree to a strict set of restrictions, such as the following:

• You accept that there are significant concerns about your current template editing.
• You adhere to WP:1RR in the template namespace, and seek consensus for all edits that are reverted before attempting to re-apply. You fully test all changes in a sandbox before deploying.
• You discuss all changes that introduce new functionality or new parameters to a template, and seek consensus for them.
• You avoid hard-coding any styles into templates.
• You avoid making cosmetic changes to the code which do not affect the output of the template. Examples include changing template calls to redirects, or fiddling with the whitespace.

Would you be willing to abide by these restrictions (and agree to be blocked if you do not)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

That is a good list, but it misses the essence of the problem. No one should edit live templates by trial-and-error, and templates are not like articles where users edit war with snarky edit summaries. Sardanaphalus should use a sandbox to perform experiments, and should only transfer the result to the main template after thorough testing with the sandbox. Take a look at the responses from Sardanaphalus above—there is no acknowledgment of a problem, and there is no indication of a willingness to learn. A topic ban is the only reasonable outcome because technical people working on templates are not willing to deal with disruption—it's just not what is expected on the technical side. Johnuniq (talk) 11:30, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that MSGJ said these rules could "possibly prevent" a ban, if Sardanaphalus would agree to them. I'm interested to see if he does. But if he does not, then a ban on editing live templates is the most likely outcome. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

While this doesn't mitigate the above, I would like to point out he has made a better statement at my talk page [160]. But I can't understand why he hasn't said something similar here, but I hope it is forthcoming. --Mrjulesd (talk) 16:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruption and possible trolling

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

---

Research888 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Despite being asked for sources a number of times, [161], [162], [163] Research888 continues to make unsourced statements on talk pages. Given the subject matter, I suspect there's some trolling going on. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:44, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Further exchange. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

What obligations does an editor have to source statements they make on a Talk page? BlueSalix (talk) 10:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If they continuously make the same type of assertions on a variety of talk pages, and occasionally foray into article space doing the same thing, even after being asked to stop is that not disruption? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Talk pages? No. Article space? Yes. Your above note is the first time you mentioned anything about article space. BlueSalix (talk) 21:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Add something like, "The human race likely originated in Antarctica" to a variety of talk pages without sources and see how long it takes for someone to tell you to knock it off. Anyways, the editor has stopped so I guess there's nothing further to be done here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Timbouctou vandalism and POV

This user keeps removing valid reference from the Magnum Crimen article, tags the same text with [citation needed], alters the quoted text in the same article, refuses to discuss the article changes on the talk page

Issues with article

• Vandalism

My attempt to put back the text that is referenced is prevented by this user.

Referenced test:

According to O. Neumann, Novak was a Croat by birth, and he has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. "He was Chair of Croatian History, which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples".

was replaced by Timbouctou and tagged with [citation needed]

Viktor Novak, a Croat by birth, has been, since 1924, active among the Serbs. He has held the Chair of Croat History which was founded at the University of Belgrade in order to promote mutual understanding between the two kindred peoples

Earlier text with correct quote

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

was altered by inserting while

"Some passages have been written by a scholar in a dignified academic gown, while in other parts of the book the author assumes the role of public prosecutor."

To verify online the quotes, see here and here.

• Logical fallacy

In Timbouctou inlined comments there is statement rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" which makes no sense. The Wikipedia Magnum Crimen is copyrighted at least six years before http://magnumcrimen.org/. It is obvious that http://magnumcrimen.org/ copied over most of the Wikipedia's Magnum Crimen article. The revert excuse is obviously false; for details see here.

• POV

Further, the same user added these two sentences to this article which are a blatant POV

As reported by the Serbian daily Politika, the publication of the English language edition was financed by a friend of Milorad Ekmečić, a Serbian nationalist historian', who also wrote the foreword to the edition.[31] According to the same article, the publication of the English translation intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".[31]

Both sentences are referenced by „Magnum crimen”, ipak, putuje u svet.

Whoever reads and understands Serbian language can see that there is nothing in that reference saying Serbian nationalist historian', or intentionally coincided with the start of the trial for mutual lawsuits in the Croatia–Serbia genocide case before the International Court of Justice, so that "the world would be informed about Ustashe crimes against Serbs during the Second World War".

For details see here.

References

Issues with request for comment

• Harassment and vandalism

I tried to address these issues on the article talk page here. My attempt was ridiculed by

"User:Milos zankov, I'm afraid you are going to be more specific than that in order for your comments to be taken seriously", "Simply saying that other editor's contributions are crap and reverting ad nauseam will hardly help your case." The last two offensive statements came from Timbouctou

Timbouctou inserted his comment in the body of my Request for comment, which I moved in the Comments section and updated my Request for comment. Timbouctou put back his comment inserted into the request comment and removed my request updates. For details see here

Soliciting admin support

Timbouctou keeps publicly soliciting (here, here, and here) his Croatian compatriot, Wikipedia administrator Joy [shallot] contrary to WP:CANVASS which intervened on behalf of Timbouctou , see here --Milos zankov (talk) 02:39, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

I took a quick look at it, and there really was a problem with Timbouctou reinserting a text which has a tone not at all supported by the source. I made the changes so the text reflects what the source really says (diff). Timbouctou should really not missuse sources the way he did, neither add POV content such as calling a historian "nationalist historian" just by his personal opinion (diff when he first time added the text). FkpCascais (talk) 04:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

@FkpCascais Thank you for the correction you've made. How about removing the valid reference and requesting where I provided the online verification of the referenced text, then how about claiming baselessly a copyright violation? How about removing my comments from the talkpage?--Milos zankov (talk) 17:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

First off, this is not an appropriate venue to discuss article content. Secondly, you clearly have WP:COMPETENCE issues regarding the way discussions are led and the overall cooperative work needed to build this project. Thirdly, the text you want to see in the said article (about a pretty controversial political book) was lifted verbatim from http://magnumcrimen.org/, a website which serves to promote the said book, and which has copyright on its entire contents. Fourth, you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book, and fifth - this is the second time you copy pasted the entire thread to ANI after your previous attempt ended in it being archived. Sixth, there were at least five (5) other editors who left negative comments on article talk and your own talk page about your edits and who questioned your good faith in launching an RfC. Seventh, I have no desire to waste my time on debating actions of a single-purpose account which is here solely and exclusively because he/she has a political axe to grind. You should have been indef blocked by now, but it's not my call to make so I guess you'll have a lot more copy-pasting at ANI to do. Cheers. Timbouctou (talk) 22:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment you are lying through your teeth with claims that I misrepresented an article in a Serbian newspaper about the book!! No need to comment it, see just the latest fix of the article. Now about non-existent copyright issue:

(cur | prev) 14:04, 17 January 2015‎ Timbouctou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,891 bytes) (+2,402)‎ . . (rv published on http://magnumcrimen.org/ and COPYRIGHTED to "Magnum Crimen, 2015")

(cur | prev) 13:42, 17 January 2015‎ Milos zankov (talk | contribs)‎ . . (17,514 bytes) (-2,377)‎ . . (Undid revision 642753012 by Timbouctou Wikipedia article is copyrighted too and 6 year older than "www.magnumcrimen.org")

(cur | prev) 11:28, 16 January 2015‎ Timbouctou (talk | contribs)‎ . . (19,891 bytes) (+2,377)‎ . . (rv text copyrighted to "Magnum Crimen, 2015" and published on http://magnumcrimen.org/)--Milos zankov (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry Timbouctou, but regarding your edit, you did gave a bit of your own tone to the edit which clearly defends one POV over the other and which is not backed by the source. Regarding the rest, unfortunately I am a bit limited with the time and this matter is complex, but I am afraid that Milos zankovs inexperience here becomes used to push one POV in the article. I hope that doesn't happened. FkpCascais (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• In case somebody is still having problems getting the picture, Milos zankov's purpose here is to censor other people's edits at Magnum Crimen to keep the article content verbatim identical to the one published, non-attributed and copyrighted, at http://magnumcrimen.org/. This a case of WP:PLAGIARISM, WP:COPYOTHERS, WP:AGF, WP:OWN, WP:DISRUPT, WP:NOTADVOCATE and WP:NOTMIRROR all rolled into one, plus quite possibly WP:CONFLICT. Timbouctou (talk) 12:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Lachlan Foley indiscriminate mass article tagging and WP:DISRUPT

• Lachlan Foley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

User:Lachlan Foley is out of control.

In just the last five days, LF has tagged about 400 album and song articles with music notability tags without any apparent research or examination of the articles themselves, many of which actually show they were hit songs or records, like with Blur's #5 UK charting Charmless Man and On Your Own (Blur song) song articles. [164][165]. He seems to have a particular dislike of live albums - 17 out of 22 Gary Numan's live albums articles has been tagged by him as well two Roxy Music albums.[166][167]

Many of the other album articles he threw notability tags on are of those by iconic artists such as Radiohead and Brian Eno.[168][169]

Looking just previous to this latest round of mass tagging, I see he tagged Roxy Music #5 charting Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article with a notability tag.[170]

Just have a look at his contributions page and you'll see.

Any kind of attempted reasoning with him will be met with edit warring as demonstrated by his block for 3RR about two weeks ago. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive267#User:Info4allthepeople reported by User:Lachlan Foley (Result: Submitter blocked).

This editor needs to be kept in check.--Oakshade (talk) 06:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I've done nothing wrong, so I have no need to explain myself, but I will say that if you had also bothered to look a cursory glance at the constructive improvements I have made to hundreds of articles over the period of five years, you'd think twice about calling my tagging "indiscriminate". You are just still upset about that Joy Division incident and are grasping at straws in an attempt to get back at me. Lachlan Foley (talk) 09:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Mass tagging of hundreds of song and album articles, many of which were top 10 or top 20 hits demonstrates you were indiscriminate in your tagging. You can't erase history as the diffs are there forever. Glad you brought up the Joy Division album Preston 28 February 1980 article as that's yet another example in which you failed to do any research and threw a notability tag on. It seems you're angry about that tag being removed and being called on your WP:DISRUPT violating behavior. --Oakshade (talk) 17:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I recall this user sending dozens and dozens of similar articles to AfD and IIRC, they've all been kept. Recommend that LF raises notability on the WP:ALBUM talkpage first before tagging more articles. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:00, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Given this is a longtime ongoing pattern, I think a topic ban might be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC) AMENDMENT: Given the behavior demonstrated by Cavarrone below with multiple topics, it seems more than just a topic ban would be in order. --Oakshade (talk) 00:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Just drawing to your attention that User:Lachlan Foley has tagged almost all of the Jebediah releases with notability tags even though everyone of them are charting songs and contain independent verifiable references. Until checking his talk page I was unaware that this editor has a past history of this disruptive behaviour. Concur with previous comments that this appears to be an ongoing pattern that should be actively discouraged.Dan arndt (talk) 11:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Does this constitute vandalism? See Wikipedia:Vandalism#Abuse of tags, and there are literally hundreds of wrong tags, it's hard to believe good faith. --Mrjulesd (talk) 20:14, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Def. a case of WP:DE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:13, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

And for Jebediah I see on the #6 charting Kosciuszko (album) article, LF removed all the professional review sources [171] and then tagged it for notability on the next edit. [172] Wow. --Oakshade (talk) 08:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

• I remember a similar incident back in June 2012 with the same editor indiscriminately mass-tagging for notability hundreds of films, including films by Otto Preminger, Oliver Stone, Ernst Lubitsch, Wes Craven, Mario Bava, almost an half of the whole filmography of Roger Corman and more, see User_talk:Lachlan_Foley/Archive_1#Stop_please and User_talk:Lachlan_Foley/Archive_1#warning. Probably a topic ban from tagging articles for notability could be in order. Cavarrone 00:01, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Really could use an Admin weighing in on this and for this to have a definitive end.--Oakshade (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sadly, they're too busy with backslapping and waiting for their spines to develop to help with a real issue. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Something needs to be done. Just in the last day, even after all the agreement of his disruptive behavior here by all editors, he's tagged multiple charting song and album articles with notability tags - examples are [173][174][175] - the latter of which, Found That Soul, was a top 10 hit.--Oakshade (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Still continuing with the tagging spree. Admins, time to step up. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have not checked his recent rapidfire tagging, but the time rate of the tags (one tag or more/a minute) is well below of a minimum standard it is reasonable to expect by a responsible, non-bot, good-faith reviewer who analyzes sourcing and contents of the articles. In spite of warnings and previous incidents, I don't see any sign he intends to change his attitude, nor he apparently wants to engage in a discussion to explain his actions, so I strongly suggest a topic ban from tagging articles, especially as the tagbombing appears to be a dead end for LF (even considering previous incidents, I don't see any intention to nominate such articles from deletion). Even if LF could be sometimes incidentally right, this mass-tagging is unhelpful and requires a lot of time (and sometimes stress) from the community to review and fix his edits, and frankly everyone has better things to do than loosing time behind some improper tags (LF included). Cavarrone 16:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin needed here. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

He does not change his attitude very easily. When the Everything Must Go incident went down, he was just removing information that I added without any explanation. I tried to explain that there was nothing wrong with the information, and there wasn't, the information had reliable references, but he just kept reverting my edits, and eventually reported me for 3RR, that was the moment I tried not to edit the articles where he made changes, so I would not have to deal with the process of getting reported. Just wanted to share my opinion because I felt really cheerless when I was reported because of an article where I was adding valid information with references, and when I tried to figure out the reason for his removal of the infomration in question, he reported me. User:Info4allthepeople (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

When User:Rhanas attempted to explain to LF these unconstructive edits, his response was, "How dare you, you don't have a clue about what I'm doing. I am improving these articles and if you have a problem with that take your frustration somewhere else." [176] He just doesn't get it. --Oakshade (talk) 19:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Admin action is needed

Any chance of an admin actually doing something here? This has been here for more than a week. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

C'mon you chocolate fireguards. Pull your fingers out. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic ban proposal

Moved this section down for visibility. Given the failure of the editor to respond sufficiently, or indeed to stop tagging articles that clearly pass our notability guidelines, I suggest a topic ban on User:Lachlan Foley from adding notability tags to music recording related articles, broadly construed. Please feel free to tweak this as required. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic Ban Discussion

• Support as proposer. Black Kite (talk) 13:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support The user has no clear idea over notability guidelines and is tagging articles en-masse with thought. The edit history on this article is just one recent example. Continuation of tagging and failure to engage in this discussion point to WP:NOTHERE. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:42, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Block until the topic ban issue is decided, to prevent further damage in the interim. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have warned him to disengage from this area until the discussion is concluded. Black Kite (talk) 15:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. He's even edit warring to reinstate clearly incorrect tags, and is being very disruptive. It seems like some kind of obsession that can't be reasoned with. And if he's continuing the disruption while this discussion is in progress, block until there's an outcome here. Squinge (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per my reasoning in the main section above. --Cavarrone 17:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Black Kite and Lugnuts. Rationalobserver (talk) 17:20, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, simple enough. This should be enforced with long blocks. Shii (tock) 17:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support and block, but ensure notability tag ban applies to all topics. As Cavarrone indicated above, he has not limited himself to this tag abuse to just music related articles. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Quite clearly needed. BMK (talk) 22:34, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Agree, it is my opinion he does not change his attitude and just keeps adding tags wildly on every article. User:Info4allthepeople (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support, clearly, the editor is either not acting in good faith, or is not taking due care when tagging articles for notability. Either way, they shouldn't be editing these articles until they demonstrate an understanding of when notability tags are appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC).
• Support appropriate restrictions on this editor including the proposed topic-ban. Even accepting his subjective good faith, his pattern of participation is damaging. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support. Judging by this, I'm not sure if s/he doesn't quite understand what notability means or if s/he just doesn't care (I'm leaning toward the latter though). Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 05:53, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support banning Lachlan Foley from adding notability tags to articles. User demonstrated on my talk page that their believes about notability criterion are in direct conflict with WP:GNG. -- Sam ^Sing! 10:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Given his history of constructive edits this is clearly not a SPA whose purpose is disruption. Tagging articles is a means of promoting discussion and dialog; an editor doesn't need to obtain a certain threshold of agreement to his proposals or face silencing. It would be different if the editor were blanking pages, etc., but someone should not be topic banned simply for expressing (extreme) minority viewpoints. BlueSalix (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose See Leviathan (song), for instance -- there is no particular assertion of notability on that page, so tagging for notability and refimprove was not a bad thing.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

  WP:NSONGS clearly states that charting by itself is not sufficient to establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If I went on a blind tagging spree, hitting 1000s of articles, I bet I can get one right eventually. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 13:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

What Lugnuts said. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day. Just by randomness, something will hit.--Oakshade (talk) 15:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for much the same reason as Sarek. See Talk:4st 7lb, for example, where he's precisely right: WP:NSONGS states that album reviews don't contribute to an album track's notability. When I dig back through his tags they seem pretty much correct based on the properly-sourced contents of the tagged articles. This comes down to an age-old issue, where people that have made defective articles dislike it when people tag the defects as opposed to correcting them. That the tags can generally be easily addressed doesn't make them wrong, and, if we topic-ban Lachlan Foley, we make it that much more likely that no one will ever fix the underlying articles.—Kww(talk) 13:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

We can ignore Kww comments following a string of bad-faith edits over the weekend. Clearly needs to read WP:CIR before he continues. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 14:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The attacks are getting pretty old, Lugnuts.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For attacks, read facts. Are you now going to do your token block threat now that you've been found out? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 15:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not going to disagree with 4st 7lb (though there are lot of independent sources available - it might sneak in), but the problem is that LF has been tagging charting singles by major bands. What are the chances of there being no sources available for those? Nil. Tag them for more sources by all means, but tagging for notability is ridiculous. Black Kite (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - NSONG isn't exactly definitive (probably are, may be, etc), but the articles (as tagged) appear to at least be in question. Yes, there may be other sources that establish notability - but they aren't in the articles and there is enough to question based on what is in the articles. Blocking or topic-banning for placing tags is not a good precedent at all. The editor is engaging at the article talk pages and at their own talk page (to some degree). Worse than the tagging is the edit warring to remove the tags [177][178][179][180] without addressing the concerns raised. --Tgeairn (talk) 15:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody here is claiming LF should be blocked just by tagging, it's the mass indiscriminate tagging with many clear examples tagging article topics that are most definitely notable (remember, WP:NOTABILITY is very clear:"Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate citation."). Tagging the #5 UK hit Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song) article [181] demonstrates the indiscriminate, almost random nature of LF's tagging. As pointed out above, this has been going on for years. Notability tagging the Oliver Stone-directed film Seizure?[182] Clearly LF has learned nothing over the years. As the opening states, something needs to be done to keep this user in check. --Oakshade (talk) 15:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Mayhaps I am in the wrong here too. Seeing Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song), I would tag it for notability and sources as well. There are two references, one is not about the article subject at all, and the other is a completely unreliable source of user-generated trivia. Yes, if this was a #5 UK hit then it may be notable (per WP:NSONG) - but we don't even have a source for that. I'd still tag it, as NSONG has additional criteria for standalone articles. I'm not seeing clear examples of indiscriminate tagging. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

As for Seizure, it had zero references at the time of tagging. Of course it should be tagged or fixed on the spot. It now has a single reference (to Facebook, no less). The lack of a tag is hurting article quality, as nothing is drawing editors to find reliable sources for what is likely a notable film. Again, I would have tagged it too. --Tgeairn (talk) 16:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, and the added tag asked for exactly what needed to be done: someone needed to add reliable sources that address the topic's notability.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Tagging for more sources is one thing, but notability tagging which in effect says "This is not notable because I don't see sources" is a different matter. For Oh Yeah (Roxy Music song), with no surprise it only took me about 3 seconds to confirm it was a #5 hit as you would want confirmation for [183]. For Seizure, it took 2 seconds to find very in-depth coverage. [184] It's clear LF doesn't make any effort to follow WP:NOTABILITY and WP:BEFORE on obvious examples such as those and just slaps on notability tags.--Oakshade (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)--Oakshade (talk) 16:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Note that WP:BEFORE isn't mandatory, isn't a guideline, and wouldn't be a relevant one if it was. It's a paragraph inside a page describing our AFD process and describes what to do before nominating an article for deletion. If Lachlan was dragging this many articles through AFD, I'd be in favor of a topic ban. Putting a tag on unsourced articles in the hopes that someone that cares about the topic will care enough to add a reliable source? That doesn't seem to warrant any kind of action.—Kww(talk) 16:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I think we'll just go back and forth on this about tagging for sources, which nobody here is having issue with, is a very different matter from mass indiscriminate tagging for notability which is beyond simply a request for sources and where the issue is with most editors here. Pretty much what I stated just above is where I'll leave it stand.--Oakshade (talk) 18:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If the only difference between the two tags is that the notability tag has an implication that makes it more successful in getting editors to actually add sourcing, I would see that as a fairly persuasive argument for using the notability tag.—Kww(talk) 19:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Disagree with that. The only time I would use the notability tag was if I saw an article that (a) looked non-notable, (b) I couldn't find any online sources, but (c) I was not familiar with it and could see that there may be something I'm missing. If I suspected it was possibly notable then I would add refimprove and see what happened; if I was fairly sure it was non-notable I would nom it for deletion. The notability tag is IMHO fairly useless in most circumstances. And especially with many of these where (b) doesn't apply anyway unless you're not trying. Black Kite (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Furthermore, empirical evidence has told me that expecting anyone to fix a top level tag at any time is just wishful thinking. Take a look at George Town SC, Historic church of Cúcuta, Iranian football league system, New Town, Luton and New England Interstate Route 19 - not a single source added on any of those articles for well over eight years. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong Support. The tags I have looked at mostly verge on the ridiculous. And there are many hundreds of them posted over the last few days. And they have done this before, and not learnt. They haven't even stopped for this ANI. And the only explantation posted is "You are just still upset about that Joy Division incident and are grasping at straws in an attempt to get back at me.", showing no understanding of the issues at hand. Something needs to be done, and this is a good start, else this disruption will continue. I would also support a motion to restrict drive by tagging by this user too, as most of them have no talk page discussions at all.--Mrjulesd (talk) 19:38, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per discussion below. NE Ent 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose ban as being Draconian (covering every single article "broadly construed"?) but suggest a stern warning that a topic ban on "music notability tags" is highly likely in future if too many bad notability tags do not stick. Collect (talk) 23:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

He was already given a stern warning. And that was 2012. He doesn't care about warnings.--Oakshade (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Strong support per WP:HITANDRUN - the way you fix articles is by doing this, not this. (See point 15 on my user page). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 08:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - not buying the arguments of "there are loads of unreferenced things in this category", "NSONG is vague" or "they got this tag right!" - the fact is that tag bombing to this degree is almost always disruptive, and when many of these are blatantly wrong... then the user shouldn't be performing such actions. It's as simple as that. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 12:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Any admins wish to act on this now? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:15, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

LF topic ban Discussion

Copied from User_talk:Montanabw

Of the current 6,908,241 articles, about a quarter million [185] have {{Unreferenced}} tags, to pick one example.

Don't hate the player, hate the game. I actually do have a problem with tagging articles. Once upon a time some wikiperson had the road to hell is paved with good intentions idea that, upon finding a problem, instead of fixing it, they'd place a tag on the top the page so that some mythical, unicorn like massive herd of editors would appear and fix 'em. They're a bureaucratic, make work for other people abomination that should go away. Since so many folks like them, of course, a whatever-for-deletion would unfortunately be WP:POINTY which is why I haven't filed it. Given that they exist, and they're acceptable to the community, unless anyone can provide evidence that tags are consistently wrong, Lachlan Foley should not be banned from adding them. NE Ent 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

302860 for {{citation needed}}. Thank you for providing me with a method of verifying that adding that tag is of no particular benefit.—Kww(talk) 23:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I use {{citation needed}} when improving an article towards GA status, for information in the article when I found it that I'm prepared to believe is true, but haven't found a source for yet. The main difference here is that I take responsibility for the tag when I'm adding it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Midnight Rider (film) article split/copyright issue

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

---

The article Midnight Rider (film) was split to form the article Midnight Rider train accident. While there seems to be concensus to split the article, the cut/edit/paste procedure used [186] and the lack of history [187] of the new article has created substantial authorship and copyright issues. My solution would be to revert the split/edit in the original article, request speedy delete of the new article and start over with a discussion of the proper way to proceed with a split. I am simply seeking an admin review and advice as to the technicalities of what was done, and the best solution before I attempt to fix it myself as proposed on the talk page. The overall split and general intent of the editor who carried it out is not being challenged, simply the procedure used that has created the copyright/authorship issues.

More detail on the issues of the split can be found in this section of the talk page. [188] DFinmitre (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have answered at Talk:Midnight Rider train accident#Issues with Split to create this article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 22:29, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Assisting admin has added attribution template to both new and old article talk pages with proper diff ref which is greatly appreciated and addresses issues related to WP:CUTPASTE.

However this still does not address issues related to WP:PROPERSPLIT, WP:SPINOFF, and WP:ATTREQ. Is it to be considered acceptable wiki practice in spliting a majority of a controversial article to:

• Select multiple sections and parts of sections to split to new article without grouping together first in original article.
• Delete substantial paragraphs during the split-cut/paste that take place during an interim offline editing step between cut and paste and are thus hidden from typical edit history. (Paragraphs thus would seem to have been moved as part of the split looking at the original article history, but never show up with the "paste".)
• Add original authorship as part of the cut/paste to create new article such that it is not clear what was moved from the old article and what is used to create new article. (This should have happened in a subsequent edit after the paste.)
• Edit section headers during the cut/paste so these edits do not show up in history of original or new article and further confuse what was cut/pasted, what was newly created, and what was edited. This further confuses attribution.
• Not provide summaries of sections deleted as per WP:SPINOFF such that the article is dramatically truncated as part of the split and controversal information, that has previously been the target of serious vandalism requiring admin intervention[189], is mostly removed from the original article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DFinmitre (talk • contribs) 06:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DFinmitre, is there further admin action you require? These points seem like content issues which should be discussed at the relevant article talk page. Sam Walton (talk) 10:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Actually my argument is that it is not merely a content issue, but a copyright/attribution issue. I think the intent by wiki to suggest, for an article split, separation of content and a clean cut/paste, without editing during an interim step, is to avoid violation by wiki of the copyright agreement with the original authors. The mixing of cut/paste content with deletes and edits in one step under the guise of a split makes the break in history very confusing to follow and could incorrectly thus attribute much of the new article to the editor who split the article contrary to published wiki standards.

Everything the author did content wise could have been accomplished by properly following the wiki standards for a split with a clean cut/paste, with edits and deletions happening in the original article prior to split and in the new article after the split procedure. This is not what took place. I can revert the edit in the original article, but I can not revert the edits that took place to the content of the new article. They do not exist in wiki history because they happened between the cut and paste that created the article.

Further wiki has created a history system to allow the collective of authors to clearly see, review, and revert edits. To allow edits to take place during a split that are not registered in the article history seems like a standard practice that wiki should avoid.

I think this goes against all of the procedures and standards wiki has established to track attribution and respect the copyright of original authors. As a non admin and without a speedy delete of the new article, I do not know how to correct the copyright issues of the new article, as in my opinion it is now an issue for the whole of the new article.

Is it the opinion of wiki administrators that this procedure for spliting an article is acceptable? DFinmitre (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

@Samwalton9: Thank you for your assistance. I think the editor who completed the split agreed it would be better if it were accomplished a bit differently and graciously reverted the split The editor who completed the split graciously reverted the split and deleted redirected the new article to the original. The article clearly has issues that need to be addressed that a concensus of editors, myself and the editor who split the article included, all agree on. I expect a discussion on the talk page can now result in solutions based on what we have all learned. This issue, as presented here, is now completely resolved. Thank you. DFinmitre (talk) 03:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Conduct of J Doug McLean

This user is a published author, who has made some valuable contributions at Talk:lift (force). However, I am concerned about his conduct towards myself and others.

I joined the discussion last August, partly because of this comment, arguing from authority against other authors and implying they were not "aware of these pressure forces". This was refuted by evidence from the sources. Since then, I have seen an ongoing pattern of incivility towards anyone who disagrees with him. To highlight just a few examples:
8 October 2014: Claim that different numerical results are, "comparing what different sources say about precisely the same question".
13 November 2014: Dismissal of reasoned review of evidence as 'intuition', 'speculation', and 'protestation' (previously brought to ANI).
5 December 2014: Claim that source "supports what I've been arguing all along." (Refuted.)
11 January 2015: Refusal to listen to another user, "at this point yours would seem to be a minority view. Does anyone else oppose my adding this new subsection?"

Finally, I asked for specific evidence of verifiability for one of his claims and was not satisfied with his response. He has already been asked publicly and personally to refer to WP:VERIFICATION. He proposes insertion of a footnote that looks to me like WP:OR, but he only seems to refer to policy when it supports his argument.

I've had enough of arguing with him. Please evaluate his conduct and take any steps necessary to protect the community. Burninthruthesky (talk) 13:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Doug McLean is a cited author in the article. In his published works he also criticises a standard introductory approach to the subject, and for many months now has been trying to push his minority PoV on the article. He has a clear conflict of interest, and to his credit has avoided editing himself but has confined himself to the talk page. However the discussions became interminable and sometimes less than gentlemanly, and I joined the debate to help manage them. That succeeded partially, though they now fill at least two archives,7 and 8, as well as the current talk page. Despite a strong warning there, and again on their talk page, the excessive pedantry still trickles on. I should like to propose a voluntary topic ban for say six months, both to give us all a breather and to give Doug a chance to learn more constructive approaches to editing Wikipedia. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support. I certainly need a break from this endless conflict. It would be much easier for me just to remove the article from my watchlist, but I don't think that's the right thing to do. Burninthruthesky (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I participated in the discussion in question, often re-reading Doug McLean's and others' comments several times in order to better understand them, so I am quite familiar with the issue. There were/are disagreements among the editors including myself. In my view, at the times when the discussion began to border on incivility it was not Doug McLean who was being uncivil. While the administrators are welcome to wade through the walls of text on the Talk page, I don't think there's anything actionable there at least as far as Doug McLean's behavior. And I don't think bringing this up in AN/I is conducive towards building consensus. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 12:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Mr. Swordfish, after some pause for thought, I can perhaps understand why you don't see it. Doug is very knowledgeable, eloquent and persuasive. He would never sink to the level of calling someone a "dilettante" (as someone else did). But no amount of careful wording can hide the underlying message, "you're wrong" that has been consistently levelled against others, regardless of what the evidence says. No doubt some of the mistakes that have been alleged were in fact wrong. We all make mistakes. I know I've made some, and I've corrected myself where I can. There's nothing wrong with that, as long as we're willing to learn.

You were rightly offended by the other incident, and chose to report it, as you are entitled. Personally I found that event far less distressing than the remainder of the last six months. Perhaps this helps you understand how I feel about this situation. If you do have any unresolved concerns about another editor's conduct, you should raise it with them, with evidence, in the appropriate place. If you have unresolved content issues, they should of course be raised on the article talk page. Burninthruthesky (talk) 20:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC); edited 22:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

As a participant in one of the most recent discussions, I have found Doug a bit verbose and maybe hard to get on the same page with, but definitely nothing actionable at AN/I. Sometimes debates go over-long. I think things have mostly been handled in a responsible way. That said, I haven't been over to that page in the last few months - I'll look at where things have gone since then and comment again if possible. That said, it's not at all unreasonable for people with a disagreement to be negative about one anothers' positions. Obviously he thinks we're wrong; we think he's wrong! I kinda wonder if any remaining content disputes might actually be best resolved with a conference call between the primaries or something, if that's feasible. 50.175.109.6 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive comments on User talk:Eric Corbett

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

---

Talk page fully protected for the remainder of the block. Please take the interpersonal bickering to your own talk pages. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Enough is enough here, I recommend that someone revoke talk page access while Eric is blocked. The problem being comments that take jabs at both Sandstein and at Lightbreather. Here are some comments on how this is being taken too far. "Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully" [190] - Eric Corbett "Had one only, brief interaction w/ LB, in good-faith and also at WT:WER, ending in her artificially blaming me as "part of the reason" for her resignation from the Wikipedia. So zero faith she wouldn't & doesn't attempt to scapegoat others for whatever her hostile GGTF agenda is" [191] - Ihardlythinkso "Now that I have the time (a self-imposed 3 day holiday to honor a friend), I was strolling around one of the old pastures behind the GGTF Building and found this olde Cow Pie. Careful! It st{{inks!" [192] - Buster7 "I have never understood the "broadly construed" ArbCom mantra, but c'est la vie. It now seems to me to being stretched to the point of ridicule, but I doubt Sandstein will care about that, as it gives him the opportunity to wreak his vengeance." [193] - Eric Corbett Look, I understand people are upset but there is venting and then there is ganging up to the point of put downs. What I want to know is what justifies bringing up editor's pasts or belittling them? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC) To the admin: Yes I know this is another thread involving Eric Corbett but the two choices are to remain silent or bring up something you feel is wrong. Even if Light was acting badly she, Eric or any editor shouldn't be put down. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC) While we're on the subject of incivility, how about throwing this into the mix? [[User:OrangesRyellow|(Personal attack removed)]] needs to be locked up. CassiantoTalk 19:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I cant speak for orange here but she isn't working with others to put down other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC) You may not be able to speak for them, but you can share your opinion on whether you think they were justified in accusing me of analogising rape and my wishes to see LB as a rape victim. CassiantoTalk 19:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC) From what I have seen that does take it too far, I understand orange being upset about the way light is being treated but she shouldn't connect you to a word such as "rape" - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Thank you, so why remain silent up until the point when I force you to say something? With that in mind, I shall hope to see an admin take action on her then? I also want the comment struck. CassiantoTalk 20:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Im trying to focus on one issue at a time here is all, in my opinion though at the very least she should be warned about it possibly blocked but that is up to the admin's call, you can seek out an I-ban as well. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Of course you are. Wishing someone would "fly off on a broomstick" is far more offensive than likening someone to a person who wishes rape on another user. Bravo! CassiantoTalk 20:22, 26 January 2015 (UTC) You missed one, Knowledgekid87: I live for the day LB would fly away on her broom[194] I expected to be talked about - but I don't enjoy it. I figured since it's about Eric, there is no hope in stopping it. Lightbreather (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Well there is some sort of a line, I saw it crossed when comments were made bringing up your past, and the amount of editors that were chiming in and jumping on the agenda bandwagon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I should very much like to see a diff for Eric's one brief, good-faith interaction with me that he mentioned. Does anyone have it? To the best of my knowledge, my first interaction with him was this one at WT:AN: Lightbreather: Where and how can I go about making a formal request to make [civility] a unique noticeboard area?[195] Eric Corbett: ... the easiest way to avoid being called a cunt is not to act like one.[196] Lightbreather (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC) That happened in the past though Light, although bad it was brought up before and now that Eric has sanctions placed I feel that anything going forward should be looked at before things in the past. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Hey, Cassianto. I noticed that you always make a point to get dragged into EC's drama, but when you were blocked last did he say anything to defend you? Because if he did I missed it, and it looks to me like you always defend him, but he does not reciprocate. Just an observation. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I don't stick up for Eric in the hope that he will return the favour; that's a moronic comment to make. I would stick up for anyone who I think has been given the shitty end of the stick. What exactly are you insinuating? CassiantoTalk 20:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC) that's a moronic comment to make. My, how influential your friend has been to your civility. My only point was that usually friends reciprocate support, but when only one does it smells more like sycophancy than friendship. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC) How do you define "friend"? I have never met Eric and have never collaborated with him. I infrequently leave him comments on his talk and have done maybe one or two reviews for him at FAC over the past 5 years. I would have done more as I find him a compulsive editor to monitor; I, along with many others, consider him to be of the best editors we have. Now this next part may confuse you: We are both "content creators" and share an interest in writing about interesting subjects to a high standard. I have 20 FA's to my name, Eric has considerably more. That is as far as our friendship goes. Where was I at ArbCom? Where have I been at the many ANI's? Where have I been at other poke the bear party's? I'm sorry if this pisses on your chips, but that's the way it is. Get over it. CassiantoTalk 20:18, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I have found that when the conversation on a particular user's talk page begins to annoy me unwatching it is a highly effective means to totally mitigating such annoyance. NE Ent 20:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I've been mentioned above. I strongly dislike drama of this sort and would prefer that if there is mud-slinging to be had I am not involved by either side. I am limiting my activity in the context of this issue to arbitration enforcement, but after seeing Cassianto casually referring to another editor as "a piece of filth [who] needs to be locked up" above, I recommend that they are blocked for a rather exceptional personal attack even by the low standards of this noticeboard. I'd do it myself, but Cassianto was recently active on my talk page to criticize my AE block of Eric Corbett, so I'd rather not act in an admin capacity with respect to them at this time.  Sandstein  20:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Don't be so ridiculous and mealy mouthed Sandstein you love this kind of drama; it's why you continually jump into it at every opportunity, you are drawn to it like a hog to a water-logged rut. This whole vendetta against Corbett, from Jimbo downwards (or should that be upwards?), is beginning to have a very disturbing smell. There was no need for Eric to be blocked in the first instance, and then the usual major pile on - and who is to blame for this now? Quite frankly, on this occasion, it is you Sandstein. You have failed to rise above the common herd of squeaking nonentities. I thought better of you, some Admins I could believe would be trying to gain favour with Jimbo by leaping to block - but with you, I just assume it's some form of obsession with duty and rules - whatever it is, it's all very sad and regrettable. Giano (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Actually in this case the masses were squeaking to not block, Sandstein decided to do it anyways. Chillum 22:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC) If the user in question violated a topic ban, then it was a good block. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC) I agree, and I would also add that according to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions at GGTF/Proposed decision#Eric Corbett prohibited: "Eric Corbett agrees to a restriction prohibiting him from shouting at, swearing at, insulting and/or belittling other editors. The restriction comes into immediate effect on the passing of this motion." Today he has made these comments that I think constitute "insulting and/or belittling other editors": "Lightbreather isn't what she appears to be, and no doubt she'll be exposed in time. As for Sandstein, he's a one-off hopefully", "Do you really believe that editor retention is a priority for the likes of Sandstein?" So, shouldn't EC get a block extension for following up his TB breach with personal attacks that violate his ArbCom sanctions? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:17, 26 January 2015 (UTC) You, Rationalobserver, are little more than a tiresome troublemaker. Given time everyone will come to see that, but I suppose we have to go through the usual long drawn out process of dense Wikipedians coming to see that. Giano (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Perhaps, if I had even a modicum of respect for you, your comments might resonate with me, but alas, I feel nearly the same way, Giano. Yeah, EC certainly isn't a trouble maker, eh? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Look at the ridiculous amount of edits who've made defending EC. Are you here to build an encyclopedia, or oppose anyone and everyone who says anything negative about him? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:43, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Interaction Ban(s)

Knowledgekid87 and Lightbreather have issues with Eric. Eric has issues with Lighbreather. I'm not sure what Knowledgekid87 has against Eric (old history I guess), but he was the most outspoken at Arbcom with regards to EC and Lightbreather's interactions with EC are well known. Eric is off doing what he does best, work on the encyclopedia. Other's have said that since his sanctions, he has made a remarkable improvement. I see no reason to allow editor's that may harbor grudge's to try and rock the boat. For that reason, I propose that Eric/Knowledgekid87 and Eric/Lightbreather are placed under an indefinite interaction ban.

• Support as proposer. If they can't talk about each other, then they can't goad each other.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 20:19, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't have issues with EC I take issue with editors getting piled on. In addition I just recommended that the talk page be revoked for the duration of the block due to all of the comments made. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. On the Arbitration case last year involving Eric, you had the 2nd highest edit count on that page, a majority of which were discussing EC. When it comes to Eric, you are a drum-major. But not for peace and harmony.Two kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:58, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support, although I doubt it will do much actual good. Intothatdarkness 20:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - For the sake of Wikipedia. The continual disruption is contributing to a hostile editing atmosphere and this needs to stop. I endorse it fully. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose If EC can't help himself enough to avoid this recurring drama then I see no benefit to banning others from confronting him when he acts inappropriately. I wonder if there is any way to calculate how much time the community has wasted over the years dealing with his near constant emotional immaturity. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• My take on it is that even if it is on another's talk-page the editor talked about can still see it if it were hidden then okay but its not the information can be found via a search engine as well as here on Wikipedia and doesn't go away. If IRL you overheard a bunch of people talking behind someone eles back would you just sit by silently and watch? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Assuming it was just the usual petty gossip (i.e. not a credible threat of harm) I'd walk away and mind my own business. NE Ent 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• How long is gossip allowed to last though and at what point does it turn into harassment? There is a saying "Weapons of war do not need to be bombs or guns" there is a real emotional side to the whole thing here on wiki. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:07, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose per Rationalobserver.Ironholds (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• SUPPORT - an EXCELLENT idea. Best idea of the day. Hafspajen (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose... The most recent interaction between Lightbreather and Eric Corbett was Lightbreather (reasonably in my view) observing Corbett breaking his ArbCom topic ban and Sandstein (again reasonably in my view) imposing a block as a result. Asking administrators to enforce ArbCom decisions is scarcely goading, in my view. The Land (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strong support Knowledge kid especially seems (from my perspective anyway) to exist on wikipedia purely to pounce on Eric and spout something sanctimonious. We'd be better off without either of them being permitted to approach Eric.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• STRONG OPPOSE!: this whole charade is a farce. There has been no proper procedure, no diffs, no proper discussions. What Eric/Knowledgekid87 interactions does this refer to? Reporting him to ANI? Anyone is allowed to do that! This feels like a kangaroo court or lynching. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Strongly support The two seperate factions seem at total odds-end, and I can't see them ever seeing eye-to-eye. One side in particular seems particulalrl adverse to this, and for the sake of Wikipedia and the community I feel it is imperative that such a ban is placed (at least for the foreseeable future). Somethingwickedly (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't you realise no proper evidence has been put forward in this thread? How would you like to have an IBAN in this fashion! It just seems to me to be revenge on Knowledgekid87 for reporting EC and fans to ANI. --Mrjulesd (talk) 21:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with Knowledgekid from the arbitration case (of which he wasn't a party). IMO he had a very unhealthy interest in Eric. I recall so did Lightbreather who was editing under an ip while supposedly being "retired". Others here might know the backstory in more detail, but it's obvious to me this would be a benefit in drama reduction aloneTwo kinds of pork^Makin'_Bacon 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Where is the evidence though that I have had a history with Eric? If I see something that looks like putting down editors I will report it, I have been following Light through her all women's project proposal though. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

If we put an IB on two of the only editors who are brave enough to confront EC, we are in effect protecting EC from the burden of his TB, which he has already broken. Most others are too afraid to say anything, and I don't blame them, but the idea that you can solve a behavior problem by banning users from complaining about it is misguided. Rationalobserver (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose based on comments of user Rationalobserver. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:12, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose because I don't see any evidence provided regarding Knowledgekid87 requiring an Iban here, being outspoken at ArbCom does not seem to justify an iban.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose interaction bans are just drama magnets which generate more heat than light and attract other drama board acolytes who don't do anything other than chase the shining glitter of ANI. Utterly ineffective and ultimately damaging. Oh, and don't forget that Eric actually does something for the project around here while many others just create drama. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Lots of editors "[do] something for the project", but at what point does EC's divisiveness and near constant hostility yield a net loss? I think the idea that writing a few FAs earns you the right to act inappropriately is damaging to the project, but the vast majority of editors who write FA-quality material would never dream of taking the liberties EC does. Is he really the only Wikipedia editor worth retaining? Rationalobserver (talk) 22:26, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment - I think it's a splendid idea. So we can all go back editing instead of this. Hafspajen (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's a strange position to take that those who report TB violations are wasting our time, but those who actually violate their TB are not. Rationalobserver (talk) 22:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's the position taken by some editors who have decided (with no supporting facts) that a "trivial" topic ban violation does not qualify as a "real" violation. One of these apologists was Cassianto (talk · contribs), who has now resigned from Wikipedia, so sometimes these things work out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't think anybody should resign over this, but if they would rather leave Wikipedia than suffer the indignity of having to follow our guidelines, that might be the best solution to the interconnected problem, which at its heart seems to be a lack of maturity and self-control. There are several laws that I don't agree with, but when I break them I must accept the responsibility for having done so. To do anything else is to espouse an anti-social mindset, and I mean that in the clinical sense. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose If they can't be mature enough to stay out of each other's business, then they have no place in this website. An IBAN will change nothing and merely draw more good-intentioned editors into their honeypot of toxicity. Nothing short of an indefinite ban will stop any of them. KonveyorBelt 22:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• In an ideal world this "business" would be working to improve the encyclopedia and not ganging up on other editors. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• For me the thread Knowledgekid opened raises a couple questions: why did they not discuss the matter at the talk page before opening an ANI thread as recommended at the top of the page, or simply bring the attention to the blocking admin? If the talk page comments are inappropriate, why were they transcribed from a page with 625 watchers to this page with 6,400? The effect of opening the thread was, in fact, a bunch of editors ganging up on Eric. NE Ent 23:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• When it comes to seeing something wrong WP:ANI is the place to go report things. Do you really think I would have stood a snowballs chance going in there and saying "hey could you please stop with your comments?" or the like? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, but it had little and nothing to do with you and you could have easily ignored it. KonveyorBelt 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yes I could have but as someone who has seen others put down before in life I chose to lend my voice here, as I said I felt a line had been crossed, it had gone from simple venting to something else. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Well, as a word of advice, it seems this mentality of "for great justice" is creating an issue with others when you interrupt in their affairs. Perhaps just live and let live. KonveyorBelt 23:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• For the most part I agree it is no big deal, people say things that get under another's skin, say things they dont mean when they are upset, and that usually comes and goes. In this case, multiple editors came in to chime in, now usually when someone gets upset you have others be by their side and say to get over it what I saw was more than that. You have the right to be upset, you dont have the right to gang up on another person or persons in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment in the absence of other evidence, as no other evidence, was given, it seems to me that this Knowledgekid87 is being punished for bringing EC and supporters to ANI. Also Lightbreather is being attacked for reporting EC to ArbCom. Now lets say this was successful. Do you realize what precedent this would set? It would mean anyone reporting EC could be subject to an IBAN. Now, is that really what we want? People fearful of reporting EC for transgressions? It would destroy the sense of justice in the whole WP process, at least for me. --Mrjulesd (talk) 22:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Well said, Mrjulesd. I believe you've hit the nail on the head! Rationalobserver (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no justice. It would be a great precedent if folks who are unable to distinguish from battleground nit picking and mature dispute resolution are strongly discouraged from continuing to do so. NE Ent 23:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that; it isn't any less just to incarcerate an individual that disagrees with a particular law than one who agrees with it. Further, if you knowingly violate a guideline or expectation it is just that you should answer for it, even those, especially those that you disagree with. Rationalobserver (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• 1775 edits since: 2014-08-31, 1109 edits since: 2012-09-13. Hafspajen (talk) 00:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose As IBANS dont work, and since no one has managed to get any sort of block stick with Corbett no matter what he does, its a waste of time adding more rules for him to ignore. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't believe that's the case anymore - that was the very reason this was an Arb Enforcement block. Admins are frustrated because they're not allowed to "unstick" it. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not actually working very much at reducing disruption though is it ;) Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Very Weak support: normally oppose IBANS as drama-magnets, as others have noted her. However, if people can be prevented from poking the bear, that would be good; and here, Lighbreather is really quick to overreact to Eric Corbett, and KnowledgeKid does poke at Eric. I'd suggest that if any of them is sanctioned for anything, it should boomerang on the other one who is involved, as my experience with Corbett is that he only growls when baited. Montanabw^(talk) 07:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  This section should be closed like the "parent" section above. Doc talk 07:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  Where have you seen me "poke" Eric? In this case I requested that talk page access be revoked for a duration of a 48 hour block due to nonstop talk about 2 editors between a group of editors. It didn't have to go this way, its okay if you saw Eric as a victim in the case I understand that and you have a right to your opinion, what I don't understand is why editors felt the need to pile on afterwards as I have been saying. I blame the other editors more than I blame Eric here, he was blocked and rather than doing something like talking about articles or finding resolve, this happened. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - Not seeing any sufficient evidence to require an IBAN, Also this is a collaborative place so thus we all need to work together .... If someone cannot do that than they perhaps need to find a new hobby. –Davey2010^Talk 08:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Weak support per Montanabw. I am pretty sure Eric won't be interested in interacting with these two, and hence probably will shrug off an interaction ban with disinterested compliance. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 09:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Mrjulesd; I've never been happy with trying to dissuade editors from reporting here, and this would set a dangerous precedent in that regard. Also, I find the lack of diffs disturbing. StAnselm (talk) 10:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Also, I find the lack of diffs disturbing. Thank you, StAnselm. And lest anyone misinterprets the thanks as sarcasm and a poke, I mean it. Genuine thanks. Sincerely, thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 16:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as a first step to thinning out the provocations... Carrite (talk) 18:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. This doesn't assume good faith on anybody's part. Eric probably won't interact with these two, anyway, if he doesn't want to interact with them. Epic Genius (talk) 19:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose, IBANs are nonsense obstructions to getting any genuine issue resolved. If an editor is found to be at genuine fault then an appropriate topic ban or site block should be imposed. people with interaction bans cannot work on the same articles simultaneously. GregKaye 20:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Knowledgekid87

• Above, KnowledgeKid87 asked "when have you seen me poke Eric?". I'll just point out this, posted this evening. KK87 has an unhealthy fascination with Eric Corbett and is continually complaining about his "incivility", but is quite happy to post stuff like this himself. In fact, a short review of KK87's posts will see him inserting himself in various dramas (not necessarily relating to EC) without any net positive to the encyclopedia. This has been going on for a long time now (I have warned him about it before). I would suggest that a TB on commenting about Eric Corbett (or an IBAN) may be necessary, or the inevitable alternative might be more unpalatable. Black Kite (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• An opinion isn't an "unhealthy fascination" as for Black Kite you are involved with Eric Corbett and have your own opinions: User talk:Eric Corbett/Archives/2014/October under "Infamy, infamy, they've all got it in for me" and "Question for all the stalkers" I am unsurprised at your comment here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'd just back down from this one, KK87. Before you know it you'll be accused of conspiring with socks, or of being a sock, and this will turn into a thread about how your edits don't justify your behavior like EC's do. Rationalobserver (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• That talk page you linked to does sort of prove Black Kite's point though. While I see BK's name eight times there, yours appears twice as often on that page alone. Unless I missed some editing co-operation of yours with Eric, these interactions all appear to be about contradicting, disagreeing, feeling-sorry-for editors, etc. Maybe you do have an unhealthy fascination for all things Eric? (Maybe I do too, but I try not post there quite as often). ---Sluzzelin talk 20:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• That reply doesn't surprise me. So let's be very clear here. Posting personal attacks on any editors (and that diff wasn't only a personal attack on Eric Corbett) is not acceptable. In fact, in no way is it acceptable for you to continually post edits complaining about other editor's personal attacks, and then do the same yourself. You appear to think that it's OK for you do so, because "it's your opinion". Wrong. I strongly suggest you disengage from Eric Corbett - and for that matter refrain from posting any personal attack about any editor. And yes, you may take that as a Level 4 warning. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• The edit count thing doesn't seem to be working at the moment but KK was, if I recall correctly, the second-ranked contributor by number of edits at the PD talk page of the Gender Gap arbcom case. Their fascination with things related to Eric, few of which were useful, has been around for a while. I was top-ranked, btw, but I was a party. The issue was raised on their talk page at that time. - Sitush (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• This stats tool does work. - Sitush (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• To be fair, the case involved more than just Eric (GGTF) I already explained how I got involved with the case above in addition, the edit counts don't count in the corrections to edits. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Close

Follow a Wikipedian veteran's advice & end this dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Yep. Done. Black Kite (talk) 21:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

JHunterJ

I am very sad to report that JHunterJ (talk · contribs) has acted WP:INVOLVED in a disambiguation dispute to promote his singular POV over and above the disambiguation guidelines of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and community consensus established at AfD, and more recently, a snow requested move discussion (still underway). Before composing this report, I spent two days attempting to discuss the problem with JHunterJ, with no recognition of any problem on his end. Every response from JHunterJ in that discussion promotes the erroneous idea that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy, even though the first and fifth pillars note that it is not. When confronted with this problem, JHunterJ claims he is enforcing the singular POV of another user. Instead of taking responsibility for his actions, JHunterJ continues to blame others. I will now summarize the problem with JHunterJ's edits:

1. In 2009, the community discussed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Away team. The result was "No Consensus (default Keep)". In that discussion, one editor, User:EEMIV, voted delete.[197]
2. An hour after the AfD closed as keep, User:Untick correctly disambiguated the title and moved "Away team" to "Away team (Star Trek)", which is where the title should appropriately reside.[198]
3. Eight hours later, EEMIV unilaterally moved the article back to "Away team". This showed very poor judgment on EEMIV's part, as there was already an Away team (disambiguation) page, and his move made the article a primary topic when it never was to begin with. Although his incorrect move should have been reverted, it never was.[199]
4. Fast forward to 2011. EEMIV once again acts unilaterally, this time to redirect the entire article to Star Trek: Away Team.[200] There is no evidence that the video game is the primary topic. In fact, quite the opposite.
5. This blatant, glaring error remained until 2013, when Miyagawa figured out there was a problem and attempted to redirect the primary to the dab page.[201]
6. Instead of helping to fix the problem listed above, JHunterJ stepped in and reverted back to the incorrect target, claiming the guideline as his enforcement mechanism.[202] As you can see from the above, this is manifestly false.
7. A requested move discussion was started in January 2015. While ongoing, the results are a snow move, because most reasonable people recognize the problem.[203]
8. Unfortunately, JHunterJ is not one of those reasonable people, as he continues to repeatedly add the incorrect target and enforce EEMIV's previous, erroneous unilateral action.[204][205]
9. JHunterJ then uses his admin tools to enforce an incorrect redirect and move against any kind of community consensus or evidence supporting WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. His page history deletions removed the original page history and split it into two different articles, making more work for other admins to fix.

   15:08 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Talk:Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(housekeeping)

   15:08 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) restored page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(7 revisions restored: article history)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) moved page Talk:Away team (Star Trek term) to Talk:Away team over redirect ‎(rv move)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Away team ‎(G6: Deleted to make way for move)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) moved page Away team (Star Trek term) to Away team ‎(rv move)

   15:07 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) restored page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(82 revisions restored: redirect history)

   15:06 . . JHunterJ (talk | contribs) deleted page Away team (Star Trek term) ‎(temp delete to split history)

10. When asked on his talk page why he continues to do this, he cannot give an actual answer. When he is informed that there is zero evidence supporting his actions, he claims that Wikipedia is a bureaucracy and the rules must be followed. When he is pointed to WP:NOTBUREAU, he ignores it.[206]

In short, JHunterJ used his admin tools in a dispute about a disambiguation page to enforce the single, solitary view of one editor who made the sole dissenting delete in a discussion that the community closed as keep. Several editors attempted to remedy the problem over the years, only to be reverted. JHunterJ has made the problem worse by using his admin tools. Viriditas (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The "single, solitary view" stood for over two years. Actual answers have been provided. All that Viriditas need do now, now that they have finally opened the RM, is wait for it to finish. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism can stay in an article for two years. Should we leave it there because of that? The RM is a snow; there is nothing to wait for here, just like there is no reason to wait to remove incorrect info from an article. Your recent use of the admin tools up above split the page histories into two articles. What would motivate you to make this problem worse than it already is, and why can't you fix the problem that the community already recognizes? Finally, why would you repeatedly restore an erroneous primary topic target to a dab page without the slightest bit of evidence supporting it?[207][208][209] Clearly, the outcome of the move discussion has no bearing on your edits here, so please explain your actions. I've asked you this over and over again for several days, with no answer. Why do you continue to restore an erroneous link to a primary topic? Viriditas (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You're using that argument again? Blackmane (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Please don't call good-faith edits vandalism. I was not the first editor to point out the RM path. Now that you're on it, there's nothing to do but wait, since no one has yet closed it as a snow. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Nobody has called good-faith edits vandalism. You keep appealing to ignoratio elenchi and refusing to answer a direct question. Again, why do you continue to restore an erroneous link to a primary topic? Your answer will of course, have no relevance to either 1) the length of time something remained inaccurate, or 2) the status of a requested move discussion. Regardless of the snowy outcome of the RM, the problem has been explained to you many times. Even before the RM, you reverted other users who attempted to fix it. You keep trying to play the bureaucracy card to protect the opinion of one user against community consensus. To make matters worse, you used your admin tools to separate the page history of the target, compounding the problem. You are not helping to fix the problem, you are making it worse. Can you explain your actions? Please don't point to the outcome of the RM discussion, as it has no relevance here, and please don't point to the actions of other users who made the same mistake as you. Why did you repeatedly restore a redirect to an article about a video game when 1) there is no support for such a primary topic redirect, and 2) the community disagrees with this redirect. Surely, you must have a good reason for making these edits? Since you can't point to a community consensus or PRIMARYTOPIC support, what is your reason? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Good-faith edit that you called spam. My answers, of course, reflect my weariness at your assumptions of bad faith and lengths to which you will go to accomplish, what, exactly? You've ignored or waved away all direct answers, but let's revisit the main: WP:MALPLACED. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You have never answered a single question about why you created a redirect to an article that is not the primary topic. You never provided an answer as to why your actions went against community consensus and against the PRIMARYTOPIC guidelines. You never answered why you disrupted Wikipedia by splitting the page histories, so that now the original page histories are fragmented. You never answered the question as to why you think bureaucratic processes supersede immediate action to correct inaccuracies, per the cited policy. In short, you have never answered a single question about your bad behavior. This is precisely why I am requesting administrative intervention. You are editing with impunity, against community consensus, against the first and fifth pillars enshrined as policy, and against the best interests of the encyclopedia. Viriditas (talk) 23:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Probably because I didn't create the redirect. But I've told you that before. Since I haven't engaged in any bad behavior, you are correct in that I haven't attempted to explain any bad behavior. No edits against consensus have been made by me. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can't quite figure out what it is you are trying to say. As you have already been informed in this thread, we know who created the redirect, and they have backed away from it, admitting that it was likely erroneous on their part. Why would you repeatedly revert to restore the original version of a dab page? And why would you add the Star Trek video game as the primary topic when there's never been any reason to do so? I'm sorry, but your edits simply make no sense. You prevent other editors from fixing a problem but then claim you weren't responsible for the problem. Do you see how crazy that sounds? Let me make this very clear: There has never been any need for a move request nor for any administrative action. Anyone can change the redirect to the correct target, remove the erroneous primary topic from the dab page, and then request a simple housekeeping move to fix the titles on the backend. In this particular instance, the user experience is preserved, even if the title of the dab page is incorrect. NOTBUREAU is the reason why policy does not trump improving the encyclopedia. Contrary to that policy, you have argued that we should keep erroneous redirects, targets, and dab pages until special procedures take place, and hinder the user experience on the frontend. That's not how Wikipedia works. Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Block request

The original editor who created the redirect that JHunterJ continues to restore has admitted that there is no rationale for its continued existence.[210] Therefore, I would like to request a block on JHunterJ to prevent continued disruption, as every attempt to fix this error has been reverted, and he has recently used his admin tools to split the page histories, making the problem worse. When asked, JHunterJ cannot provide a rationale for his edits, and can only point to the actions of the original editor, an editor who has now admitted that there is no rationale. While one could certainly argue that JHunterJ is incompetent, I think we're dealing with a strong bout of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. A block would allow editors to fix and resolve the problem without continued interference. To quote from that guideline: "If the community spends more time cleaning up editors' mistakes and educating them about policies and guidelines than it considers necessary, sanctions may have to be imposed." Please impose those sanctions. This is a simple error that would have taken two minutes to fix. Instead, JHunterJ has stretched it out over the last two days, and one could argue months given the past attempts. With no rationale for continuing this dispute, a block is the only thing viable at this point. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Your IDIDNTHEARTHAT responses to the reasons repeatedly given don't amount to my IDIDNTHEARTHAT. It is not my fault you disagree with WP:MALPLACED when you redirected the base name to the (disambiguation) title, MOS:DABMENTION when creating entries that link to articles that don't mention the ambiguous title, and WP:D when including entries that don't link to articles at all. This block request is silly. If a block is needed, you should be blocked for repeated failing to file the RM and failing to wait for its conclusion. I have spent more time than necessary cleaning up your mistakes here and educating you about those guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I most certainly filed the request for move, but that has nothing to do with the substance of this report, namely 1) Away team (disambiguation) still lists "Star Trek: Away Team" as the primary topic, and "Away team" still redirects to "Star Trek: Away Team" contrary to PRIMARYTOPIC. When asked why this is, you have never addressed or responded to the question. When I and others have tried to fix it, you have reverted it. Now, why would you add "Star Trek: Away Team" as a primary topic when it's placement was never based on any policy or guideline to begin with? That's pretty strange behavior. And the fact that the original editor who created it has admitted there's no rationale for it should give you a big clue. So, you've disrupted the efforts to fix this problem all along. And 2) you fragmented the page history of the original article on the subject of the "Away team" so that it now exists in two different locations. Why would you do this? Please answer those questions. Viriditas (talk) 01:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussion

JHunterJ has not only met, but far exceeded the requirements of WP:ADMINACCT. Reviewing [211], from Viriditas's first post: Am I guessing right in assuming you never watched Star Trek? Because this is just wrong. has been overly aggressive and non-collegial. Unless JHunterJ claimed familiarity with Star Trek during their Rfa, what they watch is anyone's business, and "wrong" is neither a reasoned argument nor a reference to policy. The activities documented here: evaluating discussions, deleting stuff, moving stuff, deleting and moving stuff, are routine admin stuff, and lacking a specific diff where JHunterJ has advocated a specific position, claims of WP:INVOLVED are off base. This filing, coupled with Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SchroCat (currently below), suggests Viriditas' judgement what situations call for administrator involvement needs improvement. NE Ent 13:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your assessment is deeply wrong. The diffs up above show that JHunterJ advocated implementing, with multiple reverts, an erroneous redirect and disambiguation page that isn't supported by PRIMARYTOPIC or even by the original editor who created the redirect! Other editors tried to fix this problem and they were reverted. Recently, for two days, I also tried to fix this problem, only to be reverted by JHunterJ for no reason. Your recent comments in this dab discussion indicate that you don't understand what is being discussed here. Viriditas (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You keep saying "fix the problem" when you mean "create a WP:MALPLACED problem", and you keep saying "for no reason" when you mean "because it was WP:MALPLACED", and "I tried to fix the problem" when you mean "I kept trying to skip the fix, but I finally opened the RM, but have been too impatient to wait for it to finish." -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that's your misunderstanding. The outcome of the requested move discussion is independent of the status of the primary topic. It's currently a video game for no reason, and the person who created that original target has said that they had no rationale and supports a correction. Instead of allowing for this correction, you continued to point to the video game, again, for no reason. This fact exists independently of the move discussion, which has nothing to do with the video game. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The misunderstanding is yours. The article reached by the base name is the primary topic on Wikipedia. Instead of following the repeatedly-given guidance to use WP:RM to avoid WP:MALPLACED, you continued to insist that guidelines you disagree with are merely bureaucracy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment: WP:MALPLACED prohibits pointing a bare "Foo" title to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title because such redirects give the false impression that "(disambiguation)" is required because the "Foo" title is occupied (presumably by a primary topic). If an editor believes that the "Foo" us ambiguous, then the proper course of action is to request that "Foo (disambiguation)" be moved to "Foo". This also prevents an unexpected spike in the number of incoming disambiguation links, as steps can be taken to tidy these as the discussion progresses. An action that prevents a "Foo" title from redirecting to a "Foo (disambiguation)" title is correct. bd2412 T 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree, but that's not the subject of this dispute. Viriditas (talk) 22:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

  The dispute arose because you insisted on it instead of agreeing when I fixed your WP:MALPLACED mistake. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas: No offence intended, and just a passing observation. I've noticed that you seem to be involved in a fair few number of high-drama threads in the last couple days. On first blush, many of your posts are coming across as a bit confrontational and argumentative. I'm hesitant to start linking to boomerang essays, but perhaps returning to article work for a bit would be the best recommendation I could offer. Just a thought you may want to consider. — Ched :  ?  00:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• This thread was started because JHunterJ was interfering with content work related to a dab page. BD2412's explanation up above covers one part of the technical reasons for this interference, but doesn't address why "Star Trek: Away Team" is still listed as a the primary topic on the dab page, nor why "Away team" still redirects to it. There has never been any evidence that the video game was the correct target. None. And there has never been any forthcoming evidence that it was the correct target. To drive the point further home, the editor who created this original redirect has backed away from it, and admits that there is no good rationale for it. More recently, there is a snow reqmove discussion supporting this position. JHunterJ's continued insistence that this link be listed on the dab page, that the redirect point to the video game, and that we must wait for a procedural close of some kind to change any one of these things, is not supported by policy. Most important of all, no policy or guideline was ever used to establish this primarytopic. That's a really important point, and it's the one JHunterJ continued to avoid addressing. He's implementing a solution that nobody actually supports. This is a blatant violation of WP:NOTBUREAU. Finally, he split up two page histories for no good reason, fragmenting the history of the creation of the original article. This is bureaucracy in its worst form. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Notability tagging, IMHO frivolous and disruptive, of a Star Trek episode

An editor, User:Doniago, has been applying a "dispute as to notability" tag on our article for one of the 79 original Star Trek episodes, The Gamesters of Triskelion. Although this article could certainly use more links to out-of-universe discussion of the episode, it is quite obvious, and has been accepted for years, that every original Star Trek episode is notable enough to warrant an article. No explanation has been offered as to why this particular episode should be an exception (a point I make here with some hesitation, as it should not be taken as a basis for tagging a dozen or more other episodes either).

There being no reasonable basis for questioning the notability of this particular episode, or any episode, I have attempted to remove the tag, although I have not removed a parallel tag asking for more links or citations. Doniago has repeatedly insisted on reinstating the tag. Ordinarily this would merely result in a talkpage discussion, which would eventually result in enough people who understand the historical importance of Star Trek coming to the page to create the obvious a consensus for notability. However, the community's time is its most precious asset and I do not believe it should be squandered in a lengthy discussion about a nonsensical tagging (after all, is there any doubt that if this article were taken to AfD, the result would be a speedy or snowball keep?)?

I request input on whether my view of this as a frivolous tag is shared by others, or whether the community believes that in such a matter as this, we should engage in process for the process' own sake. (Notification being given to Doniago and on the article talkpage.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

All 79 episode articles are equally notable. Why Doniago feels otherwise, is a mystery to me. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Equally notable as any other. Are they a new editor(like myself) who is just a bit confused on how to go about making it clear that the article needs improvement? FlossumPossum (talk) 22:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a new editor, just one who doesn't believe that all Star Trek episodes are notable any more than he would agree that all Lord of the Rings characters are equally notable. I asked for any prior consensus establishing that all ST episodes are inherently considered notable and was not provided one. I also asked for any independent source that had discussed the episode in significant detail and, again, was not provided with one. If the consensus is that all ST episodes merit an article regardless of how well-developed they are then I'll bow to that consensus, but I think to dismiss an editor's sincere concerns that an article may not meet Notability concerns, to summarily remove maintenance tags while not engaging in conversation on the matter, and to further dismiss the editor's concerns as "frivolous" is inappropriate. Then there's bringing the editor to ANI without making any evident effort to follow other Dispute Resolution processes... Honestly, I'd be perfectly happy to unwatch the article and let it remain as substandard as it is if trying to call attention to it is going to engender such a hostile and unwarranted response. DonIago (talk) 22:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

From what I've read at the article-in-question's talkpage, there's a consensus that the episode is notable. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

DonIago, if you can realistically imagine an article like that getting deleted at AfD on notability grounds, then you are new to Wikipedia, so I'll just gently tell you that such a deletion would be extremely unlikely and that you'll come to understand this with more experience. And if you understand already that the article wouldn't be deleted in such an AfD, then adding the notability tag is frivolous, as Brad says. There's a huge difference between saying an article needs improvement and that the topic is non-notable. Generally, if you think an article is substandard, unless it's seriously biased or misleading our readers, it's best to either WP:SOFIXIT or leave it alone. Putting in tags telling other people to fix it just uglies up the article and makes you look like a dick. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, I thought the point of tagging was to call out problems that needed to be fixed and that might go ignored otherwise. One doesn't need to be in a position to fix a problem to recognize that a problem exists, and is it not better to "fire off a flare", as it were, then to simply let substandard articles propagate? DonIago (talk) 04:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The intention of the tags was something like that, but they were another of those well-meaning ideas that (IMHO) hasn't worked in practice. The way to deal with a bad article is fix it yourself, or leave a note on the talk page with specific criticisms. If you don't care about it enough to do either of those things but tag the article anyway, you're just a busybody, and the tags make reading or editing the article distasteful enough that it's less likely to ever be improved. Edit warring over the tag compounds the problem, in this case to the point where it's worse than whatever was wrong with the article. Use the talk page, but also try to understand Wikipedia culture when deciding what to do about a particular article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I don't give a lot of credence to the views of an IP editor who engages in borderline personal attacks and has less than a week's worth of editing under their belt. DonIago (talk) 05:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In terms of Wikipedia practice that ship has long since sailed regardless of what we deletionists (I count myself as one) think. The tagging is frivolous and pointy and Doniago ought to meditate for a while on the meaning of NOTBURO, with administrative assistance if it comes to that.

As a content question I don't have any real concern about our ability to write a neutral article about something as old as a TOS episode anyway, so I'm not particularly bothered by the articles' presence. There's millions of other articles that I'd chop (like all the BLP's) before getting around to the TOS episodes. No they're not equally notable, and I agree that Gamesters of Triskelion was one of the weaker ones despite the presence of Angelique Pettyjohn. But the presence of an article for each TOS ep is an ancient Wikipedia reality and if someone has an issue with it, it's best to start a Village Pump discussion (or Jimbo's talk page [ducks]) rather than tag bombing an article. 50.0.205.75 (talk) 23:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

The most important thing right now, is that the back-and-forth adding/deleting of the tag, has stopped. GoodDay (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

One quatloo on keep. --NE2 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Somehow, I knew that kinda joke would surface :) GoodDay (talk) 00:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I approve. DonIago (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In general, I think we have way too low of a bar on individual episodes and characters. In this case I do think its likely that this episode would be found notable but I don't think the tagging was in bad faith or is an issue for ANI though. I do think we need to have some wide ranging RFCs to nail down these criteria though. Personally, I think that if every episode is regularly covered by reviews, or in a "trek encyclopedia" etc that is not a sign of individual notability but series notability. To show episode notability, sources that do not cover every single episode are what we need. (IE, AV club, or TVCritic reviewing an ep does not show notability. When Time, or the NYT, or someone like that writes about an episode it does. ) Gaijin42 (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That's pretty much exactly what the thrust of my argument has been with regards to this situation. DonIago (talk) 04:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point is a no-no even if the point being made is valid. Don't war over a content tag to pursue a larger wiki-crusade. If you want to pursue a crusade, start a mailing list thread or something. Non-notability of ST:TOS episodes is one of the stupider crusades a person could pursue in my opinion though. I can suggest some much better ones if you're interested (HHOS). 50.0.205.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This has long seemed to have been a problem. If something truly is "inherently notable", it should be trivial to cite sufficient sources showing that it is. I wouldn't have any issue at all citing sufficient references to maintain a full article on, say, a US President or a chemical element, so if anyone questioned notability there, I could quickly and definitively prove them wrong. If such references aren't available, it really is time to question the notability of the subject. That being said, the person questioning the notability should also have done their homework and done at least a reasonable search for references, and should note what they did that failed to find sufficient material to sustain a full article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, the article has been tagged for needing citations since 2012 and was tagged for questionable notability in June of 2014. That suggests to me that it may be a case that either sources aren't available or no editors care to provide them. I made some effort to find sources that would not necessarily be expected to discuss a ST episode and couldn't find any (which isn't to suggest that they don't exist). The editors I attempted to discuss this matter with at the article's Talk page either could not or simply did not provide such sources either. If any source had been provided then we likely wouldn't be having this conversation. I didn't open an AFD because I think there probably is a worthwhile source out there somewhere, but if I can't find one and nobody else currently monitoring the article is willing/able to do the footwork, then IMO the Notability tag seems appropriate for the time-being. DonIago (talk) 21:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A notability tag on an article like this would make Wikipedia look absurd and I will continue using energetic best efforts to remove such tags, whether or not I have immediate access to my library of secondary Star Trek sources as a given moment. I do not believe this sort of tilting at notability windmills should be encouraged, as it results in gross misuses of community time. Newyorkbrad (talk) 15:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask how exactly placing a notability template on an article results in a "gross misuse of community time"? As Seraphim indicated, if a subject is notable then providing a source shouldn't be a problem.

In my estimation, by removing notability tags you're perpetutating the existence of potentially substandard articles while at the same time removing a tool that can lead to the improvement of those same articles. Put another way, I don't think I'm the one who's been frivolous and disruptive during this whole situation, and that's not even accounting for the fact that I was willing to discuss the matter while your first significant action beyond continually removing the tag was to raise the issue here. DonIago (talk) 15:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps, Newyorkbrad, it would be better if you used your "energetic best efforts" to chastise editors that persist in keeping unsourced articles in the project? If, indeed, the article was about a notable topic, correcting it should have been fairly simple. Encouraging projects to believe that they are immune to standard sourcing requirements is what causes the trouble, as their misbehaviour tends to spread.—Kww(talk) 19:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Keep in mind, before this ANI was started, the discussion in the episode's talk page did include sources. While we really prefer the sources to be included on the article, our pre-AFD checklist says that sources identified on talk page - if they would be the type to meet notability requirements - are sufficient to demonstrate notability. --MASEM (t) 19:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• You may want to query some of the folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Star Trek. — Ched :  ?  01:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've notified WP:STAR TREK. GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

And I've wandered over after seeing that post. :) The subject of whether or not an article on episodes of television series which only contain plots has come up a few times over the past couple of years since I've been involved with the project. It's not so much a case of whether or not the article is notable or not, just whether or not they meet the style guide for television episodes. Equally episodes of other series (Stargate SG-1 springs to mind) have been changed to redirects to the episode/season lists. Certainly for me, this is a much better situation than simply deleting the article entirely as it allows the historical article to be restored when expansion does occur. However, in previous discussions, those plots have been left alone as we've demonstrated as a project that we are working through the 700+ live action episode articles (nearing 100 GAs now) but we have well over 600 to go. Our TOS expert has returned and is working up "Space Seed" for FA, and I'm sure once he's through that then he'll intend to start fixing up the other TOS articles too. Plus since the publication of These Are The Voyages, there has been a resurgence in information avaliable as this published production notes and Nielsen ratings for all the TOS episodes for the first time. From online sources, I can quickly find two reviews from reliable sources (AV Club and Tor.com) specifically for this episode as well as a book discussing the slash relationship between Kirk and Spock hinted at in this episode and comparing it to the 1960's Batman series. I think the current tag requiring further citations is entirely appropriate, while it's notability isn't simply inherited by virtue of it's status as a TOS episode but by the coverage it has received. Miyagawa (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive editing in Charmed article

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

---

63.146.79.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User 63.146.79.153 keeps making disruptive edits to the "starring" parameter in the infobox of the Charmed article. The user keeps listing Alyssa Milano's name first but it was agreed at Talk:Charmed#Starring sections that the lead actresses should be listed in the order of the most episodes they appeared in – Holly Marie Combs (179 episodes), Alyssa Milano (178 episodes), Rose McGowan (112 episodes), Shannen Doherty (67 episodes). A few users have helped revert the IP's unexplained edits ([212], [213], [214], [215], [216]) but the IP user won't stop. I have also explained to the IP user in edit summaries ([217], [218], [219], [220]) and on its talk page but the IP still won't listen. Lesahna01 (talk) 22:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I wrote them a small message pointing out the edit warring policy and directed them to the talk page. If the behaviour continues then a report to WP:AN3 for long-term edit warring may be warranted. Stickee (talk) 10:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Lesahna01 (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Massive POV pushing problem at WP:FRINGE and Indo-Aryan topics

A group of Hindu POV editors are pushing the Fringe POV that the Indo-European languages originated in India. They are doing this through absurd argumentation such as systematically misrepresenting linguistic facts and making absurd Randy from Boise type arguments such as this one[221]. For the record I have made uncivil comments in response to frustration over the absurd "argumentation" displayed by one of the editors, Bladesmulti (talk · contribs). If there is a boomerang in store for me that is worth it to get some administrative support at these discussions. The discussions are located at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Proposed_Hypothesis.2FTheory_as_fact and Talk:Indo-Aryan_migration_hypothesis.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 23:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

For how long you have discussed the hypothesis on fringe theory noticeboard? Only 30 minutes? I had only asked you to name "a single scientist who claims it(hypothesis) to be scientific?" Can you consider finding one instead of misinterpreting a hypothesis as a science when it is contradictory to the actual scientific researches and accepted migration(Early human migrations)? You are clearly contradicting the Wikipedia:FRINGE clearly says that "It is important that original hypotheses that have gone through peer review do not get presented in Wikipedia as representing scientific consensus or fact." When you are aiming to represent it as a fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 23:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

You meanwhile are countering my citations to prominent indoeuropeanists in peer reviewed academic presses with citations to books written by Punjabi accountants and supported by money from religious hindutva organizations[222]. So why should anyone take a word you say seriously? You are promoting fringe views and attempting to marginalize the mainstream academic view through obfuscation and outright lying. You need to be topic banned from anything related to ancient India caus eyou are clearly not here to write an encyclopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Much nonsense. In fact my citations have better quality. Now show me a single fringe view that I have promoted? Doubting the scientific status of a hypothesis, that already has no acceptance in the scientific community is not actually incorrect but it is the reflection Wikipedia:FRINGE that warns you against interpreting unscientific hypothesis as fact. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You are an admitted advocate of Ayurveda, Blades. Is that not sufficiently fringe for you? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Where did I admit it? Bladesmulti (talk) 09:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(It should be noted that Blades has changed the text in his comment above so that my response to him looks slightly odd. I was in fact replying to his comment "Show me a single fringe view that I have promoted?" which he has now changed to mean something a little different. an unfortunate , but not untypical action. It would be accurate to point out that Blades is a wp:spa account dedicated to the promotion of fringe views and pseudoscience.) -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Whatever else Bladesmulti may or may not be, they are not a single-purpose account. I seem them pop up all over the place, fixing the rampant problems relating to caste articles etc and whatever this argument is about, it has nothing to do with the issues that they are usually fixing there. - Sitush (talk) 13:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyone can see that from the diff. Oh and nice jokes, only because your pseudohistorical revisionism didn't got accepted even after a huge RfC. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What diff? What jokes? Also, I've asked you before to explain what "Pseudohistorical Revisionism" actually means, but you have never answered. Do you actually know what it means? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

See Pseudohistory, describes it. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In discussion at the Administrators Noticeboard. Do you deny it? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not directly neither indirectly, only discussed it. You are mixing things there, and I am not getting that what it has to even do here, unless that is a violation of a policy. Bladesmulti (talk) 09:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume you don't deny it then. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What is your base? I had asked for some links that you have not yet provided. Don't worry about the 0 revert rule on that page, it wouldn't be removed through this way. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry Blades, your comment above doesn't make any sense at all. For the record, my base is London, but other than that, I cannot make any sense of the above remark. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly I had asked for the link for the above claims that you have made. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, you don't appear to have made such a request, unless it is couched in language that is so obfuscatory that it has passed me by. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 10:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

[223] was itself enough for any regular user to understand. Now just admit that you cannot show your claimed red herring, in form of diffs, but gibberish. Bladesmulti (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I made no claims regarding fish, or food of any kind. I merely pointed out that you advocate for the pseudoscience of Ayurveda, contrary to your claim above that you do not promote fringe material. I had not realised that you advocate for fringe topics outside pseudoscience as well. Could you please explain your reference to gibberish above. Is that a personal attack? -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind if you point to at least one such topic. Bladesmulti (talk) 11:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You could start by examining the three examples that Maunus maunus maunus provided in the first post to this thread. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 11:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A general point about 'Fringe' on Indo Aryan topics:- According to Upinder Singh "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." That means we don't know about the origins of vedic people nor their period, so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this uncertainty and not reject views of scholars disagreeing with Kurgan_hypothesis as only 'fringe'. That makes no sense. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong.. In order to be balanced the correct picture of this uncertainty should be reflected in the articles dealing with this subject. Rather than targeting editors who are trying to bring this balance. Every scholar who disagrees with Kurgan_hypothesis does not necessarily become a hindu nationalist and any editor bringing about the balance by pointing out uncertainty does not become Hindu POV pusher. Indoscope (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Propose topic ban for User:Bladesmulti

User Bladesmulti has a long history of POV pushing on India and Hinduism related articles. They are using wikilawyering and other strategies to systematically misrepresent the scholarly mainstream consensus in the field and create insane amounts of work for good faith editors to defend the mainstream views acrosss different articles related to hinduism and the history of India. I propose they be topic banned from the topic area.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Disagreeing with a unscientific hypothesis should lead to topic ban? Really? None of your scholarly mainstream consensus holds any weight on scientific world, and atleast when they don't even talk about the scientific evidence but mostly the proposed linguistic similarities. I have mentioned before too, that no one has professed this hypothesis since 2011(DNA researches[224]-[225]) like they did before. Bladesmulti (talk) 00:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No, POV pushing, lying and obfuscating, using unreliable sources, misrepresnrting reliable sources, and misrepresenting policy should lead to a topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• And where are the diffs? We also see scholars who actually claim the advocacy of these unscientific hypothesis as "unscientific".[226](changed) Bladesmulti (talk) 00:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Do you even read what you quote you gigantic moron. That is Jamison describing the proponents of the "Indigenous Aryan" hypothesis. For crying out loud when you cant even read three sentences in a row without getting them to mean the opposite of what they actually mean then how can you even claim to be competent enough that you should be allowed to edit here. You are pure and simple a waste of bandwidth and other editor's time and a clear detriment to the project of building an encylcopedia.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 02:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "Gigantic moron"? You were asked to provide diffs, not to repeat the same inflammatory nonsense. Oh and where did I said that I was talking about the Indo-aryan hypothesis and not Indigenious Aryans? I was saying that I am not in favor of either hypothesis, again you have failed to grasp what I was saying. OK you can see [227]-[228], the elements of Indo-Aryan hypothesis are indeed pseudoscientific. Bladesmulti (talk)

You changed the quote where an actual linguist states that your favorite pov is emotional and unscientific to a link to a book by notorious hindutva hack Srikanth Talageri in an attempt to show that the mainstream view is "pseudoscientific". An edition of the Rigveda does not show anything about the scientific consensus about indoeuropean linguistics. Honestly I wish I could get blocked here so I wouldnt have to feel responsible for not stopping your abuse of wikipedia. User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing opinions with the Wikipedia:FRINGE if a person(I mentioned as scholar) from the same field has expressed view, that is similar with many others, we cannot rejected it. It is considered that both of the hypothesis are incorrect, the previous one, "Indo Aryan" invasion theory is already rejected by mainstream as pseudoscientific. You are still not understanding that we cannot consider any of your claimed mainstream linguistic understanding, when all of them comes before the DNA researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 03:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Could you perchance show a source that suggests that the "DNA Researches" (which say the opposite of what you believe they say) are relevant for the question of Indo-Aryan migrations?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 05:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not even close to that,[229] report says that no genetic influx took place. And suggesting[230] that there was no admixture for over 40,000 years. In order to analyze the material about the proposed migrations, it is necessary to mention the DNA researches. Bladesmulti (talk) 05:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Indiatoday? That is your answer?User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 06:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

And times of India,(who derived it from Harvard medical[231]), all 3 are reliable. Bladesmulti (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No they are not reliable sources for genetics, and their summaries coontradict the abstract of the study they are supposedly summarizing.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

From where you have confirmed that? Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Without a significant number of diffs this proposal will not go anywhere and is just a waste of time. And the latest comment should send a WP:BOOMERANG flying. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• I'd suggest a boomerang as well for Maunus. There's no evidence of problematic behavior actually presented here aside from just claims made here. I tried to make sense of the actual content dispute over at the Fringe noticeboard, [232] but there really aren't sources being brought forth by anyone that really establish scientific consensus per WP:RS/AC. Just seems like a difficult content dispute that's tough to gauge where the actual weight lies without really delving into the topic. That being said, asking for an editor to be topic banned without clearly articulating the actual problem with actual diffs is not a content dispute, but just plain bad behavior. That doesn't mean their concerns aren't legitimate, but if they're going to make the claim, they need to really back it up. Right now I'm just seeing WP:ASPERSIONS. Kingofaces43 (talk) 02:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am prepared for boomerangs. However if anyone is actually interested in writing an encyclopedia here they would be more concerned about religiously motivated POV pushing in science articles. Kingofaces is talking without any knowledge about the topic except for a google search and he has not looked at any of the actual evidence provided.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 03:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That still looks like aspersions. You're only shooting yourself in the foot at this point. The "google search" you refer to was actually through literature databases like Web of Science, etc (though Google Scholar isn't half bad). Considering the general attitude I'm seeing here and things like "I would suggest that everyone who is not a professional historical linguist step back and listen to those who are actually knowledgeable in this area." [233] a boomerang seems warranted in this case. Kingofaces43 (talk) 03:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Look, I dont care. You are the one who ise going to end up looking like an idiot when you sanction someone who knows what they are talking about in order to support a religious nutcase with no clue and no competence.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

At least learn to spell before repeating some inflammatory nonsense. Bladesmulti (talk)

At ANI, you don't just make a claim and run. You need to back it up. If you want someone topic banned for being a religious POV nutcase, then you need to actually demonstrate that's occurring and it's being disruptive. Not doing that is why you aren't being taken seriously here and why the only justification for any action is against you right now. You've made your bed in this matter, so I'm not going to try to help anymore if all you're going to do is only make accusations. Kingofaces43 (talk) 04:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Lol. "At ani you dont just make a claim and run"... How long have you been frequenting ANI? I am however not running anywhere. Thanks for all your "help".User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 04:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I do see some signs of disruptive editing on the part of Bladesmulti here. Not sure yet whether it rises to the level where immediate sanctions are called for, but at least a warning is probably appropriate (and I'll notify him of the India discretionary sanctions, just in case). Blademulti's behaviour at the noticeboard thread on Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and in the related discussions at Talk:Indo-Aryan migration theory tends towards WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT type of stonewalling. What's more, this edit from today [234] appears to be removing a validly sourced claim and a footnote to an appropriate source, without any explanation in an edit summary and no discussion on talk. As far as I can see, the point in question, that the Indo-Aryan migration also has genetic evidence in its favour besides linguistic and archaeological, is precisely relevant to the objections he was trying to raise in those discussions. He was claiming that there was a lack of "scientific" evidence for migration; here now we have a source providing just that (I checked the pages in question; the source does support exactly what it says). Unless he can come up with a very surprising good explanation for this edit, I would certainly count this as disruptive tendentious editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise Yesterday I had removed the same one from Indo-European migrations with edit summary "not in citation" because the cited book[235] has no mention(of even Aryan) or support towards that claim. At p.167 it is talking about 10,000 years old,[236] which was later superseded. At page.168 it says about one of the same hypothesis that genetic evidence provides no support. It wasn't objected there and I was actually pointed on my talk page for similar changes that yes it wasn't on the citation. On this page, that you have pointed, I was only repeating the same change. It is mostly me and Joshua who are making most of the changes on these pages in last few months. Bladesmulti (talk) 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, we clearly have a WP:COMPETENCE issue here. The cited source says on p.167: "This strongly suggests that M17 is an Indo-European marker, and shows that there was a massive genetic influx into India from the steppes within the last 10,000 years. Taken with the archaeological data, we can say that the old hypothesis of an invasion of people – not merely their language – from the steppe appears to be true". Whether or not it mentions the term "Aryan", this is about as clear as it gets. Bladesmulti, if you do not recognize this source for what it is, then it will be a lot better for the project if you do not continue try to edit in topic areas like this. I am now officially warning you that I will take action against your editing under WP:ARBIPA discretionary sanctions if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Another competence issue is seen on this very page when he quotes Bryants book as calling the Aryan migraiton theory "emotional" and "unscientific" when in fact it is Jamison saying that about the Indigenous Aryan theory. That can only be explained as either a bad faith attempt at obfuscating well knowing that most editors wont read the source he presents, or it is such an amazing lack of competence that he probably should not be allowed to edit at all. Every time he has presented a source it has had similar problems. Either they are veiled propaganda sources published by people with no relevant credentials backed with Hindutva money, or he misrepresents the conclusions of actual studies such as the genetic study which exactly argues that NOrth Indians (Indo-European speakers) are genetically distinct from South Indians and have genetic connections with IE speakers in Europe and Central Asia. So there are two possibilities, lack of competence or bad faith. Either way I am not intetrested in wasting more time on it and hence proposed the topic ban.User:Maunus ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 15:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There is competence issue on your part here. I hadn't mentioned either hypothesis in the post, thus you got it wrong, but I had changed it for you so it couldn't look anymore meaningless, you had expected just opposite. Yet you claimed that I am showing wrong wording of the policy when I had shown completely correct. Not your rapid OR/SYNTH that you have just made up above. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC){rephrased)

Enough. You were caught red-handed in blatant misrepresentation of sources, claiming [237][238] that reliable sources called the mainstream hypotheses "emotional" and "unscientific", when the source you used was in fact saying the exact opposite, and now you are trying to wiggle out of it [239] by claiming you didn't actually say which hypothesis you were referring to? When it was perfectly clear from the context of the first two posts that you could only be referring to the hypotheses your opponents were claiming to be the mainstream, i.e. the migration view? This is getting more than just bizarre now. You really need to back off from this topic, in which you have entangled yourself hopelessly, or somebody will have to make you disengage from it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If that's that case, I have just told before that I would rather contribute with more caution. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

That edit isn't great. The real issue here is the usual content dispute that emerges when people try to use DNA evidence in Indic articles. The source Bladesmulti removed, for example, appears to be at least 13 years old and is a subjective interpretation in a rapidly-evolving area of scientific knowledge. Almost certainly, we need to be couching things in much more circumspect terms and attributing them within the text itself. But, still, Blades should argue for that circumspection rather than just wipe it as they did. Maunus, in my experience, is not keen on circumspection so the entire thing could well end up at DRN or similar. - Sitush (talk) 14:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes it shows 10k for the migration into the US, although such dating have been updated for years, it is about 15,000 now. Bladesmulti (talk) 15:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Maunus that Blades' defending tooth and nail of a hopeless position is highly annoying. Yet, he still seems to know when to stop, in contrast to some other biased editors. I've also seen some constructive discussions at the related talkpages, for example Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Balance, which gives me good hope that most editors involved can still work together. The Fringe Theory Noticeboard gave a very clear statement, with which we can go forward, I think (well, most of us, not everyone diff, thread). So, I'd prefer to give Blades again the benefit of doubt. This being said, I very highly appreciate Maunus' contributions, and hope to meet him again in this area! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

What is wrong with the admins who are watching this page, calling someone a gigantic moron by a former admin is OK? Maunus has a history of making personal attacks and he is being given a very long rope here. This very much looks like a content dispute and Maunus just wants to silence the other party. Most of his complaints are not really backed up by any diffs. -sarvajna (talk) 10:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker

I have proposed a topic-ban at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker, after re-opening the discussion (Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Not very happy about recent closure of debate) which was just closed. See below. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe this is the correct link.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, you're right. Thanks. What an irony: a self-referring link. Somehow fits into the whole discussion... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

References

RfC is opened

I've opened an RfC at Talk:Indigenous Aryans#RfC: the "Indigenous Aryans" theory is fringe-theory. Let's keep it civilised. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:25, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

SchroCat

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

---

SchroCat (talk · contribs) has continued feuding over issues related to this thread, extending the current battle to User talk:OrangesRyellow, where he has made a series of nine comments, all violating the dictates of the civility policy, a campaign of intimidation, personal attacks, and harassment against OrangesRyellow. The user has been asked to stop this harassment four times with no change in their behavior.[240] [241] [242] [243] The escalating diffs are as follows:

• Accuses OrangesRyellow of making personal attacks. Calls her comments "idiotic", and tells her she should feel ashamed.[244]
• Demands that she strike her comments.[245]
• Reverts my comments to the talk page (but claims it was an accident)[246]
• Calls OrangesRyellow an "idiot" and demands an apology again, claiming that "any half decent individual would strike the original comment and apologise"[247]
• Continues demanding an apology, implies that the user is "incapable of doing the decent thing"[248]
• Claims that civility warnings and requests that they stop harassing the user are "threatening" them[249]
• Adds a new section heading to the user page called "Unwarranted and disgraceful comment" contrary to talk page guidelines[250]
• Refuses to stop intimidating, attacking, and harassing the user after four polite requests and warnings[251]

I would appreciate it if an admin would ask SchroCat to stop posting at User talk:OrangesRyellow in lieu of a civility block. For the record, the user was notified about this thread,[252] but deleted the notification from their talk page. Viriditas (talk) 01:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This gets a little confusing. Does the core argument concern what the expression "f'ing victim" actually means? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I haven't addressed that argument because it exists independently of the campaign of harassment. The civility policy is quite clear on personal attacks and demanding apologies, all of which SchroCat refuses to stop doing. The other matters are not addressed in this report, nor should they be addressed. Everyone is allowed to have an opinion, including the wrong opinion, but harassing someone for holding this opinion is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"Refuses to stop intimidating, attacking, and harassing the user after four polite requests and warnings[253]" Shame that's an untruth: I refused nothing. I signalled my intent to ignore your bludgeoning (despite requests for you to stop) while I awaited the comments of the person to whom my original point was made. That's bloody obvious from the text quoted, so don't smear me with your misrepresentations in future.

At the end of the day if Oranges hadn't made such a disgusting comment this would not have happened. If you hadn't come up with the most ridiculous semantic twisting to "explain" their thoughts, it would not have happened. If you had piped down and stopped bludgeoning, it wouldn't have ended up with you desperately trying to misrepresent what isn't there to be misrepresented, - SchroCat (talk) 01:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This report can easily be resolved if you agree to stay away from OrangesRyellow. This means avoiding her talk page. Can you do that? Viriditas (talk) 01:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

OrangesRyellow misinterpreted another's comments in such a way that is an unwarranted personal attack; she should withdraw her misinterpretation. Hopefully she will do so, and we can end this. Continuing to argue with each other on her talk page achieves nothing, nor does arguing with each other here. At this point we are waiting for a response from her. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

One is free to make misinterpretations. Whether they amount to a personal attack or not is subject to debate. Nevertheless, wrong opinions do not allow others to intimidate and harass the person holding them. The civility policy is clear on this, as it says "you can't demand an apology from anyone else". SchroCat has been informed of this and has been asked to stop demanding an apology. Viriditas (talk) 01:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of my words in your summaries above is simply laughable. If I could be bothered I'd go through each one of the petty smears and take them to pieces, pointing out where your BLUDGEONing was inappropriate too. Instead, I shall repeat my last comment on the page, that I'm happy to ignore you and wait for the editor in question to address the comments aimed at them (and that didn't need to be addressed by you) – SchroCat (talk) 02:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

There's been no misrepresentation. The diffs are clear. You posted a series of intimidating personal attacks on the page of another user, and refused to stop. No matter how much you try to change the subject, this thread isn't about me, and it's not about OrangesRyellow, it's about your bad behavior and refusal to follow the most basic aspects of the civility policy. Do you understand? Viriditas (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There's been a lot of misrepresentation actually, and you saying there isn't any doesn't make it go away. ("In seek of revenge"? "you did this, admittedly, out of anger and frustration"? I "admitted" nothing of the sort and have been calm throughout. You're jst making bigger and bigger untruths now) What also isn't affected by your little diktats is that one person's reactions do not happen in a vacuum, no matter how hard you try and push it that way, so it is about Orange's disgraceful comment, and it is about your bludgeoning as well. It's cause and effect, and you do t get to decide which its you don't want aired. Again, I'm still happy to ignore you on the page and wait for Orange to comment. - SchroCat (talk) 02:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is none of your business. If Cassianto and OrangesRyellow wish to discuss this matter, then great, but you need to stop harassing her on her talk page. It has nothing to do with you. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have great (totally unoriginal) idea. If someone wants to talk to SchroCat about something they've said, post at User_talk:SchroCat, not User_talk:OrangesRyellow. I see a lot of back and forth on User_talk:OrangesRyellow#Unwarranted_and_disgraceful_comment -- but no comments by OrangesRyellow themselves. NE Ent 02:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this is a wiki, I would like to build upon that idea. Since OrangesRyellow made one comment directed towards User:Cassianto, perhaps the two of them should discuss it, instead of SchroCat. Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

All fine and dandy except Orange's comment had this outcome, which may make discussion difficult. – SchroCat (talk) 02:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It's none of your business. It's between her and Cassianto. Now stop harassing her. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I think you need to take your head out of the clouds and get a better perspective on this. I am harassing no-one. I have left ONE comment for Orange of their talk page. ONE. The other posts were in response to you. Perhaps that's why NE Ent suggested you should have addressed your comments to me on my page, not Oranges. As I've said above, this is also about your behaviour here too. - SchroCat (talk) 02:57, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The diffs up above show that you lack self-control, and did not just post one comment about her, but many. It's none of your business, so you can stop now. Viriditas (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Nit even close to the truth on that one. You should not have kept bludgeoning : it was your behaviour that led to additional comments. I think you've lst the plot on this one and I'd suggest you try and withdraw gracefully, but I doubt you'd take my advice. - SchroCat (talk) 03:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Politely reminding you of the civility policy and politely asking you to stop attacking another user on their talk page is not "bludgeoning". It is called being a good Wiki-citizen. Please own up to your own actions and stop blaming others. Viriditas (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Viriditas is being disruptive and this should be closed. SchroCat has every right to make a strong comment at User talk:OrangesRyellow#Unwarranted and disgraceful comment as we are supposed to be mature and capable of dealing with differences of opinion. The problem is that Viriditas has taken it upon himself to derail the purpose of that talk page, namely communication with its user. Since too much drama is never enough, Viriditas now wants an ANI battle. Unfortunately editors are not sanctioned for such disruption, but we don't have to feed them. Johnuniq (talk) 02:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• No, actually SchroCat has no rights whatsoever here. The comments by OrangesRyellow have nothing whatsoever to do with SchroCat, and he has no business being on her talk page harassing her. The comments were made to User:Cassianto, and he is welcome to address them at any time. SchroCat needs to stay off her talk page. End of discussion. Viriditas (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• As per my comment above, I have only made on comment to Orange, and yes, I do have rights here. - SchroCat (talk) 02:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• You made one comment to her, and many comments about her. Please stop doing it now. This doesn't concern you. Viriditas (talk) 03:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• (edit conflict)That ("End of discussion") doesn't really work here. As Suzy Bogguss sang in Aces: Compromise and realize you can never really run everything you start. I don't see anything wrong with SchroCat making a single, reasonably respectful post calling out OrangesRyellow on an inflammatory remark. Viridiatas' jumping in has escalated the situation unnecessarily. NE Ent 03:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please provide a diff (or diffs) highlighting exactly where I escalated the problem. Good luck with that. In fact, I provided those diffs in the first paragraph of the report, so your hunt should be easier. As you can see from those diffs, not a single one escalated the problem; in fact, the diffs show that I de-escalated the personal attacks, intimidation, and harassment being made by SchroCat, so I wish to argue the exact opposite of what you claim, and I will point to the very same diffs up above (and that you provide) to support my claim. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• It doesn't concern me? "On the contrary, members of this community are tasked with respecting each other and if need be, defending each other" is this one rule for you and one for the rest of us, or just for me? As I've mentioned several times, if you hadn't needlessly bludgeoned your way through the conversation I would not have made any additional comments, just my first one to Orange. - SchroCat (talk) 03:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not responsible for your lack of self-control, and your inability to follow the civility policy. Nobody forced you to make personal attacks against another user. Look at the diffs again. I asked you to repeatedly stop and take your concerns elsewhere. You are responsible for your behavior, not me. Again, the diffs are very clear on this. Stop blaming other people for your mistakes. I was defending OrangesRyellow from your attacks. You, on the other hand, were attacking her because you disagreed with what she said to Cassianto. How could the two situations be more different? You were on the offense, seeking revenge. There's no similarity between your comments and my own, so your analogy doesn't hold water. Viriditas (talk) 03:16, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm going to withdraw from this because your comments are getting further from the truth and are moving into incivility. There are also clear signs of not listening to advice being given to you by numerous editors. - SchroCat (talk) 03:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

More pointless bollocks. I hope an admin archives this quickly.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC) |}

Unfortunately, the personal attacks, threats, and intimidation are still continuing, with additional editors joining the fray on multiple pages.

• At 04:50, 27 January, Cassianto tells me to "go fuck yourself" after I left him a polite message about Oranges comment[254]
• NE Ent, who participated in this thread, arrived on OrangesRyellow's talk page at 18:31, 27 January and left her a bogus, gender gap discretionary sanctions warning and then tried to link her comments to Cassianto to the warning.[255]
• SchroCat, who said he was going to withdraw from this thread at 03:23, 27 January, arrived on my talk page at 12:54, 27 January to accuse me of "lying"[256]

Because of continuing harassment and personal attacks, I have reopened this thread. Viriditas (talk) 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, stop lying then. I have told you several times now that I was not angry when I was in discussion last night and that I was calm, and yet you continually - and deliberately provocatively - use the word over and over again. Stop lying and I'll stop pointing it out. - SchroCat (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Please stop making angry accusations and engaging in personal attacks. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop lying and trolling. I am making no angry accusations. Your continual use of the term is so frequent and pointed that I can only presume you are rather tediously trolling now. Time to move on and do something constructive. - SchroCat (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Viriditis, I told you to go fuck yourself as you came to my page to grave dance. I and any other reasonable editor monitoring this incident can see that. I dont buy it I'm afraid. Cassianto^Talk 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Cassianto, you are mistaken. The diff shows no grave dancing at all; it shows a polite message sympathizing with your plight and asking you to return to editing. Please read it again. Viriditas (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The comment that set this all off

• Is it just me, or are we ignoring the elephant in the room? This comment by User:OrangesRyellow is a terrible accusation which she has yet to recant, and which has driven one editor into retirement. Is this how we are treating personal attacks now? As things which are free for all to do? At the very least that comment needs to be revdeleted. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • The problem is that the expression "f'ing victim" can be read two different ways. It just goes to show the hazards of descending into low-life language. If the editor who decided to retire had simply said "victim", there would be no ambiguity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • For once, I can sort of agree with Baseball Bugs (note: I say sort of). For years I have been saying that Wikipedia needs a list of forbidden and very naughty words that cannot be used in general conversation when arguing with other editors. It's a frightfully twee and odious solution, but until we have such a defined list, we will never have am international agreement over what can be said and what is truly offensive. Perhaps we need to call it the Three Fucks and You're Out Agreement. Of course it won't solve the rape victim syndrome, but it might go some way towards making a level playing field. Giano (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Don't have a heart attack, but you just might sort of agree with me too! Rationalobserver (talk) 18:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Wouldn't fuuucken work because it's too easy gameable. NE Ent 18:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
        • I totally accept that as the current consensus, but what about Wikipedia isn't gameable? I also would suggest that the list exists in our minds, it just isn't codified. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I would like to point out that OrangesRyellow has not made any edits since this comment. They are possibly away from Wikipedia right now. The comment is practically nonsensical unless Orange was confused about what was being said, if that is the case they he/she will likely redact their comment and apologize. If not then there would certainly be cause for action. Chillum 18:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "The problem is that the expression "f'ing victim" can be read two different ways." -- then I would have to question the level to which someone's mind would drop to if they can analogise an ambiguous profanity to wishing someone to be raped. I am not convinced. If I'd have said "sodding victim" would I have been accused of wanting her anally raped? What about "pissing victim", would I be wanting her urinated on? I doubt those analogies would have even surfaced! Cassianto^Talk 18:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I think it's very easy to see how a "fucking victim" can be misinterpreted as a "rape victim", especially the victim blaming embedded in your attached comment when you said "let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose". So it's all there, and it's easy to see how this could be misinterpreted. I agree with Baseball Bugs, if you don't want to be misinterpreted, use the appropriate language and abide by the civility policy. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• "I think it's very easy to see how a "fucking victim" can be misinterpreted as a "rape victim",": only if you are deliberately trying to twist basic English for the purpose of defending your chum. I have never heard a rape victim called a "fucking victim", as in a victim of fucking: that's just utter balls, I'm afraid. - SchroCat (talk) 19:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have also never even once heard "fucking victim" used in this way and I have listened to a lot of crass comedy. Chillum 19:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Please assume good faith and stop making accusations about what other editors are doing. The world doesn't turn on what you have heard. There are things which you have not heard that exist--this is one of them. Viriditas (talk) 19:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• PMSL - you have shown no GF to anyone since your unfortunate bludgeoning last night. You are way out of your depth here, and re-opening the thread has done nothing but spark off arguments again. I can only guess at your motives for doing so, but I see little constructive coming out of your actions. (and stop trying to be patronising to me - I'm immune, especially when it's people for whom I have no respect.) - SchroCat (talk) 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thank you for illustrating the problem. Civility involves at its very core, respect for other editors, regardless of how you feel about them. Please re-read it and familiarize yourself with its application. Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Perhaps you can troll of elsewhere and stop interacting with me. You seem to be of little use around here, creating only disharmony, rather than doing anything constructive. Just so I'm entirely clear on this: stop interacting. Stop bludgeoning, stop trying to double guess my emotions, and stop lying about anything to do with me. Move on, try and do something useful elsewhere, and don't ever post in response to any of my comments. I'm off to do something useful now, and I'll put good money on the fact that you won't be able to help yourself but leave a smarmy comment inresponse, despite the request not to do so. - SchroCat (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Please stop making accusations and attacks. This is a community noticeboard, not your talk page. Try to treat everyone with respect here. Viriditas (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Thought not. QED it is! Cheerio troll: we're done here. - SchroCat (talk) 20:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• And for the record, I'm not interested in an apology or mediation. I want this person severely warned or blocked, and for the comment to be revdeleted. I then want nothing more to do with them. Until this happens, I remain retired until such a time when I can be bothered to come back and start writing again, which in the current climate is no time soon. I suspect that they have gone quite in an attempt to avoid a block as a block in this scenario would be less favoured by any willing admin. I'm frankly sickened that we are now at the end of day two and still nothing official has happened. Cassianto^Talk 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• It's easy if you are of limited intelligence and your mind is wallowing in the gutter, yes. Cassianto^Talk 19:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Blocks ought not be punitive; they should be preventative, so blocking them now would serve no purpose other than to punish, which would be inappropriate. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:08, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Cassianto, I think you are trying to walk in two different paths here, and maybe that's why no admins rushed to your defense and blocked the other party. On the one hand you seem to reject civility standards in general, and argue that we ought to be able to use some hostile or offensive language once in a while. On the other hand, you seem to presenting a position of zero tolerance for this type of incivility, which is about making insinuations that offend. So which is it? Should editors get blocked for civility violations or not? Rationalobserver (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Precisely my point above; read it again. Cassianto^Talk 19:14, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Being compared to someone who wished rape upon a female is, in my book, unforgivable. However she is dealt with here is of no concern of mine, but as long as she is dealt with. So far, our administrators agree with her as nothing has been done. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not sure what you mean, except that standards should be consistent, which I agree with in principle, but it appears that your ideal standards would not harshly condemn incivility, so your stance here appears hypocritical. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Rationalobserver, being compared to someone who wished rape upon a female is, in my book, unforgivable and goes far beyond using the odd profanity now and again. However she is dealt with here is of no concern of mine, but as long as she is dealt with. So far, our administrators agree with her as nothing has been done. Cassianto^Talk 19:17, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I understand that, but what I'm trying to say is that it appears hypocritical to insist on a strict application of the civility guideline when it comes to someone making an offensive insinuation about you, but a loose application when others use explicitly offensive language against others. Pick a side and stick to it, but don't flip-flop depending on the situation then criticize admins for their inconsistencies. Rationalobserver (talk) 19:25, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Certain analogies should never be used. These types of analogies should be dealt with differently to run-of-the-mill profanities. Most would consider "fuck" or "cunt" to be offensive, but everybody should find the rape comment offensive; if not, I would certainly question their moral standing. Cassianto^Talk 19:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's be very clear, it was Cassianto's comment that set all of this off, not Orange:

Rather than be fair and block/warn Lightbreather, he/she is now accepting awards from them which gives the impression that he/she endorses Lightbreather's behaviour, and who is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose, thus causing this ridiculous pantomime.

Using the terms "behaving like a fucking victim" and "it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose", are part of the victim blaming discourse in rape culture. It is therefore of no surprise that Orange misinterpreted these comments as they have the symbolism of dog whistle language. Viriditas (talk) 19:37, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

A "fucking victim" does not mean a victim of rape; "rape" and "fucking" are two totally different things. A 'victim of fucking", an expression which I find anyone using hard to imagine, could just as easily be someone who had had a heart attack whilst climaxing. There is no noun that becomes sexual-intercouse definitive when the F adjective is placed before it. A 'fucking building' is not a brothel and a 'fucking fool' is not an idiot engaging in sexual intercourse. Cassianto^Talk 14:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

While I agree the interpretation is possible it is hardly a reasonable interpretation. Frankly it is such a stretch that it is akin to jumping at shadows. Chillum 19:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I realize that you and the majority of men on Wikipedia feel that way. However, once you familiarize yourself with this literature, you can see the symbolic nature of it crop up in comments like this. My hypothesis is that Orange has studied this subject in an academic setting and is aware of the code words. The accusation against Lightbreather amounts to the "asking for it" language we find in the rape culture discourse, so Orange's reaction isn't all that off the mark. I probably wouldn't have said such a thing to Cassianto, but that's because I'm a man and I'm not as cognizant of these code words as others. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

So because this user is a woman, that makes it ok does it? Cassianto^Talk 20:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Usually when someone gets upset they swear, I am sure females have also used the words "Fucking victim" before in situations, you are reading too much into it and not assuming good faith. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Im sorry but "Fucking victim" does not equal "Rape victim" when used the way it did, yeah it was a poor taste comment and orange had a right to get mad from it but it was a stretch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

No one in their right mind, will read "fucking victim" and think it automatically refers to a person (rape is not the exclusive to women) who has been raped. I cannot understand how the two can possibly be confused. However, those that want confusion and trouble can always find it if they look hard enough. Giano (talk) 20:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. Spot on. There is no way on God's own earth that the phrase could be equated to "rape victim". To do so is absolutely witless and goes way beyond what is normal. If this genuinely is the point of controversy that caused this whole debacle, it would be wise for those confused by the prose to get a grip and apologise. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:12, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

This has to be one of the most ridiculous interpretations of the words "fucking victim". Two very dear friends of mine have been raped or sexually assaulted in the past (which makes me rage to the very core of my being) but neither of them would ever refer to themselves as a "fucking victim" using the word fucking synonymously with rape. They call themselves rape victims simple as that. Yes, two people do not make a majority nor enough for a generalisation but as an example to point out how stupid this semantic bullshit is. Blackmane (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The problem starts with Cassianto, who said that Lightbreather was "now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose". In response, Orange said, "To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA". Clearly, it's not just the words "fucking victim" (possibly interpreted as a "rape victim") that are at issue here, but also Cassianto's victim blaming of Lightbreather, who according to Cassianto was waiving the "bait" under Eric's nose. The word "bait" here stands out; on the victim blaming page we discover that one rape victim "was accused by a defense attorney of being a seductress who lured men to their doom". So the relationship between the use of "bait" (food used to entice fish or other animals as prey) and "lure" (something that tempts or is used to tempt a person or animal to do something) here stands out as well. I can see how Orange might have seen these things and misinterpreted them. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Victim of Circumstance [257], torture victim, PTSD victim, Identity Theft Victim, Bernie Madoff victim, Katrina victim, Heart Attack Victim, Drowning victim, electrocution victim, victim of a misunderstanding, gossip victim, bullying victim, con victim, scam victim, victim of crime, homicide victim, victim of a witch hunt ... NE Ent 00:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Possible Solutions

• A. Orange is blocked for 24 - 36 hours and after that is told to stay away from Cassianto.
  
• B. Orange is warned/admonished and told to stay away from Cassianto.
  
• C. Orange is told to stay away from Cassianto.

What sounds like the best solution here? Its clear at the very least something should be done regarding the issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

How about we wait for Orange to respond and base our action on what response we get? If the user confirms this is a misunderstanding and reverts then the existing comments on their talk page suffice as a warning in my opinion. If the user stand by their comment then I would think action is needed. Chillum 19:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• They just have returned. Cassianto^Talk 23:48, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, to be clear im not blaming orange, my personal feeling is she should be warned not to throw around a word like rape but okay. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Her comment, "To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA", does not require any administrative action. We've already discussed the possible reasons why she said this and the problematic code words in Cassianto's original comment that led her to say this. What needs immediate admin action is the persistent incivility by the parties involved with the Sandstein blocking dispute. Please get the priorities in order and deal with the original and ongoing problem at its root. Viriditas (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

"she" has just admitted to being a man Viriditas. What do you have to say about that? Cassianto^Talk 09:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(ec)I fully agree, it is just that several warnings are already in place for this incident so that is covered. Chillum 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with and am thankful to Chillum. Because this user has fooled everyone into thinking that they have rolled over and gone to sleep, the first, and more preferable option is pointless. In light of that, I would opt for B and for the remarks to be revdeleted. Cassianto^Talk 19:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• B sounds like the most fair here I could have suggested an indef block but over one word I feel a stay clear from each other would do better as there are plenty of areas on wiki to edit. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

D. Wait per Chillum. NE Ent 20:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• E. Cassianto and SchroCat are blocked for persistent violations of the civility policy, including assumptions of bad faith, personal attacks, harassment, and battleground behavior. Cassianto is reminded that his incivility is responsible for many of his current disputes. SchroCat is banned from editing Oranges talk page and reminded that Wikipedia is a collegial environment that depends on mutual respect. NE Ent is reminded to use discretionary sanctions templates in an appropriate and relevant manner. Orange is warned to refrain from making inflammatory comments about the motivations and intent of other editors. In response to the ongoing civility problem on Wikipedia, the Foundation will hire a staff psychologist and social worker to work with the Wikipedia community to identify problems and recommend solutions. Viriditas (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Even in this discussion, you've got these guys accusing someone of being uneducated and/or demented. It is Cassianto and Schrocat who should be given permanent vacations. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Fortunatly, SchroCat and I couldn't give a toss what you think. Cassianto^Talk 23:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is precisely the problem. According to our civility policy, "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors." Viriditas (talk) 02:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
        • What's glaringly obvious here is that Shrocat and Cassian and other members of their little clique of malcontents can dish it out but they can't take it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
          • PMSL. You know nothing about me and what I can or cannot "take". Personally I find your incivility here—while trying to get me blocked for incivility—speaks volumes more about you than me than about you. Carry on if you want to, I care little for such attempts at dramah stirring. - SchroCat (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
            • PMSL??? I do know one thing about you: You're one of the most uncivil editors I've run into. If you hadn't stuck that low-life adjective in front of "victim", none of this would have happened. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
              • PMSL! I'd stop now, while you're behind if I were you. I've said absolutely nothing of the sort (get a dif, chop chop), and in your misguided haste to try and get me blocked, you're aiming at the wrong person. It's probably best if you stopped now, before you make any more laughable mistakes. And thanks for the further PA - I've gathered quite a few in this trip, and none from anyone I'd ever want to be bored by again. - SchroCat (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
          • The above (ad hominem) comment is incendiary and is being edit warred to be being kept in and adding to drama - it is like gasoline on the fire. I invite any uninvolved admins to weight up superfluous battleground-like comments on this page and act accordingly. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
            • As we know from the past few days Cas, the admins on here couldn't give a fuck about anything. Cassianto^Talk 09:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
            • Casliber, how about the comments immediately below, "You should disappear altogether Viriditas and take your twisted pal with you" and "They certainly are trolls and as soon as an admin wakes up and takes action, the better"? Why remove one comment from one side for being uncivil when there is incivility all around this thread and others? Rationalobserver (talk) 20:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
              • And how about you stop slinging mud and insults at people, especially when it's utter balls. Don't get preachy on the one hand and then go go mouthing off elsewhere - you do know how that makes you look, right? - SchroCat (talk) 10:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
                • "How about the comments below"? They pale into insignificance compared to the filth that was said to me a few days ago. Cassianto^Talk 09:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
            • I agree but with all of the things being thrown out here I consider it just the icing on the cake. I for one am surprised this hasn't been closed yet I mean how much longer do we all have to drag this out? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• F. You should disappear altogether Viriditas and take your twisted pal with you. Cassianto^Talk 21:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Pay no attention to trolls–ANI attracts them where they become contrarian experts able to miss any point. Johnuniq (talk) 23:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Who are calling a troll Johnuniq? Cassianto^Talk 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• @Cassianto: Sorry, I can see there is some ambiguity in my post, but it was intended as a suggestion to you that paying attention to the two editors you mentioned would be a waste of time. They have demonstrated their unsuitability for rational discussion, but unfortunately the noise they generate means that progress is very difficult. Johnuniq (talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• No problem, thanks for your thoughts. They certainly are trolls and as soon as an admin wakes up and takes action, the better. Cassianto^Talk 09:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• G Sandstein, whose talk page the egregious violation of AGF is on, revdeletes it. Since it's on an admin's talk page, it really isn't appropriate for another admin to revdelete it, much as I, for one, would like to. That would at least be a beginning, and a gesture to Cassianto, who has been wronged here. Yngvadottir (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Sadly Sandstein's judgement isn't taking into account a way to bring a close to this situation. The refusal to revdelete can only ensue that this continues to fester. - SchroCat (talk) 15:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Update

OrangeRyellow is refusing to withdraw the accusation they made here [258]; see [259]. I'll note for any admin wishing to take action they've received the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions alert vis-a-vis Gamergate Gender Gap Task Force. NE Ent 23:47, 27 January 2015 (UTC) Sorry, wrong GG. NE Ent 01:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no such thing as Gamergate Task Force and what does this have to do with any task force or DS anyway ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC) And don't misrepresent. I had offered to withdraw my comment, it is Cassanto who had refused the offer.[260]OrangesRyellow (talk) 00:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

To be completely clear OrangesRyellow nobody was talking about rape until you brought it up. Your response was not appropriate and even though it was based on a misinterpretation on your part you are still seemingly standing by it. This sort of accusation without reasonable evidence is a serious personal attack and will result in blocking. Discretionary sanctions are a red herring because regular Wikipedia policy covers this very well. Chillum 01:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The outrage at OrangesRyellow seems confusing. Perhaps I'm missing something. From what I can gather Cassianto said with respect to Lightbreather that she "is now behaving like a fucking victim; let's not forget, it was her who waived the bait under Eric's nose", to which OrangesRyellow replied "LB is a woman. To suggest that she is behaving as if she has been raped is a grotesque PA. You are the one who is baiting." Apparently, OrangesRyellow interprets "fucking victim" as having a potential double meaning (i.e. fucking victim could mean rape victim or could simply be an uncivil way to emphasize perceived victimhood or whatever). Apparently, OrangesRyellow is willing to strike rape, if Cassianto will strike "fucking victim". Considering that "fucking victim" is uncivil at best, this seems a reasonable solution, which would hopefully put to rest this latest chapter of the various battleground implosions resulting from Eric's block.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Did you notice that it is Cassianoto who is standing by his wording containing the double-meaning [261]. If he did not mean it in that way, why can't he reword it in a non double-meaning way ? OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

It is not possible to write a non-trivial sentence in a manner that someone somewhere cannot wilfully misinterpret. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Even if that be impossible, how hard could it be for him to remove "fucking" from his comment ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Would you prefer he use the word "Damn", that might offend Christians, or how about "Dang" oh no that's not proper English. Orange no matter what word he uses someone somewhere is going to be offended we cant make everyone happy 100% of the time. This isn't a long term abuse thing either this was just one time while he was upset. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

According to the noticeboard archives, it appears to be a long term abuse thing,[262] and surprise, surprise, it seems to involve tag-team incivility from Cassianto and SchroCat working together.[263][264] Viriditas (talk) 02:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why won't he simply remove "fucking" from his comment ?OrangesRyellow (talk) 01:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

If you just dropped it, it would go away. He didn't mean what you think he meant, so it's not a personal attack for you to misinterpret his comment. Rationalobserver (talk) 02:05, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. But, look at the noticeboard incident reports I linked above. The pattern is clear: Cassianto is blatantly uncivil and SchroCat steps in to defend him. A bit unusual if you ask me. Why does the community continue to allow this? Viriditas (talk) 02:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if there is a pattern then it should be looked into, for this one though while saying "fucking victim" is wrong I feel it was a misinterpret of his comment. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Moving past the misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise, of words, what action could be done that would not be considered punitive rather than preventative. RFC/U, toothless as it was, is gone so rather than just point fingers and say "so-and-so is always uncivil and such-and-such is always defending them", what would be considered constructive at this point?

1. An interaction ban? (there has been an awful lot of these lately)
2. An indef? (punitive much?)
3. A reprimand/warning? (seeing as they've been blocked in the past, what would that serve?)

Blackmane (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I notice that of the 3 difs selected above, two of them, [265][266] involve the same complainant who was judged to be the instigator in both of these instances and received TBs for his actions. We hope (talk) 03:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In light of that then maybe topic bans aren't enough here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In two of the difs, it was the same user making the same "tag team incivility" charges about User:Cassianto and User:SchroCat, but when you read the difs, you'll see that the user who made those charges was hit with a boomerang both times, as he was the one TB'd in both cases. These difs and the statement that this is "long term abuse" on their parts doesn't add up-neither of them were TB'd. We hope (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The point is that OrangesRyellow complained about Cassianto's incivility. Knowledgekid87 said "this was just one time while he was upset", but the archives tell a different story. The one diff you don't refer to points to several noticeboard threads, one indicating Cassianto's last block for personal attacks and for what TParis described as "intimidation and harassment" on Cassianto's part. In both threads, (as well as in the others) SchroCat showed up to defend him, double down on the drama, and attempt to blame the OP.[267][268] The older noticeboard reports do note some kind of teamwork between the two of them. And let's not forget how all of this is connected to the block of another user. So this is a continued pattern of disruption across multiple articles involving the same editors.[269] OrangesRyellow simply got caught in the crossfire. Viriditas (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't select difs-you did-I merely read them, and I'm of the opinion that all of this has been blown out of proportion taking many people away from what we're meant to do here--work on the encyclopedia. We hope (talk) 05:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

So why does it keep happening? Have you counted the number of personal attacks in this thread? Viriditas (talk) 06:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What I'm seeing is a lot of repeated material and a reluctance on the part of some to let things calm down instead of a need to reply to every post made on this issue. We hope (talk) 06:21, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. This would have fizzled out by now if the thread hadn't been re-opened by the same individual whose style of discussion and debate is to bludgeon every single person's comments. As Johnuniq pointed out earlier, two editors "have demonstrated their unsuitability for rational discussion, but unfortunately the noise they generate means that progress is very difficult"; I see that the same editor who re-opened the pot of dramah is now engaged in tendentious searches of ancient history to try and prove a point (even though these resulted in a boomerang against another disruptive editor). Sadly these tiresome approaches are as unconstructive as it gets, and the sooner this matter is closed, the better for the encyclopaedia. Thanks for the ping, We hope, and I'm off to do something more useful with my time now. - SchroCat (talk) 08:44, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I could say the same bout you Viriditas and the "closeness" you have with OrangesRyellow. I think it's a bit suspicious how you have been answering for them in this dispute and the amount of times you and her/him have been conversing on his/her talk page. Maybe you also share his/her view that making an analogy of rape and accusing somone of wishing it upon another editor is a good thing? Cassianto^Talk 10:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

What a load of fuss over someone's inability to realise that an editor used the word "fucking" as an intensifier rather than "bloody" or "sodding", and the thought that rape has anything to do with it. Have we not got anything better to do? Britmax (talk) 10:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we probably have got more important things to be doing Britmax, but until I get an apology and the comments revdeleted, I'm going to keep this discussion alive I have no intentions in helping towards improving the project any further. Cassianto^Talk 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I would hope that a solution/outcome can be found by discussion and dialogue leading to consensus and understanding. It may be that revdeletion is one of the outcomes, but laying down a per-determined ultimatum at the first stage may not help the journey to that point (or any other equally effective outcome that discussion might bring out). —Sladen (talk) 12:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Close

Take a Wikipedian veterans advice & end this dispute. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

That is what I have been saying, I mean hasn't this dragged out enough? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Close it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I hope that one day, someone makes a slur on your good name by likening you to someone who wishes rape on another user. I'll be laughing my socks off, just as you have done to me. Cassianto^Talk 09:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Topic-ban proposal for Robert Walker (2)

After a previous ANI-discussion, which ended stale-mate, Robert has continued his disruptive behaviour.

• 4 january 2015 he followed me at the Dzogchen talkpage diff. I asked him to stop Wikihounding me diff, which he didn't diff. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff.
• 26 january he posted comments at the Anatta talkpage which I consider to be WP:HARASSMENT diff.
• I've warned him diff diff, which was supported by User:VictoriaGrayson diff.
• Thereafter he posted a similar message at User talk:ScientificQuest#In support of your edits of Anatta diff.
• I warned him again diff, where-after he popped-up at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact.
• I warned him again diff.
• The thread at the fringe noticeboard was closed this morning, with a very clear conclusion.
• And now Robert opens a new disucssion (at the wrong page...) Wikipedia talk:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Not very happy about recent closure of debate, en passant attacking me again.

Enough is enough: I propose a topic-ban for Robert for Buddhism, Hinduism and India related articles. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

NB: RW also seems to be discussing this at Facebook diff. Or am I overreacting now? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:36, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - enough. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Robert is now stalking Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 14:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Neutral as presented and at this time. Comment It isn't clear, at least without hearing from the subject, that a topic-ban is the right remedy, or that the scope of the topic-ban, as proposed, is appropriate. It is clear that at least one editor, Robert Walker, has conduct issues in the area of Buddhist-related topics. That was obvious a month ago. It was also apparent that there were content issues concerning Buddhism. At the time, I advised Robert Walker to request dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard concerning the Buddhist content issues. He continues to say that he plans to do that, but he has had plenty of time. At the time, I also recommended a restriction on his talk page privileges to restrict his use of walls of text; that was archived without resolution. It now appears, but I haven't researched in detail, that Robert Walker may be disruptively editing with regard to an India-related fringe theory about the origin of languages (that Indo-European languages originated in India rather than elsewhere). I don't see any connection to Hinduism. (The fringe theory is commonly supported by Hindu nationalists, but is not limited to Hindu nationalists.) I haven't researched the diffs by the filing parties in detail as to harassment. It does appear, based on first glance (without lengthy research), that Robert Walker is now stirring up trouble by campaigning for the involvement of new editors on his side of the controversy; and that raises the possibility that he has become a general trouble-maker for whom a block or a site-ban is more appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - In view of the following thread about the Vedic period, it appears that this combination of content issues and conduct issues may have spread to the point where the ArbCom should be asked to open a case. arbitration enforcement is needed under WP:ARBIPA with respect to India-related issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support in order to prevent "silent interaction", that is, following JJ and opposing without making the interaction obvious. This stalking needs to be dealt with. The combination of a topic-ban and an interaction ban is less drastic than a site ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Send to arbcom. After seeing the explosion of anger at the FTN thread it seems clear to me that arbcomm could at least allow for discretionary sanctions so that administrators could act to stem the tide of aggravation that our good faith content contributors are experiencing. !Voting to ban this one editor is only a bandaid on a wound much too large for a bandaid. jps (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Discretionary sanctions are already in force for everything India-related. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Buddhism isn't subject to discretionary sanctions except in the country of its origin, which is not primarily a Buddhist country. The issue about the origin of Indo-European languages does have to do with whether they came from India or went to India. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

If discretionary sanctions are in place then we should send this over to WP:AE. If they aren't, then we should ask arbcom to broaden them. jps (talk) 22:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The basic problem is that I cleaned-up the Karma in Buddhism article, and Robert didn't like that. He wants a roll-back to the version before my clean-up, and a discussion of my edits, without wanting to participate in that discussion (the talkpahe already contains extensive explanations of my edits, and they are supported by several competent editors). He's been filling several talkpages now with his demands, repeating over and over again that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles. He's also stating for a couple of months now that he's going to file a DRN-request, without doing so. And now he's started to canvass other editors, and trying to re-open a debate about which he knows nothing at all, en passant attacking me again. So, I'm through with him. Let him use the normal dispute resolution, that his, file his DRN, or just stay away. But not attacking me over and over again, without even remotely trying to or engaging in a form of concencus-building. He's only making it worse and worse. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Comment Joshua Jonathan has given three diffs as instance of Robert Walker harrassing him: 1, 2, 3. I am afraid I do not see any uncivil language or attack. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment Further comment on the third link provided by Joshua as proof of harrassment: well, a discussion getting closed in less than 24h with a clear verdict is a mockery of a discussion. I also think the appeal is fully justified and a patient hearing is due instead of attack on those who chose to question the closure. Or rather haunting those who questioned the closure is a clear case of attack as it has been done rightfully within due limits in a civil manner. --AmritasyaPutra^T 09:49, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Amritasya, I'm talking about "harassment": following me around, stating at various talkpages that I'm a POV-pusher who's ruining articles, without substantiating those comments. What he also did when he requsted to reopen this debate, suggesting that I'm biased and a poor editor. As if I'm the only one thinking, no, recognising, that the "Indigenist" position is fringe, or that I'm incompetent. I think it's quite clear from my edit-record that I'm a competent editor. So yes, when those kind of insuniations happen again and again, it feels like an attack. Robert keeps repeating "I'm working on a DRN", but we're still waiting. Instead of brandmarking me, he should actually try to resolve his "dispute". He's not doing so; he's only repeating his allegations. So yes, I've had enough of it.

Regarding reopening the debate: at third thought, I think it might be a good idea to re-open it, to settle this once and for all. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I can only follow the diffs that you provided. Provide more diff to substantiate the "harassment", those three diff are not harassment. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support - I have only encountered Robert Walker at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact, where I can say that his statements only muddled waters and didn't contribute to resolution. He didn't say a single word about the issue, the claim that the Indo-Aryan migration theory is a "fringe theory," and started quoting readers' reviews from Amazon while ignoring professional reviews. If he is doing this kind of thing everywhere to User:Joshua Jonathan, whose contributions are simply outstanding, e.g., [270], then he is being simply disruptive. Kautilya3 (talk) 12:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment Instead of guessing, check edit history and come up with diffs. Speculating with assume-bad-faith is not done. --AmritasyaPutra^T 15:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I am satisfied with the samples provided by User:Joshua Jonathan and have no reason to distrust his statement about the general pattern. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Neither do I. Those diff are not attack that anyone can see. It should be simple to provide diffs, since it is being requested. Thank you. --AmritasyaPutra^T 05:40, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Scroll trhough the following talkpages:

• Talk:Karma in Buddhism
• Talk:Four Noble Truths
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Buddhism
• User talk:Robertinventor
• User talk:Dorje108
• Talk:Dzogchen

If you think that's too much, here's the diff for the Dzogchen talkpage. Here's my intitoal response, in which I already noted his Wiki-hounding. Also read Jim's response. He even admitted "Yes I did find this article by looking through your recent edit history, but that's in preparation for posting about your edits to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard" diff. Also have a look at the history of the Zogchen talkpage to see ho he goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on and ad infinitum.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for detailed, clear response. Now it makes sense. Wikihounding. I have faced it too. I hope admins take appropriate action, I have withdrawn my oppose vote in-place. Thanks. --AmritasyaPutra^T 06:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This is Jonathan's second attempt to intimidate Robert and prevent him from submitting a DNR related to Jonathan's edits. - Dorje108 (talk) 03:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

"Skip the "intimidate", and try to understand, for one time, what's going on. And if you want to help Robert post his DRN, you could have closed your RfC weeks ago already, as I've asked you before. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:55, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Interaction ban

I found Robert Walker's entry into the WP:FTN thread whose closure he has requested be reviewed, in the middle of the thread. I concur with User:Joshua Jonathan and User:VictoriaGrayson that he has been stalking Joshua Jonathan's edits, since WP:FTN is not a place he had previously edited. Recommend a one-way interaction ban on interactions of Robert Walker with Joshua Jonathan. That is, Robert Walker may not respond to any posts by Joshua Jonathan. This may seem harsh, but following another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Support as proposer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - Along with the topic ban proposed by Joshua Jonathan.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support - as well as the topic ban that I supported above. Kautilya3 (talk) 18:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Support as Robert Walker is clearly following Joshua Jonathan and disruptively inserting himself into conversatios where he has shown no previous interest and has a lack of expertise. I'm not convinced a topic ban is necessary because once he stops following the other editor around, his disruption in those areas should stop. Ca2james (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment But he still can posts at talkpages where I am active? I see a complication there... And if we interpret it strictly: what if he starts to engage a talkpage on a Buddhism or Hinduism related page, and I start editing there too? It would give me a strange kind of "privilege", as it means he would have to back-off. That's not fair, nor clear. So, I'm afraid a topic-ban is still more appropriate. Plus, indeed, also avoidance from my part of areas where Robert is active. Although, he's merely editing a very selective range of talkpages, so in practice this may work. Some admin-feedback would be welcome too, at least for me. Anyway, thanks for the efforts, Robert McC.! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
• Comment - Joshua is correct that a one-way interaction ban does work like that. It does not require any avoidance by Joshua. It is true that this is a harsh remedy, but stalking another editor is harsh. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by some editors Vedic Period - Neutrality of which is disputed

I would like to highlight the case of tendentious editing by some editors, who are gate keeping a particular WP:POV on Vedic Period - Neutrality of which was disputed by me. User talk:Joshua Jonathan and a group of editors including User talk: Kautilya3 have done a highly objectionable job by shifting the discussion from the talk page of Vedic Period and moving it to Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact without inviting/informing me since I had raised the question on neutrality of the article. By discussing the issue amongst like minded editors and coming to a conclusion without including all the points I have raised they have engaged in WP:GAMING and WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources". I had only wanted to build a consensus about presenting the views of other scholars who have done research on the topic of origins of Vedic People which is a highly debated issue and no scholarly consensus exists on it. The same fact about lack of consensus should reflect in the article to make it Neutral and encyclopedic. It should be noted that I had not engaged in any edit wars while trying to build consensus and had done so in good faith. Indoscope (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Joshua Jonathan had also the moved the page for book The_Lost_River by Michel Danino which is a notable book which details an alternative view to what he and a few other editors including User talk: Kautilya3 are pushing by engaging in WP:GANG. He had merged The_Lost_River with Michel Danino without first raising a merge notice. I believe to was done show it as frivolous and less notable than it is which can be seen from the talk page that these same to editors were involved in trying to remove that page. I later provided the relevant references of book review and restored that page which thankfully settled the issue.Indoscope (talk) 14:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear Indoscope, that thread was opened by Blades. I'm not your personal servant, as you will understand. NB: the correct link is Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact.

Regarding Danino, you moved it back, and added some reviews, which is fine with me.

Regarding WP:GANG: "As with meatpuppetry, editors may be accused of coordinating their actions to sidestep policies and guidelines (such as 3RR and NPOV)'." The Fringe Theory Board gave a very clear statement regarding the status of your favorite theories: it's fringe. There's a very clear consensus on that. Presenting fringe-theory as being equal to mainstrwam scholarship is POV-pushing. You may choose to do so, but that's clearly not in line with Wiki-policies.

Cheers, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:39, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have nothing to do with Vedic period. I offered an opinion on the The Lost River and suggested an RFC for merger. You decided to unmerge it, and Joshua Jonathan accepted your action. So, I don't see what is "tendentious" about it. Your input on Talk:Vedic period has been taken on board by Joshua Jonathan, and he is following up on those sources. See Talk:Indigenous Aryans#Souces. Again, there is nothing tendentious here. I would say you are wasting your time, and his time. Forget this. Kautilya3 (talk) 14:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I have not once said that User talk:Joshua Jonathan initiated Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Proposed Hypothesis/Theory as fact. I said he and User talk: Kautilya3 moved the entire discussion their without inviting me to participate when they were fully aware that I had initiated the WP:POV dispute Talk:Vedic_period#Neutrality_of_the_Article_in_Question. Total of 7 editors discussed over a short peiod of 2 odd days to decide that every scholar who does not agree with the Kurgan_hypothesis is fringe. That is far from representative, not enough editors participated and not enough time was given for other knowledgeable editors to join in. The issues of dispute raised in the Talk:Vedic_period#Neutrality_of_the_Article_in_Question were not discussed there. User talk:Joshua Jonathan based on that side discussion removed the WP:POV notice board. This entire behaviour in this episode was bad faith editing. Joshua had clearly invited like minded editor Kautilya3 to gang with him in the debate on Vedic Period article evidence here.

Joshua moved The_Lost_River page again with the same editor Kautilya3 involved evidence here. These two editors are collaborating to keep only a certain POV in the wikipedia articles rather than build balanced encyclopedic content evidence of WP:GANG here. Jonathan is driven to keep only a certain POV as dominant and collaborates with other like minded editors in doing so more evidence here.

According to Upinder Singh who was herself quoted out of context by Joshua Jonathan in his edits on Vedic_Period, "The original homeland of the Indo-Euorpeans and Indo-Aryans is the subject of continuing debate among philologists, linguists, historians, archaeologists and others. The dominant view is that the Indo-Aryans came to the subcontinent as immigrants. Another view, advocated mainly by some Indian scholars, is that they were indigenous to the subcontinent." She acknowledges that "Subhash Kak has argued that the astronomical references in the Rigveda can be dated 4000-2000 BCE". She goes on to say "The date of Rig Veda remains a problematic issue." That is exactly my point we don't know so to be encyclopedic we should recognize this uncertainty and not reject the other view as only 'fringe' that makes no sense. A dominant view is not necessarily the only view and it is not necessarily always correct. Dominant number of people in Europe disagreed with Galileo when he proposed his heliocentic view. He was even arrested for it. That does not make him 'fringe' and certainly not wrong..

I am alleging and have provided evidence above that these editors are engaging in WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources" and WP:GAMING the system to project only a particular WP:POV by way of collaborating in a WP:GANG Indoscope (talk) 07:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE:

"Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources.[3] Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of, or as detailed, a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it."

In 2002 Kazanas was allowed to publish in "The Journal of Indo-European Studies", probably the only publication by an "Indigenist" in the JIES. Mallory, editor of the Journal of Indo-European Studies, emeritus professor at Queen's University, Belfast, and a member of the Royal Irish Academy, introduced this with an explanation, in which he stated:

"Many regard the scholarship of the Indigenous Indo-Aryan camp so seriously flawed that it should not be given an airing [...] I indicated that I thought it would be unlikely that any referee would agree with [Kazanas'] conclusions [...]".

Michael Witzel warned, "It is certain that Kazanas, now that he is published in JIES, will be quoted endlessly by Indian fundamentalists and nationalists as "a respected scholar published in major peer-reviewed journals like JIES" -- no matter how absurd his claims are known to be by specialist readers of those journals. It was through means like these that the misperception has taken root in Indian lay sectors that the historical absurdities of Kak, Frawley, and even Rajaram are taken seriously by academic scholars."

[User:Joshua Jonathan|Joshua Jonathan]] -Let's talk! 08:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Witzel has been responded to by Kazanas in an open letter here and here. His response was defended by Ashok Aklujkar by stating "I do not know what a researcher living in Greece would gain by risking his scholarly integrity or believability for reasons of Indian politics." "Dr. Kazanas has responded to Professor Witzel's comments, in what I, as someone knowing a thing or two about linguistics, consider a scientifically defensible or plausible way. Comparative-historical Indo-European linguistics is not, in theory or practice, a field where one view must always be at the expense of another view..

Dear User talk:Joshua Jonathan the edits I had done on Vedic_Period were not WP:UNDUE which I have explained to you earlier also even if a certain scholarship is not widely accepted it does not mean it cannot even be represented on the page. My edits which you reverted were not overshadowing the main thrust of the existing article. Only after due mention of the supposed' mainstream view had been represented the differing scholar's conclusion were added. wikipedia editors should not be sitting in judgement of scholars by deciding that so and so has been criticized by so and so and hence he/she is 'fringe'. We can equally find other scholars supporting that scholars view too. Above mentioned comments by you is another demonstration why I feel your editing has not been Neutral. Hence I have raised this ANI WP:TENDENTIOUS editing under "One who disputes the reliability of apparently good sources" and I stand by it. Indoscope (talk) 14:45, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

References

Behavior of Keepitreal2

I am not 100% sure if this should be in Sockpuppet investigations, Edit warring or on this page. If I am in the wrong place, please let me know, I will move it.

I am requesting administrator intervention regarding Keepitreal2 behavior on Missouri Executive Order 44. Keepitreal2 has absolutely refused to discuss the edit made by her, instead demanding that all the editor "Let me be clear, give up already"

Keepitreal2 made 4 edits in December 2014 to Missouri.

1. (cur | prev) 21:30, 30 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,779 bytes) (+69)‎ . . (Removing it all validates my position it was an inconvenient truth.) (undo | thank)
2. (cur | prev) 18:06, 27 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 639714447 by Ecjmartin (talk) Many is not maximizing. It is accurate. The word missive incorrect, it was not a message or a letter, it is an ORDER. An inconvenient truth for you) (undo | thank)
3. (cur | prev) 14:37, 25 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+2)‎ . . (Undid revision 638664905 by Ecjmartin (talk) minimizing the deaths is not appropriate) (undo | thank)
4. (cur | prev) 19:08, 7 December 2014‎ Keepitreal2 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (23,778 bytes) (+919)‎ . . (Undid revision 636978996 by Ecjmartin (talk) Speculation has no place here. Facts only. To state the Militia did or did not know is pure speculation and is unverified) (undo | thank)

User:Ecjmartin (multiple times) and User:Tripleahg (one time), and user:AsteriskStarSplat attempting to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, reverted what (and I agree) were WP:POV edits. All three asked Keepitreal2 to discuss it on the talk page. Instead Keepitreal2 refused saying things like "Talk page addressing was not necessary". The Keepitreal2 began to using an IP address to edit instead:

1. (cur | prev) 01:53, 21 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:765:fc7a:aee7:3fa9:be63:ce08 (talk)‎ . . (23,783 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Undid revision 642848168 by Ecjmartin (talk) Talk page adressing was not necessary. The issues were previously answered in explaining edits and were redundant.) (undo)
2. (cur | prev) 13:34, 16 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:2903:559d:2f78:15e8:5153:1b40 (talk)‎ . . (23,783 bytes) (+352)‎ . . (Adding edits back. My points are clear and concise. Inconvenient truth for some perhaps. Talk all you want,.) (undo)

I came along on 21 January 2015‎ and reverted Keepitreal2 myself and also requested that she take it to the talk page. Ecjmartin open a discussion. The on 26 January 2015‎ the IP editor restored Keepitreal2 version, again refusing to discuss the issue here:

1. (cur | prev) 19:15, 26 January 2015‎ 2607:fb90:2903:2eeb:e7e3:ecad:b8ef:48f8 (talk)‎ . . (25,872 bytes) (+969)‎ . . (InconvInconvenient truth. Stop trying to change history. As stated before, there is no proof they had no knowledge and given the political positions the men had there is more probability they knew than did not. Let me be clear, give up already) (undo)

This lead to the page being Semi-Protected for a month. In response, instead of taking the issues to the discussion, twice user Keepitreal2 posted on my talk page (here and here) that she is doing "Nothing wrong", that she "was not the one disrupting". She treated to "Report me". Then she stated that she is a "female", something we had no idea she was until today, and that we (Ecjmartin and myself) were "misogynistic" since we disagree with a "female". Lastly she states that "unequivocally you have an agenda" since I am not "Mormon" (the page is about Mormons), but I edit on "Mormon topics". Ironically, just this week I was accused of being a "Mormon apologists" here. Apparently I'm bias as a Non-Mormon Mormon apologists who can't make even ONE edit on pages about "Mormon topics".

Clearly Keepitreal2 has been edit waring, Sockpuppeting, and Uncivil. She refuses to use the talk page and follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Instead of addressing the issue she makes Uncivil comments. An admin need to address this behavior. What this is I leave to the administer.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Actually it is me who has been bullied. My verifiable, scholared, sourced edits removed repeatedly. Being forced to state the same statements over and over. Deleting my response to conversations about me. I am being silenced. I am being falsely accused of having previous interactions with this person. The list goes on and on. It is infact misogynistic to assume I am male and refer to me as such. Yet another example of inconvenient truth. Keepitreal2 (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) Just looking through some of your contributions Keepitreal2, I think you have been acting at the very least Rashly. You claim non mormons editing mormon pages must have an agenda which suggests POV issues.1 You've repeatedly re-inserted the information without discussion on the talk pages failing WP:BRD.2 and you're account has only edited pages related to this one dispute. If you just go to the talk page and discuss the best way to present information available in reliable sources this is much less likely to blow up into a dispute. SPACKlick (talk) 17:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well to the casual observer it might appear that way unless you look at User:ARTEST4ECHO userpage and observe the history/pattern of the editor who started the disruption User:Ecjmartin consistently teaming with / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits. Not playing into their mob mentality does not place me in the wrong. Seeing their pattern of promoting their agenda puts me in a position to demonstrate their abuses. Keepitreal2 (talk) 18:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I welcome anyone to read what Keepitreal2 calls a "consistant pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits". It is all contained at User_talk:ARTEST4ECHO#A_question.... Please go read it.

However in a nutshell, User:Ecjmartin came to me, as a long time editor, to ask me what the proper procedure was to handle an IP editor who refused to use the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. He was frustrated and about to leave Wikipedia.

I told him what another unrelated administrator (who I think is Mormon) told me when I asked him the same question, but on a different page. We both agreed that the best thing to do was start a Talk:Missouri_Executive_Order_44#Recent_edits and again ask the IP editor to talk. If that didn't happened, then the admin suggested taking it to WP:ANI. We decided instead to request Page Protection, as it can be hard to block an IP editor. If that failed, then we would go to WP:ANI. Keepitreal2 was only mention when Ecjmartin noticed that the edit summaries for the IP editor and Keepitreal2 were exactly the same and that was after Page Protection was applied, and only in the last response.

If asking an IP editor to talk about his edits or answering a request for information on WP policy is a "consistent pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits", then I guess I'm guilty. However, so is every editor are most follow Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and ask for information from others. Again I find it funny that I'm guilty of "anti Mormon edits" when I only ever edited Missouri Executive Order 44 ONCE, but I'm also a "Mormon apologists" pushing a Pro-Mormon Agenda on other pages at the same time.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 19:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

It is wrong-headed to characterize ARTEST4ECHO's edit's as anti-Mormon. In the time I've been editing WP with this account, as well as during my earlier editing as an IP, I have never seen a single edit from him that could be properly described that way. Instead he has made significant, useful, generally even-handed contributions to the text of literally hundreds (if not thousands) of articles related to the LDS Church, and the Latter Day Saints movement as a whole. Additionally, you may not realise this, but ARTEST4ECHO is personally responsible for finding and adding as much as perhaps 75% of all of the photos used on biography article of the leaders of the LDS Church here on Wikipedia, and a significant percentage of the images for Latter Day Saints movement topics as a whole.

It normally doesn't matter why any editor develops an interest in editing any article, as long as the edits themselves conform with the expectations and norms of the Wikipedia community. Wikipedia is a volunteer service which is here to build an encyclopedia by working together to come to a consensus on what should be included on the articles. In any community, disputes will arise, and there are methods of formally resolving user conduct disputes, but those are rarely needed when everyone remains calm, and the focus remains on the the edits (ie content and context) and not the editors. Even incivility is tolerated to a degree, so long as it is not disruptive.

I personally find Keepitreal2's actions moderately disruptive, that editor's accusations rash and groundless, and that editor's unwillingness to truly dialog (which is different in attitude and approach than taking pot-shots at people one disagrees with) as unproductive. I have no opinion if that editor deserve any formal sanctions. However if Keepitreal2 is in fact Mormon, they need to learn what was described at Talk:Temple garment/Archive 8#This Article Is Completely Inappropriate, with a particular focus on the 5 enumerated points that start with quotes from M. Russell Ballard. To borrow a quote from someone else: "we can disagree without being disagreeable". ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 21:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I didn't intentionally exclude Ecjmartin above - merely an unfortunate oversight on my part. Ecjmartin also doesn't deserve the anti-Mormon epithet, nor should his efforts be disparaged. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 21:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

In the spirit of you requesting dialog, I will counter your assertions with four simple concepts:

1. Although after being repeatedly advised it is misogynistic to assume I am male and refer to me as such, Artest4echo is still refering to me as "his" even in these resposes here. Clearly he has an issue and my assertion in the matter continues to be validated.

2. Having contributed such a large portion has given him a God complex and he feels he is the absolute authority. One could argue a person with that much contribution makes the subject lopsided or skewed to said persons opinion.

3. Not one acknowledgement or discussion of my concerns here have been addressed.

4. Skewing an article to slander a group of people which takes away the extreme injustice done to them does make someone "anti". It doesn't have to be done overtly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

@Keepitreal2: Thank you for taking the time to respond here. I have responded in kind at User talk:Keepitreal2, where we can more easily continue this dialog. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 15:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

The only time I used the word "His" on this ENTIRE page was when I said "If asking an IP editor to talk about his edits or answering a request for information on WP policy is a "consistent pattern of teaming / awarding artest4echo on anti Mormon edits", then I guess I'm guilty." I was referring to IP editors in general, and proper English uses Male titles unless specified. Additionally, when referring to Keepitreal2 specifically, once she said she was a female, I never used the word "Him", "He" or "His".--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I attempted dialog with Keepitreal2 on that editor's talk page, as it appeared above that the editor was willing to do so. Based on this most recent exchange, as well as those with others, Keepitreal2 appears to display an unacceptable level of I can't hear you, TRUTH!, I'm right and you are wrong, and temper tantrum behaviors. Additionally, based on Keepitreal2's interactions with others, the editor generally appears to be unwilling or unable to maintain a minimal level of civility and Wikiquette, particularly by displaying an unacceptable degree of Carthago delenda est about those who are perceived as not agreeing with that editor. Because of this, I formally add my voice to those requesting intervention: a short block of Keepitreal2 seems to be in order, and perhaps a ban from the article itself (but not the talk page) for a month following the block. Hopefully after that action Keepitreal2 will better demonstrate that they are here to build an encyclopedia. ^—Asterisk*^Splat→ 17:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet another example of abuse. They were very aware I was not an IP editor but rather jumped on the fact I was not logged in due to clearing my cache. Abusing this tactic to get their way. As you can view on ARTEST4ECHO talk page history, It was made very clear to him. Also note Ejcmartins acknowledged reference of knowing it was me prior to subitting their false accusations. Also note on my talk page I informed him I was going to report him, so he then turned around and repoted me. Keep digging yourself deeper if you like. Keepitreal2 (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Since this has clearly become a case of Wikipedia:Don't fight fire with fire and Wikipedia:Do not feed the trolls, I will just leave it to the administrators and other editor on this board to read my talk page, Keepitreal2 comments, History:Missouri Executive Order 44 (including Pre-"clearing my cache IP edits" on the 5th and 6th of December) and Talk:Missouri Executive Order 44:Recent edits. Then administrator can decided what to do.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 20:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

We agree on something. Thank you for pointing out not fighting fire with fire. I'm confident the administration will look at the timestamp of me informing you I was going to report you and the timestamp you reported me. As well as the edits/deletions to your userpage and talkpage. Good day sir. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal2 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I am just returning home from work, and so am just now able to reply. Other than saying 'thank you' to Asterik and Artist, I simply wish to refer all disinterested parties to the talk page for this article. I have been repeatedly accused of ignoring an "inconvenient truth," of making "false accusations," of promoting an "anti-Mormon agenda," and now of displaying a "mob mentality." Yet when I invited my accuser to come to the talk page and discuss her concerns there, she refused--not once, but repeatedly. I do not intend to answer these baseless accusations any further, save to refer disinterested parties to the relevant pages, where they may compare my entries with hers and judge for themselves. I do not claim to be 100% 'in the right' here, and if I am judged by a consensus of disinterested WP editors/administrators to be in any way in the wrong, I am prepared to offer an apology and amend my future conduct. I am not asking here for any specific sanctions against anyone; I simply wish to concur in and support Artist's efforts to end this fruitless 'edit war' and make this article the best possible article it can be.

My original offer still stands, Keepitreal: come over to the article talk page, and let's discuss your concerns in a friendly manner. I'm still willing--and I think I can speak for the other editors involved in this dispute as well--to consider your concerns and work together with you to find some middle-of-the-road solution to this dilemma. How 'bout it?? - Ecjmartin (talk) 22:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Just came from the article talk page. So much for that idea... I defer to WP's 'powers that be.' - Ecjmartin (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

To update thing. Despite and after this ANI was created, Missouri Executive Order 44 she changed the page twice (again) ([271] and [272]) without discussion.

Then when Keepitreal2 was warn by an admin here for her behavior, she simply said "Thank you for the information as I did not kno who to turn to. These folks have a history of such behavior." Refusing to even acknowledge that the warning was directed to her, not me or Ecjmartin.

However, and finally, she did finally comment on the talk page. Unfortunately, it was only to state that "I'm not sure why you guys think your Opinion matters.", "You are trying to rewrite history...", "Your arrogance is beyond unacceptable" and "Believe you me, this will be resolved".

She is still in no way was willing to discuss the WP:POV and WP:Scope issues, or anything other then her getting her way. Her edits are clearly Wikipedia:Tendentious editing.

It's clear that she has no intention of listen to any suggestions or warnings. She insisted that she is not going to stop, which is Wikipedia:Ownership of articles, what she accuses me of despite the fact that I have only reverted her edit. I haven't edited the pages since March 2011‎.

While I defer to admins to do what should be done, I do feel that something, like a block, page or topic ban, need to happen, or this behavior is just going to continue and we will be right back hear in a few weeks. I would even be willing to not edit the page for 2 or 3 months, if she would be willing to do so also.--- ARTEST4ECHO^(Talk) 16:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Lmao this is tiresome. It takes two or three or how many ever to hav an 'edit war' war is not an individual sport ejcmartin started it and is very much a part of it as are you. I hav never refused to adress anything... the only thing i have no intrest in is hashing and rehashing ridiculous circles a.la this ish. Some people havw lives. I am on a mobile and no where near my computer. At some point if you have anything original to ask/say perhaps we can make progress. Keepitreal2 (talk) 05:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Accusations of blatant editorializing made by DVdm

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

---

I, RHB100, have been accused of blatant editorializing by DVdm. This accusation was made twice at [273] and also at the talk page, [274] subsection, Solution based on intersection of at least four spheres, not TDOA and not Multilateration , where I quote

Wikipedia is not in the business of alerting readers. This is a blatant example of wp:EDITORIALIZING. I have removed it. - DVdm (talk) 18:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

About all I said was "The reader should note the equations to be solved are not the equations for a hyperboloid discussed above" as can be seen on the diff page, [275] .

I think to accuse me of blatant editorializing for the simple remark I made is absolutely ridiculous and highly irresponsible on the part of DVdm. I have asked DVdm what specifically I wrote that he thinks is blatant editorializing. He has not been able to come up with a single remark that I made which is blatant editorializing. I claim that I have made no statement that is blatant editorializing. DVdm has been unable to refute this. I am completely innocent of the accusations made by DVdm .

Elsewhere on the GPS talk page section, DVdm indicates he thinks wp:EDITORIALIZING applies to remarks made on the talk page. DVdm is doing a lot of damage and his failure to understand wp:EDITORIALIZING shows that he is unqualified to edit. He should be blocked from editing until he can demonstrate that he is competent. RHB100 (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Not much to comment here, apart from the fact that I obviously do not think that wp:EDITORIALIZING applies to remarks made on talk pages. I commented about it in the article on the talk page. Editorializing clearly took place in the article here ("The reader should note...") and here ("The reader should observe that..."). I undid these edits with a clear edit summary and commented on talk page here, here, here, here, and see also this comment by user Kendall-K1. Also note this on my talk page.

If RHB100 would have tried to do this a third time, I would have come here myself to report this. It seems impossible to explain to user RHB100 what wp:EDITORIALIZING is about, so perhaps someone else is able to explain?. - DVdm (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, DVdm has not been able to cite a single statement I have made that is blatant editorializing. I have read wp:EDITORIALIZING and I clearly understand what it means. DVdm apparently doesn't understand what it means. RHB100 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Kendall-K1 and DVdm seems to think that using the phrase, "The reader should note" is blatant editorializing because wp:EDITORIALIZING advises against using the adverb, notably. But this is wrong since note and notably are completely different words with different meanings. The word note when used in "The reader should note" is a verb but as mentioned above, notably is an adverb. Also the context in which "The reader should note" is used is altogether different than discussed at wp:EDITORIALIZING since it is used only to alert the reader that we have suddenly switched from talking about equations describing hyperboloids to equations describing the surfaces of spheres. RHB100 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

When I state, "The reader should observe that these equations describe the surfaces of spheres", as at [[276]], I am making a very simple statement of fact to avoid misleading the reader. Without this statement the reader might not notice that we have suddenly changed from talking about the equations of a hyperboloid to equations describing the surfaces of spheres. RHB100 (talk) 20:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

DVdm makes the statement, "blatant wp:EDITORIALIZING, and on top of that:, whether "the reader should observe" is wp:UNSOURCED)" near the top of the edit history page at [[277]]. What is he talking about "blatant wp:EDITORIALIZING". Since he says, "on top of that:, whether the reader should observe is wp:UNSOURCED)", he must be talking about something I said on the talk page. But he gives no clue as to what he is talking about. And it is so silly for him to say, whether "the reader should observe" is wp:UNSOURCED). How could you ever expect to find a source that says whether or not we should tell our readers that they should observe that we have suddenly changed from equations describing a hyperboloid to equations describing the surfaces of a sphere. RHB100 (talk) 21:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

The Weight of Chains [2]

UrbanVillager (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pincrete (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
bobrayner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is an ongoing POV war on the topic of Boris Malagurski and his films. The three editors above are absolutely incapable of working with each other without perpetuating a three-way revert war - see the histories and talk pages of Boris Malagurski, The Weight of Chains and The Weight of Chains 2 for examples of the disruption left in the wake of any meeting of these three. I foolishly attempted to moderate this in the past (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive863#Topic ban for UrbanVillager) and administrator Ricky81682 has also been involved in the past, having blocked at least one of the users. At the latest asking the other parent deletion review thread, all three started in with sniping at each other ([278], [279]) and at other editors who participated ([280]), comments which I took the liberty of refactoring, however they insist ([281], [282]) that this petty back-and-forth must remain for the benefit of the discussion, or something. Their behaviour is clearly seen by other users as disruptive (e.g. [283]) and has become a net negative for users who wish to edit these articles and for the community in general. Therefore: I propose a three-way interaction ban between all three of these users, and further propose that all three be topic-banned from Malagurski-related topics. Ivanvector (talk) 18:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Wait, what? Over at the deletion review that UrbanVillager started, I had the temerity to suggest - briefly and civilly, with a diff - that UrbanVillager had canvassed supporters. You removed that comment. I suggested that removing evidence of canvassing would be unlikely to help the closer reach the best decision, then you removed that comment, and now you frame that as "petty back-and-forth"? We certainly have a lot of trouble with these topics, but I really don't think that is the best way forward.

For what it's worth, I'd happily stop editing the topic right this moment if we could be assured that the problem went away. However, a topic ban would be a unilateral and hence ineffective sanction because, well, I'd comply but another sockpuppet would appear soon enough - there's a long history of promotional sockpuppetry here. Stopping previous sockpuppets stopped the problem temporarily. bobrayner (talk) 19:05, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Why exactly am I mentioned here? Why is a civil post from me drawing attention of ALL editors (inc. Ivanvector) to the 'discretionary sanctions' issue,(here, para 3):[284]). Why is this post removed by Ivanvector AT ALL. Where on the deletion review have I "sniped" and since I have not interacted there with either Bobrayner, UrbanVillager, nor anyone how can I have "back and forthed" (I DID address a single post to Ivanvector, but I think I did so in a civil and constructive manner, again para 3:[285]).

Ivanvector, I invite you to reconsider whether you still feel I have said ANYTHING uncivil to ANYONE or done anything unconstructive in the interactions you cite above.

I endorse most of what Bobrayner says above, specifically that a topic ban on he or I would solve nothing.Pincrete (talk) 21:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Of the three, I'm the only one who ever constructively edited Malagurski-related articles, the other two just dispute everything, remove sourced content and attempt to minimize everything that has to do with Malagurski and his work. Bobrayner is frequently canvassed by Pincrete, and the two work in sync to undermine every constructive edit to Malagurski-related articles. Look at the edit history of the articles, all they do is revert every attempt to make the articles neutral and remove anything positive or neutral added about Malagurski (while I've agreed to add negative reviews time and time again). They've already admitted that they despise Malagurski and his work - how can I edit constructively with people whose only goal in regards to those articles are to present Malagurski and his work in the worst possible way, when my goal is to make the articles more informative about the topic that sincerely interests me? I'd like to edit with neutral editors, but the topic area doesn't seem to attract such editors because Malagurski's work is controversial. Both Pincrete and Bobrayner have spent far more time arguing that I should be banned than making Malagurski-related articles better. So, if anyone should be topic banned, it's Pincrete and Bobrayner. If you're going to ban the one person who has expanded Malagurski-related articles to such an extent that these articles have more reliable sources than the majority of film-related articles, ban me as well. --UrbanVillager (talk) 21:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just here to say I'm out. This topic falls under the Eastern Europe Arbcom heading (controversial as hell) and that hasn't been enforced so this is not too unexpected. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Shouldn't it be WP:ARBMAC by the way? The initial topic was Macedonia but the conclusions were defined for the whole Balkan region.- Anonimski (talk) 00:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You're correct. Also, I have not blocked any user. I screwed up on my request for a topic ban against UrbanVillager and have since then disengaged from the entire issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've only observed the conflict between these users after finding The Weight of Chains 2 article, and I couldn't understand why the article needed to be deleted and baked into The Weight of Chains 1, after UrbanVillager had sourced it properly and with material that suggests notability. Anyway, what I've noticed is that Bobrayner has had a tendency to be overly dismissive in topics that relate to Serbia, broadly defined. For example, the unnecessary accusation at Talk:North Mitrovica (11 May 2014), and the way I've been approached at Talk:Goraždevac when I actually had done wikilinkage to a sourced article. I'm not sure if this dismissive attitude that I've encountered is limited to the Balkan region, look for example at the Stealing a Nation edit history and see the blanking there. As for UrbanVillager and Pincrete, I don't know if I can contribute with any info, I haven't had any significant interactions with them so I can't see if there's some sort of trend in their editing.

As for discretionary sanctions, I think it's generally better to just send warnings and constructive criticism in the cases where it may apply here, than to ban for N days and think that everything will be fine afterwards. However, I have no experience with what admins commonly do in these disputes so I don't know what to propose. - Anonimski (talk) 01:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Comment, I think some clarification is in order, because everybody (inc. me perhaps) is getting 'deletes', 'redirects', and 're-instates' muddled. The current position is that there should be a redirect, Urbanvillager, was advised to seek a consensus for overturning that decision. Bobrayner and I have argued in favour of upholding the 're-direct' decision (not deleting). Our argument has been that notability has not been established sufficient to justify a second article and the little sourced info there is could adequately be merged with the main article. I remind Anonimski, that notability is established by independent RS having written about the subject, and at the moment the only sources regarding content/claims are interviews with the film maker. Interviews made (I believe) before the film was released. That the film has been seen by about 10 audiences worldwide (and is to be shown in Subotica & Belgrade shortly) is also RS, but none of these showings has so far resulted in articles or reviews. Pincrete (talk) 10:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it's a deletion or a redirect, there's also the fact that there are a lot of notable people who appear in the film, as well as its status as a sequel to The Weight of Chains 1, which has notability. All this combined contributes to the notability status of The Weight of Chains 2. Furthermore, I searched around a bit, and though I haven't found any reviews yet, there are definitively articles about the second movie. Links: example 1, example 2. - Anonimski (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonimski, precisely, but when you're discussing this topic area with editors whose purpose is not to sincerely do what they can to make the articles better, it's hard to edit. Pincrete and Bobrayners only purpose in regards to Malagurski-related articles is to remove sourced content, minimize notability in any way and, if deletion and removal of content is not possible, present Malagurski and his work in the worst possible way. In my personal life, I've been able to work with people who disagree with me on almost everything, but only when our goal was the same - to do the job right. If this was the case here, I would have no troubles working with Pincrete and Bobrayner and we could work together on building consensus. However, considering they dispute everything and are not here to make the articles better, but to make Malagurski look bad and insignificant, I'm afraid I don't see any other resolutions to the issue other than a topic ban for Pincrete and Bobrayner for Malagurski-related articles. --UrbanVillager (talk) 14:38, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

@Pincrete: My primary concern regarding your conduct is the revert warring wherever the three of you edit. From the policy, since I don't think you've read it: Edit warring is unconstructive and creates animosity between editors, making it harder to reach a consensus. The forumspamming between the three of you is a textbook example of what happens when editors simply undo each other repeatedly rather than attempting to have a constructive discussion. Of the last 50 edits (as of this edit) at The Weight of Chains 2 (which happen to be the 50 since UrbanVillager restored the article) 14 are obvious undo-button reverts: by bobrayner: [286] [287] [288] [289] by UrbanVillager: [290] [291] [292] [293] [294] [295] and by you: [296] [297] [298] [299]. You are all very careful to stay under WP:3RR but this behaviour is disruptive anyway, and it's not one of you instigating, it is all three of you put together. And yes, it's uncivil. I could propose WP:1RR or temporary full protection instead, but this just moves the problem onto the talk page, where you and UV post walls of text and WP:BLUDGEON any user who tries to insert a comment (e.g. [300] [301] [302] [303]), and bobrayner throws snide comments around like candy (e.g. [304] [305]), which seems to be his modus operandi in general. The only way forward for these articles is for all three of you to be removed. Ivanvector (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion I'm sorry Ivanvector, but your argument seems to be "I don't know who is to blame but at least one of the three MUST be, so let's ban everyone". Since any incoming uninvolved editor is likely to start to forget who the various parties are and who is accused of doing what, can I suggest sub-headings in which the behaviour and actions of each of us three are examined/commented upon. I make this suggestion because I don't see how I can defend myself in a 'group' action in which I am supposedly accountable for the actions of all three.

I am happy to respond regarding my own actions in your list above, should you wish. In one case I misunderstood the situation and was wrong, in some cases I would defend my actions as conciliatory or otherwise constructive, some baffle me as to why they are there or who you think is at fault. Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I thought I was pretty clear that it's the three of you who are at fault. Not any one of you, all three together. There would be no point in breaking this up into subsections. I wish to address POV warring and the edit warring for which all three of you are responsible. Other editors have tried to get involved (notably, RealButter, Shawn in Montreal, FkpCascais, Jsharpminor, Stifle, Ricky who has already commented above, Anonimski who has participated recently, myself, and a whole list of editors who got involved at the previous AN/I and who no longer edit in this topic area because of the nonsense) but it's just all three of you (not any one but all three) who revert-war, plaster talk pages with endless pointless arguments (much of it WP:GREENCHEESE) and drive other editors away from the topic. You've got a long way to go to convince me that any one of the three of you is solely responsible, or that any one of the three of you can behave when the others are around, thus the only solution is that all three of you should stay away from each other. Ivanvector (talk) 00:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, is the goal here to find the best solution for Malagurski-related articles on Wikipedia or to just get rid of everyone editing them? Because if the articles' fate was left solely upon Pincrete's and Bobrayner's decision, the articles would either be deleted or made to present Malagurski as a demon. On the other hand, I've done nothing but expanded these articles, brought notable sources and helped make them more neutral. To the anti-Malagurski editor, any neutrality is perceived as promoting Malagurski and his work (which I've been accused of, even of being Malagurski himself), when all I've wanted was to edit the topic area which interests me most. If you ban me on Malagurski-related articles, it's an effective block on Wikipedia for me, because this is where I'd like to contribute (check my edit history) - I follow Malagurski's work closely and feel I can contribute most in that area. On the other hand, Pincrete and Bobrayner edit other articles as well and their banning would be a much less harsh punishment. I've asked many administrators to explain to me what exactly am I doing wrong, how I can improve my relations with other editors, none have helped me with any advice other than to "try to build consensus", and I've tried. Sure, I've lost my temper a few times, but in the end I'm the one who brings quality material to these articles. A prerequisite for collaboration and consensus is that other editors also want to make the articles better, not delete sourced content and minimize everything to make Malagurski look bad. Look at the edit history - do Pincrete and Bobrayner really, sincerely, care for Malagurski-related articles and want to make them better? Do I? Or do the two of them use every opportunity to dispute everything and vent their frustration with Malagurski and his work at anyone trying to help inform the Wikipedia audience about Malagurski and his work? In my opinion, the solution is not to "Kill them all, God will know His own" (Massacre at Béziers) but to distinguish who is doing good work and who is sabotaging the work. Again, don't take my word for it - if you have time, check the edit history of these articles, the answer is there. --UrbanVillager (talk) 10:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ivanvector, thankyou for naming those editors, I hope as many as possible will respond here and confirm or disagree as to whether I am ordinarily, 'uncivil', 'bludgeoning' or unconstructive. If a reasonable number confirm, I will voluntarily ban myself. Pincrete (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, I feel as if there is a bit of mud slinging going on in this thread... Happy_Attack_Dog (Throw Me a Bone) 15:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Thefascistnazi

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

---

Now, even the biggest newbie lover would stuggle to welcome this guy - Thefascistnazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Maybe their fingers slipped on their one and only edit to date, and I'm sure their username breaks some policy somewhere. And on today of all days, too... Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:40, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Deliberate harassment and WP:GAMING attempts by IPs

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

---

With the arbitration case's closure looming in on me in the near future, in two separate instances IP editors have come to Wikipedia to disrupt articles that I have worked on in a blatant attempt to troll me.

The first instance was the other day when an IP editor repeatedly changed a spelling on an article that I am somehow infamous for having enforced the usage of on Wikipedia (the spelling is the official English language trademark of a term from a piece of Japanese fiction that has an alternate form preferred in illegal translations). After reverting the editor, it was clear that the edits were done to spite me (the IP later admitted such), and the IP performing the edits was blocked and the main article where the vandalism took place is now semiprotected after I made a request for it.

Today, another IP editor added a joke to another page that I reverted (multiple times) and in discussion with him on WT:NOR he admitted that he was acting to test my response.

This is reminding me of my prior arbitration case where immediately after I was sanctioned, someone came in to dance on my grave and push my buttons. It is clear that the publicity the current case has in the press and in online communities is making this happen earlier. I've posted threads on two arguably related WikiProjects asking for assistance with the original vandalism from the other day, but the IP editor who added the joke today is giving me pause. To what extent am I expected to deal with this harassment simply because of my notoriety in this topic area off-site? And to note, the pages in question have nothing to do with Gamergate. Not even broadly construed.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:19, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding Buddyroids vs Buddyloids, your characterization of those changes as vandalism is without merit. You may or may not be correct, but that is a content dispute, not vandalism. Attempting to reframe it as vandalism is where the WP:GAME is, especially when you state that because it is vandalism , sanctions applied to you would not be enforcable. [306] You seem to be acting unilaterally as to what wikipedia does or does not do. WP:CONSENSUS rules all and WP:COMMONNAME seems to be a fairly strong counterargument to your arguments. Please point out the discussions that have set in stone your assertions. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

The IP in question was making the changes out of spite and admited as such. Bad faith edits are vandalism, regardless of the excuse being made beforehand. And the discussion of the different spelling choices is to be made on the article's talk page where I have started a discussion and provided reliable sources to show WP:COMMONNAME usage.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 22:59, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

• Panyd has already weighed in; I don't see much point in continuing this. Yes, someone was trying to get a rise out of Ryulong and apparently succeeded; I have no doubt that Panyd will bring the hammer down to blunt any further POINTiness. Drmies (talk) 03:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User:Isezghin

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

---

I just noticed that this guy has received 3 warnings in the past month and is continuing to be disruptive. Nergaal (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I've left a report at WP:AIV Blackmane (talk) 06:11, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Sockpuppetry

The socks have been blocked. Please follow WP:DENY. Jehochman Talk 22:52, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Throwaway IPs used by Russavia. Special:Contributions/180.94.80.172 Special:Contributions/103.242.50.214 History of Russavia interest: La Vanguardia Airport SATENA Thanks in advance for doing whatever is necessary to deal with this banned editor. Binksternet (talk) 06:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC) Globally banned to be exact. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 06:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC) I know this isn't a popular opinion around here, but if we banned all IPs from editing anywhere outside article space and put a cap on IP edits (say, 10 per IP address a day) we would stop this nonsense while still allowing people to do constructive anonymous edits. Otherwise Russavia is going to pull this stunt again and again, laughing his head off each time. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC) If they are throw-away, I'm not sure there's much point keeping them All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

User:Rcktechiees - violation of unblock conditions

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

---

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

Three days ago this user was granted an unblock conditional on a username change, however he has not followed through on this. Furthermore, he has resumed abusing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. As I am the initial blocking administrator, I would like someone else to handle this. I would also prefer his talk page access revoked due to the blatant dishonesty involved. MER-C 08:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 11:55, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. MER-C 12:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Legal threat by User:Felix Nihamin 1

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

---

The user User:Felix Nihamin 1 has made a legal threat against me just because I tagged this user's page for deletion (because it was promotional). Please take action.

Here's the diff: [307]

Thank you. pcfan500talk|my contribs 12:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: This user has also removed speedy deletion tags: [308] pcfan500talk|my contribs 12:17, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

For those not following through diffs the quote is unmistakeable should any form of interference from your end without full information about our actions deter us from our work, then legal action shall be taken against you. SPACKlick (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm just at IRC contacting the ops cuz I don't know what to do. -.- --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:07, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Unnecessary personal attack by User:pcfan500

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

---

The user known as pcfan500 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to malign the purpose behind the wikipedia page that has been created to represent my firm. Even after repeated discussions where it has been cited that the page is under edit and shall be modified to suit the purpose of Wikepedia, the person in question has tried several times to have the page taken down and also tried to reverse the blame on us.

Please take appropriate action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felix Nihamin 1 (talk • contribs) 12:19, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

You have created an advertising page for your company which meets no notability criteria, is malformed and is a direct copy of the front page of your website. I tried to find amterial for the page but I can find no mention of the company that is not a directory listing. pcfan has been quite civil from what I've see in telling you to delete the page and you have made several edits counter to policy (removing speedy deletion templates for instance). The page does not belong here plain and simple. SPACKlick (talk) 12:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Firstly, the community's has not exactly dealt with paid advocacy and we don't really know whether or not to be fine with it. Next issue is, our stance on conflict of interest is clear. Anyone who's directly related to the party involved shall not have any say in this matter. I guess, I'll just wait for an admin to sort it out. What pcfan5000 did was I believe, justified. I agree with SPACKlink. On a different note, why is SineBot not working? I got hell confused. --Ankit Maity _{«T § C»} 13:00, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

(Added unsigned) ―Mandruss ☎ 13:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

OP has been blocked for legal threats. -- GB fan 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Insults from User:FreeatlastChitchat

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

---

Thank you to remind User:FreeatlastChitchat that this sort of comment in edit summary is unacceptable: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jamaat-e-Islami_Pakistan&curid=676299&diff=644505415&oldid=644426514. The profanity was directed at me, so it's better if someone else does it. Thanks and regards, kashmiri ^TALK 13:34, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

User_talk:198.237.16.81

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

---

Can we get talk page revoked after the last less than helpful edit please. Amortias (T)(C) 19:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Done. Tiderolls 20:47, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Potential libel

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

---

Hi

3 rev'dels please, [309][310][311]. (Last ones my own screw up).Amortias (T)(C) 21:18, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted by Diannaa (talk · contribs)

-- Orduin ^{⋠Discuss⋡} 22:58, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Dispute on Stargate concerning addition of unreliable material

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

---

• BethNaught (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 91.122.12.54 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 89.110.30.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am currently involved in a dispute at the Stargate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article. An anonymous user (who has edited from the two IPs given above) has been determined to add a statement to the lead saying that the Stargate movie is based on an episode of the Twilight Zone (first addition). I reverted this as uncited. The IP readded this twice and I reverted both times as unsourced, personal opinion and synthesis. Worryingly the IP claimed that "there is no need to cite obvious things" - though this statement is far from obvious. After they once more put it back, I added a {{cn}} tag, upon which they added an unreliable source, which I tagged as such. They reverted me saying "your opinion is unreliable" (thus breaking 3RR) and changed to a different but equally unreliable source.

This dispute is not about content but about the persistent disruptive posting of questionable/challengable material without regard to WP:RS, without attempting to communicate, via edit summaries or otherwise, and in violation of 3RR. I will notify the user on their most recent IP address. BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• The claim being added is total nonsense. The supposed "source" (actually an anonymous post in a fan forum) says "The Wall (The Twilight Zone) and Stargate SG-1 seem like one and the same thing". So even the fan who originally made the claim hedges his/her bets. Either way, the claim suggests copyright infringement on the part of two BLPs and does so without anything close to a reliable source. BethNaught is entirely in the right here and should be applauded for reverting WP:BLP-violating rubbish. Suggest a block for any obviously related IPs and indefinite semi-protection for the article. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Agreed. Everyone knows Stargate ripped off the idea from Big Hero 6. Time travel makes IP law interesting. --NE2 04:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Oh, and I restored a pre-edit-warring, non-BLP-violating version. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• Tito seems to be active on WP:RFPP today and I don't think he would be considered "involved". I've pinged him as a fast-track request for page protection. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I have semiprotected Stargate one month. The two St. Petersburg IPs are presumably the same person. EdJohnston (talk) 07:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

BLP

It was suggested that editors might like to improve Iris purdyi as a tribute to retired User:Neelix who was one of our most active contributors. I reverted an inappropriate addition by an apparently legitimate account which has not been used for over a year, and reverted its re-addition a few minutes ago by an IP.

It might be worth some more folk adding it to their watch-lists, and possibly other action of an adminy nature.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC).

Template:Cue Other editors, please also see this ANI thread for context on why Neelix retired; this may be why the vandalism on the Iris purdyi page may be happening. Epic Genius (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I suspect Lvckv (talk · contribs) is compromised, as not only is the edit made to Iris purdyi the only one made in the last 16 months, but it's not even in the same topic area as usual (all prior edits have been about footballers). —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 03:56, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

As I said, an apparently legitimate account.... All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC).

Unexplained Removal of sourced content and edit warring

A user by the name of NikeCage68 is edit warring and removing sourced content on an article Weegeerunner (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

• I've seen this come through AIV, and I'm going to give my two cents here. Firstly, Weegeerunner's assessment of the situation looks accurate; NikeCage68 has, frequently, removed content without giving an explanation. This user's major problem is the lack of edit summary usage; the amount of manually filled-out edit summaries in the last 500 edits or so is probably a dozen at most. However... no one has actually attempted to discuss this on a talk page, as far as I can see. Indeed, the talk page for that article hasn't even been created yet, and this should've been attempted before any ANI thread was opened. I personally think the article should be fully protected, and discussion moved to talk. Then again, I don't think the articles should exist at all, and that's why I AfDed them. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:27, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Josh

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

---

Josh, I have been patient. I am still waiting. You have told me that you do not base your information on facts, but rather on a consensus and the majority of the people on the Kurdish talk page agree that the term "Iranian" should be removed. It is has been about a month. If you believe that you are a great part of Wikipedia and not a "biased person who is being possibly paid" then you will stick to your OWN words by doing what is right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bawer1 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For those of y'all who are as confused as I am as to what Bawer1 is talking about, he appears to have continuing this thread. Josh seems to be User:Josh3580, who I have notified. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Mr illuminaty messing with my userpage

User:Mr illuminaty Has messed with my userpage because I reverted him and left a warn on his talk. And now User:AnomieBOT Has posted a troll block there. Pls help quick. Clubjustin3 (talk) 05:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Clubjustin4: You can make a report at WP:AIV for User:Mr illuminaty. As for User:AnomieBOT, that is a bot that substs templates that aren't already substed but need to be, like {{troll}}. Epic Genius (talk) 13:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashurbanippal

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

---

Ashurbanippal (talk · contribs) is currently edit warring on several articles. He has been warned by another user [312]. He is copy pasting others edit comments [313] [314] instead of writing anything relevant. Here he is referring to the same WP-pages he was told to read in warning above. He keeps reverting on Arameans in Israel without any relevant input on talk page, and from what I've understood the same story goes for the other articles where he is edit warring. In all cases he is argument is "not to remove sourced material" which he clearly has not read himself. Shmayo (talk) 09:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Instead of making personal attacks against me, you should gain consensus on this talk page before making controversial changes or open incident reports, because that's edit-warring and stalking. I did answer you on the talk page. And if you don't know nothing about the other discussions I'm involved in (where you don't participate), don't give uninformed opinions trying to undermine me. It's quite pathetic.--Ashurbanippal (talk) 10:00, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Ashurbanippal has now been blocked for 60 hours for edit-warring on Arameans in Israel. Looking at their contribs they've been edit-warring on several Israel related articles, inluding the one in respect of the 3RR warning I gave them linked to by the OP (on Six-day War. It is to be hoped they come off their block with a different attitude. DeCausa (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

MusikAnimal admin abuse

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

---

MusikAnimal [[315]] is abusing his admin privileges and I would like his work reviewed and his admin rights taken away due to his Wikipedia vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=First_video_game&action=history

There is no cited material or facts related to what has been posted about.

"In May of 1967, the world's first videogames -- as we know them today -- made their quiet, humble entrance into the world. "

According to WIKI,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games

"Due to the haphazard nature of early computer game creation and the lack of concern for preservation at the time, it will likely be impossible to pinpoint the first video game ever created."

This was an obvious fact well before 1967. They were invented more than a decade before Baer.

Please stop reposting incorrect information on wiki and abusing admin powers by denial of truth and facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.251.18 (talk) 13:53, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@MusikAnimal: protected the page because you were edit-warring. Instead of repeatedly reverting the same material, you need to go to Talk:First video game and explain why you think changes are required. Pretty much any administrator would have done exactly the same thing. You are not banned or thrown off Wikipedia, but you now need to justify your point of view and gain a consensus. The best way by far to resolve this debate is, rather than argue about dead links (which, per WP:DEADREF, are still acceptable provided we can find a log on the Wayback Machine), it to supply better sources such as books or newspapers, which are set in stone and never go "dead". On a related note, I saw you removed unsourced content on History of video games, which despite the message given on reverting, is not vandalism and an acceptable good-faith edit. I do it too (though I make a point of rewriting and re-sourcing the material too). In short, calm down and use the talk page to explain the factual problems in the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I don't think it can be explained better than how Ritchie333 put it, but I'll elaborate on my part. Looking at the page history, it's clear that you have multiple IPs blanking material, then confirmed accounts restoring it – over and over. So as an admin, semi-protection seems like the easiest way to calm things down. In other words, it's not that I'm siding with the registered users, it's about preventing disruption. In a content dispute, we generally fully-protect to force discussion, but why do that when semi does the same job? We want to minimize the number of users we shut out. That's my justification. I have no opinion whatsoever in the debate.

I also wanted to second Ritchie's thought on blanking unsourced material. I generally consider that okay... but if another user wants to restore it a discussion needs to take place as to why it should be retained. Verifiability is a must. Best — MusikAnimal ^talk 16:18, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Continued personal attacks by User:Cassianto

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

---

Today Cassianto has put more fuel on the fire by making yet another personal attack against User:OrangesRyellow: "It pains me to have to speak to you as I find you repulsive". Rationalobserver (talk) 16:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW, Cassianto has retired from Wikipedia. GoodDay (talk) 16:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

They "retired" several days ago, but that hasn't stopped them from continuing to personally attack people. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sigh.... Could a passing admin close this please – or also take strong action against OrangesRyellow for editing the talk page comments of another user, which is what sparked this off. – SchroCat (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:::(edit conflict) And perhaps against Rationalobserver for doing the same thing?[316] EChastain (talk) 16:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Close, please Could that passing admin remind the user starting the thread that this isn't the National Enquirer and that we're meant to be editing an encyclopedia here? We hope (talk) 16:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

All of Cassianto's PA's since retiring seem to be related to the original incident which was dying down (see closed threads above). In the name of Wikipedia:Don't feed the divas and also Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, could someone please close this. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'd wager that Cassianto will be back, so I don't see how slapping a retired tag on his page lets him make a few parting jabs that are obviously personal attacks without any fear of consequences, but I guess consensus trumps common sense here. Rationalobserver (talk) 16:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

:Common sense would indicate acts like this are disruptive. We hope (talk) 16:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Fucking lame, there is no personal attacks, the problem is the refactoring of another user's comment. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• This talk page edit is not acceptable--it's already not acceptable since WP:TPO does not allow it, and the attendant commentary by OrangesRyellow, that "fucking victim" means "victim of fucking" is too silly to warrant an explanation, though if one is needed Giano kindly provided one. In the meantime, another contributor has fled the coop; Rationalobserver, your continued baiting and bad-faith commentary will boomerang on you. And now I'm going to close this since I doubt that anyone is going to block someone with 12 FAs and 9 FLs for saying "I find you repulsive" to someone who was guilty of a terrible misreading that smacks, and not mildly, of false consciousness--either that, or it is evidence of complete incompetence. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

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

"Retired"?

If someone posts a "retired" banner on their user page and has clearly not retired, is there a rule being violated? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:10, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Heads up on possible controversy

Molly White (Texas politician) made some... um... interesting comments today on Facebook. At least one response has linked to her article, so we should probably keep an eye on it for good measure. http://www.texastribune.org/2015/01/29/rep-staff-ask-muslim-visitors-pledge-allegiance/ --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

• Who cares? The liberal editors will gang up and insist on including every negative piece they can drum up off MMfA in every conservative article and will argue weight and undue for every major issue that comes off as hurtful to the political careers of their liberal favorites. Has been that way and always will be that way. No point in trying to ensure neutrality on a political article. Why would you bother trying?--v/r - TP 20:09, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
• A Texas politician fomenting religious bigotry? That's so hard to imagine. Should be fun to watch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:13, 29 January 2015 (UTC)