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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
346	347	348	349	350	351	352	353	354	355
356	357	358	359	360	361	362	363	364	365
Incidents (archives, search)
1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154	1155	1156	1157	1158
1159	1160	1161	1162	1163	1164	1165	1166	1167	1168
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
469	470	471	472	473	474	475	476	477	478
479	480	481	482	483	484	485	486	487	488
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
332	333	334	335	336	337	338	339	340	341
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

Potentially disruptive class project?

NO ACTION TAKEN

Appears to be good-faith. Thread is stale, so closing as no action taken. --Mdann52talk to me! 11:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

No idea what to do or what our policy is, so I guess I'll drop this in your guys' laps before I AFK.

There seems to be a class project to add content to Wikipedia, possibly regardless of weight or notability, some of whose edits may be disruptive. I wonder whether they're being graded on whether their content remains up, in which case it's an invitation to unconstructively edit-war.

Class project noticed here: [1]

I'm asking them what's up here: [2]

Sample edit that I would classify as disruptive: [3] (Edit: that was a weak example. Better example is one OlYeller21 was complaining about: [4])

I'm not sure how to follow "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must notify them on their user talk page." as it's not about a particular editor, but rather a group. I would take to SPI but I'm don't know whether it qualifies as meatpuppetry per se. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 10:25, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this should be cross-posted to Wikipedia:Education noticeboard/Incidents? EdChem (talk) 10:41, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added a notice at EN/I (in this section) which links here and to the NPOV noticeboard. Voceditenore (talk) 12:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should have posted there instead of here the first place, thanks! Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have notified two of the editors involved - Stellaiyeo (talk · contribs) and Midgeholland (talk · contribs) - about this ANI discussion. Giant Snowman 12:55, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. My name is Tavi, and at the risk of having my name added to the list of "Potentially disruptive class project" participants; I am one of the people who was in that class. I just had a few questions.

Is Wikipedia to be edited by anyone?
Were any students in the class willfully adding trolling, incorrect, or otherwise misleading information? Can you point to those edits?
Was it "disruptive" solely because we are all new, and make tiny errors here and there? Or is our actual information incorrect?
In fact, this whole incident seems very amorphous and unclear. Can you cite multiple examples with explanations as to why the edits do more harm than good?
If you'll see updated pages such as H. J. Mozans, and new pages such as Woman in Science, you'll see that we are doing our best to make sure that the new information is correctly sourced and cited. Or, are you also frustrated with these edits too?

Thank you for your time, and I hope this to be expeditiously resolved. TaviWright (talk) 16:43, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What I suggest is to copy the contents of the article and put it into your user sandbox. And yes, everyone can edit Wikipedia, but see WP:COI. Epicgenius (talk) 17:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good idea, I agree that GiantSnowman should post the articles there, and I would be willing to use my sandbox for such offending articles.

As far as Conflict of Interest goes, I do not know how there could be any. The class was graded on accuracy of content, and NOT graded more favorably if the information stayed up indefinitely - only that there was a discussion, and learning about how to edit wikipedia happened. TaviWright (talk)

I can't speak for other editors, but that addresses my personal main concern, thanks. Rolf H Nelson (talk) 03:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, just claiming things as a "conflict of interest" or "disruptive" without giving reasons doesn't help us reach a conclusion. TaviWright (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@TaviWright: The reason why I am mentioning COI is because you seem to know a lot about the sources needed for the article, and about the topic for said article. Please exercise caution when you are working on articles on topics that you are familiar with. Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Epicgenius: I can see how that could be an issue. However I think you may be misinformed - we did not have prior knowledge of the article or topics. Most of the information was gathered while, or just before, editing. At the same time I understand that it is within interest to keep articles fair and unbiased.

Okay. I see that you are editing with good faith, rather than tendentious editing. Anyway, good luck with your project. Epicgenius (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There are scores of disruptive class projects every term, and the fit hits the shan from mid-November to mid-December, and then again the US spring term. For the incident at WP:ENI, what is the outcome here? Sandbox? These kinds of incidents happen by the boatloads, and eventually something will need to be done, but for now, at least they are being tracked at WP:ENI. Do we know the course? I'd like to fill out the incident report at ENI for future ref. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TaviWright and Midgeholland are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Feminism/Students, whose instructor may be Wadewitz. With student editing, if you just keep following back all of their contribs, you eventually can sometimes find a course. Rarely. Most of the time we just never hear anything and the articles end up merged or deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Continued tendentious editing at Talk:Morgellons

There is a clear consensus to topic ban Sierraparis from all medicine-related pages broadly construed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User Sierraparis was advised in this ANI case from July not to continue to cause problems. They have continued to chime in every so often about how the article needs to be rewritten (without actually proposing specific changes themselves) to give more credence to fringe views and include sources already determined to be unreliable. They literally do nothing else here on Wikipedia besides advocate for fringe views to be included in the article. They've already stated they are not here to contribute. Sierraparis isn't here to build an encyclopedia, is clearly a SPA, and needs to stop disrupting the editors. Proposing that they at least be indefinitely topic banned from medical articles and their talk pages. However, since not being allowed to edit doesn't appear to be a concern for them, I'd suggest going straight to an indefinite block. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 00:03, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

actually what I have suggested is that fringe theories be deleted from the article unless you can come up with stronger sources than popular press such as a magazine about "mechanics". Sierraparis (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're suggesting the use and inclusion of unreliable material that claims Morgellons should be seriously considered to be of non-delusional etiology. That's the fringe view we're against including in "serious medical stuff" parts of the article. The bit you're suddenly wanting removed is silly claims made about Morgellons in the media; in no way is the Wiki article suggesting that those claims should be taken seriously. The fact that you don't seem to possess the ability to distinguish between the two situations is one of the reasons why this ANI case had to be opened. 69.23.116.182 (talk) 15:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban from all medical related articles. User was given WP:ROPE and then used it. Indeed, after being reminded a few weeks ago [5] (S)he has continued to re hash the same old stuff that almost got him/her topic banned back in July. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:22, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support and thank the anonymous user 69.23.116.182 for their continued crusade against disruption on Wikipedia. Maybe this should be moved to somewhere more conspicuous. Epicgenius (talk) 00:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:19, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban from all medical related articles.. WP:Nothere and generally disruptive and a waste of our time. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, due to ongoing WP:IDHT problem. Most recently at Talk:Morgellons#Filament formation associated with spirochetal infection, makes repeated unsubstantiated assertions and misstatements about new journals using post-publication peer review, and doesn't appear to be reading or understanding the papers he suggests we use as sources. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support WP:MEDICINE-scope topic ban per above, unfortunately. Sierraparis was given WP:ROPE and warning in July but avoided a sanction as there wasn't enough evidence; now there's enough evidence. Although they have slowed down their pace of editing, the edits they have made exhibit a time-wasting unwillingness or inability to embrace sourcing policy in this area. Zad68 02:47, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support; as ever, Zad68 puts it more eloquently than I could. bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - clearly a single purpose account who's only intent is to argue (disrupt?) the Morgellon's talk page. - ^theWOLFchild 07:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Action requested. Can we use the "snowball clause" here to save this suffering animal from more misery? -- Brangifer (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes please, this discussion has passed the threshold for action at ANI rather comfortably. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance of adding a block for IP user 98.196.159.176? Their contributions to Wikipedia have been adding a quick anti-Wikipedia rant to the Morgellons article and deceptively calling it "spell correction" in the edit summary, removing the subsequent anti-vandalism bot warning they got from their talk page, and adding a similar rant to the Morgellons talk page. For what it's worth, I'm the IP user who originally opened this ANI discussion, just posting from work instead of home. 63.95.64.254 (talk) 13:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, probably not necessary to do anything with that IP just yet. Zad68 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)it's obvious that anyone who has a neutral point of view eventually gets banned. Read the archives. In the short time I have been here I have seen several editors go down before me. Anyone who promotes even the slightest hint at the possibility of Lyme Disease or anything other than pure delusion gets the ax. So it is not surprising that the attack is now on me. I have never experienced such a controlling and rude group of editors anywhere. The first day I joined I was accused of being a sock puppet. Saw the same thing go down with pthers over and over. The archives have the history and your intentions are easily traced. Sierraparis (talk) 02:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do encourage others to read the archives, and to read the old ANI case linked above. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What other group of editors would you say you have experience working with to make such a comparison? 69.23.116.182 (talk) 03:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note I put in a request for closure at WP:AN/RFC. Zad68 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

disruptive editing on Jung Myung Seok page

Harizotoh9 reverted hours of work on the Jung myung seok page including edits by multiple contributors and lumped everything into one category. I will not participate in edit warring but would like an admin to offer a warning and a block to this behavior as it violates wiki policy. Furthermore on Richwales talk page the user acknowledges their lack of familiarity with wiki procedures. I posted on the users page that they should ask for help and not perform edit warring. I just noticed that this is not the first time for this user to participate in this behavior and has been warned by Rutebega in Feb 2013. Is a warning or further action in order? Please help. MrTownCar (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) MrTownCar, judging from this, it seems like you're forum shopping because you're upset that the article doesn't look the way you want it to (no one owns articles on Wikipedia). Regardless of whether Harizotoh9 had been warned, you neglected to mention that you have been warned yourself about that article; and it definitely doesn't help that you insulted him afterwards. (You might want to read WP:POT.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:08, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the brilliant observation erpert. The difference is I learned to work within the rules of the system even if I don't like the system or what is posted in the article but I have made the effort. For some one to make a broad sweeping edit reversion reverting multiple contributors with opposing persectives and then claim ignorance about the process is quite ridiculous and intellectually dishonest. cheers.MrTownCar (talk) 01:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've learned to work with the rules of the system? I don't know; this section makes me think differently. And after reading all the bickering on the article's talk page, it appears that the information that Hari removed was all based on unreliable sources. Basically, if you were tendentiously editing and another user reverted your edits in good faith, you can't then come to a noticeboard and expect people to want to overturn the reversion, much less block that user. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 03:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of all the rest, this is a BLP with some fairly serious stuff. In such a case, it's not unresonable to removal material which seems to be questionably sourced while discussion takes place. In any event you're apparently referring to a single edit (plus a merger request). Harizotoh9 hasn't edited the article since October before that. Nil Einne (talk) 18:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has already been going on for over a year. The usual pattern is that a consensus is reached, and several months later the two SPAs start editing again simultaneously. Shii (tock) 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Even more reason why it's unlikely Harizotoh9 is going to be sanctioned in any way. (To be clear, I wasn't suggesting Harizotoh9 was necessarily editing without having discussed first but rather even without having to look carefully it's hard to see how there's anything on Harizotoh9's part warranting administrative attention since the OP is basically complaining about a single edit which was per the edit summary the removal of questionably source content and it was on a BLP.) Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Some background. On Dec 16th 2012 I came across the article. I had never heard of Providence or its leader before then. To my horror, I saw that a lot of the article uses primary sources from the Providence religion directly. Imagine an article on L Ron Hubbard that relied heavily on Scientology's official sources. I started to remove them and to restructure the article so it looked more like a standard wikipedia biography article. On the 29th, Macauthor reverted those edits. That's the pattern that has been going on forever. Eventually I thought that a consensus was reached about the unreliability of the Providence sources. Finally on Oct 28th of this year, I removed the final providence source from the article. With those gone, the work to refining and improving the article could begin. I stopped paying attention to the article. Then again, on Dec. 13th, I looked at the article again and was shocked to see those very same sources back in the article. So I reverted the article to a previous time.

Disruptive editing by User:QuackGuru

User:QuackGuru has been displaying disruptive editing for some time now, especially at the GERAC and Acupuncture articles.

Disruptive tagging ([6], [7], [8]) even though he's been asked repeatedly to stop this ([9], [10])
Stubbornly referring to other editor's contributions as "nonsense" (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Nonsense deleted) even though he has been asked a long time to refrain from doing so ([11])
Refusal to accept talk page consensus (Talk:German Acupuncture Trials#Results should not be should be limited in the article, Talk:Acupuncture#Rate of serious adverse events).

The last time that several users asked GQ to stop his pattern of disruptive editing was on 02-Dec, but to no avail. Discussion with GQ is further hampered by him deleting all messages on his talk page as soon as possible. I request a topic ban. --Mallexikon (talk) 09:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think WP:BOOMERANG should apply here. --Roxy the dog (resonate) 12:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. ~~I wonder if you even tried to discuss the matter with the user—all I see on their talk page is a link directing them to this page.~~ User:QuackGuru removed the messages from their page, so not Mallexikon's fault. --Epicgenius (talk) 15:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. WP:BOOMERANG. And please explain it to me. We got an almost constant discussion at the acupuncture-related pages. And we used to have a lot of problems with fanatic acupuncture proponents in the past, but recently it's just that hard-core skeptics bunch with a WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, which is killing the very spirit of WP. I do understand that QG and Roxy and Brangifer do what they do in good faith - I'm a skeptic myself. But when they overshoot their mark like QG, or like Brangifer here yesterday and administrators keep on turning a blind eye, article quality will drop. Cause anyone with a different opinion will feel bullied and silenced. I appealed to AN/I some time ago because another hardcore skeptic user deleted 80% of an acupuncture-related article (all sourced material), and then took the remaining stub and nominated it for deletion - administrator's interest in this was almost zero (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive820#GERAC). Everybody's complaining about WP being too white / male / tech-friendly influenced, and everybody's always talking about how incivility should not be tolerated - but obviously that's just talk. Thanks a lot, guys. --Mallexikon (talk) 02:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep me out of this GERAC mess. I haven't been following it enough to understand the issues. All I know is (and I'm speaking generally here) that when pushers of fringe POV try to keep mainstream opinions out of articles, that's a type of violation of NPOV we do not tolerate. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could some admin PLEASE, PLEASE take a look at this? This is starting to turn into an edit war at GERAC. --Mallexikon (talk) 05:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring is at WP:3RRN. MilesMoney (talk) 06:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:MilesMoney : edits in various articles (categories, sources)

MilesMoney (talk · contribs) has re-added -twice- obviously contentious and potentially defamatory content to the BLP of Dana Rohrabacher, supported by a partisan source with a less-than sterling reputation. Diffs: [12] [13]

Miles has elected not to start a discussion, nor has he made any attempt to find a better source (which may well be available, if he were to bother looking). Instead, he prefers to try to force in his edit, even though it has been pointed out that it is a clear violation of WP:BLP. Roccodrift (talk) 23:00, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I did start a discussion, but you went directly to WP:ANI, bypassing the talk page, WP:RSN and WP:BLPN. To repeat what I said:

Dana Rohrabacher said this at a congressional hearing, so it's on the public record and we have CSPAN videos confirming it. The citation is to http://thinkprogress.org/security/2013/04/26/1928321/rohrabacher-boston-islam/, which includes both of these original sources while defending us from the appearance of WP:OR. There is no WP:BLP issue here as there is absolutely no question that he said these things and that it was notable.

I stand by this. If you disagree, however, let's take this to the appropriate forum, not this drama page. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. No. No. MilesMoney filed this SPI against Roccodrift and Belchfire. But he also included me, NazariyKaminski, in his witch hunt. He has zero evidence that I am a sock of rocco or belch. He is not editing in good faith. I edited one article that MilesMoney edited and he did not like my editing and so he started an edit war. I backed off. I was right but I backed off. He then followed me to another article and started another edit war. I am not a sock of rocco or belch. I don't even know who these editors are and MM has no evidence to support his claim but that has not slowed him down. Also, I don't know Brangifer but he assumes, even before the results of the SPI are concluded, that MilesMoney's SPI is justified. Brangifer's comment above is completely bogus. Why are MM and Brangifer dragging me into this? Seriously, edit Wikipedia and stop the POV pushing.--NK (talk) 15:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a flurry of disruptive edits by User:MilesMoney, who really ought to know better. This could perhaps be better discussed at WP:EWN, but the user in question has been editing disruptively across a range of article - adding dubious categories unsupported by the article, and then reverting while refusing to discuss. User:Roccodrift is correct to remove the poorly sourced material on a BLP. St Anselm (talk) 23:21, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The best reason not to go to WP:ANI is that it gathers well-wishers such as StAnselm, who's unhappy with me for reverting a flurry of bad changes he recently made. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two corrections. First, I'm always willing to discuss my edits. Second, I didn't add categories: I restored the ones you tried to remove because you were wrong to remove them. Hope that helps. MilesMoney (talk) 23:30, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Miles' additional BLP violations from today: Pamela Geller [14]; Gary Bauer [15]; Robert Spencer (author) [16]. The common thread here is that I had performed an AGF revert on each one of them within the last hour. In fairness, it should be noted that Miles' didn't attempt to edit-war on these other articles. Roccodrift (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The common thread is that these BLP accusations are false. Rather, the two of you are guilty of whitewashing articles. MilesMoney (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a waste of time. If you think I violated WP:BLP, go to WP:BLPN. This bit of forum-shopping appears to be retaliation for my earlier report. MilesMoney (talk) 23:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Right Wing Watch" is not a reliable source for anything, except maybe details about Right Wing Watch, and it is certainly not a reliable source for a BLP. Using it to label various living people as "far-right" is extremely inappropriate. It violates basic policies regarding categorization, and especially violates BLPCAT.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, but this is the wrong venue to discuss such issues. I've opened a WP:BLPN report on the original complaint. You are free to open reports on any of the others that's been piled on. I think we're done here. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we read where other editors are "guilty" and they are "whitewashing" articles. The truth is that Miles is too eager to add unwarranted spin to articles – MM is categorizing the people as "far-right" when a simple "right" is/might be supported by the sources. (The term "far right" is not used in the blog (rightwingwatch.org) for the Robert Spencer article.) Gary Bauer gets a "critics of Islam" category because the rightwingwatch.org blog mentions him in passing. Worst of all, MM posts the references in-line rather than using proper citation format (as in the Dana Rohrabacher edit). – S. Rich (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Here we read that an article entitled Anti-Islamic Sentiment Cheered at Values Voter Summit depicts Bauer as anti-Islamic. But I already posted that on the appropriate talk page so why am I repeating myself here? No good reason, so let's end this. MilesMoney (talk) 00:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This report has been made obsolete by the discussion at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Dana_Rohrabacher#Murdering_children, where Rocco and I have agreed on two reliable sources to replace the original source. Now we're done. MilesMoney (talk) 00:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gary_Bauer#Critic_of_Islam is where we came to an agreement on sources. MilesMoney (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, you are "always ready to discuss" and yet as a minimum you have banned people from your talk page as follows:

22 September Srich32977 (talk · contribs) 26 September Adjwilley (talk · contribs) - not sure if this is a ban: it says "go away" 3 October PrairieKid (talk · contribs) 8 October Yworo (talk · contribs) 16 October MrX (talk · contribs) 21 October Sitush (talk · contribs) 2 December Carolmooredc (talk · contribs) 2 December 65.102.177.223 (talk · contribs) 5 December Roccodrift (talk · contribs) 7 December HectorMoffet (talk · contribs)

There was a bit of a hiatus part way through that sequence when you were involved in the discussions regarding your article ban/WP:AEGS. All the above were then unbanned on 7 December during a prior ANI thread involving you, when I was preparing the above diffs on-wiki. But then you started again on 10 December. I know that you are keen to see article-related discussions take place on article talk pages and that is fair enough but the pattern does not suggest one of co-operation. Put simply, if people object to your article edits then you ban them from your talk page. Sure, you're now saying that this thread is irrelevant because a discussion has now opened elsewhere but, again, that seems to be a common event: take it to the limit and then make a tactical withdrawal. Why not try avoiding taking it to the limit in the first instance? Or just drop out of it all, as I have done? - Sitush (talk) 01:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so kindly for joining in but you are entirely mistaken. As I stated on this very page quite recently, there is only one person banned from my talk page, and it's Rocco. Please get your facts straight instead of trying to meddle. MilesMoney (talk) 01:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not mistaken. Please read what I wrote. - Sitush (talk) 01:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been my belief that the article talk page is the first place for any dispute to go. If it cannot be resolved there and is based on specific issues, such as RS or BLP, it should go to the related notification page, such as RSN or BLPN. User talk page notices, especially templates, are not always a good idea. In particular, when they make a false accusation, this gets in the way of discussion.

The issue with this report is that we have a reliable source for Dana's public statements, so there's no doubt whatsoever that he made them. The dispute is now being resolved on the article talk page and on BLPN, so this is the wrong venue.

What makes it particularly counterproductive is that some who are uninvolved in this dispute but hold prior grudges are taking this as an opportunity to pile on. That happens a lot on ANI, and it's very unfortunate. Please don't contribute to it. If you literally have nothing to add on the issue, please remain silent instead of raising unrelated issues. Thank you and goodbye. MilesMoney (talk) 01:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your conduct is being discussed, and this is one of the appropriate venues for that to take place.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My conduct isn't the issue, the content is. By ignoring this ANI, I've already been able to fix ~~Dana's~~ Gary's article to our mutual agreement. This ANI is useless or worse than useless. MilesMoney (talk) 01:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For another example of how this ANI is worse than useless, it's been used in an attempt to shut down the BLPN report intended to clear up the issue of whether thinkprogress.org is reliable for quoting Dana's public statements. MilesMoney (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles, in slightly less than five months your talk page has seen a 3RR warning, two for AGF, 2 for AN3, six ANI notifications, one article ban per AEGS, two BLP warnings, four for disruptive editing, seven for edit warring, one for removal of maintenance templates, eight NPA notices and at least another six of various types revolving round disruption & talk page issues. They came from about 15 different people and they are only the tip of the iceberg - there are far more comments about your style on individual article talk pages/central forums etc. I know that you are doing a fair amount of stuff in contentious areas but so am I and, believe me, if I had that sort of record from ca. 2500 contributions then I'd be taking a pretty close look at my own behaviour. - Sitush (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have diffs for all this stuff, and more, obviously. I could post a table listing the warnings etc up to 7 December if anyone really wanted to see it. In fairness, I should have noted that MM has also received three barnstars, all from the same person. - Sitush (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, Miles. Wrong on all counts. Your conduct IS the issue.

You reverted twice, without discussion, after you were told in edit summaries that there was a BLP problem with the source.[17][18]. You made no attempt at discussion [19] until you were informed in an edit summary that we were coming to ANI [20], then you reverted yet again [21] without correcting the problems with your material. You claim to have reliable sources, so where are they? Had you produced a better source, we wouldn't be here.

The idea that you think this is "being resolved" is laughable.[22] Your sole contributions to resolving the issue is to insist that you are right and to declare that your source (Thinkprogress) is "perfectly reliable" [23]. Roccodrift (talk) 01:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, ceasefire. A number of people are eligible for disruption blocks at this point. If you are thinking of saying something abusive, don't. Parties are expected to be on best behavior for ANI discussions.

I also full protected the article for three days.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'll be able to respond after this comment, but, frankly, GWH, I disagree that anyone other than MM is being disruptive. This report does not exist in a vacuum, and the catalog of MM's misbehavior is quite lengthy, perhaps more suitable for an RfC/U than a report here, although I came very close to blocking MM based on his latest disruption, both in article space and here. The only thing that stopped me was I don't like to make potentially controversial blocks when I'm tired.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Roccodrift's above was entering (or starting) mutual abusive conflict. While I don't disagree on root cause, the potential for either side to cross the line is evident to me, so I generalized. I encourage other admins to review for deeper action; I am trying to tamp down the disruption and that is easiest without taking sides. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I could have expounded those diffs with a more dispassionate tone. Roccodrift (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesMoney:, this is the third post involving you in the past week. Please try to discuss issues with other users, rather than reverting and insulting them as is described above. Epicgenius (talk) 02:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, my most recent visit here was to report Rocco for some terrible behavior that, unlike his 3RR violation, fell short of block-worthy. Quite likely, the reason he filed this report here instead of simply going to BLPN is to retaliate. But you knew that already, right? MilesMoney (talk) 02:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, there was an article that accurately quoted Dana's public statement about Islam.
Rocco removed that section, claiming there was an obvious BLP violation.
It wasn't obvious to me, so I checked the source and found that it backed up the deleted material. I put it back, explaining that the source is reliable.
Rocco removed it again, claiming there was "potentially defamatory content".
This didn't seem true, since nobody has ever doubted that Dana made this statement and Dana's not denying it, either. The truth is an absolute defense against claims of defamation. Suggesting that he take it to BLPN/RSN, I restored it.
Apparently, the idea of taking this issue to a talk page of some sort appealed to Rocco, but he ignored the suggestion of an appropriate venue and instead threatened to take it to ANI while erasing the cited material again.
Around this time, I took a moment to get back to the open window I had on the talk page to finally submit my new section. I then restored the deleted material one last time, commenting "(yes, please turn yourself in at WP:ANI)", which was an allusion to the fact that Rocco's own behavior was bad, in that he was edit-warring to remove cited material while refusing to discuss it on the talk page or a relevant notification page.
Rocco removed it again. For those counting, he violated WP:3RR, while I did not. Of course, he can claim a BLP exception, but it's not legitimate because there is absolutely no question about the correctness of the quote.

This is probably why Georgewilliamherbert said that more than one editor could be blocked over this report. MilesMoney (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's still edit warring and 3RR is not an entitlement.--MONGO 02:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the article's history it's quite clear that Roccodrift breached the WP:3RR while completely ignoring WP:BRD. If Rocco had an issue with the source AN/I is most definitely not the place to air them, WP:RSN is. That said, Rocco has accepted that the information can be reliably sourced so other than a warning as per WP:BOOMERANG I'd say this should be the end of this. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 02:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is erroneous. I have not accepted that the information can be reliably sourced. Quite the opposite, I have stated that I searched for a source, and none could be found [24]. To reiterate, the reason we are here is not a content dispute; the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MilesMoney has already been article-banned for previous BLP violations.[25] Perhaps we should consider a topic ban regarding all WP:BLP? To honest, I don't think they're here to build an encyclopedia and I'd even support a site ban. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How very bloodthirsty and extreme of you, but did you notice that the material I restored is directly supported by a reliable source? Or that I'm banned from a single article that is not itself a BLP article. MilesMoney (talk) 03:13, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A BLP issue can arise in practically any article involving humans, not just ones about living people. I've always though that this edit probably was a fair reflection of your approach to Wikipedia, although you did make it at a particularly frustrating time for you. I think that you perhaps oftensee your participation as an exercise in how far you can go. - Sitush (talk) 03:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and yet there is no legitimate BLP issue on Dana. Rocco has yet to even explain his objection to the reliable source. Does he have one? With Gary, Rocco was mistaken and has retracted his objection.MilesMoney (talk) 03:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You cited an non-reliable source for contentious material regarding a living person. Even worse, you edit-warred to include to include the BLP violation.[26][27][28] What part of that do you not understand? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much like Rocco, you seem unable to support your claim that the source is unreliable. But if it is, then WP:ANI is the wrong place to discuss it. As for edit-warring, Rocco clearly violated WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Why is it that you do not hold him to the same standards? MilesMoney (talk) 03:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This has been explained to you before. You cannot use non-reliable sources such as an advocacy organization as third-party sources for contentious material about living people. Why are you still doing this? Clearly, the previous BLP sanction wasn't enough. As for Rocco, removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would you do me the courtesy of quoting the part of WP:BLP or WP:RS which says that an advocacy organization is not a reliable source here? MilesMoney (talk) 04:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources lists which sources are reliable. But in any case, the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. It is your job to explain why a source is reliable, not the other way around. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to answer this question but you haven't. There is nothing in either WP:BLP or WP:RSN which supports your claim. I think you need to retract it now, along with your attempt to kill me. MilesMoney (talk) 05:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There have been significant discussions of advocacy at RSN as aquick check at the archives would show. [29]The general discussion is that publications of advocacy orgs are not RS or are reliable only for their own opinions. That is they are (if used at all) treated like op-ed opinion pieces. It is up to the editor who adds the information to show that it is RS. Capitalismojo (talk) 05:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you linked to is selective case law, not policy. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 05:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you the one who said this should be decided at RSN? Yes, that was you: [30] Roccodrift (talk) 05:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and there's a WP:BLPN report just waiting to be decided. However, policy does not say what you AQFK wants it to say, and the decision is a matter of discussion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admins note No opinion on the topic. Per WP:INVOLVED, "advice about community norms...do not make an administrator 'involved'", I am addressing a matter of policy only. The policy that AQFK is referring to is WP:IRS: "While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. Biased sources should be used limited and with utmost caution."--v/r - T P 14:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions...

...were authorized by arbcom Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement#Discretionary_sanctions.

Both accounts seem to meet the definition (at least of late) of WP:SPA on Tea Party issues, albeit in equal and opposite directions.

Any reason *not* to give both the discretionary sanctions warnings / notifications to both Roccodrift and MilesMoney?

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:34, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think either are SPAs, and I wouldn't think SPAing would play into discretionary sanctioning. The issue is, I submit, is more with POV and editor inaction problems. – S. Rich (talk) 03:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is an objection (assuming that DS warnings are all you plan to do here)

. The article Dana Rohrabacher is not ostensibly related to the Tea Party topic.
. Neither account meets the criteria for SPA.
. The behavioral issues and issues concerning core content policies (WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:RS, etc.) will remain unaddressed and are likely to continue in other topic areas.

I understand your reluctance to issue blocks and I think your restraint is commendable, but your proposal amounts to simply kicking the can down the road. Roccodrift (talk) 03:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a Tea Party issue, and it's not even a BLP issue (since there's been no argument made for why the source might be unreliable). The root cause is that Rocco went on a spree of whitewashing this morning, and I reacted to it. That's where it started, and that's what's unresolved to this very moment. MilesMoney (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rohrbacher has been supported by Tea Party groups and spoken at their functions, but does not fit the traditional Tea Party mold (and was a congressman long before the phrase Tea Party had any modern political meaning). Question for UNINVOLVED ADMINS AND EDITORS - is that connection too tenuous to apply the Arbitration case discretionary sanctions, "broadly construed" as they were written? I agree this is not core to the Tea Party, but it seems related, and the editor behavior here is exactly the type of tedentious conflict this was intended for. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see a connection to the Tea Party. It seems tenuous to me. I don't see it as Tea Party article unless all Republican articles are now Tea Party articles. That having been said, this editor seems to have real issues with BLP policy and Reliable Source. Capitalismojo (talk) 04:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: MilesMoney topic-banned from all WP:BLP content

Given that this editor has already been sanctioned for BLP violations in the past,[31] and the fact they they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[32][33][34] I propose that MilesMoney be topic-banned from all WP:BLP content, broadly construed. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does this differ from being banned from Wikipedia? MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't sound like a bad idea, actually.--MONGO 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so it's not a coincidence that each and every person voting to kill me is someone who's tried before to get me indeffed. This is a sham. MilesMoney (talk) 04:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support. As proposer. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could address this, first. MilesMoney (talk) 04:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I asked him to quote from WP:BLP or WP:RS to support a rule he apparently invented. He was unable to. MilesMoney (talk) 05:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support due to demonstrated lack of comprehension of WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and others. Roccodrift (talk) 04:02, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was an issue raised on your talk page by someone else that seems relevant. Specifically, could you please confirm whether you are a sockpuppet of User:Belchfire or someone else? MilesMoney (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An appropriate and well-researched SPI has been filed against Roccodrift: WP:Sockpuppet_investigations/Belchfire -- Brangifer (talk) 19:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is extreme and punitive, especially given that I did not violate BLP with Dana or Gary. MilesMoney (talk) 04:03, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per multiple tendentious edits and BLP violations. And looking at this thread, it's clear that he just doesn't get it. Something like this is necessary to prevent further disruptive editing. This edit is a clear example - it's re-adding information that had been challenged. And the edit doesn't even reflect the source - there is nothing there about "generating controversy". The fact that MilesMoney continued to re-revert here makes this a clear case of edit warring. He rightly started a talk page discussion, but then didn't wait for that discussion to be resolved. St Anselm (talk) 04:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per StAnselm. I just want to point out that I was not even aware of this ANI, but MilesMoney made a nasty comment on my talk page last night and he made a bogus SPI claim against me. So I want to thank MilesMoney for making me aware of this highly appropriate process against him. He constantly engages in BLP violations and he badgers those who even dare to disagree with anything that he does.--NK (talk) 16:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Modified at listing of alternatives (from Support) – noting, of course, that MM and I have had less than a harmonious relationship. I do not think MM really wants to participate in a collaborative fashion. Even as this discussion is underway, MM presents confrontational talk page comments. – S. Rich (talk) 04:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Srich32977, MilesMoney has recently told you on your talk page that he would oppose your Admin candidacy for which you are trying to develop support. [35] Under the circumstances, in order for you to avoid even the appearance of a conflict of interest, may I suggest that you recuse yourself from this matter in which a site ban has been mooted for Miles. Please consider. SPECIFICO talk 04:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 04:45, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose There is clearly a problem with MM's behavior and I've advocated sanctions against him before, but this particular sanction is preposterously overbroad and clearly overkill in this particular case, not to mention no sanctions are proposed against the other party who was also guilty of at least editwarring. Is MM hotheaded and contentious and even obnoxious? Yes. But in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article and initiated discussions on the talk page and BLPN. Is the source insufficient for a BLP? Perhaps, but it isn't so obviously unreasonable that it merits sanctions, it means it is a matter of discussion in the very forums he was discussing the issue in. Was he edit warring? Sure, and we already have procedures in place to deal with that behavior. The article is currently locked so there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being. If MM is to become a reasonable editor here, we must not only discourage negative behavior but encourage positive behavior, and this proposed sanction will do little for either. If MM does not continue to engage in discussion in an appropriate manner regarding such articles, I would not be opposed to revisiting the issue of a similar, but more narrowly targeted sanction. Gamaliel (talk) 04:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You say there is no danger of that behavior continuing for the time being, but what about the BLP violations on all the other articles that this editor has made in the last few hours? [36][37] ? St Anselm (talk) 05:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No danger at all. With the first article, I reverted exactly once. With the second, I reverted, then was asked to add a source, so I did. No edit war there. You seem to have undermined your own claims. MilesMoney (talk) 05:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what criteria editors of that category have decided on to distinguish between 'far right' and 'ordinary right', but this does not appear to be a prima facie case of a BLP violation but a matter for talk page discussion. Gamaliel (talk) 05:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do have sources referring to them as far right, such as http://edlnews.co.uk/index.php/latest-news/latest-news/1220-tommy-robinson-set-to-announce-a-new-far-right-organisation-with-geller-and-spence. MilesMoney (talk) 05:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And if you think that source is anything approaching a reliable source for a BLP, there is a significant WP:COMPETENCE issue regarding your editing, and it is best if you stay away from BLPs. St Anselm (talk) 05:20, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The SPLC and ADL both say they run a hate group. I don't think that acknowledging them as right-wing is exactly a stretch. MilesMoney (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And even this is demonstrating your lack of understanding of BLP policy. To make your own jump from "right" to "far right" is completely unacceptable. The reason I am supporting this topic ban is that you don't seem able to appreciate that. St Anselm (talk) 05:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Try again: The source I gave says far right. MilesMoney (talk) 05:33, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean this source? The fact that you are even posting it here is indicative of BLP-incompetence. St Anselm (talk) 05:36, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that the source appears to be a poor one, but it appears to be an accurate one as The Guardian concurs. Gamaliel (talk) 05:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gamaliel. "in this case, he added accurate and sourced information to the article". If you are referring to the islam edit on Dana Rohrabacher, I will beg to disagree, as WP:BLPN seems to do. The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. Iselilja (talk) 09:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, on WP:BLPN, we seem to have come to a consensus for a slightly modified phrasing. If only this issue had gone to BLPN as I first suggested, this circus could have been avoided. MilesMoney (talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Having seen MilesMoney in action for several months now, I'd noticed a far better style of communication recently. The aggressive actions of Rocco seem to have prompted a reversion to Miles terse and contentious manner of expression, and here we are. Nevertheless, nothing in this thread warrants the broad sanction proposed here and at most these incidents might justify a 48 hour block for both MilesMoney and Roccodrift. However, as Gamaliel has said, with the article now protected, why not just close this thread and give a warning to both warriors. I suspect that some of Miles' claque of detractors will be disappointed, but what the hell? SPECIFICO talk 05:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't about edit-warring; it's about BLP violations. Here we have a situation with an editor who repeatedly violates BLP. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - This isn't about BLP violations, as Rocco accepted my source for Gary Bauer and nobody has yet explained what specific rule opposes my source for Dana. I asked you repeatedly and you keep ducking the question. Why? MilesMoney (talk) 05:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - This has been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. WP:ICANTHEARYOU applies. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - That's not what might be called true. It's been asserted, but it's now clear that the claim you made is not in either WP:BLP or WP:RS, and is instead your own interpretation of how these issues have been handled in the past. In other words, it's only an opinion. MilesMoney (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, it's been explained to you multiple times by multiple editors. This is the very definition of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        What's the TLA for repeating a refuted argument and refusing to notice that it's refuted? Is it IDHT? I ask because you're very guilty of this. MilesMoney (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Oppose for now If you are going to propose an editing restriction, you need to be extremely clear about what the person has done wrong, complete with diffs. Which exact edits are you claiming are so clearly bad that this restriction is needed? Could you provide a handful of diffs and explain why those diffs are so troubling? And yes, I did read most of the above discussion and chased down some of the diffs. None seemed beyond the pale, but I could have missed quite a bit as I'm not hugely familiar with the topcs/people involved. Hobit (talk) 05:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Links given by "A Quest For Knowledge" are all to the same incident. And that incident is troubling. First of all the source is a highly-biased one. Secondly, reading the transcript I think one could say he was criticizing radical Islam rather than Islam on the whole (a rather large difference). I'd like to hear MilesMoney acknowledge they were wrong to add the material due to sourcing problems and doubly wrong to edit war over it. I'm not in favor of topic banning people over one thing (and yes, other things were listed above, but none I found overly troubling among those I looked at), but if he can't understand and acknowledge the problem he can't be editing BLPs. Mainstream reliable sources are needed for claims like this. Hobit (talk) 11:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I freely admit that I should not have edit-warred against him, regardless of the merits of the version I supported. Instead, I should have done what I did with Gary Bauer, which was to find a source that could not be criticized. With the Dana issue, I suggested early on that it should be resolved at BLPN, and it looks like it now is. MilesMoney (talk) 16:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you understand A) that the source wasn't one we should be adding a controversial claim with and B) that in the original document he cites "radical Islam" rather than Islam in that quote? Hobit (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed on BLPN that the "radical" must be mentioned, in order to quote fairly. As for the source, there is a consensus that it's ok to use a reliable but partisan secondary source so long as we also directly include the primary. I'm likewise ok with that. Ultimately, I'm willing to go along with BLPN on this matter. MilesMoney (talk) 20:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Extreme punishment, spearheaded by users who have a vendetta against Miles. People can rightly chide Miles for his past remarks to other users (though he has dramatically improved in this regard). But his substantive contributions to articles have generally been rooted in arguable interpretations of policy. Even if you think he is engaged in TE (which I don't), the burden of proof for such a draconian measure is massive, and is not met by OP (who doesn't even provide diffs). Steeletrap (talk) 05:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Steeletrap. Where are the diffs? We don't ban people without evidence. GregJackP Boomer! 06:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, these last two editors claiming there are no diffs haven't read the original report. Roccodrift (talk) 06:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the diffs. Here's where they were previously banned[38] and here's where they see nothing wrong with edit-warring to include poorly sourced, contentious information regarding living people,[39][40][41] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 06:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose I lean against this solution, but this editor's actions at this ANI show either distressing lack of competence, lack of understanding of RS, and/or a bad case of IDONTHEARYOU. Capitalismojo (talk) 06:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, per Gamaliel. This seems to be a case of retaliation, failure to AGF, and escalation=disruption, especially when a more collaborative approach could have solved the whole problem very peacefully. According to Roccodrift: "the reason we are here is that another editor repeatedly inserted a BLP violation into an article. Roccodrift (talk) 03:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)" The edit in question was the same (ergo identical) content, with the citation in quotes. By failing to AGF, Roccodrift was essentially saying that MilesMoney was fabricating the quote. An AGF and collaborative approach would have stated: "Per BRD, let's discuss while you find a better source, preferably the original." That should have settled the matter. I haven't examined the diffs, but BRD would usually be sufficient to force the discussion to the talk page while the question of the reliability of the source could be discussed. Since ThinkProgress was being used as a secondary source of an actual quote, not just their opinion, its use would usually be justified if it was accompanied with the primary source. Whatever the case, this demand is total overkill.
Roccodrift, try to AGF next time and not escalate this to a battlefield by bringing it here, when the talk page should have sufficed. That's disruptive and wasting all our time. You should to be on trial here for disruptive misuse of this noticeboard. Let's call it even and hope you both learn a lesson.
MilesMoney, it's really not a good idea to delete comments on your own talk page (until you archive it later, after the dust has settled), or to stop discussion there, unless you clearly leave a message (undeleted) that the discussion is to be continued on the article's talk page. Deletion of comments is really an uncollaborative slap in the face and doesn't create goodwill. (In fact, the worse the comments, the more grounds to keep them visible... ) We should try to get along with adversaries, not offend them even more. I hope that helps to defuse things in the future. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I concede that deleting comments from my talk page is usually a bad idea. That's why I recently switched to archiving. The last comment I deleted was from Rocco, a few days ago, and there were a couple of reasons why I did it. First, he has been asked not to post on my talk page. Second, as I explained in my pre-deletion response, his template was illegitimate. If he wants to discuss articles with me, he can use the article talk pages. MilesMoney (talk) 06:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support a topic ban, although I'm not sure I would necessarily support a site ban at this point. There really isn't much I can say that hasn't already been said, but WP:IDHT is an understatement when it comes to Miles' behavior.

Actually, on second thought, support a site ban. I just realized that Miles was topic-banned for this very same thing barely a month ago, and now s/he's back to his same old routine, so it's clear that s/he just doesn't get it and that s/he is not here for the good of Wikipedia. (Maybe his/her theories would work better on his/her own wiki or something.)

Side note: @Steeletrap, I don't really see this proposal as being spearheaded by users with a vendetta against Miles; in fact, the person who proposed this is A Quest For Knowledge, and s/he appears to be an uninvolved party. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 07:57, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few quick things:

1) "Miles" is a typically male name, so you should use male pronouns.

2) AQFK is not involved in this particular incident, but they've bumped heads with me before and are nowhere near neutral. I wouldn't use the word "vendetta", if only because of WP:AGF, but they're on the short list of editors who can be counted on reliably to support any attempt to get me blocked, banned or otherwise harmed.

3) If there were an actual BLP issue, it could have been resolved on the article talk page, BLPN or RSN. It was brought here because ANI is where you make a report that others can pile onto and turn into a lynching.

4) Did you notice that you endorsed a site ban when "only" a BLP ban was requested. Think about what that means. MilesMoney (talk) 08:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you opened the can of worms yourself about a possible site ban. And after all this, you still don't seem to think that you did anything wrong (btw, I didn't assume you were male because your userpage doesn't state your gender). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I simply pointed out that such a punitive, overbroad topic ban would be tantamount to a site ban. You're the one who cheered that one. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support, based on a wider concern for MilesMoney’s behavior at Wikipedia.

The edit alleging that Rohrabacher sees Islam generally as a religion that encouraging murder of children was misleading based on my reading of sources and indicated at WP:BLPN; it's a very severe libel, that - if believed - might have put Rohrabacher at risk of being denied entrance to the UK (on the same grounds that Spencer/Geller were). Users who remove these kinds of BLP violations should not be accused of edit-warring; and it is an important principle that BLP disputed material are to stay out of the article until there is consensus at the talk page to include it. MilesMoney still alleges he had the right to include this edit despite BLP worries without waiting for talk page consensus. This is in line with the problematic thinking I have also previously [seen] (Temporary removal of BLP material) by MM.
Regarding the general Roccodrift/MilesMoney conflict, I can’t help but feel that those two editors to a certain degree deserve each other. I am most familiar with MilesMoney, and I think the underlying problem with that user is the utter contempt they have for other Wikipedians and for Wikipedia as a whole. This is clearly laid out in their so-called post-mortem note of 28 October 2013, in which we are informed that

They came to Wikipedia having heard that Wikipedia now mostly consisted of “crazed and inbreds”, so they wanted to see with his own eyes
What they found was that Wikipedia is “a hostile environment controlled by incompetents and sociopaths”
Furthermore “There is a War on Vandalism here that's as artificial and endless as the War on Drugs or War on Terrorism, and which has likewise become a way to channel paranoia and bigotry”
And further ”Wikipedia is not merely as corrupt as a banana republic, it is a failed state akin to Somalia. It is not in decline; it has fallen.”
They conclude “Try as I might, I can only muster up pity and disgust for the otakus trapped in this web”

At their time at Wikipedia, they have practically only involved themselves in contentious articles and debates. Less than 20% of their edits are to articles (of which several are reverts/controversial edits; he has been at 4RR at least twice, 1,2); the rest is mostly discussion at various talk pages, ANI etc. The first article, they heavily invested themselves in, Ayn Rand, came under discretionary sanctions; they then dedicated themselves more to the Ludvig von der Mises institute, resulting in them being topic banned from the article.
There is also other kind of erratic behavior, for instance when MilesMoney was investigated as a possible sockuppet of Still Standing, they responded by filing frivolous SPIs against Srich and Orlady.3
The combination of hyperbole language (as demonstrated above), contempt for other users and strong preferences for conflict stuff including sensitive BLPs, makes MilesMoney a very problematic user to have at Wikipedia. Even their userpage cries of a massive battleground mentality.
I am surprised that MilesMoney hasn’t already been sitebanned based on a NotHere and Massive Battleground mentality. The “post mortem” note seems to indicate that they are quite surprised as well "that's 104 days, exactly two weeks longer than my initial estimate"
Iselilja (talk) 09:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This summary is neither fair nor accurate. For example, it's impossible to libel someone by quoting their public statements, so that's a red herring. Likewise, we all know that the sock accusations are false, so bringing them up now is just an attempt to smear me. Anyhow, you've repeatedly supported getting rid of me, so this is to be expected. MilesMoney (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Iselilja for doing that interesting summary. He hasn't annoyed me as much as some other editors because he's so obviously got a crash and burn psychology that's almost amusing. I wasn't aware of the frivolous SPIs and that, on top of everything else, really is problematic. It's obvious a good RfC/U is needed to just lay out all these behaviors. I'll keep my eyes open, but see reply on my question on canvassing below. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose A 1RR restriction or sanction that is he is reverted he needs to gain consensus before he can revert the same content again would be fairer. Darkness Shines (talk) 13:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose mainly per Gamaliel --S Philbrick (Talk) 13:49, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose sorry, but this looks like a case of revenge against MM by editors who don't want to deal with him. He already has shown signs of improvement in discussion versus in the past. Epicgenius (talk) 14:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support It appears that MM needs a temporary cooling off period, not a prolonged ban. BLP concerns are very important. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support as a minimum. I think MilesMoney should be indeffed now...it's pretty obvious were dealing with prior banned editor anyway.--MONGO 14:52, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a problem with me for my own behavior, that's unfortunate but allowed. Lying about me is not; I've been cleared of all sock accusations. MilesMoney (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in the stars to hold our destiny but in ourselves.--MONGO 18:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

oppose at lest on the basis of the Rohrabacher dispute. A quick look at the Wash. Post profile on him shows he has a tendency to make quotable and outrage-generating statements. As far as the Islam quote is concerned, there's no real basis for disputing that he said it, and he has something of a record of similar comments. The response to the insertion has not been anything remotely resembling consensus-building; instead, it quickly turned into a campaign to chuck MM out of access to the article. MM needs to work more collaboratively himself, but his opponents look to me to taking an WP:OWNERSHIP approach to the articles in question; the questioning of the reliability of the quote is patently not in good faith. I have more issues with MM's application of categories, but I must also say that some of the categories in question invite abuse. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Should have happened long ago and his ban on Libertarian articles should not have been limited to LVM only. Arzel (talk) 15:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, sanction is too far-reaching for the evidence given. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:22, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support When he isn't putting negative and biased and sometimes inaccurate content with poor sourcing into BLP articles, he's supporting keeping in equally bad content from other biased editors. Topic ban on libertarianism also would be warranted. (See WP:RSN discussions where he's defended blog entries and other poor sourcing, after talk page discussions did not convince him and others of that poor sourcing: Gene Callahn blog; Callahan again; Matt Bruenig.) And I would not fight a site ban. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Several postes in the above discussion sugest that biased or advocavy sources should not be used, and that MM should be sanctioned for inserting them. Please note that [[WP:RS}} says (in part): "However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Also this is too broad a santion on too little evidence, in my view. DES ^(talk) 16:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There was no BLP violation. FYI, here is my proposal for the article: Speaking of radical Islam, "That's what we're up against, people who will murder children, intentionally murder children," said Rohrabacher in an interview with Newsmax.com.[42] Newsmax is a WP:SECONDARY source. QuackGuru (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly suspect that the right wing editors participating in this ownership witchhunt wouldn't object to using Newsmax, even though it is on a par with Fox News as a right wing partisan source, yet they have objected to using ThinkProgress. Both are partisan sources, and if backed up with the primary source, would be appropriate. A polite BRD request for the primary source could have prevented all this waste of time. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: is the issue specifically BLPs or political BLPs/articles? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Broadly construed," specially used this way, ir more damaging than problem-solving. I'd recommend a more narrower sanction that actually touches the issue from the inside, not from the outside. I recognize that there is a problem that needs to be solved, but this is not the way. Maybe another proposal? — ΛΧΣ²¹ 16:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Hahc21: What would you suggest? A 1RR restriction? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whether general 1RR or some other sanction for Miles would be helpful or not, I don't think proposing it here will be of much value. The better venue would be WP:RFC/U, where editors could bring forth evidence and proposals in a calm and orderly way, not the quick-reaction approach of ANI. The urgency to do something now now now isn't clear enough to gain consensus here, nor is this a productive venue for slow deliberation and weighing of numerous options. --RL0919 (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@A Quest For Knowledge: RL0919's proposal is good. I think that opening an RfC/U and working this issue there is way better than doing it at ANI. If the problem still persists, and the RfC/U solves nothing, well, we still have Arbitration as our last resort. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 19:17, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree about this being the wrong venue, but not entirely the subject, although some type of warning would be appropriate.
Considering the growing appropriateness of a "snowball clause" closure in favor of MilesMoney, possibly an indef for Roccodrift (see the current SPI), ~~and warnings for AQFK (for raising this disruptive farce in an inappropriate venue)~~ and right wing editors like Arzel (who pretty much owns Koch brother/Tea Party related articles to the degree that many dare not edit them), I think we need to reconsider this whole matter in light of these findings. MilesMoney does indeed have issues, but they are not as serious as pictured above, and can be dealt with without using noticeboards. The accusers have far greater issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken the part about AQFK, as he only started this proposal, not the whole mess. My apologies. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RL0919's proposed 1RR restriction is a better idea than a BLP topic ban, for a number of reasons. For one thing, it leaves no room at all for misinterpretation or game-playing. Roccodrift (talk) 22:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, I'm not the one who proposed that; I referred to it in response to someone else's proposal. I proposed taking the concerns about his editing to WP:RFC/U for a more comprehensive and less time-pressured discussion. --RL0919 (talk) 22:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And I assume it's OK to notify everyone who participated in this one or the last one? I've generally been unclear on that issue for future reference. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:23, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule at WP:CANVASS is that it is OK to notify editors who participated in previous discussions, as long as the notification itself is appropriate (neutrally worded, etc.) and you notify fairly (notify everyone who participated in, say, the last two ANIs, not just those who supported a specific position). --RL0919 (talk) 19:38, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gamaliel. The contentious material about a politician making certain statements was poorly supported by a reference to Think Progress, but there was no question whether the politician actually said these things; he is clearly seen on C-SPAN 3 (US Government TV) making these statements. MilesMoney likes to revert, bully and argue but this case is not the one which will prove he must be sanctioned. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. So we have one or two uninvolved editors who support a ban, and then we have about 10 editors who support a ban and who are all involved in fighting MilesMoney on various political articles. I don't think that this is the way that the process is supposed to work. I suggest that the closing admin disregard the !votes of the editors who are currently involved in an editing dispute with MilesMoney. — goethean 20:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Good faith content disputes and interpretations of gray areas of policies should never result in editors being banned from such a large class of articles. We should remember that reasonable editors can disagree on how policies are applied, especially WP:BLP. In this case, the direct quotes by Rohrabacher were easily verifiable. The categories kerfuffle has bad actors on both sides of the dispute and in no way justifies a BLP ban. - Mr X 23:08, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support This discussion was introduced poorly. ThinkProgress is a reliable source and the fact that it is partisan does not detract from that. Furthermore, it backs up its story with reliable primary stories. However, MilesMoney misrepresents that source by saying the subject " generated controversy."[43] The source merely repeats by he said and does not report the effect his words had.[44] This is part of a wider problem, a persistent insertion of negative information in articles about right-wing U.S. politicians, regardless of the notice they have received in reliable sources. TFD (talk) 23:12, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I follow. The original allegation is that ThinkProgress was not a reliable source for the quote so I was committing a BLP violation, or even defamation (somehow). You seem to be disagreeing strongly with that and instead arguing something much milder; that we shouldn't have said it "generated controversy". We can discuss this, of course, but it seems to me that you're effectively admitting that Rocco did not have any excuse for edit-warring, much less violating 3RR. Yet you seem to be endorsing a broad, permanent ban on the basis of a minor disagreement over the precise balance between positive and negative material, which is something reasonable people can differ on. So, all in all, I'm kind of confused by the contrast between your moderate view of the issue and your support for draconian measures. Am I misunderstanding? MilesMoney (talk) 23:25, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MrX, The Four Deuces and other editors who have defended the reliability of Thinkprogress might want to look in on the discussion currently ongoing at BLPN [45], where it has emerged that Thinkprogress did, in fact, misrepresent Rohrabacher's remarks. Roccodrift (talk) 23:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please look, because what Rocco said is unambiguously false. TP had the quote in context. The editor who wrote that section of the article did not include enough of that context, so we all agreed to add it back, particularly with the inclusion of the modifier "radical" in front of "Islam". It concerns me that Rocco is making a statement that is so obviously false and so easily disproved. Perhaps he expects everyone to take him at his word without checking. MilesMoney (talk) 23:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miles is right; I stand corrected. Without allowing anything new about the reliability of TP, in this instance it was actually a previous editor who misrepresented the quote. That said, it should be noted that Miles reverted the content back into the article (more than once) after it was challenged, without verifying its integrity. Thus, there was in fact a BLP problem, and Miles owns it by adoption. Oh, and by the way... obviously I expected everybody to take me at my word without checking, which is why I provided a link. (Sheesh.) OK, back to your usually scheduled drama. Roccodrift (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesMoney:I believe that you are a bit confused. The BLP/N discussion states that this was "a very clear BLP violation. I don't think anyone who's commented here about Rohrabacher believes it's okay to distort what he says. The best way to avoid this sort of thing is to avoid partisan or unreliable sources like Think Progress, Redstate, Daily Kos, Instapundit, et cetera"[46] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:47, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your summary of BLPN is not correct. One editor did think that omitting the "radical" was a BLP violation, but that was the same editor who incorrectly claimed that partisan sources are automatically unreliable (directly contradicting WP:RS), so I think we should accept that as an exaggeration. There was no consensus in support of this view, and we didn't dote on it because it didn't matter.

I never objected to including "radical" and that was never the issue when Rocco edit-warred to keep the whole quote out: he claimed that any use of TP as a secondary source was an obvious (to him alone) BLP violation. Rocco, like that other editor on BLPN, was wrong about policy. Keep in mind that, while it's probably true that Dana meant radical Islam, not Islam in general, that's not obvious because he was inconsistent about using that adjective. We're adding the adjective because we want to be particularly careful not to misquote him. MilesMoney (talk) 00:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Quest For Knowledge, I think you should stop now. You have made your WP:POINT. QuackGuru (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesMoney:Aside from yourself, in the BPL/N discussion, I count 4 editors who say that it was a BLP violation[47][48][49][50] and zero who say it wasn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AQFK, you are making false statements. Please stop. MilesMoney (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@MilesMoney: Which part is false? I provided diffs so anyone can easily verify everything for themselves.[51][52][53][54] So which part is false? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:27, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

These diffs do not say what you would like them to.

MONGO's shows him saying, "Beware of any editor that argues in favor of adding minor but highly negative information to any BLP no matter how well sourced it is." It's unclear how you translated that into an accusation of BLP violation.
TFD's shows him disagreeing with the need for "radical" and instead concerned about "controversy", but he doesn't say there's a BLP violation.
AYW, as mentioned above, actually did claim that it was a BLP violation to omit "radical", but this argument never came up during Rocco's edit war (remember: he argued that TP was unreliable) and TFD disagrees with it.
Rocco probably thinks there's a BLP violation, but what he said was confused. First, he falsely accuses QG of admitting that there was a BLP violation. Then, he retracts his original complaint about TP as a source and agrees with AYW that it's ok so long as we mention "radical".

So that's one, maybe two, out of the four claimed. In contrast, as far as I can tell, TFD, QG, Mangoe, and MONGO (no relation) all commented on the BLPN without claiming there was a BLP violation, as did I. In other words, 2 out of 7 claim it's a BLP violation. I'm going to have to say that this does not represent a consensus. MilesMoney (talk) 00:45, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkProgress accurately reported what the congressman said. His statement is reported by them in full and supported by a C-span tape. It could be of course that he did not mean what he said and was not referring to the religion of Islam, but to radical Islam, which btw is not a religion. If there had been a "controversy" about his remarks then of course we would be able provide various views on what he meant.

The problem is not with the source but with the edit. It claims that the statement has raised controversy when in fact it has been ignored. And until it raises controversy, it does not belong in the article.

TFD (talk) 00:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it ever came up until now, but I'd be fine removing "raised controversy" and keeping it purely as an accurate quote showing his views on (radical) Islam. MilesMoney (talk) 00:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's simply not true that this hasn't come up until now. Look, it's great that you're willing to discuss these things, but it would have saved all of us a lot of trouble if we could have had this discussion on the article talk page. I appreciate that you started the thread there, but your edit warring put a dampener on the conversation. St Anselm (talk) 00:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I didn't see that complaint on either the article talk page or BLPN. Regardless, I have no problem removing the "controversy" stuff. Now onto the meat:

While I didn't violate 3RR like Rocco did, I freely admit that I should not have allowed him to bait me into edit-warring back. In my defense, I also brought the issue up on the talk page and on BLPN (twice!), while suggesting RSN as another possible venue. I did not want it to come here and should never have been taken here.

There have been two concrete complaints brought up since the page was frozen (the other being "radical") and I was fine with both of them. Rocco's original complaint about the source being unreliable because it's partisan has been rejected and he's backed off on it, especially after the suggestion of the compromise of including the primary source.

The fact that this has been escalated into yet another attempt to (effectively or explicitly) site-ban me says more about the social dynamics of ANI that it does about a simple dispute that, if not for this escalation, would have been resolved on BLPN hours ago. The fact that you support this makes me wonder why you're out for blood. MilesMoney (talk) 01:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, honestly this is a ridiculous proposal. If anything, Roccodrift should be sanctioned for breaching WP:3RR. Gaba ^(talk) 00:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I'm following these comments, it looks like editors are supporting or opposing the BLP ban. But there are alternatives that are getting lost in the thread. So my dirty dozen listing of suggestions includes:

Give MilesMoney a job at the WikiPedia foundation, corner office next to Jimbo's.
Elect MilesMoney as an administrator or other high level guardian.
Bestow Barnstar(s).
Bestow WikiLove.
Do nothing/drop the whole matter.
Take to WP:RFC/U.
Issue an official admin notice or admonition.
Issue an official admin warning or reprimand. Y
Block for a certain period of time, say 48 hours, 1 week, 1 month, or 104 days.
Issue a topic ban(s), say, for any biography, or BLP, or topic area, or particular articles.
Block indef.
Block indef and release MilesMoney's IP address, email address, home address, etc.
Block indef, release data, and post the whole story in various WikiProject newsletters, DYKs, and as part of WP's fundraising campaign.

Of course those at the top and bottom of the list are included for humor, but those in the middle have viability. I'm marking my favorite with {{aye}} Y. – S. Rich (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 - For what is it that you wish to admonish @MilesMoney:? Do you also wish to admonish any of the other editors whose behavior has been discussed here? If you are changing your view, from the one you earlier expressed above, please strike the previous statement now revised. Thank you. SPECIFICO talk 02:18, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I have a problem with MM's editing/style generally. I see no point to a topic ban with respect to BLP articles in particular, and based on the recent issues with the BLPs, I wouldn't support such a ban, either.--Bbb23 (talk) 02:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note I find it ironic that during the discussion about being banned from BLP articles Miles would return one of the more inflammatory BLP rants I have seen in some time (read the last paragraph). I suppose he could be forgiven for obviously not even reading what he added back into the article, but that he would do that is quite distressing. Arzel (talk) 06:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the material MM added. Upon reading I posted the following on Talk:Fox News Channel#Removal of criticism: "Actually, the material added is appalling. I looked at just one citation – Sylvester Brown, Jr.'s blog – full of SPS & BLP problems." MM's edit summary, in adding the improper material, said "bold edit to encourage discussion". Sorry, MM, it purely a WP:POINTy edit. In fact, one of the worst I've seen. I'm moving my {{aye}} as a result. – S. Rich (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was just chatting with AdjWilley about the value of sticking to 1RR, and this demonstrates it. I reverted precisely once on the Fox article. As a result, I got to hear three mutually incompatible theories for why the criticism must never be restored. When I reverted Scott Rasmussen precisely once, it led to the rescue of an entire section, although it's still a work in progress. BRD works!

I'm kind of wondering why the two of you are dredging this up, though. Are you looking for some basis upon which to demand a site ban? Or are you trying to do something productive? If it's the latter, I would suggest that you might want to try the talk pages of these two articles. MilesMoney (talk) 08:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I brought it up because it is PAINFULLY clear that you did not read what you put back into the article. I suggest you go back and look at the article in your version. You will see that there are two controversy sections, where 75% of the material is exactly the same. If you would have looked at it you would have seen your error immediately. The fact that you did not simply shows you were out to make a WP:POINT and continue your habit of WP:TE. Why so many would defend a clear trouble maker like you...I have no idea. Arzel (talk) 15:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:I just thought of something...is this entire thread just a continuation of this thread? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly the kind of content dispute that should not spill over into ANI, especially when brought here by involved users. Also, Fox News Channel is not a BLP. - Mr X 13:49, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies everywhere. Calling Bill O'Reilly a Whitesupremacist qualifies as a BLP violation. Arzel (talk) 14:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a BLP violation if anyone had actually called O'Reilly a white supremacist or if the claim were unattributed. What was actually written is "The Anti-Defamation League has named Bill O'Reilly as one of the "parrotters" of white supremacist and domestic terrorist viewpoints, and of helping to bring these hateful ideologies into the mainstream white American culture." The ADL has been deemed a reliable source, at least for their views. According to experienced users like Collect "Websites of known organizations can certainly be used as cites for official positions and opinions of the organizations.". Affirmed by Jayjg who adds "The ADL is an expert source on antisemitism, and has been one for almost a hundred years,...". While I vehemently disagree with the edit on the basis of quality and WP:DUE weight, I don't see it as an "inflammatory BLP rant[s]". - Mr X 15:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the problem with dragging content disputes here is that they tend to be distorted into false accusations, such as the one that Arzel just made. Knowingly making false accusations on ANI is serious business. I'm not going to ask for a block right now, but I'm taking note of the incident. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make a note of your WP:TE and I will simply note that you stated that you made the edits to make a [[[WP:POINT]]. Stop using WP to be disruptive and you won't find yourself in these situations. Arzel (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it's time to close this report as WP:SNOW against sanctions. Otherwise, editors will simply drag their unrelated disputes here or otherwise pile on. MilesMoney (talk) 16:01, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As it is not "snowing", and there appears to be considerable material for you to glean about your behavioural problems here, I rather think asking for a section about yourself to be "closed" may indicate a touch of Hubris. I would commend to carefully consider the criticisms lest they be repeated on more noticeboards in the future. WRT the ADL position, a lot depends on whether it is the opinion of an individual, or of the organisation per se, and should be carefully described as an opinion in any event. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I proposed a "snowball clause" closure in favor of MilesMoney some time ago. Since we agree that this is the wrong venue, and that the discussions here are degenerating and unconstructive, we really should close this. There's nothing more to do here. This just creates more heat than light.

Let the closing admin decide what type of warning or reprimand to give MilesMoney and Roccodrift, as they both need it. In Roccodrift's case, it may be a last warning before the boot at the indef door hits them if the Belchfire SPI goes against them. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:50, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Going to ArbCom. While this is going on, MilesMoney has recently in Wikipedipa's voice accused almost all public figures at Fox News of racism, ~~anti-Semitism~~ and hate speech; writing among other things: "While the ADL focuses on B 's hate speech, nearly every Fox News commentator has been recorded forwarding these and other racially inflammatory ideologies, including but not limited to: M, A, B, H, M, I, G, S, I, F, P, C, G, and B." This is out of control and I am going to file an ArbCom case specifically against MilesMoney (not Austrian Economy) which will take a few days, and maybe longer since it's Christmas. Iselilja (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is an entire article in Wikipedia's voice on Fox News Channel controversies. The main article can have a WP:SUMMARY. QuackGuru (talk) 20:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It does. MM's edit bizarrely replicated most of the section that was already there, and added a long rant-like section at the end accusing Fox of racism. To be fair, I see no reference to accusations of anti-Semitism, only to comments by some Jewish figures calling for tolerance. Paul B (talk) 20:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:QuackGuru Can you give me one or more sentences where Fox journalists are referred to as promoting racism or similar in Wikipedia's voice? Give the whole sentences, so I can evalutate them. (Barlow: Struck the anti-Semitism). Iselilja (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iselilja, ArbCom is total overkill. It would be disruptive to bypass other processes, like the article's talk page, where things are being dealt with. MM seems to have simply restored content which had just been deleted. A dumb move to not notice that most of it was a duplication? Indeed, but we don't take people to ArbCom for that. Even if there was a clear BLP issue (maybe), we still don't do it for that. We deal directly at the talk page, not even at noticeboards. The content just needs tweaking, since accusations against Fox for racism and racebaiting are nothing new, especially with Megyn Kelly's recent claim that Jesus was a white man. Keep in mind some of the wealthy backers of Fox are members and/or sympathizers of the John Birch Society and Ku Klux Klan, so such accusations shouldn't surprise you. Calm down og drik lidt varm glogg. Det er fandens koldt derude! -- Brangifer (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote on User:Iselilja’s talk page [Later note: before this section was reopened], RfC/User would be more appropriate. But just a reminder, perhaps editors don’t realize that MilesMoney was banned from this [following} article after this WP:ANI: WP:BLP violation at Ludwig von Mises Institute. It was also a matter of broad charges of racism, etc. in an institutional article that negatively tarnished individuals. Of course, he wasn’t the only person engaging in the behavior he was banned for, but the admin saw it as a compromise with so many people asking for much more major bans. Obviously he does rub more people the wrong way which is what gets him in trouble. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Iselilja, I could not find the specific information in the controversy article. QuackGuru (talk) 20:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Its not clear to me that thats a BLP. If anything, we should make clearer what constitutes a BLP on the policy page Pass a Method talk 21:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy is clear -- any claim in any article or on any page referring to a living person is subject to the policy WP:BLP. I.e. any such claim must require strong sourcing if it is contentious at all. Calling a person a "racist" is, in fact, contentious. In all spaces, and including all talk pages etc. as well. If the sentence refers to a living person, it must abide by that policy. From what has been written above, it is abundantly clear that the policy applies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:30, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

A thirteenth alternative course of action for this situation has been added above. Editors are welcome to add their Y ({{aye}}) to the choice they think is best as a means of ~~totalizing~~ surveying the views. – S. Rich (talk) 01:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Srich32977 - This is not a vote. Please. SPECIFICO talk 01:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it is not. Most editors on this page know this full well. And the closer of this thread will certainly be aware of this guideline. I do not want to suggest that the decision be made by counting noses. (So I've modified my statement.) Rather, I think we have more alternatives available than that one suggested in the subsection heading. So the listing is a means of laying them out. It remains to be seen who casts their !vote. – S. Rich (talk) 03:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pleased to see your correction, Srich. Would you now also answer the question I asked when you originally posted that list: What action would you take with respect to any of the other editors whose behavior has been discussed here in this thread? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 10:17 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I'll reply on my talk page. – S. Rich (talk) 03:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per Gamaliel. Far too punitive. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest problem is the tendency to revert edits removing material on BLP grounds, rather than seeking consensus first. This is contrary to the BLP policy: "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first..." If MilesMoney were to undertake not do to that in future, it would go a long way to addressing the concerns, and I ask him whether he would be prepared to give such an undertaking. Neljack (talk) 10:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent analysis and proposal. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This seems to be a content battle on one front disguised as a personal battle on many fronts disguised as an AN/I on one front. As there will clearly be no consensus in support of such a draconian ban, I would suggest that AQFN withdraw the suggestion and find a new path forward. Frizzmaz (talk) 14:27, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems to be a what? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - A content battle about the relative merit or lack of same of the Austrian School that has turned into a nasty, bitter, personal bun fight, which has then turned into this AN/I notice. There are people on both sides who would do themselves an enormous favor by voluntarily stepping away from the topic for a month or so, rather than using every opportunity to ratchet up the WP:DRAMA. Frizzmaz (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see where you're coming from, but IMO, if anyone shouldn't be involved, it should be MilesMoney (and to a lesser extent, Roccodrift). Everyone on both sides aren't trying to cause drama with respect to the subject; I, for instance, not only have no connection to any of the subjects in question, but I never even heard of any of them before this thread. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it started out nasty and personal with new editors soapboxing about what a bunch of frauds certain Austrian economists and libertarians were and statingcurrent Wiki editors who disliked their edits were like cultish followers. Per Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Examples_of_disruptive_editing they engage in tendentious editing of an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from other editors. Tendentious editing does not consist only of adding material; some tendentious editors engage in disruptive deletions as well. An example is repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors. MilesMoney joined the crew in a couple months on. It's these behaviors that have angered editors, not so much that it has become personal. They keep yelling it is personal to muddy the waters of what remains primarily a content dispute. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not interested in getting entangled in the WP:DRAMA, other than to note that it this point it is ridiculously out of proportion, and driven by those who should know better. Frizzmaz (talk) 12:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering our whole system is politicians trying to deflect from the issues by bringing up emotional side issues and often highly subjective and even trumped up personal foibles and misspeaks (while often downplaying real crimes, including of violence), it seems Wikipedians should be allowed to think about whether an issue really is more content or personality-oriented. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not interested in WP:SOAP either, except maybe as a first-class demonstration of why this issue has circled and circled and circled and circled without resolution. Frizzmaz (talk) 17:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Frizzmaz:I agree with you that "Austrian economics that has turned into a nasty, bitter, personal bun fight" and that these editors voluntarily stepping away from the topic for a month would be a good idea. The problem is, I don't think any of them are going to do that. Or if they do, they will simply cause problems in other topic spaces. I don't follow this topic-space too closely, but MilesMoney appears to be the worst offender. Honestly, I would prefer a complete site ban per WP:NOTHERE. Everyone seems to agree that there's a problem here but nobody seems to want to do anything substantive about it. Personally, I'm tired of seeing MilesMoney's name in my watchlist, but they don't edit any of the articles I work on, so it's no skin off my back to allow the problem to fester. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 01:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support either a topic ban or a full-on site ban. MilesMoney has shown a tremendous lack of WP:COMPETENCE throughout the many debacles they've been involved in, and has made anything they have been involved in a cesspit. WP:NOTHERE probably applies. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CensoredScribe

Could I have some more eyes on CensoredScribe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ? I am worried about competence, but would like some third opinions on whether he's an actual problem. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just going by what's on the user talk page, I see a track record of running into issues with WP:MEDRS, but it doesn't look like it's been an issue lately. I also see a number of notices from BracketBot and DPL bot recently. Finally, briefly skimming CensoredScribe's contribs, I see a lot of recent activity, some of it arguable (e.g., WP:NOTNEWS issues: [55], [56], [57]), but I don't think it's anything obviously bad. Without diffs or a better hint of what you're seeing, GWH, it's a bit hard to evaluate this more. I think it might be too soon for ANI. Also, CensoredScribe has now been notified of this discussion. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 08:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This editor is inexperienced but enthusiastic. The balance of these two things is a net positive, though there are opportunities for improvement. I see MEDRS as a problem to which editors like him are the solution, rather than the other way around. This is something to address by talk page discussion, not ANI. To be clear, I think that the encyclopedia is much better off when it references exciting, important new developments in science rather than leaves them out, even if occasionally (as with the second diff above) they should be a little more cautiously worded. Wnt (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've had this editor on my radar for a few months now and they're a bit of an odd duck...maybe more than a bit. (I don't mean WP:DUCK but duck). Their meandering blog-like edits to their User page make for interesting reading indeed... the edits are usually made in response to some article edit of theirs that got reverted. Their article edits are bizarre to say the least, just browse through them. Sources are often cited but are only sometimes WP:RS sources and the content added almost never meets WP:DUEWEIGHT, they're often some weird bit of trivia needing a revert per WP:NOTNEWS. I can't say that on the whole this editor is a net-positive although I can't say this editor is outright disruptive either. What does Wikipedia do with an editor like this? Zad68 16:27, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, good feedback. Will use normal talk-with-editor process, that's generally more preferable to admin actions anyways. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:09, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Add this to the head-scratching column: [58]; I reverted and gave a warning for vandalism. JNW (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also one of the people who has witnessed CensoredScribe's sometimes-odd editing. As for what JNW pointed to, CensoredScribe explained that it was an accident. I've seen those type of accidents enough times to believe him on that. Flyer22 (talk) 19:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Smauritius disruption.

We are currently having issues with a single editor at Shraddha Kapoor. Issues have been ongoing for quite some time, they include sockpuppetry [[59]] which was used to pass this article to Good Article Status, and overall WP:OWN issues. Several Editors have attempted to discuss this at length on the article talkpage and the editors talkpage but we are having problems with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviors. Examples of this is [[60]]. Also edits like [[61]] saying an article with 10 categories has no categories makes me think we are dealing with an editor who just doesn't get it. I have notified the other editors, I've also asked for pending changes protections so the article changes propsed myst be reviewed by a reviewer to at least try and make this a decent article, at this point maybe a block should be issued but at the very least we could use more editors to watchlist this page. I am notifying the others involved. The sourcing needs to be checked source by source as well because some of the claims being made are not in the sources at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've declined the protection request because I don't intend to apply pending changes level 2 against the community consensus unless a local consensus here believes it's necessary. However, since it's one user, protection isn't ideal. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:39, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- On a side note would you mind pointing me to that consensus? I would like to review it so I am not wasting time in the future. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No worries, this RfC and this RfC. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked User:Smauritius for 3 days for edit warring and disruptive editing. But given the disruption to the article (including through CU proven sockpuppetry) I'd be in favour of an article ban from Shraddha Kapoor. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:48, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I personally think a topic ban may be unnec at this point..maybe just give him WP:ROPE see how they respond. It may not be needed if they get the point..if not then I would support it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 12:54, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope that they take the time during this block to re-evaluate their position and come back with a new appreciation for collaboration. A ban might be jumping the gun. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how they react after the block gets expired. —Vensatry _{(Ping me)} 13:55, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I dropped by the article and reverted and warned Smauritius over some rather pointless but disruptive edits. I'm inclined to think that WP:COMPETENCE might apply rather than anything else. That does not mean that all is lost, and serious proactive mentoring may do the trick. Fiddle Faddle 16:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This may or may not be related to the topic, but I find it unusual that the article was delisted as a good article less than a day after promotion. Does it have to do with this users disruption? Epicgenius (talk) 17:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Epicgenius The good article status was awarded by this users sockpuppet [[62]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thx. Epicgenius (talk) 17:50, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In such case, why isn't the master blocked indef? (I had written this before. Where did my comment vanish???) §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 03:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From the sock farm that brought you List of Jewish American fraudsters I present

Dealt with. -- FYI: wikt:fraudster! ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mikemikev. And, perhaps for a precedent, List of American fraudsters of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). For both of these new ones we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of American fraudsters of Jewish descent but I'm probably going to delete at least the Jewish descent one shortly as a recreation of an article deleted at AfD as well as a creation by a blocked editor after lunch. Some of the background is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Jewish American fraudsters and the earlier ANI discussion[63]. Dougweller (talk) 13:21, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, someone beat me to it. Dougweller (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dougweller#Feedback — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.1.214.45 (talk) 15:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting funny. Should those be revdel'd or something? Ansh6 6 6 16:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IP blocked and posts revdeleted. Mark Arsten (talk) 16:15, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is "fraudster" even a real English word? I've only ever seen it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain

Nickst keep depopulating Category:International aquatic competitions hosted in Spain and Category:International winter sports competitions hosted in Spain outside of process and doesn't stop it, even after it was pointed out to him that it's inappropriate. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Clear renaming per C2C, from "hosted in Spain" (wrong) to "hosted by Spain" (right). All such categories use "hosted by X" format, see Category:International association football competitions in Europe by host and subcategories for example. Armbrust stopped the trivial renaming without any reasonable arguments, I don't understand why. NickSt (talk) 19:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The requirement for speedy rename is that the category is listed at WP:CFDS and remains there unopposed for 48 hours. You already listed them there and were opposed, meaning they can't be speedily renamed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:42, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Armbrust wrote, There is no clear convention for the use of "by" insteady of "in". But there is a clear convention because only two (!) from thousands categories in Wikipedia's sports cattree use "hosted in X" format now. All others use "hosted by X" format. No reasonable arguments why only this two categories must be different from anothers. Per WP:BOLD I can do the trivial renaming by myself to help make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. Because Ambrust using this "arguments" ("no clear convention", 2=1000, "outside of process") can prevent any categories renaming. NickSt (talk) 19:53, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not exactly what I wrote, at end of it you missed "at Category:Sports festivals in Spain." Also that only prevents the category from being speedily renamed, and you should listed it at full discussion instead of moving the category out of process (repeatedly). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:58, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      - Not way. C2C is applicable here. Why does Armbrust only decide that "no clear convention" and "outside of process"? And trivial renamings opposed by Armbrust stay after many months at WP:CFD without any results (1, 2). It will be two votes in CFD, I am for, Armbrust always against (without reasonable arguments) (3), and what to do? NickSt (talk) 20:16, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Content dispute, should go on talk page, not drama noticeboards. And Armbrust, you've passed 3RR already. Dark Sun (talk) 20:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        @NickSt Speedy renaming is for uncontroversial cases, and anybody can oppose them. It doesn't matter, who was it. Your recent attempt to conventionalise Category:Sports competitions by sport was opposed by two editors, but you will renamed it nonetheless if it's removed from the page right? Also they remained on that page, because you or anybody else has moved them to full CFD.
        
        @Dark Sun It's not a content dispute. It's a procedural matter, which NickSt doesn't want to follow. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:29, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        They are opposed for golf tournaments mainly. No reasons why Category:Floorball Championships cannot be renamed to Category:Floorball competitions per C2C are shown. It is a pity, but wrong categories remain due to some unargumented opposed opinion. Interesting moment now, I can create a new sporttree category easy, but I cannot rename that category without Armbrust "oppose" or CfD two month waiting. NickSt (talk) 20:43, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        No, they are opposed generally, because they would not follow the common terms in these sports. Also, that they are wrong is just your opinion. If you want to renamed them, than you need to initiate a full discussion at CFD, which is that way. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:51, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        Category:Floorball Championships is not common terms in floorball also, but it is need wait two months to rename it (trivially!) to Category:Floorball competitions. Why are you in oppose to all sports category moves always? NickSt (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        That's not true, I don't oppose all sports category moves. Only if I think they shouldn't be made. (In this case for example I only opposed speedy renaming of the categories.) Waiting "two months to rename it" isn't a problem, because there is no deadline. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        The deadline is now but you stopped the usefull renamings. No rule that I cannot rename the small category (trivially) without CfD. Show any reasonable arguments against renaming instead of opposing per "outside of process" only. NickSt (talk) 21:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        "Usefull" isn't one of the speedy renaming criteria. The CFDS page clearly says: "Contested requests can be removed from this list after 48 hours. If the nominator wants to continue the process they need to submit the request as a regular CfD", and you failed to do that in the last 30 days. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:24, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Not convinced that 3RR applies here. The bottom line is that the categories need to be repopulated and a full discussion started if someone wants to move content. This is not a content dispute, it is a naming convention issue! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
One question to administrators. Can the usual user rename the categories (non-controversial) without CfD discussion? I don't see the direct rule about it. If somebody create category with mistake/wrong name, is it normal to put articles into another category and speedy delete the first one per {{db-catempty}}? Or any category moving must be discussed with Armbrust? NickSt (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- No. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - No for which question? Show link to rule about it please. NickSt (talk) 00:53, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - For "Can the usual user rename the categories (non-controversial) without CfD discussion?". It is not supported in the software. You know very well where the instructions are for moving content so that does not need to be pointed out to you. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Vegaswikian:. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 17:47, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if someone could undo these out of process moves. Or should I do it? @Vegaswikian: Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:41, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you would be considered involved at this point. Do you have a list? That way someone else can resolve it. Or for a more final decision, it can go to a full CfD for a fuller discussion if that would be the better way to deal with it and get closure. If it is the issue of 'of v in' in those two categories, I'd recommend the full CfD route. Note that I have not looked at the categories in question. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Vegaswikian: I don't see, how WP:INVOLVED is relevant in undoing an out-of-process category renaming. IMO these need to go to full CFD, and therefore the categories should be repopulated before that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Future timestamp to prevent archiving. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:17, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request block

SOCKS IN THE DRAWER

The master and its socks are indefinitely blocked. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

NOTE: Sorry, I posted this at the Administrators' noticeboard by mistake. This is a copy of what I posted there.. I would like to request a block for user User:US1939. He or she is creating tons of one sentence stubs about moths and butterflies (articles I all expanded). He or she seems to think he owns the articles and keeps reverting changes I made. He is linking to disambiguation pages, as well as replacing specific stub types with a generic stub type. He is not responding to any comments made on his talk page and has now started edit-warring. Furthermore, I suspect he is using sock-puppets, since similar articles are being made by other users who appeared around the same time as US1939. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:58, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think User:I'm Shmacked is a sock-puppet account. This user is creating articles which are exactly the same in structure and both accounts are new. Furthermore, this user is also not responding to any comments on his talk page. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Doesn't this belong at WP:SPI? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 09:09, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sorry, this is the wrong page then? I'm an experienced wikipedia editor, but never requested admin intervention before, so please forgive me.. Ruigeroeland (talk) 09:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't figure out the SPI interface, just list the suspect accounts in a message on my talk page. I'll look into this tomorrow if no one else has. Going to bed right now. Cheers. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with blocking US1939 to get him to respond and participate in discussion; this probably could have gone to WP:ANEW. Not as sure about I'm Shmacked. The use of {{butterfly-stub}} on every article he creates rather than a more specific stub template (identical to US1939) is curious at least. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 13:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, as well as the sentence: [author] used the scientific name in [year of description]. This particular sentence has not been used on any other moth or butterfly stub and there are now a number of users who introduced this sentence all within a week or so. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Other sock-puppet users are probably User:‎Laylatul-Qadr, User:Kindergarden's mirror, User:Not enough213 and User:You are Xtupid too. Although the created articles are technically sufficient for addition to wikipedia, I would really like someone to halt this person. These articles are useless stubs only containing info that is already found on country check lists. I like to keep track of new articles and expand all butterfly and moth articles right away, but I cannot keep up with the sheer number of articles created within a few seconds. Ruigeroeland (talk) 14:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

US1939 blocked 24 hours. Hopefully that'll loosen his lips. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, he just created two new accounts: User:Inept red square and User:Meat eater Ants and created another 100 or so useless stubs that I need to cleanup. I suspect this is not going to end anytime soon. Would an IP block be possible? This is really de-motiving me from working on Wikipedia. I like to create articles in an orderly fashion. I can handle one or two badly structured stubs a day, but this is too much. Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:32, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hang tight - I'm working through some CU results now.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Nice to see all the helpful people over here! Makes me wanna report vandals more often.. :) Ruigeroeland (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Several are now blocked. Notable exceptions are User:Laylatul-Qadr, User:Meat eater Ants and User:Inept red square, who are probably candidates for blocks based on behavior even if the CU didn't turn evidence (particularly Laylatul-Qadr, whose current userpage is identical to an older version of I'm Shmacked's). Guessing we'd theoretically call User:Stern review the sockmaster given it's the oldest account, though it could also be compromised. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 23:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll keep an eye out for any further editing which looks suspicious and report it here. Thanks again for the swift resolution! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reacted too soon. There is yet another sock puppet: User:Emails back to college. Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ruiger, are these articles always accurate? I'm just wondering what kind of cleanup is or isn't necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 07:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there essentially is no information in them, except the name of the species and who described it. Since he is basing his articles on a check-list of species without any further inquiry, I would say at least 1/3 is listed under the wrong name (i.e. the species is no longer deemed valid and is now a synonym or the species has been moved to another genus). Other problems are: he is not putting the articles in the right category, he is not using the right stub-category, he is very sloppy and makes a lot of errors: i.e. some articles have the wrong authority listed, the ref is often wrong (refers to a source which is about a completely different species), etc. I other words: There is almost no info and the info that IS there is often wrong. Ruigeroeland (talk) 08:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To eleborate on that: please see Scoparia crepuscula (I fixed it now). The title and article do not match (species name crepuscula vs. ejuncida), the authority is wrong, the family is wrong, there are two wrong cats, the link is wrong, there is no reference and the link to the genus linked to a disam. page (someone else fixed that). In other words: there are about 10 errors in a one sentence stub. Most of the articles he creates are like that. If he would at least respond and take on board advice I could live with it, but he stubbornly keeps creating tons of articles in this same fashion. Ruigeroeland (talk) 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additional checks are still being done as the socking is extensive. I will open an SPI and post the link here when the report is up; any additional suspected socks can then be reported and tracked via the investigation page.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SPI opened at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stern review. Please report any additional suspected socks there.--Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 00:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, will do! Ruigeroeland (talk) 07:40, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Particularly nasty vandalism to Evolution

Matter dealt with. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Not quite sure where the vandalism's coming from - I can only presume it's an unprotected template of some sort. Warning: NSFW Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:02, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I went to the cell membrane article, I noticed something really disgusting ad that somehow I can't get rid of. The message has mentions users like Reaper Eternal, and another user named Meepsheep, whoever that is, in which I founded that suspicious. I just refreshed the page, and it disappeared. Is it weird that someone hacked in to the Wikimedia system to make that disgusting ad? Blurred Lines 14:08, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a vandalised template, which just shows we need to protect templates on high-vandalism articles more carefully. Same issue I raised just above. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The vandalism was fixed, but I'd like to know which template was vandalized. Anybody want to give us a clue? Jehochman ^Talk 14:13, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No template was inserted, or removed in the cell membrane article, as of it was last edited in November. Blurred Lines 14:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Library link about (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --CIreland (talk) 14:17, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please lock that down? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:21, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Can we please list File:Frau beim pinkeln.jpg so that it can't be used on any page of Wikipedia. (How do we do that; I know it's possible but can't remember the page.) Commons doesn't help us by keeping such a large collection of pornography. Jehochman ^Talk 14:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done I have added it to the WP:BADIMAGE list. Zad68 14:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I will say one thing: This image has little obvious value, but we need to be careful railing too much about "porn" - One man's porn is another "Thank god, I needed naked images of people of all sorts of body types to practice drawing." I can't help but remember the last great "porn" purge included artworks by notable artists, and become a bit nervous when people start complaining about porn on Commons. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 14:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tip: If looking for vandalism done via a template, the left site tools menu has a link to "related changes". That will immediately surface the recent template edits that contain the vandalism. Jehochman ^Talk 14:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I highly suggest that a checkuser should keep a longer eye on Meepsheeper, just in case it does more "s". Blurred Lines 14:38, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

{{Plain list}} was also hit - Secret fixed it and blocked the editor. As Plain list was a redirect if anyone is locking down templates check the redirects too. Side note - you wouldn't believe the amount of traffic it's generated at OTRS today. NtheP (talk) 19:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A picture of a woman urinating (which is not exactly porn) isn't appropriate, at all, for this website. Why hasn't the picture been removed yet? Shouldn't many of the WP:BADIMAGEs be removed from public view? Epicgenius (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's "inappropriate" about it? It's not in the Evolution article any more. (Serious question.) It's a very natural act that everybody does several times a day. That HAS TO be encyclopaedic. HiLo48 (talk) 00:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@HiLo48: Sure, everyone has to pee several times daily, but it's sadly turned into a fetish for some, especially men ages 13 and up who like to see the bodily functions of young women. Pictures of genitals and bodily function is not something that people want to see when visiting Wikipedia; they would go to a pornographic site for that. And you must remember that little kids use this site as well. I know, WP:NOTCENSORED still applies, but there is a place where WIkipedia has to draw the line. Curse words like "shit" and "fuck"? They're allowed on Wikipedia. But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not, for many moral and ethical reasons, and because Wikipedia would be faced with lawsuits from parents everywhere.

On a side note, the article on evolution is supposed to give a brief summary of evolution, not a NSFW free-for-all. Epicgenius (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not... I was just wondering: are there any other varieties of genitalia? EEng (talk) 06:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, there are some communities on Reddit that tout this and other fetishes. Epicgenius (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be brief: the historical consensus on that is against you, Epicgenius, and this ain't the place to change it. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Writ Keeper: The historical consensus on what? I am extremely confused. Is it about Eric Corbett, or the ANI discussions, or about the NOTCENSORED thing? Epicgenius (talk) 00:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that pictures of genitalia should not be allowed. not sure how Eric Corbett even entered into consideration... Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 00:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Me neither, so let's drop the idea of Eric Corbett. Epicgenius (talk) 01:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] With all respect, if we try to get rid of nudity, we're going to have to get rid of a good chunk of iconic artworks.

Wikipedia can sometimes be foolish on this subject, like when Wikipedia 1.0 - the CD release for Wikipedia that was popular for a while? - grabbed articles from WikiProject Pornography (or something like that) for their release. God knows who that CD release was intended for. Not schools. But it's certainly memorable when you work in an arts Wikiproject and realise you're being heavily trimmed back to fit in things like that. However, Wikipedia is never going to become genitalia-free, and probably shouldn't. Not while "nude painting" is a major genre of art. What we should definitely do, though, is weed out the least educational, unused things. Indeed, I'd suggest adult, non-sexualised nudity might be something we arguably need more of - such categories tend to get trimmed down to the "pretty people", which is not necessarily particularly useful for educational purposes such as teaching drawing, where a variety of poses and bodyshapes would be helpful. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but these iconic artworks, with nudity, aren't necessarily porn per se. Lady Gaga has had some pictures of her uploaded to Wikipedia that are partially nude, as do some other famous people. However, pictures that solely serve the purpose of giving someone sexual satisfaction is not appropriate. I am not advocating the removal of nudity, I am just trying to say that Wikipedia is not supposed to be a porn site—it is supposed to be an encyclopedia. Epicgenius (talk) 00:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does it bother you that many Muslims find images of Mohammed offensive and obscene, but we include them here too? HiLo48 (talk) 03:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Could not disagree more about images of female and male genitalia as does Wikipedia its self. This is not some religious website... we are here to facilitate knowledge not to conform to religious views on subjects. Better we explain and show how a penises works and how to keep it clean over just telling kids nothing and just chopping some skin off because we are not willing to talk about the problem. Ignorance does not help anyone. -- Moxy (talk) 00:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another template was vandalised today in a similar fashion. See [64]. The vandalism revisions were Rev deleted. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 02:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to recap:

But pictures of the female and male genitalia should not... As previously mentioned, inquiring minds want to know what varieties of genitalia there are other than male and female.
Is it about Eric Corbett Does everything have to be about Eric Corbett?
Sure, everyone has to pee several times daily Might want to see a urologist if that's becoming a problem.
Lady Gaga has had some pictures of her uploaded I don't know what part of Lady Gaga's anatomy is referred to by the phrase "her uploaded", and I don't want to know. So that editors who have already lost their appetite for breakfast might regain it in time for lunch, please have mercy and end this thread.

EEng (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get back on topic here, this kind of template vandalism has happened at least 4 times in the past few days (most recently affecting the article Adolf Hitler, and I'm not sure what template was vandalised). As far as we know, the perpetrator is Meepsheep's sockpuppets. Is there any action we can take to prevent further large scale vandalisms such as the ones noted above? -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 01:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is really childish, so let's just delete the image and prevent its creation. Epicgenius (talk) 01:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look, the solution isn't to delete the image, whatever it is. Having a picture of Charlie Brown inserted is disruptive as well. The answer is to protect these templates, plain and simple. Now, let's move on, and with thanks to the oversighters and template protectors. Drmies (talk) 03:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Swdandap malfeasance

Swdandap (talk · contribs) is a longstanding detriment to Wikipedia. Editor has a long-term pattern of malfeasance including copyvio, sockpuppetry harmful promotional editing and spamming. Recommend strongest sanctions.

Copyvio

User has been plentifully notified of copyvio content on en.wiki and Commons starting in 2011 [65] and continuing for over a year ([66][67][68] etc.)

Promotional editing

Refer to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive760#Paid_advocacy for lengthy discussion and evidence of paid advocacy. Paid advocacy on non-notable topics like Corner Travel Index and Bahamas Habitat harms Wikipedia by drawing time and attention away from legitimate topics.

Sockpuppetry

Deep connections to paid advocacy noted above, implemented (sometimes) through sockpuppetry and/or meatpuppetry.

Apptivo sockpuppetry

Swdandap: Final draft in Swdandap's sandbox, 10 May 2012: [69]
Ariesdrink12: Article Apptivo created ex nihilo 8 September 2012 [70]
Swdandap: Links added to Comparison of time tracking software, Comparison of CRM systems, List of ERP software packages 11 May 2012 [71][72][73]

Bahamas Habitat sockpuppetry

Skywagon5 Article Bahamas Habitat created (since deleted) c. November 2011

Off-wiki evidence provided in prior ANI linking Skywagon5 to Swdandap either as an employee/contractor or as the same individual.

Corner Travel Index sockpuppetry

Swdandap: Final draft in sandbox 23 November 2011 [74]; pasted whole into Matsonian's sandbox 23 November 2011 [75]
Matsonian created article Corner Travel Index deleted 9 July 2012 (with admin comment "spam...paid editor"); complained about deletion 11 Jan 2012 [76]

Spamming

Extensive spamming including [77][78][79][80][81][82][83]

Failure to work with community

Warnings noted above received no response, in fact this editor has not posted to his own talk page with over five years of comments from other editors. Has not participated in AfDs of his own creations, e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christian Children's Fund of Canada and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MTB Himachal. User did not contribute to his 2012 ANI case either.

Submitted — Brianhe (talk) 22:07, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support blocking as Not here. If a 2008 account is still adding spam links in 2012 and making promo edits that other editors are constantly having to monitor then it is disruptive.
— Berean Hunter (talk) 23:15, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support block no excuse for this sort of thing going on this long, especially with the added problem of refusal to discuss & communicate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have anything to say against the allegations, however, I would like to present a request to not block my account since I would like to use it for genuine Wiki edits (I believe in the project) and would refrain from any other form of editing on Wiki. I hope my request is considered.

Submitted - Swdandap —Preceding undated comment added 04:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Since the 'allegations' are partially about your refusal to discuss issues with your editing, I think you really should say something about them. The Wikipedia community is largely built on consensus and discussion, it's a vital part of contributing here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:36, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to hear why you blanked the page on another corporate profile in your sandbox, hours after this case was opened. — Brianhe (talk) 08:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at this filing, I see two complaints that are potentially actionable, one is that you believe this editor to be Disruptive, and the other being a complaint of meatpuppetry/sockpuppetry. To emphasize what I see, I'm going to break down this filing. First is the Copyvio complaint. Everything there is well over a year old, if they aren't making any new copyvio's then I don't see the problem. Next Meatpuppetry/Sockpuppetry, It seems you've got some evidence, however I believe WP: SPI is better suited to analyze that information. Regarding Spamming, WP: EL has guidelines regarding external links, and I'm not seeing anything blatantly outside them. and finally his failure to work with the community, you link to two AFD's which I'm assuming were his articles which were coincidentally both kept, and one ANI filing. If I had an article go up for AFD, and it was already going keep I wouldn't comment on it. And ANI participation isn't mandatory, and I would say that generally it's a good idea to not participate in an ANI about you unless you have to. I don't really think there is enough in this ANI filing for something sanctionable. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can't agree with this analysis. You're essentially hoping that the copyvio issues are in the past, with no evidence that they have even acknowledged the problem or shown the most basic awareness of US copyright requirements. Ditto for the sockpuppetry and transfer and misattribution of for-hire work, which undermines the chain of custody of intellectual property in a way that insidiously undermines the very ability of Wikipedia's content agreements to work. Your argument that lack of participation in ANI is evidence of good faith I can't even begin to address; non-communication or even attempts to wipe evidence away (which point I brought up on 12/18 still hasn't been answered) when being confronted with multiple accounts of wrongdoing shows just the opposite. Taken as a totality these actions show a clear lack of interest in the human Wikipedia community and Wikipedia itself, and a clear financial self-interest which we have no reason to sustain. This is a bad apple's second ANI case and we're here debating how much more rope to give them before they hang themselves? Absurd; the body is already twisting in the wind. — Brianhe (talk) 18:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there are any new copyvio issues, then they are in the past. Actions from over one year ago should not be brought up now unless similar behavior has been established. You have shown no new Copyvio issues therefore it is old. For-hire work is not prohibited on Wikipedia, so you have no argument there. As I said you might have a meatpuppetry argument, but more investigation would be needed, and I recommend you take a look at the policy regarding meatpuppetry. You don't need evidence of good faith, you're supposed to Assume good faith absence of evidence otherwise. I don't really see evidence of wrongdoing, I see a user on a crusade, especially since they came to your talk page for a resolution[84] and you reverted their post. [85] Considering your hostility, I would recommend that they not reply to your post, especially since there was nothing wrong with them blanking their own sandbox. --Kyohyi (talk) 22:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* @Brianhe What's the most recent policy violation that you have found from this user? --Pine^✉ 08:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pine, I'll answer at varying levels of severity because there are several actions involved. The last questionable action I saw was blanking the user sandbox a few days ago (not saying it's an out-and-out violation, just hasn't been explained yet, and fit a pattern of behavior). The last minor violation that I see is [86] and [87] this past June and July, introducing blogs and a self-described "celebrity social media site" as citations in the biography of a celebrity chef. The last serious violation I see is a series of spam links in March 2012 including this one promoting Eurail passes. — Brianhe (talk) 17:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

* @Swdandap What do you think is the appropriate remedy to this situation? --Pine^✉ 08:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree with Kyohyi's analysis. One is free to disagree with accusations, to argue against them, etc. But it's poor form to simply ignore them. Doing so once might be excusable, perhaps a vacation or internet outage prevented a response. But ignoring comments on one's own behaviour for years at a time isn't acceptable. Wikipedia is largely build on discussion and consensus, and that's an important part of contributing here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Josephson editing on Water Memory

Brian Josephson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5.15.39.211 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Brian Josephson (this guy) has recently been editing Water memory, a topic in which he is professionally involved (he is one of main proponents of the topic). The article is under discretionary sanctions (Pseudoscience and Homeopathy.) Both he and an ip have been attempting to remove sourced content from the article describing the scientific view of the topic, or to dilute the scientific view. The ip's behavior and focus is strangely similar to Brian's, possibly one of Brian's students. Brian has been informed of WP:COI (most recently here). He has continued making edits to the article, and has displayed a battleground attitute on the talk page. His talk page edits have become tendentious.

Warnings

Battleground and not AGF

Extended list of diffs

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Dilution of scientific consensus

Extended list of diffs

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Brian suggests adding sentence contradicting the scientific consensus and sourced to himself. "According to Josephson, many of the arguments used to dismiss memory of water out of hand are unsound."
Brian changes "not consistent with accepted scientific laws" to " not consistent with the law of mass action" to imply there is limited incompatibility. Our sources say it is not consistent with "the laws of physics and molecular biology" and "conventional scientific understanding". The change was already opposed on the talk page, but he made the change anyway, saying "no objections made".
IP suggests "It is claimed by some sources evasively that the concept of water memory is inconsistent with the law of mass action among other (unspecified) eastablished scientific laws." changes article, nearly identical changes had already been opposed on talk.
Brian claims that the sentence was unsourced and should be removed outright. It was amply sourced to Nature and Time. He made similar claim earlier backed by original research. Ip responds by adding cn tag despite two clear sources and opposition on talk.
Brian adds synthesized material about magnets to contradict scientific findings on the topic.
Brian deletes scientific source outright based on his own OR that "persistent correlations in water structure" is different than water memory. The paper he deleted is titled "Ultrafast memory loss...of liquid H2O" and is quite obviously about "water memory". Ip removes it again, and again, and again.

Example of tendentious editing

Brian recommends distinctly unreliable content. Arthur Rubin responds "There is no possibility that could be considered a reliable source, or even a pointer to reliable sources". Brian writes that he wasn't suggesting using it as a source (despite suggesting it be included in the article). I explain the problem. Brian says any source he produces would be rejected anyway, so he refuses to produce any. IP says opposition to including this content shows lack of competence and is tendentious. Both continue to argue the point. Most of the talk page follows similar patterns as this.

Brian seems to be having similar issues on other fringe and pseudoscientific topics, (for example, Cold fusion, also under discretionary sanctions), but I'm not as familiar with those topics. It's clear browsing the talk pages of those articles that the same pattern of behavior has been going on for some time.

I'd like to suggest a topic ban on a minimum of Water Memory for Brian and the ip. I believe if a topic ban is imposed for a few months, it may encourage Brian to read up on our policies and work more collaboratively within the realm of his COI. If a topic ban is considered premature by the community, then I'd like to request that Brian and the IP be warned for tendentious editing and that we get a few more eyes on the article. If the community feels my proposal is too limited, a topic ban on pseudoscience, fringe theories, or homeopathy may be more appropriate. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

~~All relevant users pinged. Formally notifying them now.~~ Done. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:44, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This complaint indicates that Brian is attempting "to dilute the scientific view". This is entirely consistent with homeopathic principles, diluting the criticism strengthens it and the article remembers what it was like when criticism was present and thus remains or even becomes more NPOV. I just hope he shakes the article correctly after each dilution. </sarcasm> EdChem (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Good one. Well, the article history does remember, so content can be recovered. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, very few of these diffs are from the actual article. Almost all of them are from talk pages. So that dilutes the attack on Josephson considerably.Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately I must second Mann Jess's concerns. I was hoping that our warnings would work, but I'm not surprised they haven't. We have a case of lacking competence regarding the purpose of Wikipedia, and massive IDHT.

Specific article bans may be a good first step, followed by a topic ban from pseudoscience/fringe articles if that doesn't work. The COI sanctions must be enforced very firmly in this case. We also need semi-protections to keep IPs from editing.

Normally we welcome a Nobel Prize laureate as a nice addition to the team, but in this case I'm more saddened than anything else. -- Brangifer (talk) 23:37, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue If Brian keeps on continuing not to work with others, someone should look at the possibility of a temporary block or even a topic ban. It is very awe-inspiring that he is a renowned professor that has a Nobel Prize, but Wikipedia cares more about the conduct of its editors than about how important its editors may be. Epicgenius (talk) 00:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. We have a Nobel Prize winning physicist, an internationally acclaimed scientist, and we are supposed to defer to regular editors who patrol WP:FRINGE? Gee, that sounds a lot like what happened in the early 1900s. It seems like there was this whackjob named Albert Einstein who had some ridiculous idea about relativity. Thank God the cabel was able to shut his nonsense down. GregJackP Boomer! 02:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get this straight. We are supposed to give a single person free reign over an article because he won a Nobel Prize? We are supposed to sit back and stay quiet while he makes the article disagree with almost every paper published on the topic in respected journals? News to me! Let's go make sure Wikipedia makes note of the fact that bacteria can be identified by their radio transmissions and astrology is real, HIV is harmless. Listening to experts is great. Differing to experts is great. But asking someone to sit on their hands to satisfy a single expert is dumb. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, two other Nobel Prize winners who push wacky ideas. Yes, they made fun of Galileo, and he was right, but they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. The Galileo Gambit doesn't work with us. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GregJackP, you have a very good point, but there are many big IFs involved here. You're jumping in without knowing the background. We're dealing with someone who doesn't know how Wikipedia works, refuses to accept advice on how to edit when he has a huge COI, doesn't use RS, and is pushing ideas rejected by mainstream science and RS (homeopathy and water memory). IOW he's fringe POV-pusher. We've really stretched ourselves to offer him aid so he could improve content, but that is not his mission. If he would only stick to the area of his expertise many decades ago, and use RS, it might be better. No one is questioning his expertise in physics, but that's not the focus of his activities here. Otherwise we do love to have experts here, so if all was well, your comment would be spot on, but it misses the point. This has been brewing for a long time and has a context. Most other editors who have been doing what he's doing would have been blocked a long time ago. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a point of reference, that would dramatically impact our articles on telepathy, cold fusion, transcendental meditation, parapsychology, and homeopathy (among others), just based on this editor alone. Josephson believes telepathy is real. Our article should not say it is. Expanding this idea to other Nobel laureates would make wikipedia considerably racist. — Jess· Δ ♥ 04:19, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It is correct that, at the time that he did the work and developed the equations and principles that bear his name (cf Josephson effect), Josephson was an internationally acclaimed scientist. The work he did was sterling, and if he wished to contribute to our articles in that area, where he has a remarkable and solid track record of skill and competence, he could be of great benefit to this project, and I would tend to give his comments in that area great weight. Unfortunately, that reputation is less useful when brought to bear – some decades later – in areas where Josephson may be a vocal commentator, but has not carried out and published high-impact, widely-recognized research—areas like psychokinesis, telepathy, cold fusion, and (here) homeopathy. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm an uninvolved editor, I've never heard of water memory before, and it looks somewhat fringe to me. However, I have gone over user:Brian Josephson's edits and I really don't see much of a problem. What I do see is other editors reverting everything he attempts to insert in articles, sometimes with dubious justification. I'm also seeing a failure to assume good faith because he supports some fringe theories in science. We let everyone edit here regardless of their views unless they clearly violate policy. That means we allow people who know little about science to edit science articles. Is that really better than allowing a Nobel Prize winner who also holds some fringe views to edit? Let's not put Wikipedia in the news again for driving off a Nobel Prize winner. I am One of Many (talk) 05:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't that Professor Josephson holds fringe views. The problem is that he uses Wikipedia to promote such views. Repeatedly. In multiple articles. With little regard for policy or guidelines. Requiring Josephson to abide by the same rules as everyone else hardly constitutes 'driving him off', and handing out free passes because we are worried about hypothetical 'news' stories (written presumably by journalists unfamiliar with Josephson's track record) would hardly improve Wikipedia's credibility. Josephson has been around long enough to know how Wikipedia works - and if he isn't prepared to work to the same rules as the rest of us, he only has himself to blame for the consequences. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:49, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When I look at the article history, I see 4 edits by user:Brian Josephson. Two moderately substantial edits reverted and two somewhat trivial edits reverted. On the talk page, I see mostly reasonable discussion (some that could be more friendly on both sides). I haven't looked back at his editing on other articles or other discussions, but I just don't see why this should be brought here. I don't see with 4 edits on water memory and with no edit warring that there are behavior issues warranting coming here? I am One of Many (talk) 06:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You've got a group that has decided that they are the "experts" on what is fringe, and if you disagree, they overstate the case and run off real scientists. I haven't seen anything untoward by Josephson and plenty of attempts to work with other editors. It appears he has been patient in explaining issues and how the scientific community works, but the "cabal" doesn't agree. GregJackP Boomer! 13:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would be a real travesty if a bunch of self-appointed "experts" tried to run off real scientists... MastCell ^Talk 16:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that you agree with me on both issues. GregJackP Boomer! 00:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comments from BDJ himself

OK, let me, as the person concerned, comment on all this. First of all, the speculation that one of my students is the person responsible has no factual basis, period (and, for clarity, perhaps I should add that I have no idea who these editors are). I assume the person concerned is someone equally concerned about the tendentious editing on this page, and it is hardly surprising that similar things to mine are being said. I am glad to have such support (from a number of unsigned people), particularly as it shows that I am not a lone voice who has gone off the rails.

Now as regards 'removing sourced content', I and others have objected to this content (specifically: 'The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws') because nothing exists in the way of proof of fundamental inconsistency (only inconsistency with a specific scientific law), and in the absence of proof there is no basis for including such a statement. It is bad for such statements to present be in a medium of reference. On the other hand, I understand that wikipedia is happy to include incorrect statements, just as long as someone designated a reliable source has made them, and the policy is (it would seem) that such statements should stay even if challenged by someone who knows what he is talking about. Let's however take a closer look at the arguments of my chief critic MannJess. He cites two 'reliable sources' to support the statement that he insists should stay, notwithstanding adverse comment by a number of people.

First of all let me compare the two authors. Ball is an expert on water, while John Lagone (author of the Time article) is described as a science writer and editor. As far as I know, water is not his field of expertise, and presumably he was merely asked to cover, to the best of his ability, what looked like an interesting story. Clearly Ball should be considered a more reliable source, and he, choosing his words carefully, says only that the claims '[defy] conventional scientific understanding', clarifying this by citing the law of mass action -- and he does admit that this is not necessarily the full story. Ball's article definitely supports my proposal, repeatedly rejected by MannJess, that the nature of the inconsistency be clarified by citing specifically (as Ball does) the law of mass action.

What, though about the Time article? In the introduction, what Lagone says precisely is that the claim '[defies] the laws of physics'. What does he mean exactly in his use of the word 'defied'? Is he suggesting that it actually contradicts the laws of physics? Without reading the full article it is impossible to know. I made the point that the full article should be examined, and to the best of my knowledge none of my critics has taken the trouble to register with Time, and find out and inform the rest of us. Black marks for them!!

However, Lagone does cite a specific issue of Nature, so it is possible in fact to see what information he is relying on. MannJess himself suggests we should consider Nature reliable, so let's find out what Nature did say, which should give us clearer insight into where Lagone is coming from. What we find is an editorial, whose actual words involve the phrase 'observations for which there is no present physical basis', which translated means something along the lines of 'no-one has yet figured out an explanation'. This again gives us no grounds for the wording being persistently pushed by MannJess, involving talk of an inconsistency. The same applies to a similar editorial statement to be found on p.836.

I submit that the version favoured by Mann Jess is unsound and should be replaced by my preferred version which is well sourced. --Brian Josephson (talk) --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:38, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Does anyone object factually on the above analysis? That is key issue here! I haven′t seen here at ANI a factual content objection to it, only rant about Brian supposedly pushing fringe views. Clarification is needed in article on vague assertions by Time and Nature.--5.15.63.155 (talk) 19:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ethically, not the recommended course of action. You should never be editing topics that you're involved in to begin with - owning them is even worse. You're clearly not able to view this objectively enough to be editing the article - you may be the primary proponent of some WP:FRINGE, but that most certainly does not permit you to be the primary editor ES &L 17:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not be ethical, sensible, whatever, to read and study in detail what I have to say before commenting? Or do you think looking in your crystal ball, or at the guidelines, tells you all you need to judge my text fairly? Imagine you were at a job interview, and you told your potential employer you were an editor on WP, and he asked you how you judge comments, and you told him you didn't actually study what was said before responding? Do you think you would get the job? What is the point in ignoring the detail of what I have to say? --Brian Josephson (talk) 21:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And as I've said elsewhere, I find it distinctly insulting when people such as yourself question my objectivity. May I ask what qualifications you have to judge this? --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Facepalm... I suspect the question is because of the nature of the human condition, and Nobel Prize laureates are not only far from exempt, but possibly more likely to consider their status and position as making them better than others, or having more rights than others. That places objectivity as an even more distant goal to be sought. The higher one's position in life, the greater humility needed to offset the greater fall one risks. We all seek objectivity, and will never reach it. We have other editors here of extremely high position, but they do not mention or exploit their position or status....

In summary, questioning your objectivity is only to remind you of why we have a COI policy, and that your refusal to follow it is problematic. We want your expertise, but not if it means violating RS, COI, or OWNERSHIP. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a remark, OWNERSHIPS and misquoting RS is more attributable to MJess, Brangifer and others who choose to ignore factual content analysis pointed out than to Brian.--5.15.28.134 (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

convenience break

Having looked at this in a modicum of detail, I wonder if that is a boomerang I can hear whistling through the air? --John (talk) 15:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A relevant RS/N thread: Memory of water issues. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:23, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's kind of hilarious that Time magazine is cited as a scientific source. I have removed this citation. Shii (tock) 16:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PARITY. Water memory is a fringe topic, and as such does not require scientific sources in every case. Time is certainly a reliable source for general claims. — Jess· Δ ♥ 16:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read the guideline you are linking? WP:PARITY absolutely does not apply to an article about a study published in Nature. Shii (tock) 17:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a new section on talk to discuss it. The publication in Nature was discredited, and the results retracted. We already cover that in our article. — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is very simple. Josephson is advocating a fringe view, disruptively. A topic ban is in order. It's also entirely expected, since Josephson advocates many fringe views. More than one topic ban may be needed. We absolutely no not need true believers in homeopathy and parapsychology conducting their never-ending Gish gallops here. As a notable advocate of fringe ideas we can cite Josephson, but he is as much use here as Dana Ullman was on the homeopathy article.

Example: this edit is blatant special pleading, it has no real relevance to the article as it is not a general effect, requires specific conditions which are absent in the context of homeopathy (the article's context), and the text serves only to sow doubt where none, in fatc, exists. Guy (Help!) 17:01, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Andy and Guy -- the incivility is at most borderline, but the continued effort to promote fringe topics is clear. a13ean (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not academic publishing, a problem that has arisen with many other tenacious advocates of scientific views outside the mainstream. Josephson is, unfortunately, widely cited as an example of an eminent man pursuing crank notions. He also has a worrying tendency to self-cite, though again this is normal with academics in similar situations. His talk page shows that this has been a problem ofr a long time, and is not getting better over time. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And why is this a problem for you, Guy? Whereof do you worry? --Brian Josephson (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Were I to guess, I'd have to say "because self-citation, COI, and general crankery are detrimental to Wikepedia, especially when pursued over long intervals by persistent individuals". But that would just be MY guess, and I'm not Guy.GJC 18:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)(Non-administrator comment) In addition, Brian, regardless of whether you have a "preferred version" of an article, no one owns articles on Wikipedia. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What GJC said, plus it displays the lack of self-criticism which has been evident on your talk page for some time. You are a clever man, a very clever man, but you appear to think that being very clever means that everything you say is correct, and of great value. I'm afraid that is not the case. Being very clever is no barrier to being completely wrong - look at Einstein's "my God does not play dice" for example.Guy (Help!) 19:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sure, this guy (however eminent) cannot add references to his own work to articles, that's a COI right there. On the other hand, edits like this one from User:Mann jess are somewhat weird. How does racism come into it? Josephson has espoused fringe views, but that in itself does not get you a burning at the stake here. If it was up to me I would topic ban both of them. --John (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure he was referring to James Watson [90] a13ean (talk) 21:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't get the point he was making. --John (talk) 22:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I said "Expanding this idea to other Nobel laureates would make wikipedia considerably racist". There are many examples, including James Watson, Phillipp Lenard and William Shockley. I have no reason to believe Brian is racist. The point I was making, if it still isn't clear, is that giving someone free reign to change articles in opposition to our content policies just because they are a Nobel laureate would open us up to huge problems that I think we can all agree are undesirable. That is what some editors seem to (still) be suggesting. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:16, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, what a strange way you have of expressing yourself. I'm not sure bringing racism into it was a good idea at all. It's "free rein", by the way. --John (talk) 22:34, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I agree with Guy on the basis that this user should maybe be topic-banned. And we are dealing with some pretty serious COI issues here as well—this Nobel Prize laureate is adding links to his own research. Epicgenius (talk) 01:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you are referring to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_160#Memory_of_water_issues, your assertion is misconceived. This was merely a suggestion as to how the article on water memory might be enhanced, and obviously I had to provide the link on that discussion page in making this suggestion. Do you have a problem with that procedure? If you believe I have added a link to my own work to an article page, please supply that information rather than making a generic accusation. --Brian Josephson (talk) 10:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Brian Josephson: I believe that you are a reliable source. However, you are causing disruption to Wikipedia, according to the page history. You should probably maintain a neutral stance on the article, and avoid them if possible, as this seems to be causing great discontent among a lot of people. A topic ban should be a last resort, but you are violating some rules here (like WP:3RR). Epicgenius (talk) 20:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to contact the editor inorder let them understand our policies. Hopefully, they'll respond favorably and we'll find an amicable solution to this. TheOriginalSoni (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So we're going to topic ban an editor who knows what they're talking about, and has literally THE most prestigious award in Science, just because a bunch of nobodies have a bee in their bonnets about being shown to be inaccurate? Outstanding. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Yep. There is no authority principle in science -Josephson himself loves to state that. What matters is facts: that is, the bulk of scientific evidence, which in turn becomes published sources. And despite what Josephson says, the bulk of scientific evidence and community rejects Josephson views. If he wants to push forward his views on these topics, he is welcome to publish them in peer reviewed journals and provide evidence, until shifting the scientific community view on the topics. Josephson is not the first science Nobel Prize laureate to endorse very fringe science views -check Linus Pauling and orthomolecular medicine, for example. Or Kary Mullis and AIDS denialism. --cyclopia ^speak! 16:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)No one's disputing that Josephson did some excellent physics as a graduate student and that his Nobel Prize was well-deserved (especially not me since I use SQUID on a regular basis). The question before us is if he is currently using Wikipedia to push a fringe viewpoint, and I'm afraid that in his editing here he has been unable to keep bias from his current endeavors[91] out of his editing. a13ean (talk) 16:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Cyclopia says, there is no authority principle in science; anyone who doesn't realise that all of science is provisional and contingent should not be editing any science articles and should certainly not go near any of the fringe science articles, where a more nuanced approach is needed. I found this a staggeringly bad edit on several grounds; reverting rather than trying to compromise, and using Time to reference "The concept is not consistent with accepted scientific laws and is not accepted by the scientific community." Time is not a scientific journal and cannot be used to reference material like this. I've offered to give User:Mann jess a free wikibreak if he does any more reverts at that article; there are better ways to enforce neutrality on a complex subject than reverting and using popular sources. --John (talk) 17:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, I really, honestly, don't get where all your aggression is coming from. You've suggested several times that I should be ~~blocked~~ sanctioned. I don't see anyone else even coming close to that. Productive discussion has been taking place on Talk:Water memory since yesterday morning... discussion I began. Regarding Time, I've commented here, on the talk page and in edit summaries; WP:PARITY applies to fringe views such as water memory, and Time is undoubtedly a reliable source for general claims. Even if it were not, I supplied 10 other sources (nearly all scientific) unambiguously supporting the current wording separate from Time. If you have something to contribute to the content dispute, why don't you participate on the talk page? I'd appreciate it if the focus of this conversation wasn't diverted in the meantime. There are very real issues with Brian's editing that should be discussed in more depth, and it seems fairly strong agreement from most editors that some intervention is necessary. Can we please discuss that? — Jess· Δ ♥ 17:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Josephson's behaviour is being addressed. Your edit-warring is also problematic. This is the first time I have threatened to block you and I stand by it. Be aware for the future that bringing another editor here means your own behaviour will be examined too. --John (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[92], [93], [94], [95] You've misunderstood me again. I'm not asking you to let it go because I don't understand how ANI works. I'm asking you to let it go because you've suggested sanctioning me several times now, and no other editor appears to share your sentiment. Repeatedly suggesting it only serves to distract from an issue that a multitude of other editors have agreed requires intervention. ANI is drama filled and distracting enough without that kind of repetition. This is the last I plan to comment on the issue, I'd truly appreciate it if you could do the same. You've made yourself clear. Let's move on, please. — Jess· Δ ♥ 22:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is vague and needs further clarification. Man Jess has been repeatedly explained that he should stay out of topics where his technical expertise is weak. He insists on his misquoting of sources he doesn′t bother to read in full text to prevent misquoting, like in the case of Cowan reference, also discussed on article talk page, where insisted with his faulty insinuation.--5.15.28.134 (talk) 19:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He also claims that ′′Productive discussion has been taking place on Talk:Water memory since yesterday morning... discussion I began′′ ignoring other editors′ feeback on aspects pointed out.--5.15.28.134 (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

what a charming validation of the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" : "As wikis grow, the probability of adding new leaders drops and these entrenched leaders are increasingly active in administrative activity while using their authority to remove contributions of experienced community members." as an iconoclast, I still defer to the experienced, not for their laurels, but for the self-discipline and intellectual achievement, those laurels represent. I don't see much self-discipline around here. an admin would have to ask: "do I feel lucky: do I want to make history sanctioning a Nobel prize winner?" make no mistake, academic papers will be written about you, and Wikipedia's toxic culture. an editor would have to ask: "am I exacerbating or ameliorating the toxic culture?". Duckduckstop (talk) 19:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In order to avoid being tempted into wasting valuable time responding to comments here, I have dropped both this page and the water memory pages from my watch list. I am dropping in here only to make anyone interested aware that I am adding some thoughts regarding the problems I see with wikipedia procedures (as informed by these discussions), to the Wikipedia Policies section of my user page. Feel free to comment there if you have any thoughts that you'd like me to address. --Brian Josephson (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had a pound for every person who has come along advocating a fringe view, been rebuffed, and spent the rest of their Wikipedia career telling us why we're all wrong and they are right, I would be considerably richer than I am. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Legal threats by User:Ante Vranković

[96] - This guy is asking me to to provide an address so that he can start a lawsuit against me, because of this edit summary in which I removed a claim by one minor sports official that commented that certain soccer player's penalty by FIFA for making fascist salute is a result of "pressure" by the Croatian government. According to WP:NLT I'm supposed to report it here. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 03:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. That was a really intense legal threat in response to a single edit. I've blocked him indefinitely unless and until he communicates an understanding of our legal threat policy and formally retracts the threat he made. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Probably shouldn't even be unblocked then. Calling another editor a criminal for criticizing another editor is a line we shouldn't be crossing. And the current unblock request is close to being defamatory per se with respect to Ivan Štambuk. Suggest removing said user's talk page access and redacting. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the user's email access too, while you're at it. It's not necessary to keep it so he can start spamming other editors with uncivil emails. Epicgenius (talk) 01:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Ante has withdrawn the legal threat. Whether we want to unblock is another matter entirely, however. But, for someone with no other block history and no evident pattern of incivility... who knows. One more chance? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vnisanian2001 ‎

Vnisanian2001 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user continues to make unsourced edits despite warnings dating back as far as June 2011. The user has twice been blocked for this behavior and for WP:INCIVIL comments made on talk pages, yet still the user continues to make unsourced edits such as this, without using Template:Cite web or any form of reference in the actual edit. When the edit was removed and a warning left on the user's talk page, the user left two personal attacks on my talk page ([97], [98]) before deleting them and re-linking to a URL to a user-submitted video on Youtube the user earlier posted on the talk page. This user fails to meet WP:COMPETENCE, exhibits WP:BATTLE mentality when edits are questioned, and continues to repeat the same behavior despite two prior blocks and dozens of warnings for the same patterned behavior. AldezD (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Those don't really seem like attacks to me (incivility, yes; IDHT, hell yes, but...). Also, although it's true that Vnisanian2001 has been blocked several times, it's interesting that all the warnings (from this year, anyway) came from you. Maybe this is a case for WP:DRN? (I would also suggest listing him/her at WP:LTA.) Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 05:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between this editor not meeting WP:COMPETENCE vs. actions falling under WP:IDHT is negligible. The user has exhibited the same pattern of behavior for several years. How long must this continue? AldezD (talk) 01:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair question, but...since s/he hasn't made an edit since you filed this report, let's see if anything else happens. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 10:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban proposal for Michaeltleslie

Michaeltleslie is indefinitely banned from making any edits related to MD Rabbi Alam or the Million Muslim March, broadly construed. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 00:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Michaeltleslie (talk · contribs)'s purpose here seems to promote one "MD Rabbi Alam", starting with adding him to the Million Muslim March article (which was a damp squib). The same day Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/MD Rabbi Alam was created (and rejected on October 9th) and his name added to 3 other BLPs (along with the MM march). These edits[99] added a mini-bio to List of University of Phoenix alumni. Now this was a new editor so the bad references, etc are understandable. We then get a biography added to WP:BLPN [100]. On the 5th of this month he created User:Michaeltleslie/MD Rabbi Alam and added another series of edits to Million Muslim March to promote Alam.[101] And something I've never seen before, added a link to an AfD as a source in the article Jason Kander.[102] On the 9th a 'faux article' was created at Template talk:MD Rabbi Alam (I've blanked it) and Template:MD Rabbi Alam. An editor took this to templates for discussion on the 9th, where it has been relisted although I'm not clear why and is now at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2013 December 18#Template:MD Rabbi Alam. We also have on the 9th the creation of a redirect request[103] which is again a bio.

I don't know if this editor is capable of editing Wikipedia according to our policies and guidelines, but I am proposing at least a topic ban on anything to do with M D Rabbi Alam. The warnings and advice given on his talk page seem to have been ignored. He did ask User:Cirt for advice on the 9th but then went on to create the template and the redirect request which as actually a bio. Dougweller (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed that he didn't create User:Michaeltleslie/MD Rabbi Alam, he created Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/MD Rabbi Alam which User:EricSerge userfied and speedy tagged but turned into a redirect to the userspace page (which if deleted will be a red link of course). Dougweller (talk) ( 12:28, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There also seems to be a major conflict of interest as it would appear as though they know each other see here. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 12:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support topic ban because it's epic fail not to. Man katal (talk) 13:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Revision of topic ban Probably needs to include anything to do with the Million Man March. Dougweller (talk) 14:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My sole advice to the user was this, DIFF. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 17:08, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban - editor cannot currently be trusted to edit in these areas. With a topic ban, he has the opportunity to show he can be a constructive editor in other areas. If he breaks it, then we need to indef. Giant Snowman 18:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support topic ban since we're here anyway. It has been shown that the editor is causing massive amounts of disruption to the topic. Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just trying to keep this open during a very quiet time of the year. Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support as per GiantSnowman. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:JHunterJ

This user seems to insist that Basak redirect to Basak, Mandaue, and shows WP:OWNERSHIP of the redirect by reverting any attempt to have it point to the disambiguation page. Under WP:MOSDAB, if a title is ambiguous it should be a or point to a disambiguation page, unless the primary use is an article. Needless to say, there is no indication that Basak, Mandaue, a barangay (among at least two so named) in the Philippines, with a population of 32 is not the primary use. I contend there is no primary use and JHunterJ provides no explanation for his reverts when MOSDAB was cited. I won't edit war with him/her; but someone needs to stop this behavior. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See Talk:Basak. I think JhunterJ would prefer you use the WP:RM process. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 19:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure he wasn't just preventing the duplication of an existing disambiguation page? Having Basak redirect to Basak (disambiguation) isn't particularly helpful either. I do agree that Basak (disambiguation) should be the primary topic, but since another editor is involved it should be done via a move request. —Xezbeth (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, JHunterJ is clearly doing the right thing, in preventing duplicate disambiguation moves. Carlossuarez46 is correct in that the disambiguation page is the primary topic (though I don't think JHunterJ necessarily disagrees). I would be happy to request the move if that solves the problem. St Anselm (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. But I do need to say that as an admin, User:Carlossuarez46 ought to know about these things. St Anselm (talk) 19:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What are you requesting to be moved, User:StAnselm? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Basak (disambiguation) → Basak. Isn't that what you wanted? St Anselm (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That would be fine; why keep pointing it elsewhere? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User:JHunterJ is absolutely correct. The article currently at Basak, Mandaue was at Basak for four years before it was moved to the latter title. The move itself was done without discussion, which is okay per WP:BRD, but that also means that there has never been a discussion to determine that the title, Basak, should point anywhere except Basak, Mandaue. Any editor is entitled to contest a unilateral change of that redirect, and that change should result in a discussion to determine consensus. Since, for common sense reasons, we do not permit duplicate disambiguation pages at the "Foo" and "Foo (disambiguation)" titles of a page, and we do not permit "Foo" titles to redirect to their own "Foo (disambiguation)" titles, a move discussion with respect to the existing Basak (disambiguation) page is the proper way to bring about the change proposed. bd2412 T 20:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You can contest things as long as you are compliant with WP:MOSDAB; otherwise there's chaos. Not everything needs to be discussed. That's bureaucracy. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And neither the duplicate dab you started with nor the malplaced dab you tried next were compliant. Not everything you don't understand is bureaucracy. That's why there are Talk pages. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you all want Basak to keep pointing to the little barrio in the Philippines, because you think that that's what makes WP better as JHunterJ wants; keep it that way - this is too much drama over this redirect. Over and out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is not about whether anyone wants it that way, the point is that you can't resolve it by making a duplicate page, or a redirect that goes the wrong way. bd2412 T 21:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just remember, Carlossuarez46, it's the drama you created at Basak and then amplified by pretending here that there's an ownership issue or that I gave no explanation[104][105] when fixing your mistakes there. Your behavior is bad form for any editor, but especially for an admin. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nichiren Shōshū

Disruptive behaviour by User:Daileyn on Nichiren Shōshū — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catflap08 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Daileyn started a DRN thread about 20 minutes after this thread was started (and about 10 minutes after he was notified). Probably better to work it out over there for now. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) As the volunteer coordinator at WP:DRN this month I'll be putting that (DRN) discussion on hold until this discussion is closed. So far it appears there are no diffs nor any substance to the complaint, so a speedy close by an Admin might be in order. Thanking you in advance. -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion appears to be continuing at Talk:Nichiren Shōshū.--ukexpat (talk) 14:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that. I think they are making progress now that some experienced editors have joined the conversation so I will close the case at DRN and let the talk page discussion continue to develop a consensus. Thanks for all your help. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 20:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by user Goethean on Gun Control article

Less than ideal behavior is observed from several editors. However, no consensus for sanction was reached. Zero^talk 04:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

The gun control article is currently the subject of a controversial and heated discussion and RFC, which Goethean is continually disrupting. Deleting the section under discussion, removing sources, tag bombing, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&curid=44276&diff=586691031&oldid=586690527
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586689737
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586686675
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gun_control&diff=prev&oldid=586350360 (prior to creation of RFC, but during active discussion)

Gaijin42 (talk) 20:43, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might also be worth mentioning the rude personal attacks by this editor (goethean) on another editor's talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Page numbers are, in fact, needed for those references and the Nazi Germany section does, in fact, duplicate the scope of another article: Gun politics in Germany. That's apart from the fact that the inclusion of the Nazi Germany section in the history section is inappropriate and detracts from the article's neutrality. — goethean 20:48, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeatedly deleting the material while it's being discussed is clearly disruptive, regardless of what you personally think of the material. Leaving bad comments on another editors' talk page is also disruptive. ROG5728 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but User:Gaijin42 claims that my "tag bombing" the article is disruptive. In fact, I added templates which are entirely appropriate to the article --- and he reverted my change. You can't cite the entirety of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (he actually did this!). You need to supply a page number. — goethean 21:17, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that ROG5728 has appeared. ROG5728 is the editor who on 11 Apil 2013 moved the "Associations with authoritarism" subsection from "Arguments" to "History".[106] That was the original bad move that has resulted in strife and edit wars at the article ever since. Seriously: he moved a section which (NRA-style) argued for gun control's association with authoritarianism to History, and that's why we have a mini-history of the Holocaust at gun control. Maybe ROG5728 can explain to everyone why he moved a section which described arguments made by one side in a debate to the History section. Of course one could just as well ask User:Gaijin42 and User:North8000, as they are the ones who have been enforcing ROG5728's bad move since April. — goethean 12:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion on the article content is well reflected in the RFC discussion. The discussion here is your attempt to WP:GAME and WP:DISRUPT the discussion by deleting the content and sources WHILE THE DISCUSSION is ongoing. Gaijin42 (talk) 20:51, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, it appears this editor (goethean) has also performed at least 3 reverts on that article in the last 24 hours. ROG5728 (talk) 20:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is worth noting that the article in question has repeatedly been characterised as a POV-fork of our oddly-named Gun Politics article - and lacks any reliable sourcing whatsoever to justify this forking. The article is clearly maintained by contributors intent on skewing an article supposedly giving international coverage of a topic to suit the narrow agenda of factions of the U.S. gun lobby. The article concerned likewise lacks any sourcing beyond active supporters of this lobby for the assertion that 'gun control in Nazi Germany' is of any great significance to the subject - unsurprisingly, given that, contrary to propaganda dissipated by fringe pro-gun lobbyists, the Nazis actually reduced regulation of access to firearms for the majority of the population - and no credible mainstream historian appears to support the assertion that the restriction of access to firearms (or even to butchers knives for that matter) was anything other than part of the general process of removing citizenship rights, and general harassment, of the Jewish minority. The ridiculous attempt to correlate 'gun control' with 'totalitarianism' that the article propounds is unworthy of Wikipedia - as not only is it ridden with original research (of which the proponents are proposing to add still more [107]), but it utterly ingores the self-evident fact that some of the least authoritarian states in the world have also restricted access to firearms - and to a much greater extent, obviously, than Nazi Germany did (or didn't, as the evidence actually suggests). The 'article' is little more than a propaganda-piece, and a disgrace to Wikipedia. If there was to be any pretence at NPOV, this fork would be merged with our other article on the regulation of firearms, the U.S.-centric pro-gun spin would be removed, and those responsible for this abuse of Wikipedia for narrow political objectives would be sanctioned severely. I say 'if', because it is evident that this disgraceful state of affairs has been allowed to go on for as long as it has largely because of the narrow U.S.-centric bias of Wikipedia, and because those behind this dungheap of pseudohistorical spin are willing and able to rally an entire corps of 'contributors' to muddy the discussion with off-topic personal attacks, tendentious and repetitive nonsense, and a complete refusal to actually support the position of the article with credible sources. The tactic used to rally the troops on this occasion is one that I seem to recall Gaijin42 using before: posting a POV-ridden RfC which asserts as fact that which is under debate, and then notifying the mob that took part in the last farcical 'debate'. I'm sure that such tactics will prevail once more, and Wikipedia coverage of firearms regulation will remain the festering heap of shite that it currently is. Some things in Wikipedia are beyond fixing... AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

no credible mainstream historian appears to support the assertion that the restriction of access to firearms...was anything other than part of the general process of removing citizenship rights, and general harassment, of the Jewish minority.

...which is why we have really funny things like User:Gaijin42 citing a NYT article from Nov 9 1938 as a reference in the article. This citation is still in the article; Gaijin42 reverted, without supplying an edit summary, my attempt to remove it.[108] — goethean 21:44, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontested Facts (such as a german official making a particular announcement, on a particular day in this case) do not suddenly change because the source documenting them is old. Additionally, that NYT article is cited by numerous secondary sources (The Halbrook article, but also many books on Kristallnacht). To your point above about citing the entirety of the rise and fall of the 3rd reich - I reverted your disruptive tag bomb during a discussion, but I do not believe I am the one who added that source to the article, however, it has been in the article for many months, so I could be wrong. As mentioned in the article discussion, yo umake many accusations about fringeness and sick fantasies, yet have yet to point out a single factual error in the section. You may disagree with the opinions of people in terms of the relevance of the facts (that are undisputed by all historians and sources) all you want, but their opinions are notable, and should be represented neutrally in the article. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do 'all historians' (or indeed any historians beyond the fringes of the U.S. gun lobby) have to say on the relevance of Nazi Germany to a general discussion regarding the regulation of firearms? How about rather than Google-mining for obscure sources to promote your agenda, you actually engage in a little wider research? If Nazi Germany is really as significant to the article subject as you wish to make out, prove it - by finding the independent sources the article so clearly lacks... AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again you propose bars that do not exist. ALL POINTS OF VIEW are to be included to maintain neutrality. There are dozens and dozens of sources discussing this topic. Some neutral, some biased, some about gun control, some about the holocaust - but even if we had only the biased gun control sources, it would not change the fact that it is at minimum a notable minority viewpoint that should be represented. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:FRINGE. And WP:WEIGHT. And WP:OR. And then provide evidence that anyone but the same old sources you are repeatedly trotting out actually consider Nazi Germany of such significance that it merits the coverage our article gives it. Evidence from sources discussing the general subject, and not sources promoting the same propagandistic and pseudohistorical agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Uncontested Facts (such as a german official making a particular announcement, on a particular day in this case) do not suddenly change because the source documenting them is old.

If you are not a credentialed historian, then you should not be citing primary sources like old newspapers as if you were. And you should not be treating my removal of such as if it were vandalism. — goethean 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When did "old newspapers" become "primary sources"? I read the WP defs over and over -- and suggest that "old newspapers" are invariably "secondary sources." Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you knew this. It becomes a primary source, fringe, OR, not Cabal approved whenever a small group says so. Unless you are a credentialed historian/scientist/Nobel Prize winner who agrees with them, you really shouldn't participate. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very Painful Experience - This incident by Goethean has been very painful for many of the serious and patient established editors. I have been editing for 10 years and in my entire experience nobody has ever come onto my talk page and just started dumping profanities at me like Goethean. And I edit the Global Warming pages so that should tell you something. He's disruptive in his editing approach and he is disruptive on the talk page. Specifically:

profanity on my personal talk page.
removing blocks of content without discussion on talk.
adding need verification tags to peer reviewed, npov, very reputable content that is not in dispute
unwillingness to discuss substance on the talk pages, focus on person attacks and personal disagreements.
other points raised above by other editors

I think my fellow editors have been very patient. This is some of the worst of Wikipedia right here. This is why good editors leave. I feel bullied by this editor Goethean. Regarding the dubious contention that the article is a POV fork, a cursory search for gun control on google returns 700million hits. Gun control sections exist on the major newsmedia sites like cnn and time. In addition, broad subjects sometimes have independent articles....ie, climate change also has separate global warming, politics of global warming, global cooling and a bunch of other articles.....similarly at a minimum, gun control deserves a stand alone article page. So that claim is weak. The article is not in the best of shape right now because of disruptive editing like that seen by Goethean -Justanonymous (talk) 23:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A POV fork is when there are two articles on the same topic in order to display a particular point of view in one of them. Whether there are gun control articles on CNN is beside the question of whether gun control has been turned into a POV fork of the recently-renamed gun politics. I am sorry that I have made you feel bullied and I will do my best not to bully you. — goethean 00:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Gun control sections exist on the major newsmedia sites like cnn and time". Yet again, Justanonymous demonstrates the fundamental problem with this article - it is driven exclusively by the narrow discourse around 'gun control' in the U.S. This article is supposed to be presenting a multinational perspective on a global issue. It singularly fails to do so. Furthermore, it also fails to even offer a balanced viewpoint of the subject from a U.S. perspective. Instead, it cherry-picks sources to project the absurd 'argumentium ad Hitlerium' perspective of a minority even within the pro-gun lobby. This is a fundamental violation of WP:NPOV policy, and all the petty whining about 'being bullied' (yeah, right, as if Justanonymous wasn't engaging in the same personal attacks s/he accuses others of) should not divert our attention from this fact. Yes the debate is heated, and no, it isn't always civil - but the more fundamental issue is that Wikipedia is being abused by contributors concerned entirely with pushing a fringe agenda, rather than producing an article which accurately represented a balanced view of the subject. This is the real issue than needs addressing here. Or if not here, then perhaps at ArbCom, where the continued abuse of Wikipedia by POV-driven propagandists might at least stand a chance of being dealt with in a more fundamental way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC) [reply]

AndyTheGrump I would welcome arbcom. your repeated attempts to derail consensus building by wikilawyering and attempting to stop RFCs, goetheans removal of sources during a discussion of sourcing, complete ignoring of the pillar that "ALL Points of view should be represented" (" we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view") plenty for arbcom to discuss. Gaijin42 (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please illustrate with diffs where you have attempted to add any points of view other than your own into the article. Oh, thats right, you haven't, have you? No surprises there... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And goethean removes another source, directly discussing laws which prevented Jews from owning guns, during the discussion about if this section is sourced or not. This type of behavior is unacceptable. [109] The cited reference : [110] which reads ) "[Discussing the Nov 11 law] This prohibited Jews from "acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition [...] those now possessing weaopns and ammunition are to at once turn them over to the local police[...]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaijin42 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Has anyone noticed that Goethean actually admitted to being disruptive? [111][112] And all this while s/he is supposedly on a wikibreak (plus, s/he boldly declares that s/he is indefinitely topic-banned somewhere else; WP:IDHT, anyone?). Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erpert, those diffs do not show Goethean "admitting" any such thing. You should strike through them. It's really important not to distort or exaggerate the statements of other editors, particularly in the context of a heated discussion. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 01:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If that was a misunderstanding, I apologize, but that was hardly a personal attack. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 02:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(plus, s/he boldly declares that s/he is indefinitely topic-banned somewhere else; WP:IDHT, anyone?)

The topic-ban from Tea Party movement-related pages could be construed to include hundreds of pages. The note atop my user page is intended to be a request for editors to contact me if they think that I have edited a page that I am not supposed to edit. It is difficult for me to understand how you think that I was bragging about a topic-ban. — goethean 14:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to defend all of Goethean's behavior here, but Gun control does appear to me to be an indefensible POV fork. A haphazard collection gun laws from various countries apparently to promote the gun lobby's point of view, with half the references coming from blogs or news media when we should be citing historians and other scholars. I believe a boomerang is in order here. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Goethean should be sternly warned to be more polite when dealing with people who create NRA-driven POV forks. Those people, on the other hand, should be ashamed of themselves for subverting Wikipedia for the purpose of politically biased historical revisionism and rewarded by having their fork chopped off. I support deleting the article and salting the earth. MilesMoney (talk) 03:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be doing the gun lobby in general a disservice to suggest that the article accurately represents their point of view. They usually present better arguments than "Hitler took away the Jews guns so anyone who wants guns to be regulated is a Nazi" - this seems to be an extreme position even for them. This isn't mainstream 'gun lobby' propaganda, it is right-wing-conspiracy-theorist propaganda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll accept your correction. If it's even further to the right than the NRA and all the way into the lunatic fringe, all the more reason to burn it with fire. MilesMoney (talk) 04:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm disappointed that Gaijin sought this forum. Goethean, while not much of a diplomat, has a point to make: the referencing in these articles is full of all kinds of problems, even at the basic level of using on-the-spot newspaper reports to verify broad statements about supposed policy goals, missing page numbers, basic confusion between factual verification and historical interpretation. Some throw around RS, as if RS allows us to insert POV interpretation as if it were established fact. BTW, Goethean isn't the worst of the NPA offenders--there's one on the other side who's worse, in my opinion. Anyway, I see no need for admin intervention. What this needs is the intervention of a historian, preferably a professor, to give a lesson or two on picking sources, being objective, and differentiating between statement and interpretation. Drmies (talk) 03:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

drmies As I have mentioned before, I have great respect for you as an editor and an admin. I think we are both well aware of our difference of opinion on gun and gun rights, and in the end the consensus may go against me (although I think no-consensus would be the probable outcome currently)- but surely you aren't saying it is acceptable to blank the section multiple times, and delete sources, when the discussion is the sources themselves! BTW, I certainly dont think throwing around RS allows up to insert POV as established fact - but the dozens and dozens of sources certainly does allow us to insert and attribute the POV as one of the multiple points of view on the topic. the primary sources are used to supplement the secondary sources - and those secondary sources directly reference and cite the primary sources. This is the exact purpose of WP:PRIMARY.I am very well aware that the section (and article) have major problems, but we are unable to work tactically on improving the article, because this same "it must be deleted, nobody can ever hear of this" attitude has been driven by Goethean and a few others for almost a year now. This is not WP:FRINGE NOBODY (no historians, no gun control advocates, editors here notwithstanding) disagrees about the facts. There can be no fringe on "what should we think about these uncontested facts" - everything by definition is an opinion. harcourt, slate, mother jones, straight dope, etc, all the preceding have directly addressed this topic - sure some disagree on the conclusion, but all admit the facts, and by entering the debate, surely it shows that the opposing pov is notable Gaijin42 (talk) 04:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gosh. I took a look at the article and its a festering mess of OR, SYNTH, COATRACK and everything that makes Wikipedia suck. It really needs a complete rewrite by a competent and unbiased editor, after which it will be much shorter and much better. Meantime, Gaijin42 needs to stop reverting. --John (talk) 06:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have had an immense amount of experience with Goethen, and about 90% has been painful, driven by Goethean. And the next runner up I've encountered in the entire Wikipeda is about 1/6th of that (about 15%). I am mentioning this only to say that what I say about behavior at this article is carefully considered and reinforced. They seem to turn everything into a nasty attack, a spun-up accusation, insult, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and that as a way to deprecate their viewpooitns, or something similar to that. A close review of the the last week or so at the talk page would go a long way towards illustrating and establishing this. They have also been trying to get their way by "aggressive editing" in areas under discussion, to put it charitably,~~but managing to stay under at least the bright line 3RR def of edit warring.~~ What we have there is what would be the typical widespread situation of a contentious article due to reflecting a real-world contest...contentious but not nasty. Except that it has been turned into a painful situation largely by Goethean's behavior, and to a lesser extent by that of Andy the Grump. The behavior and atmosphere problem is what needs to get solved there. I'd suggest one of two ways to fix it:

Give Gooethen a rest from the article and a warning to Andy or
Place a general warning on the article that there is to be little or no: turning things into a nasty attacks, doing spun up accusations, insults, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and ad hominem deprecation of people that as a way to deprecate their viewpoints.

Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I had to suggest a fix for the article, it would be to (for a few weeks) turn it over to two participants there who I have immense respect for and who I've seen take the "high road" 100% of the time, exhibit expertise, and who I think are on opposite sides of this issue. Drmies and Gaijin42. And the rest of us voluntarily agree to sit back for a few weeks. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive. parsing out the subtleties twix firearm and gun is ridiculous[113], such behavior may be considered obstructive or worse by some. from the cited source which was deleted by the editor, This prohibited Jews from acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearmsDarkstar1st (talk) 14:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that 'citation' presents a perfect example of the piss-poor Google-mining WP:OR that has gone on in the article. Let's look at the citation in full: "<ref>{{cite book| url=http://books.google.com/books?ei=42nAUdDqPKKOigKsxYCACw&id=uXnZAAAAMAAJ&dq=complete+history+of+the+holocaust&q=weapons#search_anchor | title=A Complete History of the Holocaust | accessdate=2013-06-18}} page68</ref>". That's right, it is a citation to a Google search result! A Google search result which when followed tells us that the book is in the category "Juvenile Nonfiction". The search result presents a single small 'snippet', but no further context. Has whoever added the citation read the book? I think it is fair to assume not - otherwise why cite a Google search result rather than the book itself? Does the person who added the citation know what the authors views are on the relevance of gun control to the Holocaust, beyond this brief contextless snippet? I very much doubt it. Furthermore, the snippet tells us that "This [What? - The snippet doesn't show the previous sentence...] prohibited Jews from 'acquiring, possessing, and carrying firearms and ammunition, as well as truncheons or stabbing weapons...'". So it is 'weapon control', rather than 'gun control' anyway. The ('Juvenile') source is being cited to support something it doesn't actually directly say, based almost certainly on what is visible in a brief snippet. Such 'sourcing' would be dubious at best in support of an uncontroversial statement about an episode of The Simpsons, but in reference to the Holocaust? Truly appalling... AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a "Juvenile Non-Fiction" book the other day--was it stuck back in? Drmies (talk) 15:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, I see that I raised the same point on the talk page, plus a couple of others. We just went through a similar thing in Gun Control Act of 1968, where the allegation was proposed, in our article, that the US 1968 act was based on or even copied from Nazi legislation. The "clincher" there was a statement by Neal Knox, a notable person and pro-gun activist, who had published a book with a real publisher, in which they drew the conclusion (to cut a long story short) that because a US legislator had read the German law and another had submitted the German law and a translation to the Congressional Record that therefore the US law had to be based on the Nazi law. This supposition on Knox's part (clear synthesis and guesswork, with no actual evidence provided for instance from analysis and comparison between the documents, or evidence from the person who supposedly wrote the law) was inserted in the article as a reference to support the suggestion that US legislators adopted Nazi legislation. Compare this version, "Alleged Nazi connections", to the current version, where the section now reads nothing but "Gun rights activists often associate the 1968 GCA with Nazi gun control laws, with some saying that the bill was comparable to German laws." The earlier section and its problems present the Gun control issue in miniature. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprised the article is full of POV. Because this ANI thread is full of the opposite political point of view pretending to be neutral. Nothing will be achieved here because nearly everyone is too emotionally charged over guns one way or the other to contribute positively to this situation.--v/r - TP 15:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, I beg to differ, but the basic question is whether Goethean's comments (many of which address content issues, by the way and, also by the way, I suggested they tone it down--maybe too quietly) is actionable or not as personal attacks. I don't see that it is. Drmies (talk) 15:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On the behavior side, rather than try to ascertain whether such a severe or bright line has been crossed to merit sanctions, IMHO some milder actions to fix the nasty talk page atmosphere are merited. Even a general warning (but which lists the nastiness tools that I suggested above) not directed at any individual would be a help. North8000 (talk) 15:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)The personal attacks issue is weak, they are certainly skirting incivility, but it probably isn't an NPA. The issue is repeated vandalism and disruption of the exact section which is being discussed in an RFC. A clear case of WP:GAME and WP:DE, regardless of the ultimate strength or weakness in goethean's arguments.Gaijin42 (talk) 16:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drmies, you've got a POV warrior here who has already been topic banned from Tea Party articles. Since gun right's is a MAJOR Tea Party issue, I'm not sure how that's not a topic ban violation. But even assuming it isn't, this ANI thread and Goethean's comments make it clear that the Tea Party topic ban wasn't broad enough. He's clearly disruptive in more than just Tea Party and I think a broader topic ban of all political articles would be more suited to his flagerant disregard for content policies (misuse of WP:IRS to suit his POV). The article may need to be toned down for POV, but this ANI thread is clearly on the opposite end of the spectrum, not center and most definitely not neutral.--v/r - T P 16:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Nothing speaks more to Goethean's misuse of WP:IRS than this diff right here. Goethean is making a rediculous requirement for page numbers when no such requirement is supported by policy. The requirement in WP:V is that a source be verifiable, not that they are easily verifiable. Next he'll ask for the paraphraph number, sentence number, and then the exact word by book word count. It's a rediculous requirement, made up by Goethean, to fight sources he doesn't like. That's POV pushing at it's finest, my friend.--v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Although there is no strict policy about providing page numbers in books, it is a well-established content guideline. It is also, obviously, good editing practice. In my experience, people who refuse to provide page numbers usually have a reason they won't disclose, such as not actually having the book or not being able to find it in the book. Someone adding text to an article must have checked the citation themselves, that is definitely policy, so why can't they give a page number? Requesting a page number is perfectly reasonable, though removing a citation until a page number is provided may or may not be (it depends on circumstances). For something highly disputed, refusal to provide a page number can be evidence of unverifiability. Zero^talk 01:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not really. The Tea Party article specifically says that such social issues as gun control are NOT part of the broad tea party movement and go so far as to point out two local exceptions to that rule. Gun control is mentioned only once in that article, in that line about the local exception. So no this really isn't part of Tea Party. It might be part of conservatism generally, but not the tea party. 16:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

[114] "15 Non-negotiable Core Beliefs...5. Gun ownership is sacred." Please don't be silly.--v/r - T P 16:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tparis, there's a bunch of POV warriors here (I may well be considered one, though I resent the term). I'm not familiar with Goethean or the topic ban and its circumstances, but to say that gun control is part of a Tea Party ban because the Tea Party talks about gun control, that's a stretch, despite your one-liner above. Next thing you know you'd disallow Goethean from editing topics on US politics, the Republican Party, immigration, taxes, redistricting, K-street, Washington DC (the city), and the list can go on. And I vehemently disagree with your assessment of the content discussion (and Gaijin's "vandalism" accusations--one could charge disruption, but edit warring is a two-way street): in my opinion Goethean and Andy have a better understanding of precisely what RS and NPOV mean than their opponents. Seriously, you can't go around citing NRA officials on Nazi gun policies, or Juvenile Non-Fiction, or 1938 on-the-spot newspaper reports in an article like this, and I think you know this, politics aside. Warn Goethean, on their talk page or here, for adopting an inappropriate tone and start 3R proceedings if need be (but look at what other editors have done--it's plain to see in that article history), but this thread is too broad, and I doubt you'll find a lot of admins agreeing that Goethean needs to be sanctioned for their behavior. Drmies (talk) 16:36, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you absolutely CAN quote NRA officials on their opinions. WP:NPOV explicitly states "ALL POINTS OF VIEW". Not "All points of view except the NRA". Not "all points of view that are popular in the liberal media". Not "All points of view that the editors here agree with". ALL POINTS OF VIEW. Period. These are recognized and notable experts in their field, and their views are repeated in multiple neutral sources (as one of the possible viewpoints). Reversion of vandalism is not edit warring. Deleting the content under discussion is vandalism. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Juvenile non-fiction can no more be thrown away for lack of context than it can be used for lack of context. Being written for adolescents doesn't change what it is. And age does not make a reliable source unreliable. If that were the case, we need to update Template:Cite to warn us in 100 years that our citations are too old. We use on-the-spot citations constantly. Don't you recall the Balloon boy hoax? The argument is only because used now because of a POV, plain and simple. And no, I wouldn't call you a POV warrior. Holding a POV and warring over it are different things. The only problem I can see is an over-dependence on pro-gun sources and especially the NRA. However, citing the NRA on Gun's Right's is no different than citing TransWatch.org or the Southern Poverty Law Center on anti-gay hate speech. They have a viewpoint and they are going to express it on their blogs and site. Either we allow that stuff or we don't. But we certainly do not pick and choose which ones we support based on our personal POV. There are objective criteria, they exist at WP:IRS and being biased is specifically not a determining factor in if a source is reliable. Read the policy yourself, there is a section specific to what I am talking about here. Goethean needs to be topic banned from anywhere he is incapable of contributing to without causing disruption. Clearly Tea Party isn't broad enough. His emotionally fueled tirades against the NRA are clear on that. That the article actually does have a POV slant doesn't absolve him of his behavior and I seriously doubt he could make the article neutral. He'd very happily just slant it the other way and be proud of himself. No, this guy is not capable of editing this article and I'd say politics in general.--v/r - T P 16:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And off we go again. Yet another contributor apparently unable to see beyond the narrow discourse of the U.S. gun control debate. This article is not about the NRA. It is not about the U.S. It is about the regulation of firearms throughout the world. Or it is supposed to be. The NRA is no more an authority on Nazi Germany than it is on Japan under the Shogunate. And it doesn't claim to be. The article entirely fails to demonstrate that this pseudohistorical bollocks has any credibility whatsoever beyond the right-wing fringes of U.S. politics. If this issue belongs anywhere, it belongs in an article on the U.S. gun debate - and clearly identified as the fringe position it is even there. Allowing this nonsense to dominate a supposedly international article is a gross violation of WP:WEIGHT. The 'Nazis did it' argument simply has no credibility, and no traction, anywhere else, making it about the most blatant example of the endemic U.S.-centred bias that Wikipedia is lumbered with. This needs addressing, not the petty squabbles about who started calling who names first. That is a problem for the talk pages. This disgraceful 'article' is a far more fundamental problem, plainly visible to all those who read Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm prety sure you haven't read a word of what I wrote since I haven't said a single pro/anti gun thing here or even discussed article content. I'm discussing an editor who is liberally interpreting WP:IRS to suit his POV. That's a behavior issue. Since your entire post is about content, I'm not sure who you thought you were responding to, but it clearly wasn't me.--v/r - T P 23:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin42 has edit-warred in order to keep in place what is agreed to be a non-neutral version of the article, one which which uses bad sources. These sources are apparently the result of the haphazard Google-mining of book-snippets[115] in order to compile sources to support the partisan argument that gun control is associated with authoritarianism. Of course, the putative support for this argument is placed in the history section, not the argument section. He then brings the opposing party to WP:ANI in order to have him blocked. When I remove an off-topic source, he undoes my edit[116] and accuses me of committing vandalism.[117] I suggest that WP:BOOMERANG is appropriate. — goethean 16:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you admit to deleting sources during a discussion about if content is sourced. Im glad we could clear that up. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Such removal is fair: we don't use Google snippets, since context is everything. What are you pointing at anyway--I know, you're pointing at the guns and nothing but the guns, but there's also mention of stabbing weapons and stout pieces of furniture. Essential questions like "did it matter at all" aren't answered by your snippet, so your inclusion (or edit-warring to keep it in?) to support what is seen by at least a half a dozen editors as POV editing is itself disruptive. You could have just let their edit stand and explained on the talk page precisely what was found in that book: but I have a suspicion that you don't have that book, only the snippet from Google Books. In contentious matters sourcing is everything--and citing snippets devoid of context and evaluation is not helpful. Drmies (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The page is about gun control, therefore the relevant part of the content is the content discussing firearms. Yes, half a dozen think it is POV. an equal number think it is appropriate. We are in the middle of an RFC to determine consensus, and he deletes the content. This is not a BLP libel issue emergency. The content has stood for months, and he deleted it at the exact time that it was being discussed and would be most valuable for editors to evaluate. That is vandalism. Alternative history "did it matter" questions are very interesting. There is a good living to be made writing fiction about what the alternatives were. But it is absolutely uncontested that it did happen, so clearly the Nazi's thought it mattered. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding my expressed concern on " nasty attack, a spun-up accusation, insult, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and that as a way to deprecate their viewpooitns, or something similar to that." I think that Goethean just did several of those in one post right here. And this is representative of what has been happening on the talk page. People can disagree without all of that painful crap. An atmosphere change is needed at the talk page. Disagreeing does not need to be painful nastiness. North8000 (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

North, Goethean made a couple of jabs on the talk page, but this particular comment is to the point and in no way nasty or villanizing. He says "Gaijin has edit-warred"--that's hardly a personal accusation or anything like that; if it is, then all Goethean's opponents, who accuse them of edit-warring and worse, should be blocked on the spot. Come on: be reasonable. Drmies (talk) 16:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean's summary is correct. Gaijin42 has tendentiously violated just about every one of the core content issues of WP. This kind of editing is why WP is nowadays increasingly derided and ridiculed by scholars, journalists, and ordinary researchers. Gaijin has persisted in this behavior for months now, driving away many editors such as myself who came to work on improving the article. As a relatively new editor trying to apply core WP policy, I was appalled to have Gaijin42 call my editing (via grammar he later tried to weasel out of) Holocaust denial. Those who haven't read it might review the entire talk thread on which Gaijin delivered that disgusting attack. Is this ANI process capable of doing the right thing? I stuck around for a while and then concluded that Gaijin simply would not allow constructive policy-based improvement to occur there, so I left. I propose a topic ban for Gaijin42, and if any editor agrees with me I suggest they begin a new bold-type sub-section in which to poll the opinions of the current group. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Editors attempted to redefine gun control to not include any discriminatorally written or applied laws (link), and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust. If the shoe fits... Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given that Gaijin42 has just accused a contributor of Holocaust denial, I formally call for him to be blocked indefinitely.

See [118]. About as egregious personal attack as I have seen on this notice board. This repulsive behaviour cannot possibly be allowed to stand. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He's accused someone of denying part of the Holocaust, and one attack doesn't merit an indef, might not even be enough for a block. Seems punitive to request an indef. Dark Sun (talk) 17:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. There was nothing in Gaijin's personal attack to suggest that. It had already been argued that Gaijin had previously accused a contributor of Holocaust denial. His response was "If the shoe fits..." AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone needs to take a breather here... Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert: - I don't think your solution stops the damage. I took a breather 6 months ago. So did others. How's that working? Please consider. Our purpose is to safeguard WP from behavior which threatens ultimately to destroy it. SPECIFICO talk 18:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't read as an accusation of holocaust denial. It reads as a denial that gun control played a part or existed as a piece of the Holocaust. It also doesn't read as an egregious personal attack. Capitalismojo (talk) 18:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what Capitalismojo just said. People using the holocaust to oppose U.S. gun control measures is ancient internet trope.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 24 hours for these comments. It is absolutely outrageous to accuse other editors of holocaust denialism. We should have zero tolerance for this sort of behavior. Gamaliel (talk) 18:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like CapitalistMojo, I didn't read the comment as an accusation of holocaust denial. Gaijin wrote that editors have "attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust". In my eyes, it seems like he is accusing editors (Goethan) of not seeing gun control as part of Holocaust. Not seing gun control laws as playing a part in Holocaust is hardly Holocaust denial. Iselilja (talk) 18:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So what exactly is "If the Shoe fits" supposed to mean? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its all tied into the gun control analogy. The turds that claim that Newtown was necessary evil to prevent another holocaust and internet hyperbole like that.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 19:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I find this an interesting block because I repeatedly have been accused of other forms of bigotry, and far more explicitly, which I haven't brought here. (IMHO and others, clearly trumped up accusations based on absurd interpretations of innocuous comments). Guess next time I will! Assuming it's not just a matter of who says it and how/which admin interprets it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@AndyTheGrump Maybe you are right and this was some attempt to link an editor (Specifico?) to Holocaust denial; only that Gaijin in that case doesn’t understand what Holocaust denial is; so his accusation becomes nonsensical. Iselilja (talk) 20:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was obviously not an accusation of Holocaust denial nor was it a personal attack. Gamaliel, did you actually read the editor's comment before blocking him? He was talking about people denying that gun control occurred (or was significant) during the Holocaust -- totally different. AndyTheGrump is just looking for a problem where none exists. ROG5728 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain English that it was NOT saying that somebody was denying the holocost. It was saying that they denied that gun control happened as a part of it: "and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust." Folks need to read what they actually said instead of ginned up mis-characterizaitons of what they said. They should be unblocked immediately and an apology given for the error. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would have read the comment in the same way as the blocking admin. When playing this game, editors need to be especially careful not to use words that can be mis-construed. --John (talk) 19:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And other editors need to be very careful not to intentionally and with full complete understanding of their actions misrepresent others to get them blocked.--v/r - T P 16:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, Gamaliel, I'm sorry, but I disagree ~~strongly~~. I'm on the verge of unblocking but won't, since I don't want to add more fuel to this fire, and I think I'm the only admin so far who opposes the block, so I'm outgunned for now.
Anyone in this discussion knows that I'm strongly opposed to some of the claims made by Gaijin in this thread and on the talk page, but I don't see that this comment was an accusation of holocaust denial. "If the shoe fits" and all that is a rather boneheaded comment, but I do not think this (and other comments) rise to the level of blockable. For the record (in duplicate) I don't think that Gaijin and others have proven that Goethean ought to be blocked either. I strongly urge Gamaliel to reconsider: denying that certain events happened in 1938 (mind you, Gaijin, that's before the Holocaust--another reason why this was a bit boneheaded, plus, no one argued that Jews were not denied certain rights) isn't the same as denying the Holocaust. Consider unblocking Gaijin, with the caveat that they really need to look before they leap, since a number of editors clearly took their comment to mean what I don't think Gaijin intended it to mean. Drmies (talk) 19:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John How can you say that? It's clear plain English:

Preface which says that what follows is what Gaijin said that they attempted to say: "and attempted to say"

And so here Gaijin says what he claims they attempted to say:

Subject: Gun control"
Verb "Did not happen"

And to top it off, the end doubles up on that because with "as part of the holocaust." Gaijin is implicitly saying that they are are acknowledging that the holocaust DOES exist, the exact opposite of what Gaijin is accused of. North8000 (talk) 19:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was a bad block. Gaijin should be unblocked immediately, as there is no way a reasonable person would take that as a personal attack or an accusation of holocaust denial. GregJackP Boomer! 19:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you think that calling a couple of people "unreasonable" is going to help matters at all? Drmies (talk) 20:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It probably helps a bit more than telling other editors they are full of it and to quit sprouting bullshit.--v/r - T P 16:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can be persuaded that a block was justified, but not on the stated grounds. The actual accusation of holocaust denalism was in April, the recent "if the shoe fits" comment was in fact, snippy, but not an accusation of holocaust denialism. The specific context here was Specifico complaining about something that Gaijin42 said several months ago, and Gaijin42 responding poorly. Responding to "you said something mean, X, about me" and replying "I did not, but if the shoe fits" is not the same thing as saying X, even if it is poor behavior--Tznkai (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The comment by Gaijin appears to have been intended to cause some degree of stir - one does not bring up Holocaust when describing an editor otherwise. Could his comment be interpreted in 2 (or more) different ways? Yup. I see that Gaijin has yet to post an unblock request that clarifies both the meaning of his written words and the intent of them. If they provide a valid, WP:GAB-compliant request, then unblock accordingly. ES &L 19:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a one-off comment, then possibly, but given the previous issues [119] I don't see how any convincing GAB-compliant request could be made. Black Kite (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried very hard to be offended by the comment. I lost family in the holocaust. I have found it impossible to be offended by this, but I find the block itself offensive in that it assumes that I might be offended by the post. This looks like 'hair trigger blocking" (I intend the play on words) and is a bad block. They should be unblocked at once. Of course I'm not an admin, but, seriously, this is political correctness gone mad. Fiddle Faddle 19:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Silly claim I read and read the offending post and did not read it as accusing anyone of "Holocaust denial" and the block, IMO, was unwarranted. I am amused that AtG is arguing that someone else has used intemperate language, of course. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculous block by what might be construed as an involved admin.--MONGO 20:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is an accusation of holocaust denial. There is nothing silly about the claim that this is an accusation of holocaust denial at all. The relevant passages are User:SPECIFICO's comment "I was appalled to have Gaijin42 call my editing (via grammar he later tried to weasel out of) of Holocaust denial" To which User:Gaijin42 replies "Editors...attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust. If the shoe fits... ". It's clear that the last sentence responds to SPECIFICO's complaint that he has been accused of holocaust denial. So Gaijin42 is clearly repeating the accusation, albeit in a slightly self-distancing way ('if the shoe fits'). Of course Gaijin42's argument is so utterly incoherent that the sentence can easily be misread. He seems to think that not including "gun control" in the Holocaust is entails denying that the Holocaust happened (the definition of 'holocaust denial'). I think editors here are putting too innocent an interpretation on these remarks because the utter illogicality of the argument actually obscures what was being said. Yes, "Not seeing gun control laws as playing a part in Holocaust is hardly Holocaust denial", as Iselilja has noted. But the point is that Gaijin42's comment makes no sense unless he thinks that it is holocaust denial. Paul B (talk) 20:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You present an interesting link -- the salient part of which appears to be: Don't resort to some pathetic demented Survivor. Pity him, but don't wave his fear and rage at us in this WP article. I suggest that where such an antecedent is found, that the discourse is blamable on both parties equally, to be sure. Gaijin ought never use the word "Holocaust" and SPECIFICO ought never refer to pathetic demented Survivors. Cheers. Collect (talk) 21:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As Paul said, the comment in question is "incoherent". So, if Gaijin42 acknowledges incoherency and promises to be more coherent in future, and clarifies that he does not accuse the other editor of holocaust denial, then we should be able to move on. Grump raises a good point about the article being a POV fork, but perhaps its focus (and title) could be narrowed to avoid that problem.Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have just unblocked User:Gaijin42. He has agreed to be civil in his interactions with other editors and refrain from references to holocaust denial. Unless someone is, you know, actually denying the Holocaust. Gamaliel (talk) 22:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Block Andy for intentionally and dishonestly misrepresenting a user.--v/r - T P 23:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 184.155.85.172 (talk) 02:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose topic ban for Gaijin42

Given that this is User:Gaijin42's second block for behaviour while editing this same problematic article, I propose a 12-month topic ban from this article, to begin when the block expires. --John (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's plain English that it was NOT saying that somebody was denying the holocost. It was saying that they denied that gun control happened as a part of it: "and attempted to say that gun control factually did not happen as part of the holocaust." Folks need to read what they actually said instead of ginned up mis-characterizaitons of what they said. They should be unblocked immediately and an apology given for the error. North8000 (talk) 19:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That was obviously an invalid block, and your proposal (John) is equally invalid. ROG5728 (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not at all obvious to me. Bringing in the holocaust then saying "if the shoe fits" sure looked like he was calling the other user a holocaust denier to me. Good block, if lenient. --John (talk) 19:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John, looking at the context of the triggering statement, it appears that Specifico brought the holocaust into it, at least proximally. I think there may be some justification for this, but I'd like considerably more evidence of a pattern of behavior.--Tznkai (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we're there yet, though I do think that Gaijin needs to take these proposals into consideration and adjust their own tone. Gaijin, just because someone opposes your edits or your comments doesn't mean they're your enemy or something like that. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support - I hope that editors will refer to the talk page and edit history of the article, starting with the Reliable sources thread on April 2013 talk. Sad to say, this is a case of willful tendentious disregard for core WP content policies and civil discussion thereof. SPECIFICO talk 19:38, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support but having looked through recent contributions (notably on Gun Control Act of 1968) I would suggest a broader topic ban on gun control issues; the user is clearly unable to stop associating gun control with Nazism. Black Kite (talk) 19:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. This is merely an effort to silence an editor. Making up so-called personal attacks that aren't, invalid blocks, and now a transparent attempt to run someone off. Not cool. GregJackP Boomer! 19:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry Greg, but "effort to silence an editor" is a rather preposterous accusation. I don't think you can accuse John of having such high stakes in a gun control debate that he'd want the opposition muzzled. Drmies (talk) 20:19, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. It is much clearer than the bad block. Some of those here owe Gaijin an apology. GregJackP Boomer! 00:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Draconian solutions are rarely without unforeseen consequences, and the proposal here is no answer to much at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 19:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Unthinkable Building this on a clearly erroneous block and the clearly erroneous misinterpretation that it was based on is unthinkable. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't know the editor, nor what this dispute is about, but the block is a bad block anyway, so discipline can not follow. There is no smoking gun here. Fiddle Faddle 20:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Irreverent comment I hope you know you're going to hell for that pun.--Tznkai (talk) 20:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hell? Wow.

Fiddle Faddle 20:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For child molesters, punsters, and people who talk at the theater.--Tznkai (talk) 20:17, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lucky for me that it was a play on words, not a pun, then. Fiddle Faddle 20:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am even less inclined to give the benefit of any doubt to this user per Black Kite's diff. Do those defending Gaijin42 maintain that he has been misunderstood both times? Seems like a stretch to me... --John (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This is not a well thought out or well evidenced proposal. It seems to me like some sort retributive action, like batttlegrounding. This topic has attracted enough of that. Capitalismojo (talk) 20:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Punishing Gaijin in this way amounts to a witch hunt. This User is entitled to their opinions like any other Wikipedian. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 20:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose facts, gun control happened, the holocaust happened, only one of these facts is being debated here which is as bizarre as if both were. the entire debate exist to decide if firearm means the same as gun control, troupslap. Darkstar1st (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strenuously Oppose- Gaijin42 is one of our best editors. This is Beyond ludicrous. -Justanonymous (talk) 20:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support This isn't about punishing Gaijin, it's about keeping him away from a topic that he has proven to have no objectivity about. Frankly, revising the history of the Holocaust to lend support for right-of-NRA gun control opposition is intellectually bankrupt and morally offensive, particularly to those who've lost family to that genocide. Wikipedia should not be enabling this sort of thing. Gaijin's been propping up a POV fork that violates core principles, and I see no evidence that he understands what he's been doing wrong or intends to ever stop, so the ban is necessary to protect Wikipedia. MilesMoney (talk) 20:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of gun control measures to disarm the Jews in Nazi Germany immediately prior to the Holocaust is a historical fact supported by numerous reliable sources. Censoring history just because you hate the big, bad NRA is the only thing "intellectually bankrupt and morally offensive" in this case. ROG5728 (talk) 21:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose strongly and this is one of the most absurd, baseless topic ban proposals I have seen in a long time. ROG5728 (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is absurd. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I believe the block is more than sufficient under the circumstances and is probably a bit excessive. Gaijin said an editor was denying an aspect of the Holocaust and, while that did translate to essentially accusing him of Holocaust denial, it is more a poor choice of wording. These sorts of things do not warrant a block-on-sight approach.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 21:25, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. Gaijin42 has written that he "will focus on keeping things more civil going forward" and he should be given an opportunity to do so. If he does not, then this issue can be reconsidered. Gamaliel (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support, obviously. And I'd like to point out that several of the 'oppose' !votes above appear to be from people 'notified'/canvassed by Gaijin42 in his last malformed 'RfC'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin notified users from both sides of the debate about the RfC. Could you be more specific about what you see as canvassing? Iselilja (talk) 21:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

THe 'RfC' was so malformed and NPOV-violating that it is difficult to see how anyone could take it seriously - but that clearly wasn't the point. It wasn't a 'request for comment', it was a rallying-call for the rent-a-mob that have kept the article in the disgusting state it has been in for so long. Gaijin42 knows full well how to game the system - he's pulled the same stunt before. Sure he 'notifies' a few token opponents of his propagandising spin - but he does so in the full knowledge that his relentless POV-pushing, stonewalling and obstructiveness drives off anyone without the same facile agenda. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I found out about this when I saw his 24 hour block in my Watchlist. Gaijin had nothing directly to do with me coming to his defense. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 21:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

indeed, I'd like to point out that several of the 'support' !votes above appear to be from people 'notified' by me. Gaijin42 (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose...but look...even the perhaps vague insinuation of holocaust denial is a no go zone without concrete evidence to back it up. Editors need to be extremely cautious when they word such notions. I still think the block itself was overkill and should be lifted, but remind editors that if you're going to make arguments over contentious issues that one must refrain from being accusatory towards opposing viewpoints and the editors that one is in disagreement with.--MONGO 22:58, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as retaliation by those who oppose his POV. The problem here is Goethean.--v/r - T P 23:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for various reasons mentioned above, not to mention the proposer didn't even link to the first block in their proposal which would seem to be the polite and prudent thing to do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the topic

Let's just get something done to tone down the nastiness that is rampant at the article. Specifically, nasty attacks, spun-up / ginned up accusations, insults, villianizing people or viewpoints, ad hominem deprecation of people and deprecating people as a a way to deprecate their viewpoints. Even just a general warning, but I think that these things should be mentioned in it. And lest the warning become yet another tool for warfare, (= ginned up accusations of violating the warning) just say to keep it vastly minimized. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 22:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If only all editors were so rational!

Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The source of the 'nastiness' is the article itself - and the POV-pushing tag-team that control it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, while the four original diffs do seem to be more appropriate for WP:Edit warring, if Goethean's Nasty curse filled message on a user's talk page diff is typical, that's the issue that needs discussing. Having been brought to ANI recently for whining too much about POVs on article talk pages and warned about it, I sure would like to see someone warned about something that obnoxious. Assuming there isn't some double standard against female editors doing it, is it OK for me to start cursing people at that talk page, at least until they ban me? Geez, I do enjoy a good swearfest from time to time. (Just joking, do not quote me as being serious.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about you. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The supposed "curse filled message"? There is nothing to it. Goethean addresses the comments made by Justanonymous, nothing more. That they call those comments "bullshit", well, that's fair, since it's a comment on edits, not on the person. In fact, the opposite is probably true: Justanonymous is accusing Goethean of vandalism (a total misapplication of the term--see WP:VANDAL) and can't put their money where their mouth is. So if Goethean, accused of vandalism by someone who can't justify their claim, says "Start a thread about my vandalism or STFU", then that's their right. The sanctimonious "profanity will not be tolerated" is passive-aggressive behavior, exacerbated by Justanonymous feeling the need to make it more "official" by posting at length on Goethean's talk page, User_talk:Goethean#You_are_no_longer_welcome_on_my_talk_page. (BTW, Justanonymous, "Please assume that I own this talk page"--why should we? You don't own your talk page, just like I don't own mine.)
As for the other points brought up in the first part of this thread--edit warring at most. Not vandalism. This thread should be closed. Drmies (talk) 03:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there isn't Wikiquette noticeboard any more, what is considered proper etiquette ends up here for people to seek guidance: whining, cursing, personal attacks, etc. guidelines are in effect set at WP:ANI. So it's really about all of us. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:51, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Next Steps with Goethean

Goethean was very clearly in violation of WP:CIV on my talk page. That's why I banned him. Nobody has a right to just come and start using profanity on any talk page or article. It creates an acrimonious environment that we should seek to avoid per WP:CIV. It's very unWikipedia. I'm looking for a remedy:

The editor can provide Assurances to the community - That he will be civil and not disruptive
The community can extend the sanctions already in place - Goethean is already topic banned elsewhere
The community can do nothing -this would set a dangerous precedent for the community

-Justanonymous (talk) 13:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you're actually considering this to be "profanity"? Since when is "bullshit" profane? The only potentially uncivil aspect is when he tells you "you know that you are full of it, and you know that you are spouting bullshit" - but even that's pretty minor and is a stretch - certainly nothing there to "ban someone" from your talkpage and thus escalating the situation further ES &L 14:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd kindly look at the whole exchange, you will see Goethean uses the STFU acronym which is a well known acronym for "Shut The Fuck Up" - derogatory in the extreme and bullying. The other word he uses bullshit is also derogatory and profane. When combined with his pattern of editing, describes a disruptive editor.-Justanonymous (talk) 14:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I know what STFU stands for ... IIRC it's on my other userpage somewhere. Neither it nor "bullshit" are profane - and I cannot fathom you having such Victorian sensibilities in 2013 that you actually believe they are. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED, and yes, one needs to have a somewhat thick skin. You were not attacked, you were not bullied, you were challenged slightly aggressively to actually prove what you had been claiming ... and rather than do so, you kicked him off your talkpage, all the meanwhile feigning (at least, I can only imagine it's feigned) being insulted. ES &L 14:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

E&SL, Goethean is being a complete dick. Please quit pretending he's not. Fox News, the NRA, the Tea Party, and conservatives are generally hated around here, we get it. That doesn't excuse Goethean's dickish insults and battleground mentality.--v/r - T P 16:56, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention libertarians, many Austrian economists, some radical feminists, etc.? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Votes on Goethean

Extend Ban - absent very material assurances from editor Goethean which have not been forthcoming, we need to seriously consider extending the editors sanctions. He's already proven disruptive at tea party, and this topic is too closely related if not overlapping already. -Justanonymous (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear Justanonymous: You're making a joke of this distinguished ANI forum. It's time for you to withdraw this thread, move on, and stop harassing @Goethean:. SPECIFICO talk 14:42, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The editor is clearly disruptive, profane and uncivil. I didn't bring this issue up, but I'm happy to contribute that the editor is clearly uncivil and disruptive.-Justanonymous (talk) 15:11, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion has been noted, and the factuality of your statement questioned. You may also note that it's not getting anywhere. Drmies (talk) 15:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, we've dumped 10,000 words on goethean here since the thread was opened. I'm sure people will vote in due course over what they think the course of action with him is.-Justanonymous (talk) 16:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not in anyway condoning comments made to you, but this thread has already stalemated and my vote is to hat it off.--MONGO 16:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! I tend to agree MONGO. These things usually end this way anyway.-Justanonymous (talk) 17:21, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just start a list of new offenses against you and others for the next ANI. Surely they will come. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:14, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support remedy proposed by Justanonymous. Telling people to shut the fuck up and to stop spouting bullshit is not civil, and not conducive to thoughtful collaboration. And, ESL, I know that a typical panda will not eat shoots and leaves, and then curse out the other pandas. It doesn't matter whether the panda is Victorian or not.Anythingyouwant (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support remedy proposed by Justanonymous, for the reasons given by him and Anythingyouwant. GregJackP Boomer! 23:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for reasons outlined above. This editor has a long record of being uncivil and disruptive on numerous articles. I also note he has an extensive block log already. ROG5728 (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Did he edit under a different name, or is this the "extensive block log" you note he already has? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support User should not be editing anywhere that he can't resist calling conservatives full of bullshit and POV pushing [120][121][122][123][124] and he can't resist tendentious editing [125]. This user has beef with American conservatives. He shouldn't be editing articles related to them.--v/r - T P 00:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose because I do not find Goethean's behavior to be any more problematic than that of the editor who proposed the ban. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:36, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I could support that, but I'd take it a step further and say all 3 of them.--v/r - TP 01:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sold. a13ean (talk) 02:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Most of the comments TParis cites seem to have been provoked to some extent. Given the mutual talk of tendentious editing I am not sure I could support a sanction against Goethean alone unless there is some stronger evidence.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 01:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose obviously - and TParis, if you are seriously suggesting that there hasn't been POV-pushing in the gun control article, I can only assume you've either not looked at the talk page (and archives) in detail, or you are letting your own opinions sway your judgement. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:15, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't said that, in fact I've agreed "the article actually does have a POV slant". But again, you wouldn't know that because you haven't actually bothered to read what I wrote and you've been misrepresenting what folks say, Andy.--v/r - TP 01:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have 'misrepresented' precisely nothing. Gaijin42 clearly accused a contributor of Holocaust denial. It may be convenient for some to sweep the fact under the carpet, but the evidence is clearly there. Using the phrase "If the shoe fits..." in response to a suggestion that Gaijin42 had previously implied that a contributor was a holocaust denier cannot possibly be interpreted in any other way. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Goethean isn't the worst of 'em. Drmies (talk) 02:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Oppose this bullshit. SPECIFICO talk 02:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Charges against Goethean have been exaggerated to the point of falsehood. Drop the stick and back away. MilesMoney (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Goethean is a fair-minded editor who has made mistakes. There is little to no evidence in the way off diffs to support such a draconian measure. Until such evidence is provided, fair minded editors must oppose it. Steeletrap (talk) 04:12, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Another incident of template vandalism

on Pakistan. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:03, 18 December 2013 (UTC)7[reply]

Might need emergency temporary protection on the entire namespace. Dark Sun (talk) 21:20, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bit extreme... A Edit filter should suffix to root out the vandals. --Mdann52talk to me! 21:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another Meepysheep sock. This time it was {{Native name}} that was vandalised. Only 14 minutes before it was reverted but long enough to generate 30 notifications by concerned users to OTRS. So whether it's edit filter or semi protect the entire template namespace, something needs to be done. NtheP (talk) 21:57, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also World War 2.. Meepsheep again Pfalstad (talk) 01:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody should put up an edit filter to block the usage of that content. Then, Meepsheep should probably be banned indefinitely (not just blocked). Epicgenius (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblock needed, maybe also stop unconfirmed users adding images to templates with an edit filter and ask them in the message to request change on talk. Dark Sun (talk) 15:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated policy violations

For most of this month, User:Dcelano has been violating policy at The Wiggles and its associated pages, despite numerous warnings and requests to stop from myself and from User:AngusWOOF. Here are some diffs: Removal of content without explanation or discussion [126]; addition of unsourced edits [127] [128] [129]. On Talk:The Wiggles, he's used it as a WP:FORUM, despite repeated requests to stop; see everything after December 3, from the section "Anthony's Shirts" onward. [130]. Most egregiously, Dcelano deleted part of the talk page when I warned him that if he continued, I'd see about getting him blocked. [131]. He has also engaged in the same sort of behavior on my talk page [132] and on AngusWOOF's [133] [134] [135]. There are other examples on other Wiggles pages as well. I think that a block is in order, since that seems to be the only thing that will stop him. Thanks for your consideration. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 22:53, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

He has deleted stuff off my old talk page as well as bring up the same unsourced and poorly researched topics over and over for years [136] and posts the same stuff on other articles [137] -AngusWOOF (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) I would suggest a topic ban at the bare minimum. In addition, Dcleano has made time to use the article's talk page as a forum but he has yet to ever respond to anything on his own talk page; speaking of that, deleting things from someone else's talk page is ridiculous. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 01:45, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccurate info box information

I found a series of potentially inaccurate edits today made by an anonymous editor, Special:Contributions/67.210.39.82 because that anonymous user had changed "largest city" for several counties in California which are on my watchlist. In each case, they changed the "largest town" and defined places by both largest in population and largest by area.

The only problem was for Humboldt County, California, they used an unincorporated area as the "city with largest area," left no citations to show where this information was found. For the other far northern California counties, I was unable to verify their contributions except by WP:NOR. My efforts in that regard were that I was unable to verify their contributions as accurate for five counties and so reverted those edits. Then I looked at their contributions and found they've done this to over 100 other counties all over the U.S., not just California.

After I reverted their edits, they replaced the inaccurate information back in the articles despite my notice to them on their user page.

I'm not qualified to determine if what they did is right or not. I only know for the counties which I reverted, the information added to the page was not correct. Another user left a short comment on their User talk:67.210.39.82 user talk page, as did I but so far no replies from the anonymous user. I have no idea why they're doing this all over the United States, or what their inaccurate reference book may be, but I can't fix all this and so I'm asking for help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like an anon busily gnoming. Good faith editing. Unfortunately, they don't use edit comments, don't have an account so they can't be reached easily, and sometimes revert when reverted. The reverting doesn't approach edit warring.[138] Do we have a template for "You've been editing a lot lately; please sign up for an account so we can discuss some problems?" It's always difficult when an anon is making lots of little edits and someone has to check them. --John Nagle (talk) 08:58, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

world war 2 has been vandalized

Something to do with templates, I can't figure it out. Pfalstad (talk) 01:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC) Fixed now. Pfalstad (talk) 01:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Pfalstad: Out of curiosity, did the vandalism have something to do with an image? Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

yeah a face sitting image and a message asking people to follow meepysheep. Pfalstad (talk) 01:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Solutions already underway--but thanks for reporting yet another instance. Pretty sure some more over-arching protection will probably be required til this sockfarm settles down. GJC 01:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is out of hand. An abuse filter should be put up ASAP to block the insertion of certain images. Epicgenius (talk) 02:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We can already label images as "bad images" that can't be placed in certain places, as well as we can protect templates that are highly used. The problem is that there are a lot of highly used templates that aren't protected and there are too many images to label as bad images to individually find them all to label. We can't set an abuse filter to look at an image an tell if it's good or not. A more viable solution is to have only users with autoconfirmed or a similar right the ability to add images to templates. Regards, — Moe Epsilon 03:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since it's fairly unusual to add an image or to change an image embedded in a template, an edit filter could be set to flag such edits by non-autoconfirmed editors. Acroterion (talk) 04:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please Put up some edit filters against "Meepsheep" & "Meepysheep" etc. The help chat has had plenty of questions on whether Wikipedia was "hacked". The reality is not much better. Thanks, -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done to Special:AbuseFilter/58. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. -- Ross Hill • Talk • Need Help? • 04:18, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone have another look at the edit filter - just had another bout of Meeysheep, this time to {{Flagu/core}}. Thx NtheP (talk) 23:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the West Bank and the neutrality of an admin

Horologium notified me of "A quick look of your recent contributions indicates that you are wandering into an area in which active sanctions are in place. You need to be made aware of this. I will be logging this at Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Log of notifications because many of your edits (especially on 17 December 2013) fall under the scope of the sanctions. Horologium (talk) 00:02, 19 December 2013 (UTC)". This was after he wrote You have repeatedly tried to change the characterization of East Jerusalem in the BLP for Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. I have reverted you. Instead of discussing, you began an edit-warring to keep in your change, for which there was no consensus. If you make a change which is reverted, you are supposed to initiate a discussion, either on the article talk page, or the talk page of the user with whom you are having a dispute. You have done neither. A quick look at your user talk page indicates that you are pushing the same PoV on other pages, and have encountered pushback. Start discussing the issue and come up with a policy-compliant consensus, or you will find yourself dragged to the Administrators' Noticeboard for a discussion on your behavior. Horologium (talk) 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC).[reply]

I dispute this notice.

I had a discussion with Pluto2012 about my edits, who didn't agree and said that this view is more recent (the specific edit was this in an article about the war in 1948, when of course the issue of the West Bank and East Jerusalem was different to what it is today and have been since the occupation in 1967). Horologium, however, use other arguments (basing them on the annexation, which is irrelevant) and I still think it is the minority view that East Jerusalem is not a part of the West Bank/Palestinian territories. This is not my "POV pushing" but it is in line with the consensus, which includes the International Court of Justice's ruling in 2004, where they repeatedly refers to East Jerusalem as being "including" in the West Bank/Palestinian territories. This view is also reflected in the main article about the topic, which is the West Bank. I will cite som parts:

[...] The West Bank also contains a significant coastline along the western bank of the Dead Sea.[3] According to the International Court of Justice advisory ruling (2004), whatever agreements have been made between Israel and Palestinian authorities since 1993 do not alter the fact that these territories, including East Jerusalem, continue 'to remain occupied territories' with Israel 'the occupying power'.[4]

The West Bank, including East Jerusalem, has a land area of 5,640 km2 and 220 km2 water, the northwest quarter of the Dead Sea.[3] It has an estimated population of 2,676,740 (July 2013).[3] More than 80 percent, about 2,100,000,[3] are Palestinian Arabs, and approximately 500,000 are Jewish Israelis living in the West Bank,[3] including about 192,000 in East Jerusalem,[5] in Israeli settlements. The international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, illegal under international law, though Israel disputes this.[6][7][8][9]

[...] Though 164 nations refer to the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, as “Occupied Palestinian Territory”,[14][15] the state of Israel insists that only territories captured in war from “an established and recognized sovereign” should be considered occupied territories.[16]

I also based my edits on the discussions here and here. So when I started to edit this on 17 December, which I have also done before but never had the time to correct all, I did it with this in mind. There is no "POV pushing" and I am just reflecting the consensus view.

Furthermore, I don't know which other actions Horologium means "fall under the scope of the sanctions". The vast majority of my edits are wholly uncontroversial where I just updated the links, names, correct spelling etc. My other edits are in line with the policies.

At last, I don't think Horologium is an "uninvolved administrator", as required. He was and is discussing the issue. Then after discussing it, he starts with threats (see above what he wrote 23:21, 18 December 2013 (UTC)) and then suddenly jumps in as an administrator and a litte after, he issues a notice. I think that is remarkable. Some of his respective my last edits showing the activity are useful:

00:06, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+262)‎ . . Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles ‎ (→‎2013 notices: added User:IRISZOOM.) (current)
00:02, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+3,129)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: new section)
23:37, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,039)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: response.)
23:21, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+963)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: new section)
23:13, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586709252 by IRISZOOM (talk) You are pushing your view on several articles; it needs to stop NOW.) (current)
22:54, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586639823 by IRISZOOM (talk) Israel annexed E. Jerusalem; they did not annex the West Bank. E. Jerusalem is disputed.)
01:36, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-14)‎ . . Pink salmon ‎ (→‎Habitat: removed piping for outdated term; Just use "Honshu".) (current)
22:55, 17 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (Undid revision 586542408 by IRISZOOM (talk) East Jerusalem's status is disputed, which is why it is identified separately.)

01:20, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (-1,105)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (Not relevant here. I will take it to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.) (current)
00:36, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: Spelling.)
00:35, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+477)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice)
00:13, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+341)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice: New reply.)
00:08, 19 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+286)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Notice)
23:58, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1,057)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: Reply.) (current)
23:25, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: Grammar.)
23:25, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+372)‎ . . User talk:IRISZOOM ‎ (→‎Use the article talk page, and stop edit-warring: My answer.)
23:18, 18 December 2013 (diff | hist) . . (+564)‎ . . Talk:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen ‎ (→‎The West Bank: new section)

Best regards. --IRISZOOM (talk) 02:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The opening paragraph seems like a routine notification. The rest is very difficult to follow, I'm afraid. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The notice is a standard warning, issued not for the article on which we were edit-warring (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen), but rather for the many articles which IRISZOOM edited which are within the bounds of WP:ARBPIA. In regards to Israel/Palestine issues, I am uninvolved, as any of the many editors active in that area can attest. I have no more than a handful of edits to any of the pages covered by that arbitration (all minor or reversion of clear vandalism), and (after my extraordinarily unpleasant experience with WP:ARBMAC2) I actively stay away from all nationalism disputes. The warning I conveyed to IRISZOOM is simply to inform him that there are sanctions involved on many of the articles he edited on 17 December. There are plenty of admins who keep an eye on that area, and one of them could notice the tenor of his edits, which serve to advance a particular point of view. In any case, I would not block him, because I am clearly involved in a dispute with him on the Ros-Lehtinen BLP. Horologium (talk) 03:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IRISZOOM, what do you think would be an appropriate administrative/community response? I ask merely for clarity's sake. It's not like the ARBPIA notice can be undone, so what should be done from here? --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 04:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IRISZOOM, since your updates affect several articles you could discuss the issue centrally at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Current Article Issues. On the notice, it's just a notice. Anyone editing in the WP:ARBPIA topic area should receive one of those at some point. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. I don't think the notice was warranted, as bescrived lengthy in my post above, and I think it's remarkable that an admin who have a dispute with me, including using threats, then suddenly starts issuing a notice when it got a little heated. But maybe it's just me and if so, then we can close this case.

Furthermore, the notice is not really clear. Can I keep make edit like this, which surely can't be viewed as something other than a NPOV? In Church of the Holy Sepulchre, someone has just inserted that it lies in Israel, which it doesn't and have already been discussed in the talk page, but I am not sure I can revert that.

Sean.hoyland, great link. I will make a post there soon. --IRISZOOM (talk) 09:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can continue to edit in the topic area. The notice is just to make people aware of the WP:ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. That edit to Beit Orot isn't controversial, or it shouldn't be. It's referred to both as a settlement and a neighborhood and it's across the green line. I've removed the misinformation from the Church of the Holy Sepulchre article. That kind misuse of Wikipedia is common in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:56, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commons q

Any Commons admins around who can delete File:David Horvitz Profile.jpeg? I just blocked the uploader for not being here to improve encyclopedia. If you need background, there's some on my talk page and more in the history of David Horvitz (an article that needs some attention); let me just say that I believe this edit summary. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Drmies: Can't en.wikipedia sysops delete pages on en.wikipedia? I believe that the image is on local wikipedia. Epicgenius (talk) 02:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. If we were ever to ask for power on Commons the shit would really hit the fan. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done - Diannaa tagged it as a copyright violation, and while the coloring was a bit off between the version on Wikipedia and the version on the corporate website that Diannaa pointed to, it was very clearly the same photo. (That, of course, meant that how the uploader used the image became a moot point.) If you ever need a Commons admin in the future, feel free to ping me. Sven Manguard Wha? 08:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent; thanks. I'll keep that in mind, Sven. Drmies (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Inapt action by Admin John Reaves

OP is done.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:04, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, sometime back Admin John Reaves cleaned up certain section of page Sajin Vass Gunawardena. Accidently I reverted his changes but immediately I corrected my mistake and posted a message on his TalkPage. Subsequently I noticed that he kept on blanking large sections of the page citing not a reliable source or remove statements that make no sense and are of dubious value etc where all the sections were properly referenced. Admin’s statement that certain section is of dubious value is merely his interpretation and not as per Wikipedia guidelines.

I repeatedly left messages on his TalkPage and also on the Article Talkpage, asking him to discuss first before blanking a section and that I have reverted the changes. To my surprise, he without discussing anything, engaged in edit-war and shockingly revoked my Rollback rights????

p.s. Just today, users from two IP have been trying to do what John has done; mass blanking and I had reverted their edits.

May I request this forum to look into this. Cheers AKS —Preceding undated comment added 07:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. To be kind to the OP, this should be closed ASAP. To be kind to the encyclopedia, the OP should be indeffed until acknowledging that edits like this are not appropriate and will not be repeated. Also, it is very inappropriate to spam a bunch of busy arbitrators with a request to investigate a minor disagreement. Next time, ask at WP:BLPN whether adding attack items to an article is ok providing the subject deserves it. Johnuniq (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is no kindness in indeffing someone over a matter such as this. They may well be completely wrong about the validity of Reaves' actions, but if so, they deserve an explanation and a chance to learn from it. Wikipedia editorship is shrinking; this sort of bloodthirsty behavior on ANI is part of the reason why. There is no harm to treating this as a teachable moment, rather than an excuse to kick someone while they're down. In other words, back off and make yourself useful somewhere else. MilesMoney (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I was a bit hasty. I responded to this after seeing a complaint at OTRS by doing a quick clean-up before bed. I assumed that Arunsingh16, who has over 7,000 edits since 2007, would at least be aware of BLP and NPOV and what a reliable source is. -- John Reaves 15:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@John Reaves: You were right to make the edit. I think, however, that Arunsingh16 should only be let off with a warning, not a block. Please do remove his rollback privileges, because he was using it inappropriately. Epicgenius (talk) 16:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Already removed. -- John Reaves 17:00, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gentlemen, thanks for your feedback. I spent some more time researching on this subject & here are my two cents.

1. Messages to arbitrators / sysops: I did NOT ask anyone to interfere on this page (ANI). Instead I asked them to give me a feedback on the matter. In case of a doubt, if I don’t check with a senior & more experienced person then who do I check with? Please show when did I ask anyone to interfere / influence on this page / discussion?

2. Minor disagreement: If it was minor then why the harsh action? Like you all, I also don’t get paid to work on Wikipedia and then get an egg on my face for ONE Rollback; that too it cannot be termed to totally wrong?? Please don’t tell me that none of you people ever had a rollback or an action that was questionable. If everyone has to get blocked in ONE instance then I doubt any of you should be an Admin (going by that logic). As I said (and perhaps you did not read) someone was attempting to change contents of this page drastically and I had to rollback his edits also. Please see page history before you jump to conclusions.

3. Thanks to attitude like this, experienced editors like me are now shying away from Wikipedia and backlog is piling up. When you should be handholding, coaching and being fair to experienced editors, you are busy shielding a wrong & arrogant action by another admin. Well, no problem, you can take your Wikipedia Admin rights and be happy with it. Wikipedia is ONLY a hobby to me and does not get me ANYTHING is real world; perhaps it does to you but for sure not to me.

4. Why is this edit NOT appropriate? It has been mentioned in a newspaper article and it was referenced in the Wiki page. What’s the problem? If mention of three divorces was a problem then what do you have to say about this section? Should contents on this article not be blanked too? Your argument is inapt, unjustified and biased.

5. Following is point by point action by John, the reasons and my feedback;

a. John blanked some material here. You can read the reasons. What I want to understand is WHICH part of the statement did he not understand in the section? That the person in discussion was refused a political role due to his criminal track record OR that he worked in Dubai? Which part of the statement was NOT sourced as per guidelines; please show me.

b. John blanked this section citing allegation. News published in a leading newspaper has been referenced and quoted; what allegation did the contributor make when he used the word "it has been alleged that" and then news quoted? Is Wikipedia some PR agency for Sajin?

c. John blanked THIS section which I find most surprising. What does John mean by saying not reliable source & since when did a national news become not a reliable source?

d. Blanking here also says not reliable source? Since when did news in a leading newspaper become unreliable? If that were the case, more than half articles on Wikipedia should be deleted.

6. Every blanking on this page was properly referenced, citied and writing was clear. There were no vague statements made and the action take by admin John is not only unjust & biased but also abused his privileges.

7. WP:NPOV: Yes, I am very well aware about it and doubt that John knows about it. I want you to show to me which part of the article (except begging for forgiveness which I think was bit extreme) violated WP:NPOV. Please be kind and be specific and show me where did the contributor express his opinion as fact & v.v.? Show me ONE instance.

8. OTRS: I have NO insight on what comes on ORTS, what the contents are and I have no control over it. Why did John NOT mention this in any of the comments?

9. What has this got anything to do with what we are discussing here? Let me throw some light on this issue since you mentioned it. User Abhishek had a habit of picking up fights with me, provoke me (partially my fault also) and then gang-up. Check his account and you will find him in several such violations. Due to all this, I stayed away from Wikipedia for an year and just got back. Let me assure you admins, I try NOT to cross the line and respect admins, senior editors and encourage others to do it as well; check this. Whilst I mention this, I must also point out that even certain admins should not act tough and as if they own everything here. We all are here for a bigger reason and certainly not for unnecessary heartburn.

10. Rollback: I don't intend to fight vandalism or conduct patrolling and really don't care if you remove or add privileges. Be my guest.

11. User John has been totally biased and unjust in his approach on this subject. I suppose that his actions can be perceived as violation of WP:NPOV.

12. I am NOT the original author of the page in discussion.

13. As I write this, there are attempts by others to vandalize the same page. Be my guest and please attend to it now.

14. I am not sure who wrote to OTRS but I am assuming that it is either the MP or his aid. Whatever the case might be, let us ensure that Wikipedia is NOT a puppet in hands of certain people. News published in Sunday leader has been objected to by John. Check out what I found on the internet just now, this. So now Wikipedia is a further extension to Sri Lankan politicians and parliament. Is it so? Also, it is interesting & worthwhile to read this about The Sunday Leader.

I am awaiting for your feedback on this matter. Cheers AKS

@Arunsingh16: The reason the "article" that you're using to support your edits is not considered WP:RS is because it's an attack editorial that consists of allegations rather than a news article reporting facts. Please read WP:BLP. The author of the "article" is synthesizing conclusions based on speculative allegations and then you're presenting those allegations as fact. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 15:03, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Arunsingh16: Regardless, you should have used edit summaries and stopped reverting when you knew that you were going to get your rollback privileges removed. In fact, I think that John warned you about that fact on his talk page, that he would remove your permissions if you were going to revert again using that right. But you did so anyway, restoring the version of the article with BLP violations. Epicgenius (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Epicgenius, perhaps you did not read what I have written above. Meanwhile & whilst you do that, following (just to clarify);

1) You are wrong; John never issued a warning, instead he revoked the privilege straight away. All I had done is reverted edits made by anonyms user and issued level 1 & 2 warnings. Subsequent to that, I had an accidental Rollback, which I corrected with apt remark; followed by a Rollback on John's edits as he was using false & incorrect reasons to blank the page. I left him a message on his & article TalkPage to discuss before editing but it fell on his deaf ears.

2) Read again, I did NOT make any allegations; everything is referenced.

3) I am NOT the original author of the page, so please be kind to me in that regard.

4) Check the history and please tell me if I ever made any edits on that page that can be questioned.

5) John is a habitual offender & has been accused several times for abusing admin privileges, foul language and for harsh approach. Don't believe me, check this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. I am sure you have already noticed another on-going discussion in this page about John. Discussion is about abusing his privilege.

6) What really surprises me is that how none of you are conveniently ignoring the fact that John violated and blanked contents that were properly sourced and referenced. Once again, I did NOT make that up. All I did was reverted edits by some anonyms users and issued Level 1 & 2 warning as per standard procedure.

7) Why John & everyone else ignoring the referencing. John blanked a section (attack on Ranil) citing not credible source. Seriously. Check this where the MP in discussion threatens to attack anyone, this article talk about apology to the leader of opposition. Want more, just Google.

I highly recommend: Before teaching me rules, please read my questions & points above.

I am shocked on the one sided approach of all Admins in shielding another admin and ignoring his mistake. Either it is a case of bias towards another Admin or WP:GANG or simply an error of judgement where all admins by default assume that another admin is right and they don't look into details. Whatever the case may be, I hope someone will look into this.

And since I have been taught about some many dos and don'ts, allow me to share a bigger picture with you. This biased behaviour and bad attitude will slowly scare experienced editors (non-admins) away with time and lots of edits and pages will never be checked for correctness. When that happens, Wikipedia as a site will start to lose quality and credibility. If is not the question, when is the question.

Keep the rollback privilege with my compliments, I don't need it. Block the account if you wish to (if you have a valid reason); I don't care BUT I will not surrender to this bullying. Cheers AKS

@Arunsingh: "7. Why John & everyone else ignoring the referencing." Because the references that you are citing are not reliable. Just because something is published on the internet doesn't mean it can be used as a source in a Wikipedia article, especially when the sources you are using are blog posts and attack editorials. You are not being "bullied," you are receiving a strong response because Wikipedia is subject to the slander/libel laws of the United States and so must be very careful with negative allegations against living people. Again, I ask you to read WP:BLP to more fully understand this. SEVERAL people are telling you that your references don't meet the definition of a reliable source. It isn't a big conspiracy being run by the politician that's the subject of the article. It is Wikipedia editors trying to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia by removing poorly sourced allegations of criminal behavior from an individual's article. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 18:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 205.166.218.65. At the outset, may I please ask you about the process of revoking someone's access? Is it only not civil and common sense to atleast discuss, warn and then take an action? Once again, please let me remind you that I am not the author of the article, those are NOT my references and hence please don't blame me for it; at best I can be spoken to for ONE Rollback - that's it. The way everyone is calling the references, my references only shows that people are not even inetersted in knowing the facts.

This is NOT a blog; its called News. And by the way, I am sure you are well aware about WP:NEWSBLOG. It states quote "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process....continues....Never use blog posts that are left by readers as sources. For personal or group blogs that are not reliable sources." Unquote. These so called not reliable sources are either news articles of proper news agencies OR the blogs are NOT left to readers as sources. All contested sources are genuine and meets WP:BLP. If at all I missed out on some fine print, then please help me understand it by quoting that rule and not referring to an entire page where I don't know what the other person is talking about.

Have you read points 4 & 5 a.b.c.d above? Can you or ANYONE paste ONE link here that was used in the article, later removed by John and which is NOT a credible source. Let's not make open statements, I have made specific points and I request if someone can take the trouble of accessing those links / sources and then show to me the link that has dubious nature.

What are we running here, Legal department or we are working voluntarily on set rules to improve quality of Wikipedia? Why are people making their own interpretation & judgement about the authenticity of source? I would like to know WHERE in the entire original article an allegation was made by the contributor / editor? Sourced material from public domain was put as per Wikipedia guidelines. Wikipedia or any editor did NOT make any allegation against anyone; has it? Cheers AKS

This will be my last post here because you seem to be unable to consider the possibility that you are incorrect. There are several editors stating that your sources are not good enough for the information that you're trying to include in the article.

What you seem to be missing is YOUR responsibility. The moment that one, single person disagrees about the reliability of your source, then it's your responsibility to go to WP:RSN and either a) see if it's already been accepted before, or 2) try to gain acceptance of it - that's how the project works. Now, on another topic, nobody has to warn you before removing a tool from you if you abused it - never. ES &L 00:50, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear EatsShootsAndLeaves, perhaps you are unable to understand that these are NOT MY SOURCES and I am NOT trying to include anything in the article. Go talk to the person who wrote & included it; not me. I am the wrong person to be told about it. All sources are good, there were attempts by anonyms users to glorify the person in discussion and John played along.

Have you ever heard of something called WP:AGF? I just did a Roll back on John and invited him for discussion. What is abuse in that? As a matter of fact it is John who is abusing his Admin rights. If one instance qualifies for revoking privileges then you really need to explain to me as to how is he still an Admin after this & this. I am sure you are well aware of the fact that the person I am talking about has a very dubious and questionable record. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Cheers AKS

Anyway, I (and I believe John Reaves et al.) have a problem with this, "Meet Mahinda's Man Friday," the source that provides the basis for most of the negative content. The informal tone, the use of rhetorical questions and editorializing, the extensive use of the verb "seems," no mention of how the author acquired the information that he presents as facts, the author self-referencing the newspaper with a first person plural pronoun...these are all signs of a article that Wikipedia should not be using to source extremely negative content about a BLP. The writing style is more akin to an article in the New York Times circa 1860, a time when newspapers related the news in a way that directly benefitted the publishers of the newspaper as much as possible. But hey, that's my take on this. If you feel strongly that this article is a reliable source, take things to WP:BLPN or WP:RSN. 205.166.218.65 (talk) 21:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 205.166.218.65, it does not matter what you, me, John or any other editor think or interpret of a source; if its a valid source, its a valid source. I am amazed to learn that not only people are making their own interpretation, they are also admitting it openly on a noticeboard. Is this not against the basic rules of Wikipedia (don't use your own judgement / opinion)?

Now you are questioning where did the news author obtained information from? I am sorry but you are walking ahead of yourself. Which journalist is bound to reveal his source whilst writing an article?

As a matter of fact, what you are stating does not comply to what is mentioned in WP:NPOV here. I quote "As a general rule, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely on the grounds that it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone. Biased information can usually be balanced with material cited to other sources to produce a more neutral perspective, so such problems should be fixed when possible through the normal editing process. Remove material only where you have good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage. The sections below offer specific guidance on common problems. Unquote. John being an admin should have known about this and has clearly violated the rules & abused his privileges.

For the love of God and for the 100th time, those are NOT my sources and I don't care what's written in there. My simple point is that Wikipedia rules were not followed and that privileges were abused by an admin. You people are going against the whole concept of Wikipedia by ignoring WP:AGF, not maintain WP:NPOV and then supporting someone who constantly abuses admin rights. Cheers AKS

Nobody says it's "your source" - but it's a source that you're claiming is reliable ... and just because you claim it is reliable, that does not mean it actually is reliable. As I said before, the minute someone disagrees that the source is reliable, you are required to act as if it's unreliable until you have it vetted through the reliable source noticeboard (or possibly even the BLP noticeboard in some cases). This is not optional - period. ES &L 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SOMEONE NEEDS TO EDUCATE ME HOW DID I VIOLATE MY ROLLBACK PRIVILEGE. Just because I rollbacked on an admin once I am an abuser? Absurd. Cheers AKS

You used rollback on a possible BLP violation, when you'd already had the sourced refuted ... it doesn't matter that you rollbacked an admin, or a n00b. ES &L 12:13, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

EatsShootsAndLeaves, Yes, you used the right term, it was a possible WP:BLP violation and at the point when John took at action, the source was NOT refuted - as a matter of fact it is not refuted even now. It is just your view that a news paper article from a national media house is not credible. I have checked all related Wikipedia rules (as you have) and it does not violate any existing rules. Please read up where I have also exhibited why it should not be deleted. Cheers AKS

Have you taken a read of WP:Rollback? Rollback should only be used to revert WP:Vandalism and a few other similar things (like banned editors & mass reversion of an editor's edits where some discussion of this has taken place). Under no circumstances which don't fall in to those cases should it be used to revert good faith edits, no matter how much you may disagree with those edits or whatever other guidelines you feel they violate and no matter if they were made by an admin, registered editor or even an IP. And yes, using it for such purpose is generally considered misuse. Now if it was only one instance as you claim, I'm not sure if these was any reason to remove the privilege. However regardless of the rights and wrongs of the original removal, your comments here appear to have demonstrated you can't be trusted with the tool because you don't even understand why your usage was inappropriate, it's not even clear if you've bothered to look in to when you should use the tool despite it obviously being important to know now that you're contesting the claim. And in fact, your claim that there's only one instance doesn't even seem to be true, since very early on someone linked to a discussion from last year where you were warned about misuse of the tool. (And even if it's true that these two cases were the only misuse of the tool, that doesn't really help your case considering you still don't seem to understand when you're allowed to use the tool over a year later.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:38, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very well Nil Einne, I take your point here. Now I have following doubts and help me with that;

a) Rule of rollback also says, quote "To revert widespread edits (by a misguided editor or malfunctioning bot) which are judged to be unhelpful to the encyclopedia, provided that an explanation is supplied in an appropriate location, such as at the relevant talk page." Unquote. Immediately after rollback, I left a message on the article TalkPage and also on user TalkPage but John did not bother to discuss.

b) Another rule of rollback says, quote "Administrators may revoke the rollback feature or issue a block in response to a persistent failure to explain reverts, regardless of the means used. However, they should ALLOW the editor an opportunity to explain their use of rollback before taking any action – there may be justification of which the administrator is not aware (such as reversion of a banned user)". Unquote. When was I asked or my opinion sought?

c) What has last year's discussion got to do with what we are discussion now? One rollback after 16 months and I am getting told by 10 different admins that its a huge crime? Give me a break guys, be kind & reasonable please. Remember WP:AGF? Cheers AKS

"Should" != "must". Of course, your horrifically non-WP:AGF title to this section pretty much solidified it too. You came here to ask advice if someone's actions were "inept" - you've been told they were not. What else are you looking for, to be blocked for WP:NPA and/or WP:CIR? In other words, you got your answer and then some. Take heed of the wise counsel you have been provided and go forth and edit properly. Someday, you may get rollback back...but not if you keep up this kinda crap. ES &L 16:02, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am done with my discussion here, as ALL admins who have participated seem to ignore the key point - Abuse of admin rights by John; authenticity of the article and source is a secondary point. I did not come to WP:ANI to preserve some links, I know there is a different forum for that. My complaint is that an administrator is blatantly abusing his privileges (check another complaint about the same admin on this noticeboard itself) and every time he gets support and gets away with it. There is a precedence to the behaviour and no visible improvements. I thank everyone for their time. Unfortunately I have to leave this discussion after witnessing bias, looking the other way and ignoring major violations for a fellow admin. I am confident that this forum is NOT capable of an independent review of this subject. Have a good one guys. Cheers AKS

p.s. I don't need Rollback or any other privileges. It does not add any value to me in my personal life. Keep it and be happy with it please :-)

Template:Uninvolvededitor Sounds like this thread should be closed then. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Semi protection of Talk:Rupert Sheldrake

User:JzG semi-protected Talk:Rupert Sheldrake, following this discussion on the talk page. As I said in my comments I definitely don't believe that semi protection is necessary or warranted, given that there has been one sock IP in the past week and I don't think we should be preventing people from editing a talk page because of one involved admin's belief that the IP contributors are falling afoul of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Could I please get another opinion as to whether the protection is necessary, especially a 2 week protection. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't intend to instigate a conflict between two admins. When I notified JzG that the page was not semi-protected, I only meant to contradict the assertion that it was already semi-protected.

Callanecc, you said "Not until it happens",[139] but it has already happened. There have been three block evasions by one person, and two topic ban violations by another. These SPIs take considerable time, and protecting the page would provide some relief. As I have mentioned elsewhere, the intense off-site canvassing from pro-paranormal sites has had the effect of exhausting the non-canvassed editors. vzaak 08:24, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

By "not until it happens" I was referring to the off-wiki disruption moving onto the talk page and there being a large number of non-autoconfirmed disruptive edits to the page in a short (ie a day) period. The protection policy states that talk pages "are only semi-protected for a limited duration in the most severe cases of vandalism". This is definitely not "severe" and 2 weeks is a long time for a talk page to be protected. Regarding the SPIs, given the evidence presented so far and the number of admins familiar with the regular sockpuppets on the article you probably don't need to go into as much detail as you have in the past. Pointing out that an IP in that range has previously been blocked and a similar edit (plus a quick explanation) from a blocked account or IP should be enough for the regulars on that page. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I semi-protected it, due to sockpuppetry by a banned user and because, in the end, it's time to start managing this idiocy down. The Sheldrake apologists have had their day in the sun, but the soapboxing has gone on far too long. The role of anons on the talk page, according to my review of it, amounts to WP:NOTFORUM, and has done for some time. I'm happy to help any that are genuinely likely to help, but the disruption currently outweighs any productive effect. Happy to let others decide otherwise if they want, but I think we really do need to start knocking this one on the head now. Guy (Help!) 09:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

of the things that would help the talk page become a more productive space, i am not sure that semi protection is the first item on the list, although it is on the list.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 10:20, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like a proper application of ignoring all the rules to better the encyclopedia. -- John Reaves 15:33, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My very favorite pillar! :-) But that is not the justification Guy provided, he claimed the problem was anons using the talkpage as a WP:FORUM, which is what the most prolific contributor to mainspace nowadays accused a couple of anons of doing, back in November. Both of *those* anons have long since left the talkpage, methinks. But I'd like to hear more of Guy's policy-reasoning here, and in particular, if he is pulling out the big gun of WP:IAR, or is instead just using WP:FORUM as his guide. There were about 2% of the edits to the talkpage this month by anons, from what I can tell. Did those disruptive edits spark a significant portion of the other 98%? 74.192.84.101 (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I ignored the rule that says you must specifically cite WP:IAR when ignoring all rules in order to improve the encyclopaedia. Guy (Help!) 21:36, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering, why isn't the article itself protected? Shouldn't it be protected as well? Additionally, shouldn't only the ban evader's IP range be blocked, so that other, productive, IP users can actually discuss the article? Epicgenius (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been semi'd for quite a while. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since late October, by uninvolved Sandstein. See the tables and toolserver links here, User_talk:74.192.84.101#Data_on_BLP_and_BLPTALK_participation. Tumbleman is the strikethru#6. Callanecc recently (~Dec 7th) imposed 1RR on the mainspace, also. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 08:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Range-blocking won't help in the cases here and here. Tumbleman has a long history of trolling other sites, and Reaper has said that Tumbleman has "proven himself to be good at hiding" other accounts.[140] For instance checkuser didn't help with the Philosophyfellow sock, but the behavioral evidence is overwhelming. (There is significant off-site hoopla surrounding these accounts, including the conspiracy theory that the Tumbleman socks are really different users that were "bullied" off Wikipedia, an idea that was promoted in a recent failed ArbCom request.) vzaak 18:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slow moving edit war

I'm writing regarding the article Picture Perfect (Sevendust song). I changed the article into a redirect on August 4, only to have T.o.a.b revert my change. The article was then the subject of an AFD, the decision of which was to change the article to a redirect. Since then, T.o.a.b turned it back into a full article on August 24, September 20, and December 19. On my talk page on October 1, the user stated that he controls the article. I explained policy to no avail. I'm not asking for a ban, but I feel like an uninvolved editor should explain the situation, since he's obviously not listening to me at this point. Andrew³²⁷ 07:51, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) What you told him/her was pretty clear. S/he hasn't edited anywhere since you gave him/her the warning, so let's just see if anything happens from there. Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 08:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. If they continue I wouldn't have an objection to a short block (and would do it myself). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:47, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged, hopefully it doesn't come to that. Andrew³²⁷ 09:35, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin is evading his block.

Since it appears that MilesMoney has finished for the day, I see no good reason not to "break the rules to protect Rubin's bad behavior by shutting down this report." Yunshui 雲‍水 12:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

User:Arthur Rubin is blocked for a week for, among other things, evading his topic ban by getting someone to edit for him. Now he's evading that block by -- you guessed it -- getting others to edit for him.

Rubin was gently warned by SimpsonDG, but responded by making transparent excuses and refusing to stop. According to him, these are just "notes as to edits I intend to make later", as if he couldn't do that off-Wikipedia, and as if his proxies weren't literally checking off items as they do his bidding.

Willful and repeated Arbcom topic ban violation is a serious offense and the weeklong block was barely a slap on the wrist, but he's making a joke out of it by engaging in proxy editing. What makes it worse is that he's an admin so he ought to know better. Editors have been indeffed for less.

I'm not asking for an indef. I do think his block duration should be restarted and extended to include his own talk page. My personal opinion is that he ought to reconsider remaining an admin, as he does not appear to have any respect for the rules he's charged to enforce, but I am not making a formal request about that at this time. MilesMoney (talk) 09:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of the issues he flagged on his talkpage are even related to the topic ban area. This is unproblematic. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood. He's not evading his topic ban. He's evading his block (which he received for evading his topic ban). Please read WP:EVADE if this is not clear. Thank you. MilesMoney (talk) 10:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by NewsAndEventsGuy

I believe this is meritless and I arrive at that conclusion through two entirely separate thought processes.

First, we should start with WP:AGF and proceed to Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?, which explicitly approves of user talk pages containing "to-do lists", "reminders" and "planned activities". The scope of Arthur's block did not include his talk page, so he can post such things. The only way to conclude those are overt proxy recruitments is to chuck our willingness to assume good faith - a natural state of mind for someone with a grudge, I suppose, but there isn't any tangible evidence to overcome the assumption of good faith rule. In other words, the conclusion that Arthur overtly recruited proxies is an emotional conclusion, not one derived from analysis of evidence. Since his block did not turn off his right to edit his own talk page, he can include all of the material listed at Wikipedia:User pages#What may I have in my user pages?.

Second, this complaint is predicated on a false statement. The complaining party wrote

"Rubin was gently warned...but responded by... refusing to stop."

A simple look at the verion history shows that is untrue. At the moment I am typing, Arthur had posted no additional "to do" items to his list after the gentle, and in my opionion misguided and undeserved, warning.

Conclusion: Looks to me like someone has a grudge. But they should include me in this ANI if they really want to push it, because I claimed an item from the to-do list on Athur's page and did it on my own hook. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In all candor, you should probably mention that you are one of the two proxies he is currently using to evade the ban. Also, claiming I have a grudge is itself a violation of WP:AGF, and it also happens to be false. I previously defended Rubin, but he has since burned through all the good faith.

As for the rest of your defense, it is flawed and not factual. In specific, when he was warned about evasion, he did not admit to it or agree to stop. He said "I don't see it". If he stops adding to the list after I made my ANI report, this would only be an argument for not blocking his talk page access. He would still deserve to have his block restarted from today. MilesMoney (talk) 10:09, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the proxy rules you have previously cited, proxies do not have independent reasons to make edits and/or the project is not improved as a result. I removed external link spam that was making a legal threat against Wikipedia. Gee, naughty me NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you would make up your mind.

First, you say that he did stop asking others to edit for him after he was gently warned, which is an admission that he ought not have been doing so in the first place. When I showed that he, in fact, rejected the warning, you gave up on that line of argument.

Now you're saying that it's ok for you to follow his directions if you have your own reasons, which contradicts your admission that he ought to have stopped when warned. It also confuses the issue of whether you should have followed his orders with whether he should be giving orders.

You really can't have it both ways. MilesMoney (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, if you deny ever having beaten your wife/parent/child, then you are guilty of refusing to stop beating them. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic does not work that way. Try again. MilesMoney (talk) 10:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with what Arthur is doing, so long as he confines himself to posting to his own talk page for the remainder of the block. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is very kind of you, but WP:EVADE is less kind. MilesMoney (talk) 10:31, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The policy you quote is just as kind as I am, actually. "Wikipedians in turn are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a blocked editor (sometimes called proxy editing or proxying) unless they can show that the changes are either verifiable or productive and they have independent reasons for making such edits." The edits Arthur has been requesting all seem good at first glance. Let's not harm the encyclopedia just so we can stand on principle (especially when said principle is not even founded in policy). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:40, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

e/c::::I agree entirely, except for suggestion the complaining party is standing on principle. He and Arthur are fresh from content disputes and the complaining party has been unwilling to drop-the-stick. Instead, he's trying to kick the other guy (Arthur) when he's down. This complaint is a classic example WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality and calls to mind WP:BOOMERANG if you ask me. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, really? What content dispute was that? Diffs or it didn't happen. MilesMoney (talk) 11:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Except that we know that independent reason is irrelevant. The other proxy wrote:

Sorry about the block. If you want me to post anything to ANI on your behalf, let me know.

This violates WP:EVADE, in that they would not have "independent reasons for making such edits". Having shown their willingness to proxy, they followed through by making almost all of the changes Rubin requested. MilesMoney (talk) 10:44, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cut the crap, Miles. Has any harm resulted from this proxy editing, or do you want Arthur punished for the sake of enforcing (your interpretation of) a policy? I can't speak for the other ~800 admins, but I'm intent on letting it slide (WP:IAR and all that). Someguy1221 (talk) 10:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to let it slide, then, but I will not, and there are ~799 other admins out there.

Rubin's actions are injust, and that makes them harmful. When an admin is allowed to break the rules but regular folk have to follow them, it makes the admins look like dicks. Anyhow, thank you for invoking WP:IAR, as it means you've given up claiming that he didn't break the rules. MilesMoney (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Using that logic, you are guilty of assault and battery if I offer to beat your wife for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Logic still doesn't work that way. If I ask nobody in particular, "Who will beat my wife for me?" and you do it, I am not innocent. MilesMoney (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Someguy1221, let me ask you a question. Let's say we grant, for the sake of the argument, that what Arthur did is completely legitimate, somehow. If this is the case, why did he lie when confronted?

Look at his talk page and you'll see that he didn't respond, "Hey, I'm allowed to request proxying just so long as there's independent reason". That would have been (in my eyes) questionable, but at least direct and forthright.

No, he didn't say that. Instead, he said, "I don't see it. Are you saying it's inappropriate to take notes as to edits I intend to make later?" Instead of admitting he expected others to make these changes for him, he pretended he was going to get around to them eventually and it was just a coincidence that he's leaving them on his talk page. As if he couldn't have saved them on his own computer. He lied.

Why did he lie? Well, I'm not an expert, but I'd say it's because he had a guilty conscience. He knew that the warning was fair, so he didn't want to admit to what he was accused of. Remember, he is currently blocked because he just engaged in proxying to evade Arbcom, so the fact that evading could get him into trouble is something that must have been prominent in his thinking. If only that had stopped him from reoffending. MilesMoney (talk) 10:59, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In general I'm one of those who believe talk pages should not be used to stir drama, and if someone is blocked, posting a helpful list of suggestions that talk page watchers might act on is just going to cause drama (witness this report). However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and each case is evaluated on its merits, and we are not bound by a misguided reading of WP:EVADE (which does not say what MM appears to think). Looking at this particular case shows that the talk page comments are unrelated to any contentious topic, and the reported case is not one that EVADE attempts to cover. Regarding the talk page: it's owner should just wait out the block and keep personal notes off-wiki, and while onlookers are welcome to act on such benign points, acknowledging them on the talk page is sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block—it would be best to skip that. The fact that MM has brought this to ANI demonstrates a win-at-all-costs approach, and that demonstrates that the other threads regarding MM are soundly based, and the project will benefit when MM is removed. Hint: we don't kick people unless such kicking assists the encyclopedia. BTW, offering to posts comments for a blocked user at ANI is standard operating procedure. Johnuniq (talk) 11:13, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the thread with all of the Opposes? That thread? I would love to hear you explain how your comment is anything but a threat of retaliation for reporting Rubin. Please, I'm trying really hard to assume good faith, so work with me here. It would really be helpful if you would explain why he gets to WP:IAR, but I get threatened by you for pointing out when he ignores them. It would also be great if you could explain why it's WP:BATTLEFIELD for me to report him for "sort of saying FU to the system", but it's ok for Rubin to threaten to retaliate with SPI and ANI. These are tough questions, but I'm sure you have good answers, and I'm waiting for them patiently. Until then, have a great day. MilesMoney (talk) 11:30, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting interpretation of my open/honest statement of accountability (for deleting an external link spam and vague $100 million liability threat against Wikipedia). I suppose one might initially think I was "sort of saying FU to the system that initiated the block", but on further reflection I would hope one would realize it is hard to tell the

System fuckers and too stupid to know better proxies

from the

Honest editors who take personal ownership for their acts, and believe the project was improved even if the edit was called to their attention by a blocked editor.

And that is only more difficult if such edits are made in the dark, instead of the light. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not saying FU to the system, it's saying FU to every non-admin who contributes to the system. It's also saying FU to Arbcom, but I figure they've got thick skins by now, so Rubin's actions won't hurt their feelings. MilesMoney (talk) 11:34, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's MilesMoney again! Big surprise...good thing he moved this matter to the right drama board (his words). Drama is right...--MONGO 11:53, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
MilesMoney, you need to stop. Now. We all understand you are hell-bent on having somebody blocked, but ANI is usually not very friendly to people with vindictive agendas as obvious as yours. If A.R.'s actions really are objectionable, other editors will soon start flocking in saying so independently of whether you keep jumping up and down shouting here the way you have been doing, so you could just as well stop beating the dead horse now. The same goes for your participation on A.R.'s own talkpage, which will soon cross the line into harassment. If you continue this in either venue, this will boomerang on you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but I'm not actually hell-bent on having Rubin blocked. He is already blocked. This is because he violated an Arbcom topic ban twice, once by evading through a proxy edtor. I'd just like that scandalously short block to mean something as opposed to being (in the words of his defender), an "FU to the system". Mostly, I'd really like him to stop doing things like this.

As for a vendetta, citation needed. I defended Rubin initially, and I tried to help him avoid getting blocked. He responded by threatening me. He has since threatened me twice more. If anyone is taking it personally, it's him. In contrast, I've asked only for the minimal reaction to his block evasion, which is quite fair and impersonal. Please do not violate WP:AGF by claiming I have a vendetta.

The horse isn't dead, but I'm done riding it. I'm off to the real world. When I return, I fully expect that someone will break the rules to protect Rubin's bad behavior by shutting down this report. It'll be one admin whitewashing another. Even if so, I bet Rubin won't be leaving commands for more proxy editors for the remainder of this block, so that's something. Still, it would be great to have my pessimism dealt a blow. Are you up to it? MilesMoney (talk) 12:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You said above you want his block reset to start now, so how is that not wanting him blocked? An admin needs to block you...first for 24 hours and then for increasingly longer durations until you stop disrupting this website.--MONGO 12:26, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, it's discourteous to ask me questions after I've announced that I'm done riding this horse. In an attempt to be courteous, I'm going to answer you while slowly backing away. I do not intend to further comment on this section, so please don't encourage me to.

I cannot be asking for Rubin to be blocked because he is already blocked. However, through the use of proxies, he has evaded this block for a few days. I am asking that (as per WP:EVADE) the days he evaded not count towards time served. The mechanism for this is to extend his current block by the number of days that he cheated it. This is equivalent to resetting the expiration timer to the original duration. None of this is the same as asking to have him blocked, which is a logical impossibility anyhow so long as he remains blocked.

Remember, a total of three editors have agreed that Rubin should not have sought proxy editors, and it now looks like Rubin will stop, regardless. If he commits to stopping, then I would be fine with him being allowed to keep editing his talk page while blocked. If not, then taking away his talk page access would be necessary to protect Wikipedia.

Now, if you have any further questions, you're welcome to visit my talk page. MilesMoney (talk) 12:37, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is silly. An editor's prime purpose for continuing talkpage access while blocked is to request unblock. However, making a "to do list" of things that they personally intend to do when unblocked is not unacceptable - as long as there is no overt requests to others (which could include using "e-mail this user", or pinging someone). Let me put forward a few examples to show why this whole thing is silly:

I'm currently on-leave from my ~~senses~~ admin tools. If I approach another admin and ask them to block someone/undelete something/protect a page, am I violating my holiday by proxy?
If someone keeps a list of "articles I plan to create" on their userpage, and I go and create one of them, have I done something wrong?
If I keep a list of "admin-y things I need to do as of January" and someone comes along and does those things, have they done something wrong? Have I?
If an editor makes a list of spelling corrections they intend to make once unblocked, and I go ahead and make those edits, have either of us done something wrong?

So, take this as you may ... ES &L 12:39, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

COI editing, talk page whitewashing by User:Jphearts

User:Jphearts has only ever edited Abraham_Silberschatz and its talk page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Jphearts - subject to the proviso that I don't have deleted contribs X-ray vision. That page has a serious COI issue inasmuch as it was largely written by User:Avi28 who acts exactly as if they are the subject of the article, let us say.

User:Jphearts's latest batch of editing was to remove the BLP and COI tags from the main article without addressing them https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abraham_Silberschatz&action=historysubmit&diff=586802545&oldid=584918546 (this diff subsumes one edit by me removing honorifics from the article body per MOS), and remove my comment from the talk page mentioning the COI https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAbraham_Silberschatz&action=historysubmit&diff=586801974&oldid=550321798 . I was advised to take this to AN/I, so, here I am. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Some admin should full-protect the page temporarily, as Jphearts is already autoconfirmed. Epicgenius (talk) 17:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection would be a very poor solution. Let's see if Jphearts is communicative at all. If not, a block it is, possibly a topic ban, possibly an indef block. Drmies (talk) 01:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Armenian Genocide

Resolved

– Done. Sandstein 20:48, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin please semi-protect this page and block the IP? 95.7.140.82 puts the same text in the talk page with clear racist and insulting phrases in the edits summary:

“

European Court of Human Rights' (ECHR) Decision dated 17.12.2013 on 1915 Events must be placed to the Article. Now, researchers can freely research without any threat of ARMenians. 2013: ALL Turkey's archieves open, Armenia hides its archieves! Don't hide

”

[141]

“

Reference of ECHR Decision added. Heyy, researchers, historians..! Do not afraid! Just search 1915 events. It is easy to discover the international lie. Russia and Turkey archieves are open. Think why Armenians' arciheves are closed! Liers Hide! Till when

”

[142]

This is getting ridiculous. --Երևանցի ^talk 20:32, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dassault Rafale

This page has been vandalised and requires attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.122.243.90 (talk) 00:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I don't see anything in Dassault Rafale not is there anything in the recent contribution history that looks like vandalism. However a template Template:Flagu/core used in the article (Special:RecentChangesLinked/Dassault_Rafale) was recently vandalised, this may be what you are referring to. Either way it seems fixed now. If you continue having problems, trying following the instructions at Wikipedia:Bypass your cache and WP:Purge Nil Einne (talk) 01:35, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkpage ban

User talk:86.148.106.245 keeps putting a bogus unblock request, which the blocking admin reverts, claiming that I was the one who started the "vandalism" of undoing his vandalism on my user page. He will only continue to change his own talk page to add nonsense. Ben^Yes? 02:48, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Reaves has taken care of it. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

John Reaves administrative conduct

John Reaves has agreed to leave similar requests to other admins in the future. No need for further discussion. ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 17:09, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Erm. I think this requires a further look. The blocking admin should almost never remove unblock request from an editor's talk page, and I can't imagine why John Reaves did that here. I think he has some explaining to do.

In addition, there has been some serious edit warring by both Benhen and blocking admin, John Reaves there. Toddst1 (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What? Do you have diffs? How is this discussion not a waste of time? -- John Reaves 03:13, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Further, look at this users contributions, they are abusive, disruptive and unproductive. By reverting myself, I insured that no more time was wasted with this user. Now there are three admins involved in what should be a cut-and-dry case. -- John Reaves 03:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I have diffs. You removed the request not once but twice. Its pretty bad that you think discussing how you clearly abused your administrative privileges is a waste of time. The IP's conduct is cut-and-dry disruptive. Your conduct is very different, and simply inappropriate, but you're an administrator who is responsible for your actions.

Your explanation that the examination of your misconduct is a waste of time is egregious. Toddst1 (talk) 03:18, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It is not an explanation, it is a question. How does further scrutinizing of this issue not waste time? We, as admins, are trusted to do what is best for the project. Also, we are, as are all users, subject to review. Upon reviewing my actions, why do you feel that my actions warrant further discussion? Does allowing an obviously disruptive user continued access to Wikipedia somehow benefit the project? -- John Reaves 03:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue is there's a reason why we strongly discourage admins from turning down requests from users they blocked. Allowing an independent party to review reduces the risk an unblock will be turned down unfairly because of unwitting bias or worse, and also reduces the perception of unfairness or of being pursued by one admin by the editor who is blocked. While I don't think there was any chance of the former here and often editors will just start to think of all admins as being unfair, it doesn't mean we shouldn't uphold the fundamental idea independent review (and therefore allowing requests for them, no matter how bad).

I'm also not sure of the wisdom of edit warring over the removal of an unblock request. If the unblock request was really so bad that it should be removed rather than turned down, I would suggest if it's added back you should remove talk page access while removing it a second time if not them losing talk page access the first time they made their request. If the editor involved had repeated the nonsense that I guess earned them their block like [143], then removing talk page access as soon as they made their request would IMO be justified along with the removal of the request, but the IPs comments were childish but didn't fall in to that category. (Edit: Actually I think you did remove talk page access, still the rest of my comment stands. The requests were silly but they should have been turned down rather than being removed. If the editor had made another silly request, then perhaps talk page should have been removed after it was turned down.)

To be fair, if I'd seen this all myself, I doubt I would have bother to say anything, but since this issue has come up, I think it's worth saying this probably wasn't the best way to handle things. It's worth remembering that while the desire to reduce wasted time is understandable, bypassing normal steps can often waste more time because people have to investigate that nothing untoward went on. While it's understandable on wikipedia we prefer to concentrate more on outcome than on process, we should not forget sometimes the process is an important part of the outcome.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:07, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I assess all situations on a case by case basis with no exception here. I reverted the editor to keep the page out of Category:Requests for unblock, which is already backlogged with legitimate requests. This is an application of IAR that I believe would have ultimately benefited our already backlogged admin corp had it not been dragged here. -- John Reaves 04:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If Toddst1 thinks there is a problem, why has no attempt been made to engage with the user who is clearly distressed and wanting attention? Perhaps the user (Special:Contributions/86.148.106.245) has a legitimate complaint, but all they got was a routine "No reason for unblocking presented" (diff). There is no difference between that response and the revert that John Reaves applied, except that the first ticks a box and the second might have a WP:DENY effect. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. "Since the purpose of an unblock request is to obtain review from a third party, the blocking administrators should not decline unblock requests from users they have blocked."' It's policy and how we keep from becoming dictatorial as admins. Toddst1 (talk) 04:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding oppressive bureaucracy also keeps us from that. See Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_bureaucracy. -- John Reaves 04:10, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is pretty easy. The IP richly deserved the block. John should have put a block notice on the talk page but probably didn't have time. John should have left the unblock notice for someone else to review. John should not have extended the block based on the battle between him and the IP. It's hard to have any sympathy for the IP, but there was no reason for John to deviate from the rules. He should own up to that, and then we're done.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, yeah, mostly what Bbb says, though I believe there is one reason to deviate from the rules and turn down/remove an unblock request like this one ("Ben started it"): one can consider that complete bollocks, vandalism. That's how I read it when I first looked at this (all-too briefly, in hindsight, I guess). But we routinely block for frivolous unblock requests and I don't see this as very different. John Reaves, will you please leave it for someone else next time? Nothing will be broken if you do since the IP's disruption is limited to their own talk page. Drmies (talk) 04:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm the blocking admin, I don't remove unblock requests unless they are truly outrageous (e.g., major personal attacks). I may revoke talk page access for abuse (although this particular unblock request wouldn't have risen to my threshold), but that's different from removing requests. I also would not extend the block for an unblock request except in rare egregious circumstances (e.g., significant block evasion, but that would normally involve the block of a registered account), which were not present here, at least not in my view. I'm now going off-wiki and leave it to the good people here, including John, I'm sure, to sort out.--Bbb23 (talk) 04:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a minor side, I think Toddst1 already noticed this, but it seems one of the things which annoyed the IP and perhaps lead to their unacceptable attacking vandalism was probably the reversion of their attempts to remove justified warnings from their talk page. They are of course entitled to do so per WP:UP#CMT, so I've removed that which they tried to remove earlier. None of this justified their behaviour. But hopefully if they ever come back this will reduce the chances they will continue even if their edit history doesn't exactly give much hope they're going to be particularly constructive whatever they do. I've also left a comment to the IP explaining all this. Nil Einne (talk) 04:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have chastised users in the past for similar behavior at user talk pages, I didn't pick up on it in this instance unfortunately. As for disruptive unblock requests, I will defer them to other admins in the future. -- John Reaves 05:52, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This was not the only time John Reaves disabled or removed an unblock request instead of responding to it (or letting another admin respond to it), which is what should've happened. I'm not saying you're being malicious, as it appears evident the unblock request was not going to be accepted, but I think everyone would be more comfortable if common procedure was followed properly and you let another admin reject the unblock requests; I think transparence in dealing with those is better than boldness in denying the chance for the block to be reviewed and an impression of obscurantism by dealing with everything yourself, John. :) ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 14:53, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're correct - which is why, I imagine, John Reaves agreed to leave such requests for other admins in the future. I think that's ultimately what we were looking for, isn't it? UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I was looking for when I first brought this to his talk page, then here. I recommend this thread be closed. Toddst1 (talk) 17:01, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Graham Power

Seen during STiki patrol. Graham Power needs to be looked at by an admin. Legal and religious implications. BsBsBs (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I cleaned the article up and welcomed the user. Hopefully further edits will be constructive. -- John Reaves 05:54, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I didn't dare to ... BsBsBs (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

POV pushing and disruptive editing w/ personal issue by user:Mouh2jijel

Hello,

I would like to report an unconstructive behavior along with what seems to be a personal issue by user:Mouh2jijel on the article Languages of Morocco:

This user, even if I asked him many times to use the talk page, refuses and persists on replacing a map of the article by another one without any justification or discussion. I even explained on the talk page that we should simply avoid putting any political map on an article about linguistics, a way imho to avoid POV and OR problematics as I explained on the discussion, but user:Mouh2jijel doesn't seem to be ready to discuss anything, he simply continues to edit the article imposing his own POV.

Note that the second map was made by himself and that he falsely putted user:Tachfin as the author on its description (that's another problem, it will be discussed on Commons), which is highly misleading, and all that after having been engaged in an editwar to impose his own version on the first one.

By the way, note that this user has had a personal issue with me on both en.Wiki [144] and Commons (as he randomely reverts my edits) and the current issue seems to be of the same behavior. For this purpose, I would like to ask admins to explain to this user that WP:CONSENSUS, WP:OR and WP:NPOV should be respected even if it doesn't math his own opinions about Western Sahara and Morocco.

Regards,
--Omar-toons (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea to report it when you've made 7 reverts each. BRD doesn't contain 6 more 'R's after the 'D', but Mouh2jijel has been more disruptive. Take it to WP:ANEW next time. Dark Sun (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Given your previous blocks for edit warring you really ought to know better Omar-toons. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 15:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I made many reverts (even if I don't simply revert his edits, I mainly tried to be Bold, if first I tried to keep the previous map after that I simply made an edit on which no map was used). Note also that this article was modified through a discussion to which I participated and that everything was fine until user:Mouh2jijel intervened and started to edit without discussing, more that that, he simply refuses to discuss his edits.

I apologize for my 3RR edits. But I also hope that the personal issue and the disruptive behavior of this user against me would be sanctionned. --Omar-toons (talk) 15:46, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cue That is still a violation of WP:3RR, because they still count as reverts under 3RR. You will probably be blocked, regardless. Epicgenius (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I can't justify blocking one user for violating 3RR without blocking the other. I will leave a message with User:Mouh2jijel to insist that he participate in discussion before he reverts again and continue to monitor the issue. Gamaliel (talk) 16:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just block both and close the thread. Dark Sun (talk) 16:43, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what that would solve. The same problem would just reoccur after the blocks expired. Encouraging discussion and solving the underlying problem should be our goal here, not just block and forget. Gamaliel (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, possibly Serbian?

This diff: [145] is one of several by 213.246.53.55 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Google Translate makes little sense of it other than it appears to be aggressive. I have temporarily blocked the IP, but can someone with the requisite skills please check this out for me. Feel free to unblock if I have misread the auto-translations. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right to block. It's undoubtedly related to pl:Wikipedia:Prośby_do_administratorów#Do_blokady, given the signature. (See, for instance, [146].) Seems to be Ukrainian, urging violence against the Polish. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:34, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good, thanks. I was pretty sure (the text mentions Ukraine) but didn't want to bite someone who was actually trying to help and just being clumsy about it. Guy (Help!) 18:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing by 216.66.110.131

BLOCKED

Routine vandalism should be reported to WP:AIV. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:26, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

This IP user has been consistently vandalizing this month, and is already on his fourth vandalism warning. I just reverted two more vandal edits on Ben Stiller, and I personally think he needs to be blocked. Corvoe (speak to me) 18:20, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but try WP:AIV first, next time. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 18:26, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Disruptive editing/vandalism done by Alexisfan07

I reported Alexisfan07 for vandalism due to their long standing history of adding ill-sourced and unreliable sources to List of General Hospital cast members for years, as well as other members. They've continued to disregard any warnings issued to them, especially after being continuously explained to what is acceptable and not acceptable. They continue to use a show's credits and Twitter as a source. We explained Twitter fails as a source since it is a first-party source, and not a third-party one and when it comes to soap operas, especially cast lists, third-party is much more reliable. Especially since it usually takes claim of a third party (aka their series and fellow cast mates/crew members). This user has shown a consistent disregard of the rules and policies of both Wikipedia and the Soap Opera Project concerning this. While I do believe their intentions are meant to be well, their edits are not improving Wikipedia in any sort of way. How many times must something be described and explained to an editor, especially one that has been a member (according to their edits) since late 2007/early 2008. Surely this is unacceptable of their behavior to continue to happen. livelikemusic ^{my talk page!} 22:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Have you tried bringing this up at WP:RSN? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:39, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

please protect and/or watch

List of Iranian people by net worth is regularly vandalized by anon IPs. Please protect this page or watch (they also tried to delete this article in the past). Thank you.67.87.49.102 (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Thanks for your concern. The best place to make this kind of request is that WP:RPP. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:28, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban violation (REPOST)

I'm not really sure how these works so pardon me (and ignore it) if Im wrong. But according to my understanding there is a violation if something is made (and especially reverted) in regards to that topic across WP right? It seems that User:Sopher99 violated this after he mentions that he is topic banned on syrian civil war articles till the 18th. It appears then that he made several related editss: User_talk:Kudzu1#Syrian_civil_war, an edit on WP about the topic (and it was a revert without explanation of a POV statement [147]), this, BUT it was self-reverted, this, and this. It seems the 2 week ban started on the 4 of Dec, btwLihaas (talk) 16:59, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sopher99's topic ban is the result of the general sanctions to which Syrian Civil War articles are subject. Anyway, the complaint here seems to be about edits to Portal:Current events that added or edited entries related to the Syrian Civil War. Whether that fits within the "Syrian Civil War articles" limitation (even with broad construction) is better left to those more experienced in these matters. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:18, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the expression Topic Ban would suggest it is a WP: TBAN as such, any edit related to the topic anywhere on Wikipedia (other than appealing the ban) would be a violation. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually from looking at the background of this, what is the justification for the topic ban? --Kyohyi (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have notified Darkwind of this thread, given he imposed the topic ban. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the limits of the topic ban are pretty clear, Darkwind: "you are topic banned from all pages related to the Syrian Civil War, broadly construed, for two weeks" - I didn't touch any page related to the Syrian civil war. Sopher99 (talk) 17:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet investigations have nothing do with the Syrian civil war even if the user being investigated has edited on Syrian civil war pages. As for Dylan Lacey, I casually gave him reasons on his talkpage as to why he should self-revert an edit he made - Dylan agreed to those reasons and casually reverted himself

None of this shows I edited on Syrian civil war pages. Sopher99 (talk) 17:45, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upon asking another user to remove he warned that such mention would be in violation, and then the portal revert came.Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hhe blatanly violated his topic ban (see bove for another user who did the same)...an there is no comment? no action?Lihaas (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lihaas, you've shown me an inappropriate request made on December 11, an improper addition of Syrian Civil War topic to the current events portal that was smartly self-reverted as it was clearly in violation, but as it was self-reverted it doesn't count. Are you trying to suggest that we need to go back to an event from December 11 and impose a punitive block? We don't do punishment - although, if you'd brought it to our attention on the 11th (maybe you did?) it likely would have been blockable at the time. I mean come on, the TBAN expired 3 days ago, and the action was 11 days ago ... where's the logic? Sopher99 should be well-aware that they pushed the envelope way to far ... but as I sincerely hope we'll never have to impose another TBAN, the point should be moot ES &L 11:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BLP issue and 3RR (combining both here instead of those noticeboards) at Bishop Hendricken High School

Kawaiibentobox has five times now added a paragraph to this high school article about a former assistant principal who was caught by Perverted Justice (1/2/3/4/5). The references are Zoominfo and a scant mention in a local newspaper. I've tried to explain to the user about the relevant policies on his or her talk page, edit summaries, and the article talk page -- and was subsequently accused of being "in allegiance" with the school. --— Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:34, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-administrator comment) Have you tried bringing this up at WP:RSN? Erpert ^{WHAT DO YOU WANT???} 18:37, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked the user for 48 hours for edit warring and partly for the content, which I believe he got wrong anyway as, according to the Providence Journal, which I had great difficulty reading because of their stupid cookie policy, it happened in 2004, not 2006. It wasn't a violation of WP:BLPCRIME, but it hardly seemed noteworthy, and it's the sort of thing that there should be a consensus on, and this user didn't seem interested in that. Indeed, he obviously had an agenda and stated he would reinsert the material no matter what: "I will continue to put this back up, stop removing it." By the way, despite the BLP intersection, I would have just taken this to WP:AN3.--Bbb23 (talk) 19:30, 21 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban enforcement needed:Tokerdesigner

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
original topic ban discussion in which there was a unanimous consensus for a topic ban as a bare minimum response and he was not to edit articles related to cannabis and the smoking of it
Torkerdesigner informed of result

I'm off to inform Tokerdesigner of this discussion, diffs of ban violations forthcoming in a moment. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:30, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Cannabis smoking:[148][149]

Edit to Smoking, [150] which may not be under the topic ban as an article, but at least one of the images added is of in implement used for smoking cannabis, and Tokerdesigner's actions in the topic area of smoking devices were a large part of the reason for the ban

Edit to Cannabis (drug): [151]

Torkerdesigner informed of this discussion.

The community decided that their edits in this topic area caused more problems than they solved and they were no longer to edit there. No time frame was specified, and there is no evidence the ban was ever appealed, let alone lifted. I was previously involved in a content dispute with this user and therefore may be considered too involved to take any further action, looking for an uninvolved admin to look into this and take whatever action they find appropriate. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:45, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Unsourced POV article needs Speedy Deletion

The Aghdaban genocide article was recently created by a user who is seemingly entrenched in severe POV conduct. Let alone the fact that the user calls it a genocide, the article refers to the event as follows:

"one of the most iniquitous felonies perpetrated against mankind"
"putting inhumane torture to hundreds of the non- combatant, driving out them."
It refers to Armenians as "marauders" and calls the massacre "Atrocious".
The sources are nothing more than advocacy websites as sources.
There is not one source that calls this event genocide [152]

The creator of the article, Azwhead (talk · contribs) seems to be a new user (registered Dec 3). He also already received numerous warnings for this conduct (User_talk:Azwhead) I think he needs to be blocked or receive a serious sanction. Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX, nor is it a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I suggest that the article should be speedily deleted for the sake of a better and more neutral Wikipedia. Articles like this make the encyclopedia look like a WP:FORUM or some sort of joke. Thanks. Proudbolsahye (talk) 00:36, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards