Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:84.127.80.114 and Debian edit war

I have been recently blocked for 48 hours. I insist that I was not the one edit warring. I even reduced the amount of my changes to a minimum. I got a WP:AN3 warning to not be disruptive in the article. I only reverted the disputed changes that used non neutral language. I was not disruptive. I was blocked because I made a change to the article.

My unblock request is not answered. I see that administrators are busy but I cannot work without an answer. I am worried this will be an excuse to block me for a longer period of time if I try to make any changes to the article. My ability to bold edit and revert is virtually blocked. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 17:53, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

You're not blocked - if you were, you could not have edited here DP 18:42, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Have you been edit-warring at Debian? Yes. Has Mthinkcpp been edit-warring? Yes, but to a much lesser degree. You were more insistent with your reverts, having reverted twice in the same day, while the reverts that Mthinkcpp had made were spaced days apart. Neither one of you violated the three revert rule (reverting more than 3 times in a 24 hour period) but Bbb23 made the decision to block you as being the more aggressive editor in this case. I'm not sure I would have made that decision, but I don't think it was the "wrong" decision either; I can see the logic behind it.

In either case, you can and should be blocked again if you insist on reinserting the information that was disputed through reverts and is being discussed on the article's talk page. The proper way to resolve this is to convince other editors that you are correct. If you can't do that, and can't achieve consensus, it can't be added. If you can't understand that, or refuse to accept it, and continue on this path you'll be blocked again. Just continue the discussion at the article talk page, and resolve it there. Also, look at our page on dispute resolution for advice about how to best deal with an issue where you are unable to come to an agreement with another editor. -- Atama頭 18:48, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Of course I am not technically blocked. But I "should" be blocked again if I repeat my actions. Therefore another bold edit or revert will mean a new block. I do discuss. I did discuss then. Reverters do not. Atama says that content without consensus cannot be added. I reverted that content without consensus and I got blocked. If what I did is considered edit warring, why cannot these changes be made to WP:WAR?

Will my next bold edit/revert to the article mean a new block? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Probably. The reason why such blocks are made are to force people to handle these disputes as they're supposed to be done; through the article talk page. For reference, read bold-revert-discuss, which is the usual course of events. (Someone makes a bold edit, another person reverts it, and they settle it by discussion; you're at the discussion stage now.) -- Atama頭 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama says someone is at the discussion stage. I certainly am. Will I be blocked again if I try to reintroduce the changes more slowly? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I suggested dispute resolution, and linked to it for a reason. It has suggestions for how to proceed. If you feel that you are trying to facilitate discussion, but only one other person is participating, then go to the link I just provided. It suggests asking for a third opinion to weigh in. If that third opinion isn't enough to sway either side, you can try asking at the dispute resolution noticeboard for assistance, or if you want to continue the discussion at the talk page, start a request for comments and try to get input from even more people. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that if you can't convince others to your point of view and find that you are either alone in your opinion or you are in the minority, that you're not going to succeed. Move on and find something else to contribute to the article or another article. -- Atama頭 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The IP 84.127.80.114 has filed a case at WP:DRN so this discussion should be discontinued as DRN does not allow multiple conversations in multiple venues. Thanks Atama for your good advice to the IP and thanks to the IP for choosing dispute resolution over edit warring. Cheers!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 19:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hacker threat today

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

---

I received this beauty today:

"we the hackers of anonymous Philippines has been inform by one of our members that you and your so called friends in Wikipedia has been bullying him and prosecuting him and his articles in your web page,well in response we the hackers of Anonymous Philippines has decided to teach you guys a lesson so be ready with your deletion buttons so that you could clean the mess we will do to your beloved web page we don't stand for online bullying so be ready for war-hackers of Anonymous Philippines"

Looks like some people have nothing better to do with their lives. User indeffed. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

[Update] Not sure where this came from or why, but it may be related to User:Malusia22. If anybody is familiar with this case (I am not), feel free to comment. -- Alexf^(talk) 13:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Similar threat aimed at Gogo Dodo [1]after he blocked one of the Malusia socks. "War-hackers"? I suspect it's just one person. Acroterion (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• Some people may think they can break Wikipedia, but that is impossible. They'll learn it. Tito☸Dutta 15:39, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

• That's the thing about the internet. I can claim to be Liam Neeson with a particular set of skills, but that doesn't make it true. (Spoiler: it isn't.) Admins get some interesting threats but I have to hand it to you, Alexf, that's probably more entertaining than anything I've ever received. -- Atama頭 16:27, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh I can top that, and from right here on Wikipedia. In response to my including cited negative views of the subject in a biographical article I was the subject of the following: There has been a concerted all-out effort by extreme leftist and Islamofascist individuals to attack [X] publicly in his online groups, by mass emailing, and by editing and redistributing articles about him on Wikipedia to include derogatory and false information. These repetitive daily attacks have been going on for several months with the purpose of disrupting [X]'s work and interfering with his communications with other physicists online in his groups. The reason for the attacks is to prevent any chance of an American Dark Energy program getting off the ground. Our enemies want to deploy Dark Energy weapons before we do to insure world domination. Our communist and Islamofascist enemies are also buying time in which to smuggle nuclear weapons into the US to destroy us. This is not a conspiracy theory. Interference with [X]'s defense work is a serious felony under US TITLE 18 >PART I >CHAPTER 115 >§ 2388 § 2388. Activities affecting armed forces during war Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully makes or conveys false reports or false statements with intent to interfere with the operation or success of the military or naval forces of the United States or to promote the success of its enemies; or Whoever, when the United States is at war, willfully causes or attempts to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty, in the military or naval forces of the United States, or willfully obstructs the recruiting or enlistment service of the United States, to the injury of the service or the United States, or attempts to do so— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.". Later in the same dispute I was listed as a "Judenrat" (one of the Jews who assisted concentration camp guards), a "blatant liar" and other similar epithets, and a statement that a suit had been filed with the US Attorney's office to prevent me posting such criticism. DES ^(talk) 01:56, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

---nuked beans go here---

Speaking of beans -- there's nothing like a hat to focus attention on a section of the wall of text known as ANI. WP:BEANS is generally something that should not be wikilinked, per beans. (Don't say "Don't stuff beans up your nose!"!!!) Beans is mostly about not making a post in the first place -- if you really think another's post is just shouldn't be there, remove the darn thing and let them know why (usually on their talk page, by email if absolutely necessary). NE Ent 11:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

It is all related to Malusia22 and their effort to get an article published about their gang related to their fraternity. I also got this hilarious death threat a few hours before. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:11, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Ya'll should see the stuff we get at the WMF. I have a literal "pile o' crazy" that goes from your run of the mill tin-foil hattery all the way up to "seriously? you wrapped the LETTER in tin foil to protect me from the tiny little robots that live in meat and stole February? Thanks, i think." Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 02:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Ohhhh, Philippe (WMF), please don't exaggerate. It was only the last two (or three) days of February that were stolen. BTW, where did they go? Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Duh, the tiny little robots got them. You aren't paying attention, are you? :) Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I knew it! It was THEM that stole it! -- Alexf^(talk) 11:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

In fairness, it also coulda been Maggie. She's bad about misplacing things. It's only a matter of time before she loses February. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 13:52, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Philippe Beaudette, I know there are privacy concerns and all that, but honestly, I think there would be more sympathy and understanding of WMF if we knew the level of craziness you have to deal with. I know, reading over AN and AN/I has helped me understand both the legitimate requests and the more off-beat demands some editors and readers make of admins on Wikipedia that I had been unaware of in my editing bubble. Just a thought. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:04, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

We are the Legion We are the Anonymous, beware of serious threat of vandalistic violence, suicide virus or shutdown death threat, mail bomb threat, etc hacking cracking phreaking passwording, for banning anyone interested in Anna Katharina Emmerick. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.82.209.228 (talk) 16:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, like that (above), exactly like that. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, Liz, I've been thinking about that and toying with a Wikimania presentation. The problem is, for me to get the best of the stories out there, I'd have to edit them so mercilessly that we might take all the fun out of them. I'm still thinking about it, though. I've also toyed with a blog post that talks about some of what we do. I also did an office hours once and talked about our work. I'd love other ideas of how we could get some of that out there. You can take that to my talk or email me (anyone!) if you have any ideas. It's just philippe{at]wikimedia.org. Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

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

User:K6Ka supporter

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

---

Google Alerts sent me an e-mail when they found a new search match when one Google's "k6ka". Apparently, someone created a new Wikipedia account with the username K6Ka supporter. Here's what concerns me:

1. On the user's userpage, they state: "I am here to stop vandalizim in Wikipedia with the help of my friend K6Ka. Come and support me as well. Thank you, Siddharth"

I don't have a friend named Siddharth, nor do I know someone IRL with that name. A lot of my friends do know that I have a Wikipedia account and that I fight vandalism, but I simply can't imagine them doing something like this.

2. The username has "k6ka" in it. This concerns me a lot because a lot of people would think this is my sockpuppet. I want to clarify right now that this is NOT a sockpuppet account, and that a CheckUser is welcome to check.

I will keep an eye on this suspicious user's contributions, but I'm quite positive that whoever created this account is not someone I know personally. I would ask that the owner of this account, if they wish to edit Wikipedia, to abandon this account and create a new one, or use an existing one that hopefully has a less concerning username if possible. The last thing I want is to be blocked for sockpuppetry that I didn't do. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not entirely sure (would someone please clarify), but in the future I think you would just need to put a brief statement at WP:UAA saying that the account was impersonating/attacking you. Whether or not the "supporter" can make up some fantastic story is not relevant, the account just needs to be indeffed. Johnuniq (talk) 03:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I guess I have a different take on this:

1. It's clearly NOT imitation - the use of their "real name" on the userpage shows that, and it shows their intentions. Any admin would typically see that, and not consider it to be your sock
2. People who may have interacted with you on articles (possibly even while editing anonymously) may often feel some form of brotherhood with you based on similar views, and think of you as a "friend"
3. I do have a minor concern that the editor may already have an account and this was created as some form of alternate account - which while techically fine, might occasionally run afoul of the WP:SOCK#LEGIT aspects

The short version is this: you have a fan. Feel blessed. Most of us don't have any fans whatsoever. ES&L 11:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The user called me a "friend", and I'm rather hesitant on who I call a "friend". I have two kinds of friends - the Internet friend, which you meet over the Internet, and a personal friend, one that you met in person. Both kinds of friends require that I know the person for an amount of time and that I have worked or interacted with him/her before. So when someone pops up out of nowhere and calls me a friend... that's where I get really uncomfortable.

It doesn't seem right that I would get a fan while other users who've been on longer than me, have more experience than me, and have more edits than me, don't. I am quite wary of this person. K6ka (talk | contribs) 12:50, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Try becoming an admin ... the "friends" get more nasty :-) Et tu, Bruté comes to mind ES&L 13:18, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• No, it's not acceptable. K6ka, I suppose this might possibly be somebody you know IRL having a joke with you, as people can be very, uh, jocular in an open project. But it seems more likely to be a vandal you have disobliged, having a little troll with you. In any case, it needs to be stopped, if K6ka, a harmless and useful vandalism fighter, is uncomfortable enough with it that s/he comes here to ask for our help. The name "K6Ka supporter" and the comment on their userpage is pretty obvious trolling, especially if you consider that there are no other contributions than the userpage — no "vandalism fighting". I have asked them nicely (well, nicely for me) to create another account. If there's no response, I intend to delete the userpages and indeff the account. Trigger-happy Panda, there are fans and then there a stalkers. Most of us prefer to decide which people we let snuggle up to us and call us "friends", even on the internet. Bishonen | talk 14:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Funny that I have been often accused of being "trigger happy" with the block button, and indeed I think I was referred to as a bully once. ES&L 14:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

No offense intended, ES&L, as I've seen you do some good work, but you seem to be having some judgement concerns today. Between telling a wary editor with a possible stalker "You have a fan. Feel blessed." and your condonement of the "jailbait" user page two threads down, seems atypical of you. Have a cup of tea, some fresh bamboo, maybe a nap. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Right, but his reasoning for wanting action was because he didn't want it to be considered as one of his socks. My argument surrounded that, n'est-ce pas? And I still stick by my comments below. Hell, we had a girl we called "jailbait" as a nickname in high school because of her penchant for older guys. It's not an uncommon nickname, and I certainly believe some overly-aggressive behaviour has taken place in that thread. Yeah, 4 nights with only 5 hours sleep causes issues...but not that bad DP 22:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have to agree, this is blockable per WP:IMPERSONATOR. Note where it states, "One should not choose a username that implies a relationship with an existing editor (unless the account is actually owned or the relationship is acknowledged by the editor themselves)." Obviously in this case, not only is the relationship not acknowledged, it's disputed. And for what it's worth, I've been accused of being a wimp with my blocking tools (in one case on this very noticeboard when I refused to be another editor's "hitman" years ago). -- Atama頭 19:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• OK, I think I've waited long enough after my note to them, I'm blocking and deleting. In the unlikely contingency that K6ka's "friend" actually wants to edit Wikipedia (they haven't so far), they can just as well create a new account. Bishonen | talk 22:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Thanks for taking yet another thing off my mind. The worst I can imagine are my friends begging me unsuccessfully for my password, but I haven't thought of this ever occurring. Let's hope this doesn't happen again. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If there's a similar problem again, the simplest thing is to take it to WP:UAA as recommended by Johnuniq above. For other kinds of harassment, you're most welcome back on ANI or, perhaps simpler, my page if I'm active. Bishonen | talk 10:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC).

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

strange userpage / provocator agent?

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

---

Resolved

 – User blocked, and user should not be unblocked without consulting ArbCom. I won't archive this for a little while so others can confirm that it isn't just me being power mad. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

At AIV, where I had posted this first, I was instructed to take it to ANI.
When I checked a somewhat out-of-scope-looking image over at Commons, I was taken to the userpage of Soixante Nerf (talk · contribs), which appeared immediately rather fishy to me. As I am not well-versed with :en's terms, please take a close look at the userpage of this self-proclaimed 16-year-old, who has mostly edited his/her userpage. Something seems to be very wrong there. Some of his/her edit-summaries and the links in the last line of the userpage make it rather unlikely that this is a 16-year-old. Eventually this might be a Agent provocateur, who wants to put Wikipedia in a bad light. --Túrelio (talk) 16:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I see no problem with this userpage, or any edits this user has made. Please assume good faith and be welcoming to new editors. I would in fact delete/remove this report. It is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk) 16:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Look very carefully at the links at the very bottom of the user page (and links elsewhere). The user page should be deleted and account blocked immediately. It could be an attack page on a minor, we can't take any chances.--I am One of Many (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing the issue here. They've done a lot of work on their userpage, yeah. They have some interesting choices in articles to edit, yeah. Their external links in some places just come back here to Wikipedia, yeah. Their grammar, wording, and even some edit-summaries certainly fit the intellectual and age description. They're not a minor. The external links go to a subdomain of a website (lisaem) that happens to meet what the person claims to be their name. What's the problem? ES&L 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Whether it matters or not, their self-proclaimed birth date does make them a minor in most places, at least in Florida where the Foundation is legally based. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree with I am One of Many. Túrelio was quite correct to bring this here per Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy. We have here someone (Redacted). In many US states and in US Federal law, 16 is below the age of consent. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I have suppressed her page as it contained way too much personal detail for a minor. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 17:29, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. It also had a photograph. If the girl in the image was someone else, that was potentially very serious. If it was an adult posing as a 16 year old, ditto. Voceditenore (talk) 17:27, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The image have now been deleted at Commons, as it was out-of-scope. --Túrelio (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

• Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely: (1). Journalist or blogger posing as underage "jailbait" so as to shame Wikipedia. Reddit got a lot of well-deserved bad publicity not too long ago for having a "jailbait" forum, could be an attempt to make Wikipedia look similarly bad. (2). Law enforcement trying to catch pedos by posing as "jailbait" user and seeing who sends them messages or otherwise interacts with or defends them. (3). Someone creating fake accounts to bully some kid. Mean, but hey, it happens. (4). Some kid trying to shock their parents by being "jailbait" online. Basically the novel Dinky Hocker Shoots Smack for the web 2.0 era. Regardless of which possibility it is, no good can come to Wikipedia by having a "jailbait" user page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • All are possible and a misuse of a user account. I'm especially concerned about some version of (3). I am One of Many (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
    • A side note, "soixante nerf" seems like a slight modification of the French phrase "soixante neuf" which is slang for a sexual position. This seems consistent with much of the editor's interests (see their contribution history), but provocative usernames are often associated with disruptive intentions. -- Atama頭 19:20, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reason why this editor was not notified of this discussion? Is there a reason why this user page was already deleted before hearing from the editor? It seemed like there was discussion going on and the editor spent a lot of time creating her user page. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:37, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The reason why the page was deleted is outlined at WP:KID, already linked to above in this discussion. As to your other question, I don't think there is a good reason except that it was forgotten (not a good excuse, I know). I'll rectify that now. -- Atama頭 21:53, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

For more background as to why user pages like this are often deleted, read the arbitration discussion here. -- Atama頭 21:55, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Note: I saw User:Soixante nerf early on, after seeing her edit the Erotic sexual denial article, and I discussed her user page, including the fact that her username seems to mean soixante neuf, and the existence of all the links (links that are not directly Wikipedia links...but double as Wikipedia links), with a few Wikipedia editors via email; we were all concerned, some of us more concerned than others. One of the editors I discussed the matter with brought up WP:CHILDPROTECT, but wondered if she is too old for that policy to apply to her; I assured the editor that the policy applies to late teenagers who are underage as well. But since User:Soixante nerf says she is a late teenager, though still under age with regard to most countries, I decided to let the matter play out itself, especially given the editor's feelings toward Wikipedia. I may have acted wrongly in that regard, and it seems from above that others would agree that I did. As for the editors I was in discussion with about this matter, it was me who contacted all three and I did not reveal their identities to each other (in fact, only one of them was aware that I was in discussion with another Wikipedia editor about this matter), just like I will not reveal their identities here in this discussion. If they want to comment here, they will. Flyer22 (talk) 22:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cue The age of consent is lower than 16 in some countries, so there's no need to worry yet, at least until a checkuser can check out which country User:Soixante nerf's IP address is located (and even then, we don't have definitive evidence that this user is a minor). But if the user is a minor in a country where the age of consent is higher than 16, then there's a big problem and the user may need to be scrutinized. Epicgenius (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Umm... excuse me for being late to the party, but no one told me that all this was going on.

Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely:

Journalist or blogger posing as underage "jailbait" so as to shame Wikipedia.

Do you really think that is the most likely explanation? That's terrible!

Someone creating fake accounts to bully some kid. Mean, but hey, it happens

That is also a terrible thing to think. But if it really happens, I guess that is even more terrible.

Some kid trying to shock their parents by being "jailbait" online.

My parents do not know I registered an account with Wikipedia and I am sure they do not care. I am also sure that if they saw my account name, they would think it as funny as everyone else does.

Law enforcement trying to catch pedos by posing as "jailbait" user and seeing who sends them messages or otherwise interacts with

I am not going to respond to old weirdos who come on to me online, here or anywhere else. There are plenty of young wierdos in my dorm.

Again,

Four possibilities here, from (IMHO) most to least likely

Note that in your exhaustive list of possibilities, you omitted the one that should have been listed first: that I am just a smart 16 year-old.

But you didn't even consider that as a possibility. You said you will only consider descriptions of me that are evil. It's a trap. It's a pedophile.

Does anyone else see anything wrong with this? Might it perhaps be unfair when deciding whether I will be allowed to edit Wikipedia? Is rejecting the obvious explanation right at the start really the best way to decide what to believe—ever?

or defends [her].

That is a very worrisome statement to me. If I am in a contentious situation as an editor, everyone involved has now been warned not to support my position because if they do, an admin at this notice board will assume they are a criminal. I very seriously object to that statement. It isolates me from legitimate article-related communication.

It also had a photograph. If the girl in the image was someone else, that was potentially very serious. If it was an adult posing as a 16 year old, ditto.

Gee, thanks a lot. The photo was of me.

"soixante nerf" seems like a slight modification of the French phrase "soixante neuf" 

It is. So what? I think it is funny, my roommate thinks it's funny, and my friends here think it is funny. If some of you people are really this screwed up, then just let me pick a different name.

WP:CHILDPROTECT, but wondered if she is too old for that policy to apply to her;

I am not a Beiber-obsessed little girl wandering around backstage flirting with roadies at a concert. I am a college student in a dorm. Guys live in both rooms next to mine. I have all the freedom and responsibility of every other student here. I know this will shock and horrify you, but I even have sex, too. (I apologize for using such filthy language.)

And to show the level of depravity to which those godless Liberals have sunk our once-great country, my parents know about it and they think its fine. They have even had my GF over for dinner! But, then, you can't expect better from a couple of progressive, atheist, socialist PhDs.

I used the term "jailbait" because I think the phrase is hilarious, and I put it in my "a.k.a." list because it really is my nickname here. Also on that list was "speedy," which I was called one time because of my use of a larger-than-usually-prescribed amount of (legitimately prescribed) Ritalin.

I'll let you figure out why I'm called "spanky."

Sadly, I can only play with freshmen because sophomores know they could be pulled out of school and thrown in prison for 30 years if they do the very same thing a few freshmen have already done with impunity, and the very same thing they can do themselves in a few months on my birthday. In fact, I have considered throwing a particularly exciting birthday party with only 19 year-olds invited.

But the Juniors had better keep at least 10 feet away from me at all times and never be alone with me, or they're in a HEAP o' trouble!

Perhaps you see why I said, "I should write a book about the experience of being jailbait." I was referring to the grossly illogical consequences of these "protect the innocent girl's virtue" laws, the strangest of which happened when my GF turned 19. For a long time (by my standards), she was legally allowed to do stuff with everyone's blessing. These days, we could even have gotten married! Then literally the next day, she was a felon in danger of being imprisoned for decades and branded a monster if she did the very same things to me that she did legally just a few hours earlier. The kicker is, in just a few months, the exact same stuff will suddenly become perfectly legal again.

The unjust nature of this strange and shameful paradox was briefly taken notice of in several campus forums. But to me, it was my proud "15 minutes of fame," and the basis for (jokingly) calling myself a "dorm celebrity" on my user page. I found it so cool because I was not one of the popular girls in high school. It was also the genesis of my nickname, "jailbait," which I really love, is used by my friends more than "Lisa", and is now my favorite internet handle.

Your concern is appreciated, but unnecessary and, I think, unwarranted. I try not to take offense, and I remind myself that that you don't know me, and that you are just being safe instead of sorry, and as with powerful drugs, some people do need to be protected from their naive stupidity.

I discussed her user page, and her username with a few others.

You had email conversations about me with several people and even blanked my user page, yet it never occurred to you to advise me, tell me, or most of all, ask me anything. Nor did anyone see fit to let me know about this long discussion, in which I am the one being discussed. Instead, my user page was blanked without me being told first or being allowed to bring it into compliance with whatever rules apply.

the links in the last line of the userpage

Download and look at those links. You will see that they are simple redirects. I added them because most of them are, to the non screwed-up, ironic and humorous. Like having "Liberal" point to the article for "Communist." I used redirects to prevent readers from seeing the punch line in the link name.

But nobody ever asked me why. Instead, my links are used by admins here as evidence of my being evil.

Some of his/her edit-summaries make it unlikely that this is a 16-year-old.

I speak proper English, am intelligent, literate, well-informed in many areas, and I am 16. Since that is next-to impossible in the United States, you conclude that I am a much older person—probably a man—pretending to be me. Worse, I now have to defend myself about it.

This is a trigger issue with me, because in grade school I was accused of plagiarism, and the reason given (in front of the class) was that I had obviously copied my book report verbatim from the book jacket. I was so disheartened and despondent about this being my reward for excellent work that I never even showed him the book jacket. I just passively said nothing and didn't defended myself.

Well, I'm defending myself now.

This kind of moral panic craziness tar pit is exactly why I edited anonymously for so many years. And if things I've seen at WP in the past are any indication, it looks like pretty soon I will be correcting grammar anonymously here again. You already deleted my user page. The next step will be to ignore everything I just said, come to some kind of wrong, bizarre decision, and delete *me* as well.

I suppose I should have known better than to establish an account. There are screwed-up weirdos here alright, but they are not pedos.

Please reinstate my user page and advise me of what you don't like about it, so I can change it to one that you do like.

Please. ☺

I see no problem with this userpage, or any edits this user has made. Please assume good faith and be welcoming to new editors. I would in fact delete/remove this report. It is inappropriate. Capitalismojo (talk)

I'm not seeing the issue here. They've done a lot of work on their userpage, yeah. They have some interesting choices in articles to edit, yeah. Their external links in some places just come back here to Wikipedia, yeah. The external links go to a subdomain of a website (lisaem) that happens to meet what the person claims to be their name. What's the problem? ES&L 17:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, capitalismo and ESL. It is relieving to know that there are as many as two people here with common sense.

Lisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs) 00:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Soixante Nerf, you were already pinged when Túrelio made their original post. How did you not know that this was going on? (Unless, of course, you're a troll, which, judging by your editing style, is easy to assume...) Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Last night, I began a rather long defense of a very popular webcomic that was deleted for not being notable, even though it has fan pages and is sold as a book on Amazon. I went to sleep because I have an early class tuesday and thursday. I got back to it today around 6pm, after classes and then the dining hall. The page still open on my screen had no notifications on it. I deleted most of what I wrote last night as unnecessary distraction from my main point, then posted it, as you can see on my contributions list. As soon as a new page loaded, I saw the "messages" flag, came here, and hit the ceiling.

Thank you for asking me, BTW, instead of making the ugliest possible misinterpretation that you could.

How did you not know that this was going on unless you're a troll?

The question makes no sense. A troll would drop everything and come here immediately, to wallow in the attention. Why is my not doing that evidence of trolling?

I'm starting to understand how women felt when they were tried for being "witches." The jury had concluded guilt before even hearing the defendant (as starblind said he did, above), and the entire meaning of "evidence" was turned on its head.

a troll, which, judging by your editing style, is easy to assume

What is it about my editing style that makes you believe I'm a troll? All my edits are punctuation and grammar.

Forget what I said about you not making the worst possible interpretation you can. I figured that when I had a named account, that I would soon be banned by an admin for not agreeing with an article's owner in a content dispute. But I now consider it inevitable that I will be banned in less than a day for replying to the issues in this pointless noticeboard "incident.

Why not just let me recreate a politically-correct user page and continue fixing punctuation errors? I never started a fight here; I just made a funny user page that was deleted by people with nothing better to do.

One more thing occurs to me. I'm not sure how to phrase it, and it will be interesting to see how the crazy people here twist it into evidence of trolling or media conspiracy. But my guess is that my ex- user page is probably just what one would expect from a 16 year-old who's free of her parents for the first time and finds herself in a dorm of guys (and girls) more than willing to help her explore this new, exciting thing called sexuality.

To anyone who's both intelligent and not crazy, that would be almost certainly true, a no-brainer. It would also clearly be a more likely explanation of my humorous user page than "it's the undercover cops", "it's a disrupting troll," or "it's an old pedophile."

I don't like this conversation. In fact I hate it, and I've asked several times to please stop it. I just want to fix minor errors in Wikipedia, and if you end this circus, that's what I'll do.

To sane people, my return to low-key editing would be proof that—what do you know—she didn't come here to fight; she came here to fix grammar mistakes. But I don't think that the kind of people who've accused me of crazy stuff will do that. They don't seem to be the kind of people who would ever say "wow, I suspected that Lisa came here to trick us for Fox News, but I realize that I was wrong."

I observe that some people who hang around this noticeboard are eager to believe that conspiracies by the media, pedophilia, and clever traps to trick them are literally the only explanations for a smart girl with a dry sense of humor editing Wikipedia. I think that probably, once that kind of person gets started blaming and judging and accusing, that they are emotionally incapable of any ending other than "Beat her up! Ban her! No 16 year-old could be that literate; she's an agent provocateur, satanic and evil pedophile come to trick and discredit us!"

There is no way to defend yourself against that using logic and reason because this is the only time they ever get to bully and hurt other people—which is how the lesser-intelligent adapt to being bullied and hurt.

Since they appear to be a vast majority here, I think it's a foregone conclusion that they will use my very words right now to whoop themselves up, ban me within 24 hours, then go find someone else to hurt. In fact, the only reason I don't just cancel my account in protest is that those same people would somehow manage to interpret it as confirming their manifestly unwarranted, ridiculous theories.

It's too bad, too, because all I really want to do is fix grammar errors. Soixante Nerf 03:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs)

"I know this will shock and horrify you, but I actually have sex, too."

Soixante Nerf, LOL, you're barking up the wrong tree with that one. As one of the editors around here well educated on sexual topics, I'm not sure that there is any sexual topic that would shock me. Certainly, there are ones that horrify me, but a 16-year-old having sex is not it. And for those stating "pedo" ("pedos"), that's not an accurate definition of pedophilia when it comes to adult sexual attraction to 16-year-olds. Not to mention that 16-year-olds can be pedophiles as well. But oh well. Like the Pedophilia article notes, people do misuse the term.

"You had email conversations about me with several people and even blanked my user page, yet it never occurred to you to advise me, tell me, or most of all, ask me anything. Nor did anyone see fit to let me know about this long discussion, in which I am the one being discussed. Instead, my user page was blanked without me being told first or being allowed to bring it into compliance with whatever rules apply."

Yep, I had email discussions with a few (not several) people about you, and I even mentioned to one Wikipedia editor that you remind me a little of myself when I was your age. But I didn't blank your user page; the person who did that identified himself above. And, no, I wouldn't contact you to tell you that I had email discussions about you. Not unless it was something you needed to be informed of. Like I stated, I decided to let things play out. If there was truly something wrong with your user page, others would tackle that; I wanted no part in tackling it. I queried others about you because I know how this site works and I knew that there was a chance that others might approach you about the things that you are now facing here in this WP:ANI discussion, and so I wanted opinions on the matter. Many Wikipedia editors here converse via email about Wikipedia and other Wikipedia editors, with it never occurring to them that they should let the people they were discussing know of that discussion, especially if most or all aspects of that discussion are better left off Wikipedia and/or away from the people the discussion concerns.

As for you not being notified of this WP:ANI discussion, not only were you notified via WP:Echo, you were notified on your user talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 04:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Flyer, I read your user page and some of your stuff, and it made me extremely happy! You are so obviously me in the future who came back in a time machine to write those things, that I am absolutely overjoyed to know time-travel is possible. Soixante Nerf 05:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soixante Nerf (talk • contribs)

The deletion of your user page was simply a good-faith effort to protect a young person. Wikipedia is anonymous unless one chooses to disclose who they are. Your edits are not all grammatical in nature. Some of your edits are corrections to mathematical equations, correct rephrasing of physical forces and processes, and the appropriate addition a highly technical scientific reference to an article. We do assume good faith when it is reasonable, but in this case, it did not appear reasonable regarding your user page. I am One of Many (talk) 07:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

That was not what I said, at all. congratulations for taking my words and skewing their meaning completely. I was just saying that, as Flyer22 stated above, the Echo notifications systems notify you of this post immediately, when your name is linked inside a post. that said, I was saying that some might think you are a troll (I don't) but based on your main topic of editing in some reproduction-related articles, it is likely that at least one editor may think that. Epicgenius (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Epicgenius, I resisted stating the following, but I've finally given into temptation: I wouldn't call those articles "reproduction-related articles," LOL, but I know what you mean. Flyer22 (talk) 00:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• SN, as one of the editors who engaged in off-wiki discussion about you, I want to say here that such discussions are perfectly legitimate. They can help to head off trouble at the pass before it blows up into a big ugly mess that disrupts the project, and they also serve to minimize the Streisand effect wherein sensitive information gets seen by a lot more people than would otherwise see it. Besides, Wikipedians are people—no, really!—and people like to gossip. I'd guess that such discussions happen every day, although I couldn't be sure.

  I'm the editor who wondered "aloud" about WP:CHILDPROTECT. I initially concluded that yours was a borderline case that merited further watching but not necessarily immediate action. I thought—and still think—that putting those links at the end of your user page was unwise. I'm the last person who's going to judge you, but I think there's a time and a place. Putting certain things on the same page where you identify yourself as a minor is a potential problem for three reasons: (1) it's liable to bring unwanted attention your way from people who may seek to exploit you or defame Wikipedia, (2) it's something you may well regret later, when you're older, no matter how appropriate you think it is right now, and (3) rightly or wrongly, it gets many of your fellow editors upset, thereby disrupting the project, and disrupting the project is never cool. Perhaps you didn't mean your page to be provocative—I'm certainly willing to assume good faith on that point—but some people took it that way, and that was disruptive, whatever the intent.

  If you really are sixteen, then you must know perfectly well that you're precocious and realize the fact that sometimes you're going to make people suspicious just by being yourself. C'est la vie. I hope you won't judge us too harshly for wondering and worrying. For what it's worth, one of the reasons I hesitated to report you is that I'm pretty sure that if Wikipedia had been around when I was your age, I would have been involved with it—and probably pushing the boundaries. I'm sure we're all glad to know you're here to do good work. If you continue with that and try to keep your user page uncontroversial, you should be fine. And don't take this as official—I'm not an administrator—but I wouldn't worry about your username. (Just don't get any ideas about increasing it by one whole number en français, as someone of a thoroughly monolingual persuasion might misconstrue that.) Rivertorch (talk) 19:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I've blocked this account indefinitely, and it should not be unblocked without the consent of ArbCom. I don't think there's much reason to continue a conversation here, but I think removing the thread would backfire, so I'll just suggest it instead. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I did a checkuser and reviewed the edits to the user page, and the other edits made by this user account. Based on this information, I agree that the account should be blocked and referred to ArbCom. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 19:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC) (Sydney Poore)
  • As the oversighter / checkuser who raised the issue with the rest of Functionaries, I agree with Floquenbeam's actions and that the account should not be unblocked without consulting ArbCom. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 20:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • In my capacity as Checkuser here, I have to concur with the actions taken here - Alison ^❤ 20:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Surely something should be said to the editors who apparently fell for this whole thing hook, line, and sinker. Particularly troubling is editors trying to ignore WP:CHILDPROTECT, which being a policy with distinct legal and public-relations consequences shouldn't be tossed aside on a whim. It isn't like letting a 3RR issue slide. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:12, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
    • Probably. They should've been blocked as a trolling account regardless of any CHILDPROTECT things, and I've just gone ahead and mopped up everything they were involved in (almost all of it was ridiculous oversimplification of articles, pure trolling, or a combination of the two). And I have no intention of going anywhere near most of those articles any time soon... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• • • (edit conflict) I can't see anything on this page that warrants even considering a block. I can't see what was on the user page because it has been suppressed, but judging from the descriptions above, nothing there would have warranted a block either. Obviously, checkusers have access to data that I do not, and that may well give v ery good reasons for blocking. I wish that checkusers felt more able to say in general terms some of the reasons for their cations, when doing so would not out soemoen or violate the privacy policy, but I am not in a position to judge if that could be done in any particular case. (for example "Evidence shows that User:X is a sockpuppet of a banned user") Perhaps I am naive, I found the voice of the self-described teen above plausible, although of course that is no proof of anything. If the above poster was in fact duping editors here with malign intent, a block may have been the best way. If the editor was accurately self-describing, then we have probably lost a potentially valuable contributor. DES ^(talk) 00:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• Try reading some of their comments in this thread. They're trolling, pure and simple. Almost every single one of their edits was unconstructive, and I don't think you're familiar with WP:CHILDPROTECT at all, given that comment. We haven't lost a potentially valuable contributor at all. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 00:31, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

• • • Andrew Lenahan (Starblind), I take WP:CHILDPROTECT seriously (as a lot of editors at this site know) and I'm certain that Rivertorch does as well. That policy, however, is significantly more so about pedophiles, other types of people who are interested in sexual activity with an underage (non-adult) person and those advocating such behavior, and any of those types trying to contact an underage person on Wikipedia, than it is about an underage person giving out too much personal information on Wikipedia....unless giving it out to such people. I've never seen it applied to a case such as Soixante Nerf's case; all of that is where my not applying it to this case comes from, though I was clear above that WP:CHILDPROTECT applies to late teenagers who are underage as much as it does to prepubescent children. And if one wants to state that WP:CHILDPROTECT should have been applied because Soixante Nerf might be a pedophile, we'd need proof or good suspicion of that. WP:CHILDPROTECT was not taken into consideration, as far as we know, when Soixante Nerf's user page was "deleted" and then when Soixante Nerf was blocked. And it was not mentioned in this thread until I brought it up. Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion are the pages that were applied when the blanking of this user's user page took place. Above, someone else mentioned Wikipedia:Protecting children's privacy (WP:KID). And none of those are official guidelines or policies, but they work just as efficiently. Neither I nor Rivertorch "fell for this whole thing hook, line, and sinker," especially not Rivertorch, who even hinted at doubt when he stated above..."If you really are sixteen." Flyer22 (talk) 00:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• • • Note: Because I was in the process of responding to Starblind, I did not know that Writ Keeper had already closed this thread. Flyer22 (talk) 00:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
      • (edit conflict)Lukeno94 I am perfectly well aware of WP:CHILDPROTECT and I just reviewed it in case I had forgotten something. I hadn't. I see no trolling above, merely an angry and sarcastic editor, or else someone doing a good job of posing as such. Frankly i find the former more likely, although impersonation does occur online quite often, and I know it. I reviewed a fair number of the editor's article space contributions, and most of them look either constructive or ill advised but honestly attempting to be helpful. I saw no vandalism or nonconstructive editing. There is a somewhat unusual mix of scientific topics with sexual ones, but both are in my view plausible interests for the editor as self-described. I see no evidence of any attempt to attract anyone, of any age, into a sexual or romantic relationship, unless merely editing sexual topics con be so construed. I will freely grant that if the editor was lying about her age, or gender, or both, that would be a large red flag. Checkusers may have relevant data on that, I don't see any behavioral clues to suggest such. I agree that it was unwise for the editor, if posting in good faith, to post personal information under the alleged circumstances, and that the suppression of the user page was in accord with policy and probably a good idea. But I frankly don't see what makes people so ready to assume bad faith here, any checkuser evidence aside. DES ^(talk) 01:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Amsterdad

Several editors have identified this Wikipedian's work as appearing to be paid editing. there is a discussion on User:DGG's talk page and one of their article's is at AfD. Another example is: Monica Lindstrom. I am also wondering how these articles that have been created over the past couple of years were never tagged or raised red flags despite appearing to be very promotional and poorly sourced? Who has reviewing them? Is it possible to determine? Thanks for your consideration. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:03, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

There are almost 4 1/2 million articles on Wikipedia. A handful are going to slip past the finite (and shrinking) number of people keeping track. It happens. -- Atama頭 19:23, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The first of these pages is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lucian Hudson. If it is deleted, I intend to nominate others from the same ed., starting with the most dubious. Of the 4.5 million pages, perhaps about 1.5 million are substantial. My guess that at least 5% of them are similar to this, many of them from the earlier days of the project. When I joined 7 years ago, anything that technically met the GNG was accepted unless there was prejudice against the subject. The difficult question for us is not how can we get rid of them, which is easy enough if there is the will to do it (at least 1/4 of similar pages I send to AfD are being kept for lack of interest in removing them) , but how to identify the ones that are worth rewriting and find people to do the work. DGG ( talk ) 19:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I had to double-check when you said you joined 7 years ago, DGG. Because that's about the time I joined (or created an account, at least). I could swear you've been around much longer than me. I checked... And you joined one month before me. Sorry for the tangent, but it blew my mind a bit. -- Atama頭 23:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I support the concerns of DGG in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:00, 27 February 2014 (UTC).

Well, no one is paying me to do my volunteer work here, and if this is how my work is being treated I will definitely be considering leaving this place. Life is too important to waste on friction. For now, I will be cutting down the articles as others have suggested, as it appears I've misunderstood what good sources are and which aren't. I do apologize, if you feel it is necessary, for trying to use as many sources as possible. I will obviously have to review the rules further if I choose to stay. Amsterdad (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I haven't gone all the way back yet, but I believe these are some of the articles in question:

• Sam Korankye Ankrah
• Laurette Koellner
• Greenberg Glusker
• Danny Rich (rabbi)
• Michael Jay Moon
• Simplilearn
• TakeLessons
• Fionnuala Sweeney
• Bill A. Jones
• Amy Markham
• LabWare
• Peter Staley
• Rob Dickerman
• Ritu Raj
• DJ Amadeus ‎
• Martin G. Bean
• George Walker (printmaker)
• Jill Konrath

As a side note, Atama's response in uninspiring. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi Candleabracadabra, thanks for making a list of articles with potential problems. I have read up on reliable sourcing and I am working try to fix these articles as best as possible to meet Wikipedia's requirements/ Amsterdad (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Amsterdad You may want a mentor to guide you during the editing process Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user is one place to start. Epicgenius (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

As I told Amsterdad on the AfD, the problems are not just sourcing. Among the are: 1/ the inclusion of extraneous material and links in order to give a good impression of the importance of the subject, 2/ writing in such as a way as to state the subject's accomplishments without sources to back them up-- 3/ exaggeration, listing journal articles and book chapters as if they were books, inclusion of minor charities, not just naming the charity but saying at some length what its good works are, and claiming that everything good during the time the person was there even in a subordinate position was do the subject. His fix so far on the article at afd goes about half way to dealing with the major problems. the worst of the problems. I find it hard to imagine why anyone would want to work in this fashion unless they were being paid for it, and I find it very hard indeed to imagine why someone would pick this particularly scattered list of topics, unless they are clients responding to an advertisement. There may be an explanation, of course, Per arb com, we can not ask someone to prove they are not a paid editor, so the only recourse we have is to treat everything that looks like paid editing as it it were. Alternatively, the next arb com might decide to have enough sense to decide that outing does apply in this sort of situation where there are only commercial interests involved. Or Jimmy & those who think like him on this might realize one can not simultaneous insist both on no paid editing and on complete anonymity. DGG ( talk ) 21:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It is clear that all creations of this editor will have to be looked at. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

Reporting an administrator

Hello,

I had a very negative interaction with the administrator User talk:RHaworth, and hope someone there might have some time to assist him, as he seems to be struggling with positive communication.

This admin has privileges which seem to include deletion and rollback. My interactions all occurred on his talk page, and I took a moment to look at the interactions above mine. Nearly every entry was responded to with rudeness or worse. For example:

• A very polite but scattered letter got a response which began: "What on earth is this "self-reference" rubbish?"

• A very polite letter written from the president of a drama club inquiring about a deleted page. The response: "three infractions - so I ignore."

• A very polite letter inquiring about an email. The response: "Please give details of the alleged "notification". Your email of Jan 4 reached me perfectly well. But why on earth are you trying to email me. Two other things you should have learned in two years of contributions: wikilinks and that refs need a reflist tag but in any case they are inappropriate on user talk pages. OK, your article has been waiting some time for its third review but you must be patient. I do not usually get involved with AfC review so I have no comment on the suitability of the article."

• A very polite letter inquiring about a deleted article. His response: "May I introduce you to the concept of links? You do not clutter this page with article material - you provide a link to your draft. What does it say at the top of Thierry Noritop and fr:Thierry Noritop? "Needs additional citations for verification" and "ne cite pas suffisamment ses sources". This is the hurdle you must overcome if you want to create the Bernie Adam (get the capitalisation right) article. I suspect you are fluent in French so I suggest you create fr:Bernie Adam first. If it sticks it will provide a slight boost for the corresponding article here - which you should launch via AfC."

• A comment about a deletion review. His response: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested."

• An inquiry which stated: "I am curious to understand why you deleted the Orhan Sadik-Kahn page. Interested in learning how to best position on Wikipedia articles. Thank you!" His response: "Possibly mainly because it did not look like a Wikipedia article. How many articles start with == Summary == ? How many bios put the dates of birth and death at the end instead of in the first sentence? Have you noticed that other Wikipedia articles contain wikilinks? Did you think that putting some in yours might make it look more like a proper article. Have you considered the possibility of creating the refs as external links? Please learn the format to de-duplicate references. He is mentioned at least once in other articles - why did you not create incoming links to your article? I have restored your text to User:Kgardner1/sandbox - attend to the matters above then re-submit via AfC."

• A message from an editor who, I assume, had a previously deleted page about a prayerbook restored. He wrote: "I have taken pity on you," and then, "You will receive no further kindness from me until you explain..." Then, "In the highly unlikely event that the text agrees with what you posted, I shall report your priest to the bishop." Then, "my reference to your church was a joke".

• An editor writes: "Hi, I am a brand new editor working on the article of an animated film festival in Kosovo Anibar. I don't know much about Wikipedia, please bear with me. I am working on my personal space before I post the article on mainspace. Thank you for your understanding." His response: "The parrot has not squawked for several days and not yet on this generation of this page so — kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no COI thinks your festival is notable and writes about it here".

• To the next editor: "What colour is this link?"

• To the next editor who clearly didn't realize she had deleted something from his talk page, he writes: "Before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism." She responds, "Please accept my sincere apology if I have offended you but I am thoroughly confused. What vandalism? " He responds: "Did you see that the words this vandalism are a link? If you follow that link, it will take you to what we call a "diff report". That report shows the effect of an edit that you did. Please explain why you did it."

• To an editor asking why this administrator had made a rollback, he responds: "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action."

My interaction was next, and was equally negative.

In the real world, people get fired from jobs when they behave like this. The biggest problem though, is it turns new editors off. No kindness. No encouragement. Few suggestions of where to access help.

All of us here are volunteers. None of us deserves to be treated like this. If someone could please take a moment to offer this administrator some strategies for writing to others in a civil way, it would be a big help. Thank you very much. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:16, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I want to reply because I don't want to give the impression that you are ignored. I looked over RHaworth's user talk page, and what I saw as responses run the range from brusque to acerbic, and I can definitely understand your concerns. Nothing there crosses the line in my eye to actual misbehavior, not even per incivility which is a much lower bar than personal attacks or harassment. But it's also not kind, either.

To put it in perspective, I wouldn't see any actions from this administrator to be worthy of any templated warnings (even ignoring the fact that templates generally aren't appropriate) but if a request for adminship were run today, these would probably be raised as objections.

I'm not going to offer advice to RHaworth. I don't suggest that administrators are above reproach (I certainly am not!) but for me to suggest to RHaworth that they need to change their communication style feels like arrogance on my part. At least not in the case where another administrator's "style" may be different from mine, but they aren't breaching any policies or guidelines. So I apologize, but I'm not going to take the action that you very politely suggest. All I can offer you right now is an assurance that I do understand and don't entirely dismiss your concerns, I just don't feel that it's my place to try to correct it. -- Atama頭 23:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Atama is exactly right. Nothing here rises to the level of incivility as defined by Wikipedia, and even if it did sanctioning other users for civility is controversial to say the least. There are over a thousand admins, with as many individual styles as you'd find in any group of 1000 people. You cite this quote, for example: "I don't mind people opening DRVs without telling me - it is my job to watch the article - if I am interested." That isn't insulting, uncivil, or even curt--it's just saying the facts: specifically, that he's not bothered by the DRV and if he cared about the article he would've watchlisted it. Someone who took 3 paragraphs (plus seven links and a picture of a kitten) to say the same thing wouldn't be a better admin, just a more verbose and blustery one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

If someone is acting like a bully and a douchebag, about 40% of the time they turn out to be an admin. Though some of the nicest interactions I've had have been with admins. Power goes to some peoples heads, and couple that with being behind a screen can make people act in ways they would never act in person. Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

This should be a caution towards a boomerang. RHaworth, an excellent admin, does not need to be dragged through the mud over this bit over oversensitivity. The OP brought it right here... for what? An admonishment? Move along. Doc talk 09:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

How on earth can saying " "It was a knee-jerk reaction. Feel free to re-instate the speedy tag. I shall take no action." be construed as in any way as uncivil? The other comments are at a minor level compared to some on Wikipedia - a number of them are clearly meant to be humourous. I suspect that there are also instances where the quotes have been taken out of context and regardless of history. It's a dirty job out there on the front line and RHaworth in my book is doing a fine job. ► Philg88 ◄ ^talk 10:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

What on earth is this "bit over oversensitivity" rubbish? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well said. Doc talk 14:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• What admin action are you requesting that you could not do yourself, Magnolia677? I don't see any of these as more than grumpiness on User:RHaworth's part, and we can all be grumpy sometimes. He isn't going to get a warning or a block for that, and it isn't because he is an admin either. So I don't see what anybody can do, other than maybe have a word with him. Would you like me to do that? --John (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

After I wrote on his talk page "your inability to show appreciation to others who volunteer their time to Wikipedia is disappointing", he responded with rudeness. So sure, have a go. Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's funny, I was just over there reading that again. When I review the whole thing I think you just got off on the wrong foot. We are all volunteers here, and RHaworth did everything you asked him to do, and everything that his status demands that he do, promptly and competently. That you found him brusque was probably just him being business-like. Honestly, I would just move on from this and put it behind you, if I were you. --John (talk) 23:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So, it's clear that no action will be taken against RHaworth because while he might have a brusque style of communication, it doesn't cross the line into incivility. Therefore, I think this case should be closed. Editors should feel like they can bring their concerns, especially regarding admins who wield more power than they do, to AN/I to seek counsel Magnolia677 has done so and I don't think they deserve a backlash for believing like this was a safe space to bring their concerns. This should not be discouraged and I don't think questions about admins should cause a defensive reaction. IMO. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

I agree with the above comment. The user was justified in bringing his concerns here and talk about boomerangs is inappropriate. I think there will be a good outcome as I am confident that the admin complained about will improve his level of civility to other users after this incident. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

I never meant to say that this was a board that would earn any user a "boomerang" for reporting any alleged malfeasance by an administrator, as if admins are above reproach. I was speaking only to this case specifically. Doc talk 04:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

RHaworth can be a grumpy old man (by his own definition), but he's usually got a point. I had a look at the discussion over Rutherfurd Hall and can offer the following conclusions: 1) New editor creates unreferenced article in a bad shape 2) NPP tags it as G11 three minutes later 3) Admin declines the speedy but userfies it instead 4) Editor copypastes the article back into main space and improves it 5) Admin histmerges the two versions and reminds the editor that not attributing properly is a copyvio 6) Everyone gets confused and it spills onto ANI 7) Tea and biscuits are served. Did I miss anything? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you missed my most important point, or chose not notice it. RHaworth has been granted the role of gatekeeper of new articles, an important and necessary job. This means he must frequently interact with inexperienced editors who have had their articles deleted. These editors appear enthusiastic and well-meaning, but naive of the wiki ways. They also have no choice but to deal with self-described grump RHaworth. So when this administrator deletes a newcomers user page, and tells them they don't deserve one until they make 50 edits [2], I get a bit concerned. Stating "before I even look at your enquiry, I need an apology for this vandalism", to someone who has absolutely no idea what they did wrong, also concerns me, as does seeing an editor's ideas described as "rubbish", or jokes made about their church. I'm disappointed to see so many comments defending this rude behaviour, but maybe I'm just being unrealistic expecting that the front-line face of a volunteer organization should be a kind and helpful one. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Magnolia677 on this point, and i have asked RHaworth on his talk page to restore the user page deleted for "freeloading" and to give an account of his admin actions in that matter. I have mostly had positive contacts with RHaworth in the past, but he is often a bit overly grumpy in my view, and WP:BITE is particularly important for admins to remember. DES ^(talk) 19:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't defend any admin coming across as being rude or biting newbies. The way I interpreted the conversation I mentioned above though, it seemed that rather than being rude or curt, RHaworth was simply trying to explain policy to you, but making a bad job of it. Clearly, it came across as rude to you, which is why you responded in kind. Atama is right - unless RHaworth is regularly violating policy or competence as an admin, there's not much practically that can be done. Expecting him to change his manner and tone just isn't going to happen, and somebody has got to keep an eye on the CSD queue. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Of course there's something that can be done. Wikipedia is a social environment, and most editors respond to reasonable feedback, especially if given by multiple editors. The problem is the "all-or-nothing" black and white mentality of this place (ANI) -- we don't have to block, ban, template, admonish, revert, fold, spindle or mutilate an editor to have a positive impact on their behavior. So, RHaworth, let's tone it down a bit. NE Ent 11:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

RH, that's my impression also. DGG ( talk ) 16:19, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:AnnerTown and gross WP:BLP violations

User:AnnerTown, a WP:SPA concerning the Juggalos (gang) and related articles, has repeatedly violated WP:BLP and other policies over this matter, and seems entirely incapable of understanding the need for proper sourcing, and the need to accurately report what sources say. The latest episode involves AnnerTown asserting as fact, in Wikipedia's voice, that a homeless man, arrested after an incident which ended in a stabbing, was "a Juggalo and former member of the guerrilla insurgent group Irish Republican Army". [3] As the source cited makes clear, [4] the man himself is alleged to have made such a claim - but the source makes no suggestion whatsoever that either statement is true. Furthermore, it should be noted that the source (from May last year) only refers to charges, and an upcoming court appearence - accordingly it is highly questionable per WP:BLP policy whether this incident would belong in the article even if it could be established that the man was a Juggalo gang member, which of course the source cited doesn't state: it says - correctly - that "Juggalos are fans of Insane Clown Posse, a horror-based rap group", and says nothing whatsoever about membership of any gang. Which of course makes the entire section off-topic for the article anyway. As for the BLP implications of Wikipedia asserting as fact that a homeless man is a member of an organisation frequently regarded as terrorist, I think nothing further needs to be said. There is a long history of dubious sourcing and BLP violations regarding this and related articles, and AnnerTown has been at the heart of it. Given that AnnerTown is now edit-warring to retain this gross violation of multiple policies, and given that AnnerTown's past history (which includes a ridiculously premature appeal to ArbCom [5], and a thread started at Dispute Resolution which AnnerTown conveniently disappeared from as soon as relevent questions were asked [6], as well as multiple earlier WP:BLP violations - I'll document these later if needed), I think it would be for the best to block AnnerTown indefinitely, on competence grounds, before more damage is done. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

(ec)Incidentally, it should be noted that as well as labelling a homeless person as an IRA member, the edit in question also states that " a group of men accosted him for wearing a Juggalo-related T-shirt" - which isn't supported by the source either. AnnerTown is at least consistent, in that everyone involved in the incident gets to be the subject of a WP:BLP violation... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Hey. In my defense, I will say the following:

• AndyTheGrump here has been extremely rude and disruptive ever since I began writing at Wikipedia. You'll notice that all of his edits made in relation to the article in question are either to remove things, challenge things, or try to challenge the article itself. He's made it very clear that he's not interested in anything other than getting rid of the article (and now, apparently, the person who wrote it). He's also not talked this over with me at any length. He's only engaged in edit warring (of which I am also guilty) and done the absolute bare minimum for this to be reported at WP:ANI (a half-assed comment on my talk page), without attempting to resolve it peacefully.

• This whole wacky episode started when he accused me of a BLP violation because I added a sourced statement saying that a guy committed a crime, when the source said that he was in fact planning to plead guilty. I assume that Andy's problem was that he had not yet actually plead guilty, but of course he did not explain this to me, he just told me basically "you're not competent enough to edit Wikipedia." So I read over WP:BLP, added a source saying that he was convicted, and he removed the text AGAIN, even with a source, along with another area of text about a Juggalo criminal arrested for a stabbing. He claimed that it was a BLP violation to say that the guy who stabbed people was a member of the IRA, when he himself claimed to be a former member of the IRA. (FORMER member, which is probably why he's homeless.) This struck me as ridiculous, and (to no avail) I asked him what the problem was.

• AndyTheGrump, who is a much more experienced editor than I, did not bother to discuss any of the finer details of point #2 with me at all. He basically just said, "This is a BLP violation, and I want you blocked," and continued to edit war with me without explanation despite being asked what the problem was. If he would have said that "the problem is that he CLAIMS to be a member of the IRA, not that he IS one," then I would have simply changed the article to say that he "claimed". But an accurate Wikipedia article is not what he's aiming for here. He doesn't care if I have sources, or what the article itself says. He just wants me gone. I hope that whoever resolves this dispute will understand this and allow me to continue editing.

• As far as the WP:SPA accusation goes, I would agree that my edits are limited to a specific set of subjects, but I don't really think that I'm "advocating" anything. I wrote the Juggalo gang article because there are plenty of sources for this phenomenon, yet no Wikipedia article. I'm also working on a couple of other Wikipedia articles on my PC right now, so this will be a moot point in the near future anyhow.

• I have a life outside of Wikipedia, and I apologize that I forgot about the dispute resolution thing. I'm more than willing to try it again while I have some spare time. Please also consider that I don't spend a lot of time on Wikipedia, and I take frequent hiatuses as I travel, so I'm not as familiar with all of the policies and procedures as some people; I'm still getting used to things to some degree. I've edited Wikis in the past, but this is a whole new ball game, and I still have much to learn.

• I felt that the Juggalo/IRA thing belonged in this article because this article is dedicated to documenting the Juggalo criminal element, and it might damage the reputations of Juggalos who are not criminals if it were put in the main article. I've tried to make it abundantly clear through that article that Juggalos themselves are not dedicated criminals, and the criminal element makes up only a small population of the subculture, a position which is supported by most of the sources cited by the article. Clearly, this man was a criminal, and he belonged to that criminal element. This is something that should probably be discussed in the article's talk page instead of here, and I don't think anyone should be blocked for it either way.

• I am doing my best to understand Wikipedia policies and respond to Andy's complaints. He's doing his best to fail to provide me with relevant information and to get me blocked from Wikipedia. In my mind, that's what this boils down to.

• Finally, all of this should be discussed on the article's talk page in order to perhaps reach some sort of agreement. I'm not perfect, and for that matter neither is Andy, but no one needs to be blocked.

• Relevant diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juggalos_%28gang%29&diff=597478005&oldid=597476990

AnnerTown (talk) 05:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

"Clearly, this man was a criminal, and he belonged to that criminal element." Um, no, repeating a WP:BLP violation on WP:ANI isn't going to do your case much good. The only thing that is 'clear' is that the source doesn't say (a) that he has been convicted of anything, (b) that he is/was a member of the IRA, or (c) that he is/was a member of any Juggalo gang... AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I didn't know that Wikipedia wasn't allowed to cite arrests or criminal indictments until today, but what I meant was, he is a criminal if this is true. I'll give you that one, and I agree that this section can be removed until the court reaches a decision. Of course, you wait until we're on WP:ANI to give me these sorts of details, because you're trying to get me banned, not improve the article. Once again, that's what this boils down to. If you'd brought up any of the above issues on the article's talk page, using the detail that you are using here, they would have already been resolved, but it seems that's not the outcome that you are looking for. AnnerTown (talk) 05:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• AnnerTown (talk) - Ignorance of the community-adopted WP:BLPCRIME policy is no excuse to continually violate it, especially after being warned. Violations of the WP:BLPCRIME policy can be removed without discussion, because of legal ramifications to the Wikimedia organization (defamation). It's just that simple. Your edit-warring (even in ignorance of the policy) does not help your position very much. —Josh3580_talk/hist 06:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AnnerTown, so what you are saying is that you didn't know that Wikipedia doesn't state that people are guilty before they have been convicted of a crime, and you needed this explained to you before you would stop edit-warring such claims into articles? Ridiculous.

And you have still to explain why you think that Wikipedia should be labelling someone a member of a terrorist organisation, based on nothing but a statement allegedly made by a homeless man under the influence of alcohol. Do you think that being drunk and homeless makes someone incapable of fabrications?

And furthermore you have still to explain why any of this belonged in an article entitled 'Juggalos (gang)' when no evidence whatsoever has been presented that the individual concerned was a member of any gang. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

1. Fair enough, but it certainly would have helped if someone had explained all this to me in the first place. I think it says a lot when someone recommends that I be blocked from editing altogether instead of simply telling me what I'm doing wrong. I'll try to do better in the future, but this was an honest mistake. I'm not saying it's an excuse, but I think that educating me would be more beneficial than blocking me outright. It's a bit extreme to punish me when I don't realize that I'm doing anything wrong, especially now that I better understand the policy. Even if a discussion isn't required to remove the material, AndyTheGrump did not reference WP:BLPCRIME in the IRA instance at all, so I didn't even realize it was an issue in that case until he posted it here. It's not fair to block me when I specifically ask "What is the problem here?" and get no response. Hell, the first time he reverted the edit, the edit summary simply consisted of "reb" without any clear explanation of what that meant or why the material was being removed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Juggalos_%28gang%29&diff=597213933&oldid=597213310 AndyTheGrump should be working with me to improve the article, not being cryptic and attacking me. I am not his enemy, but he seems to believe otherwise. But I'll improve my editing in the future in that regard. Once again, I wasn't aware of that policy until today, and I apologize.

2. The article was originally titled "Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos" before being changed to "Juggalos (gang)", and I was operating under the assumption that it was not just limited to gang-related criminal activity, but to Juggalo-related criminal activity as a whole. I felt it would be better suited to place the information here than on the main Juggalo article. Furthermore, the article sourced just before that article, from the same news source, referred to "the Juggalo street gang, who are devoted fans of the horror-rap group Insane Clown Posse that participate in criminal activities." - http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2013/aug/06/juggalo-street-gang-member-arrested-after-attack-p/ But this is, once again, something that should be discussed and perhaps moved to another page, or simply removed.

3. Where are you getting the idea that he was intoxicated on alcohol? I didn't see that in the source. He CLAIMED that he had a few drinks. It didn't say that he was intoxicated, or even make any indication that his claims of drinking were true. Anyway, once again, this could have simple been changed to "alleged member" or "claimed he was a member" or even discussed this on the talk page. There is no chance of it being a legal liability since it came out of his mouth. AnnerTown (talk) 06:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but the "I wasn't told" argument won't wash, since I had already posted the following statement on the article talk page, in the thread you recently started: "WE DO NOT ASSERT AS FACT THAT PERSONS CHARGED BUT NOT YET CONVICTED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENCES HAVE IN FACT CARRIED OUT SUCH OFFENCES. EVER" [7] That's right, I said it in block capitals. In bold. Not normally considered compliant with talk page etiquette, admittedly, but at least it should have been obvious. I'd have thought so, at least. And no, I'm not the slightest bit interested in discussing this elsewhere. You clearly lack the competence to be involving yourself in such controversial articles if you are unaware of such elementary legal principles as the presumption of innocence - which isn't just Wikipedia policy, but law. As for the rest of your comments, they merely illustrate further that you were more concerned with padding the article with negative material than with accurately reporting sources, and it doesn't matter a damn what was said elsewhere: we don't engage in original research to decide what we think sources are saying. The article cited didn't state that the man was a Juggalo gang member, so neither can we - and accordingly it doesn't belong in the article. As for the lack of 'legal liability', even if you are right in that the homeless man can't sue us you* for stating that he is an IRA member (which may or not be true - we are of course reporting it third-hand), we also owe a duty to our readers not to post random bullshit into articles just so we can pad out an article. AndyTheGrump (talk)

*Note. It is much more likely that the person getting sued in such circumstances would be the person responsible for the edit, rather than the WMF, who take great care to ensure that they aren't accountable for such things. Which they do by ensuring that policies such as WP:BLP are in place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 08:24, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And further to you not being aware of WP:BLP policies, can you explain how you were unaware of the thread entitled "A gross violation of WP:BLP policy" [8] that I posted on your talk page in January of last year, where I pointed out the multiple violations of policy you had already made? Why didn't you ask for an explanation then? AndyTheGrump (talk) 07:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You never said that the IRA source had anything to do with WP:BLPCRIME, even after I had asked "What is the problem here?". You only indicated in your edit summaries that you were removing it because the idea that he was an IRA member violated WP:BLP, which is a completely different. I only learned about WP:BLPCRIME today, and it never once crossed my mind that it applied to the IRA source, since that's NOT what you said. I did figure out that the Norteno reference was related to WP:BLPCRIME after reading WP:BLP, and I added another source accordingly.

Also, the idea that I'm "only interested in negative information" is absolutely false and betrays your bias against me. Yes, I have added a lot of crimes committed by Juggalos, but I've also made sure that it is balanced out with an entire section on the differences between criminal and non-criminal Juggalos, as well as stating very clearly at the top of the page that not all Juggalos are criminals or gang members. My last major edit included quotes by police officers which have stated that not all Juggalos are gang members or criminals. This is an article about violent criminal activity. It's naturally going to have a lot of negativity. Violent criminal groups are not known for doing positive things!

But this has nothing to do with my competency as an editor, it just means that maybe the article doesn't read as well as it should. Andy is ironically just trying to pad this discussion with negative bullshit.

And I never said that he was a Juggalo gang member. You need your eyes checked. I said that this article was originally named Criminal activity attributed to Juggalos, and I was operating under the assumption that all Juggalo criminal activity would be better suited to that article than the main Juggalo article, because that's how the article started off. Maybe that's not the case, but if so, here is not the place to discuss it. (And I'm well aware that you're not interested in talking about it anywhere else, which only further betrays your bias - you just want me gone.)

As far as the old reivision of my talk page that you linked to, I doubt that I even read it or knew that it was there, considering that I apparently didn't respond. If I did, I certainly don't remember it. This was over a year ago when I knew very little about Wikipedia other than the basics. After this discussion, you can be sure that I won't forget again.

And yeah, I'm sure that lawsuit would go over real well:

HOMELESS JUGGALO: Hey, Judge. I said I was in the IRA, and then the news repeated what I said, and then Wikipedia repeated what the news said. Do I get money?

JUDGE: What the hell have you been smoking? Get out of my courtroom.

The rest of this discussion is just going to be me and Andy flinging shit at each other, apparently, so I'm done with it.

Closing argument, because I have to go to bed: STATicVapor has noted that while the article was awful when I first created it, and it still has issues, I have made an effort to clean it up and improve it. I will continue to do so. Blocking someone when they genuinely don't understand a Wikipedia policy is overkill, and I believe that the best course of action is to allow me to learn from my mistakes and grow as an editor, which I will make every attempt to do. AnnerTown (talk) 08:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Like I said, a clear lack of competence. AnnerTown "never said that he was a Juggalo gang member". but included him in an article on Juggalo gang members anyway. And thinks that's ok. And still thinks that Wikipedia should be labelling people as members of terrorists organisations based on a source that doesn't say that they are a member of a terrorist organisation. And thinks that just because they don't think they will get sued, that's ok. Ridiculous.

As for my 'bias', I'll freely admit to be biased against articles which declare people guilty prior to conviction, which cite material anonymously uploaded to filesharing websites as sources, and which still contain gross WP:BLP violations. I've just noticed that there is yet another assertion of guilt based on a source which refers to individuals who have been arrested, but not convicted - this time regarding an alleged murder. [9] I have of course removed the offending material, but at this point, I think it may be wise to ask for the entire article to be revdel'd as sorting out the valid content from the policy violations is probably less effort than recreation from scratch with appropriate sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You repeatedly calling them a terrorist organization, when they are definitely not, is a WP:BLP violation. STATic message me! 15:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump is twisting the facts here, and this should be dismissed for that reason alone. The IRA is not a terrorist org, the suspects were convicted of the "alleged" murder that he just removed and complained was a WP:BLP violation, he claims that it's wrong to include Juggalo criminal activity in an article based on Juggalo criminal activity, and he's falsely claiming that I want to use "sources anonymously uploaded to file-sharing web sites", which is not the case at all (and all of the editors working on the article besides him want to keep the source in question). Now he's asking for the ENTIRE ARTICLE to be destroyed, not just whatever he believes is offending, along with all of the reliable sources used in it, and removed from public view (!), and asking for me to be banned, so that it cannot be easily rebuilt. His agenda here is clear as day. He's using underhanded tactics to get rid of an article that he doesn't like. AnnerTown (talk) 16:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

User:STATicVapor, that's splitting hairs. User:AndyTheGrump's initial statement insofar as that's concerned was that the IRA is "an organisation frequently regarded as terrorist," and the IRA's own article describes them as "a guerilla insurgent group." Terrorism is such a subjective word, but that a significant number of people do regard the IRA as terrorists should be uncontroversial, whether or not they actually are terrorists. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:30, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the assertion that "the suspects were convicted of the 'alleged' murder that he just removed", that is entirely beside the point - WP:BLP policy is utterly clear: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". If they have been convicted, it is an absolute and non-negotiable requirement that a source be cited that says so. And for what it's worth I did a Google search, and couldn't find any evidence of conviction - not that I was under any obligation to do this. As for whether the IRA is a terrorist organisation or not, opinions differ - but it is an irrelevance, in that it is clearly a violation of WP:BLP policy to be describing an individual as a member of the organisation, on the dubious grounds that AnnerTown did. That AnnerTown quibbles over the legality of the IRA (Which IRA - there have been several organisations using the name, at least one of which is still engaging in bombings, shootings etc? And under which jurisdiction?) suggest to me that my comments regarding competence are still valid. Anyone with an ounce of sense, never mind a passing knowledge of Wikipedia policy, should understand that one does not describe someone as a member of "a guerilla insurgent group" without very strong grounds indeed. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• The Provisional Irish Republican Army (which the term "IRA" is most commonly used to refer to when talking about recent history) is legally a terrorist group, so STATicVapor's comment is inaccurate. Being blunt, AnnerTown should be indefinitely blocked until they agree to follow WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, and not to plead ignorance (this account has been around since November 2012, so not having ever looked at BLP at the very least is an unacceptable excuse). Interesting to note that that a month after the talk-page discussion went stale, and after a 5-month absence, AnnerTown popped up with this. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 23:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Further gross violation of WP:BLP policy in the Juggalos (gang) article.

For some strange reason, User:Niteshift36, who clearly should be aware of Wikipedia policies by now, has decided to edit-war a clear and unambiguous violation of WP:BLP policy back into the article. The source cited describes "two men arrested in connection with [an] attack" which left a man dead, as Juggalos, and states that the victim "called himself a "Juggalo," but it's alleged he snitched and lost his life for that" [10] - all allegations, nothing in the source stating that there has been any conviction. The material Niteshift36 has repeatedly [11][12] restored to the article states that " was found dead in the woods after having been stabbed more than 20 times with a meat cleaver by Juggalo gang members after it was alleged that he was a police informant. The culprits were discovered after a member of the gang wrote a horrorcore rap song about the incident and posted it on MySpace" - an unequivocal assertion of guilt, entirely unsupported by the source cited. Since, unlike AnnerTown above, claims regarding the ignorance of policy clearly won't fool anyone, I can see no reason whatsoever why Niteshift36 shouldn't be indefinitely blocked for a gross violation of core WP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Protected. I don't have time to read very far into this one tonight, but I didn't like the back and forth on a BLP and protection is better than blocking. --John (talk) 00:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I'm edit warring? Grow up. You've been reverted by at least 3 separate editors. You keep acting like your interpreta(tion is the only valid one. If there is anyone here who is edit warring, it's you and if this system works at all, there really should be a WP:BOOMERANG headed your way. When edit warring with one editor didn't work, you came here. You've failed to find the mandate you wanted and another experience editor started reverting you, yet you continued to edit war, hiding behind a false BLP shield. Then you started edit warring with me too. You have no moral high ground here. You have no consensus. What you have is a raging case of article ownership and some WP:IDHT. As for your request for an indef block: Go hump someone else's leg. (spare me the whining about civil because that's just hypocritical from you). Since you've expressed your intent to not discuss anything [13], addressing your objection is pointless. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I note that Niteshift36 has offered no defence whatsoever for violating core Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Apparently you didn't note that I rejected your claim that it violates BLP. So no, I didn't defend myself because it's not happening. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

So an assertion that identifiable individuals committed a murder cited to a source that doesn't state that they committed a murder doesn't violate WP:BLP? That is an interesting interpretation of policy. Not one that will get you far though, I suspect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Nothing says that committed the crime. It says it's believed that they did. We're not making the claim, the reliable source is reporting the belief. What I find interesting is how you seem to think none of us can read the policy correctly, only you can. In any case, your IDHT gets worse by the minute and talking to you is clearly pointless because you've already said there is nothing to discuss. I might discuss this with someone else, but I'm done entertaining your self-centered nonsense. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Nothing says that theyy committed the crime? "stabbed more than 20 times with a meat cleaver by Juggalo gang members"? "The culprits were discovered..."? And that isn't an assertion that the individuals named in the source were guilty? Ridiculous... AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The article clearly calls them "the accused". Trying to cherry pick a sentence won't make you right. We're talking about ABC freakin News here, not some blog. They know about libel laws. You're just being a pain in the ass. Niteshift36 (talk)

• Oh, guess what? This is all fucking pointless. They were convicted.[14]. Life without parole. Convicted in 2011. That took me 45 seconds to find. All this whining, bitching and teeth gnashing about BLP and you never bothered to look to see that it has already gone to trial, they were convicted and sentence. Can we PLEASE put this bullshit to rest now. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The article asserted their guilt, based on a source that didn't say that they were guilty. Per WP:BLP policy, the material had to be removed. Not left until someone found a source. The policy is clear and non-negotiable. And if it was that easy to find, why didn't you find it yourself, rather than edit-warring to revert the WP:BLP violation? YOU are responsible for your edits - its not my responsibility to go around after you cleaning up your mess. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• the article called them the accused. They'd been arrested and charged. This is not a BLP issue. As for the rest of your excuse making and wound licking: You can try to save face all you want, but I don't see anyone rushing to your aid. Now, I'd love to see you do the honorable thing and contact the admin that locked the article and tell him the true issue is solved. Personally, I doubt you will. Maybe you'll prove me wrong. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Which article called them the accused? Ours didn't. It called them "culprits". Do you own a dictionary? AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• The ABC news article that was the source. If you are solely talking about the wording in the Wikipedia article, then you're even more wrong. You shouldn't have removed it, merely reworded it. As for a dictionary, I have one and it includes the word "pointless", which is what this conversation has become. They were convicted already. Be a stand up guy, accept it and work in the best way to include it in the article, not this pointless (there is that word again) campaign of windmill tilting. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yup. The material you repeatedly added misrepresented the source, and violated WP:BLP policy in doing so. I carried out WP:BLP policy by removing it: "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Be a stand-up guy and admit you were wrong to violate policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Sorry you're unable to let it go. The material WILL go back in the article. Sorry you wasted all this time fighting a losing battle. I won't admit there was a violation because there was none. On the other hand, we HAVE proven they were convicted, there is no longer a BLP concern and your refusal to ask that the article be unlocked shows me you are exactly who I thought you are. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Evidently you are incapable of understanding the simple instructions in WP:BLP. It seems my suggestion that you be blocked indefinitely was justified. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Evidently you're incapable of understanding simple English. It seems that my suggestion that you go hump someone else's leg is justified. BTW, I took care of contacting the locking admin since you've proven to be the (self-censor) that I knew you'd be. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Some are entertained watching a brawl, but it is time to point out that Andy is fully correct. Adding a negative claim about a living person based on a source that does not support that claim is a BLP violation, and Andy was required to remove it. If it is true that another source has been located that allows the claim to be reinstated, suitable material could be added. Niteshift36 should spend more time listening and less time working on insults. Johnuniq (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• Still without taking a position on the details of the content dispute, I have blocked Niteshift36 for the leg-humping comment and his various other bits of rudeness. --John (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I need help to move a page over a redirect

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

---

I want to change the name of the page Draugr to Draug. Draug was however its original name, and is now a redirect. Since i can not move a page to an already excisting page (even though it's only a redirect) I need an administrator to do this. KnutfAen (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I think this is fine, I looked at Talk:Draug to see the discussion that led to the original move, and it looks like the discussion was mostly about merging Draug and Draugr, and very little discussion about which should take precedence. You've taken the time to ask at Talk:Draugr and nobody raised an objection. I'll perform the move now, in such a way to preserve the old discussion at the Draug talk page (just by copying it to Talk:Draugr before I do the move). I don't think histmerge is necessary since the two articles were merged at one point, and it would leave an unnecessarily confusing and misleading edit history to do so. -- Atama頭 16:47, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The move is done, and Draugr now redirects to Draug. -- Atama頭 16:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

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

@Atama: A history merge was not necessary, but it was necessary to preserve the old history for attribution of the older edits. To this end I have moved it to Talk:Draug/Old history. I've also restored the earlier edits to the talk page – overlapping history doesn't matter there so much. Graham87 07:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for the help. -- Atama頭 17:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Reece Leonard

User Reece Leonard (talk · contribs) has been involved in a four-month-long conflict at Talk:Artpop#Critical Reception, arguing over whether to say the album received "positive" or "mixed to positive" reviews. After four months, it shows no sign of ending any time soon. He is alone in his position against 10 other editors. The discussion is just going around in circles and he has no intention of accepting the consensus any time soon. The issue was raised on the Dispute Resolution board, which was closed with no noticeable effect. He's been soapboxing his way through the debate for some time now, and is refusing to budge from his position one iota, repeatedly accused others editors of vandalism [15], [16], [17], [18]. User has been given two 3RR warnings: [19], [20], as well as warnings for harrassment, disruptive editing, blanking content, unsourced additions and adding original research. He's also battling. User has also begun spreading an unhelpful piece on other user's talk pages - to make sure they "understand the situation fully" regarding another user's (User:STATicVapor) "biased" position: [21]. He later amended this post to include me, and added it to two more talk pages: [22], [23], and has begun canvassing other editors with this same material as well, [24], [25].

I also believe he's been violating several of the pillars of NOTHERE. He has shown little or no interest in working collaboratively. Of his several hundred edits, at least 90% of them relate to Lady Gaga articles or disputes on talk pages caused by his edits to Lady Gaga articles. He changed "favorable reviews"→"acclaim" on Bad Romance, and removed "mixed" from the intro of Alejandro. Despite his summary on the Alejandro edit, no-one changed it. It had been "mixed to positive" for at least two years prior. He has also removed/replaced positive information from the articles of some of Lady Gaga's contemporaries, such as Lana Del Ray: [26], [27], [28], [29]; Katy Perry: [30] and Britney Spears: [31]. He was given notices/warnings regarding some of these edits [32], [33].

It's clear from his talk page and his edits that he's here for Lady Gaga: a single-purpose account with an unneutral point of view. Some admin intervention would be appreciated, otherwise this will keep going on indefinitely. Thanks. Homeostasis07 (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Clearly WP:NOTHERE to contribute, and seriously lacks WP:COMPETENCE. He has resorted to harassing and attacking other editors when they disagree with him, and as you can see from the diffs Homeostasis07 provided, the user has been canvassing attacking myself and Homeo on other user's talk pages, which is incredibly inappropriate. They have a clear not WP:NPOV when it comes to Lady Gaga and her works, and refuse to contribute constructively and discuss civilly when their disruptive edits are challenged. STATic message me! 16:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• I have to be honest: when the article was first created, it ended up on my watchlist. Over the last bit, I've seen edits by Reece that made me shake my head - so much so that I took it off my watchlist, rather than see countless, repetitive ad nauseum bad edits. Might have been here for some reason, and might have started off with good intentions, but they left that cake out in the rain long ago ES&L 17:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm just going to point out that the only reason why this argument got so out of hand was STATic's ridiculously rude, inflamatory rhetoric, including calling me childish, incompetent, etc. He has a lengthy history of insulting various users (evidenced by his talk page) and that leads to this kind of uncivil discussion. He also admitted that he disliked the artist who's page we were discussing twice. Homeostasis has previously been blocked for behaving unprofessionally on Lady Gaga pages. I've stated numerous sources that back up my claims, although I recently ended this debate because I realized that it was ultimately pointless as these two have no intention of compromising at all. My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye. Reece Leonard (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that, in my time with StaticVapor, he's has been a very good editor with a strong grasp on Wikipedia and its policies. Without any clear difs, I'd be likely to doubt any claims of "uncivil discussion" or rudeness. Sergecross73 msg me 21:21, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Perusing Talk:Artpop, I have to disagree with Reece Leonard's assertion that this is all the fault of STATic. I believe that the main issue is Reece's dismissive attitude, which he demonstrated somewhat just above me, "My edits are always sourced and factual. That's the last I'll say on the subject. Goodbye." I see that Reece communicates in this manner consistently, proceeding by essentially stating that he is correct, everyone else is wrong, and there's no need to debate the issue. I'm not saying that Reece refuses to get involved in discussions, he most certainly does, but he too frequently refers to those who disagree with him as vandals, and often refers to an editor's past conduct issues as a way to discredit their arguments (as above where he points out STATic's block history). Stating that WP:NOTHERE applies is hyperbole, I believe that Reece is sincerely trying to improve Wikipedia, but he has a lot of trouble collaborating, which is a major problem. -- Atama頭 21:27, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I can assure you i do not live a double life on here, I am the same person. Reece just seems to enjoy making up things and harassing other users when the conversation is not going their way. He was owed a WP:NPA block for the insane focus on commenting on fellow contributors as you can see above rather then the topic at hand. I have been stating over and over, i have no bias, I can edit any subject, keeping a perfect WP:NPOV, a serious problem Reece has, which can be based off the entire discussion and his other edits as explained by the OP. @Atama: Just saying, he was referring to Homeostasis' block history. NOTHERE might not apply, but WP:COMPETENCE clearly does. When there is clear WP:CONSENSUS he has to learn to drop it, not just keep harassing editors for days and pressing the issue. I feel like this user has attempted to drag my name through the mud on way too many pages through this, as can be seen through the 5+ user talk pages he was canvassing his malicious harassment [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] through. STATic message me! 00:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, it was my block history Reece was referring to, and not Static's. That was a block for 3RR 6 months ago. Since then, I've not come close to infringing 3RR (ie, lesson learned), so, again, this is just another example of Reece saying anything he can to discredit another editor's position. Attempting to use a 3RR block to suggest that I'm "biased" against a particular subject (see the last 4 diffs Static posted above) isn't cool. Homeostasis07 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Family / friends tag-teaming on an article on fringe claim of vaccine killing someone

The family and friends of Al Plastino are tag-teaming to perpetuate their edit-warring with a WP:FRINGE claim that a flu vaccine gave him Guillain-Barré. One editor on the article talk page misrepresents the CDC, which contrary to this editor does not say flu vaccines give people Guillain-Barré. The article states clearly that Plastino suffered from Guillain-Barré, with citing. But no disinterested, unbiased source claims the vaccine killed him — only the family, which has something to gain by putting that claim on Wikipedia as a way to bolster any lawsuit. They also make an additional claim that's untrue. This hijacking of a Wikipedia page by the subject's family and friends to push a fringe view unsupported by any source other than themselves is shameful. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've left JohnRTroy a warning about adding original research to Wikipedia. I see that the page has also been protected as well for the duration of this dispute. -- Atama頭 21:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected for a week. Miniapolis 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

While I appreciate the claim originated from the family one of who wrote something asking for wikipedia to be changed, is there any real evidence they are the ones editing? Seems more likely to be people who didn't know the subject personally but were influenced by the article such as fans of someone who looks likely to have many. Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it matters who's doing the editing (they're registered accounts, hence the full protection); the repeated insertion of the unreliably-sourced claim is the deciding factor. All the best, Miniapolis 21:59, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

A few quick notes. Mark Evanier is a noted comics journalist, and he's actually considered a reliable source, being quoted several times in the actual article, so if Atama is going to say I used "original research", then all the Evanier quotes would need to be removed. There is precedent of him being considered a reliable source in the comics field. Secondly, I tried to act in good faith, citing the source accurately and leaving it alone. The argument seemed to start with the Guillian-Barre claim. I saw nothing suspect in that claim, as the WP itself cites a reliable source that links GBS to any form of the virus including vaccines, although I can see why people might be concerned. I regret that it escalated to this point--however, I do feel that Tenebrae could have avoided this by not suddenly and completely reverting the article and responding in a confrontational manner like he did in the talk page. I have never encountered this issue before, and I also felt rather than assume the page was "under attack" (it certainly wasn't), he immediately went here, bypassing even getting the working group on comics involved. JRT (talk) 22:07, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

The page was under attack, whatever the intentions are. When 3 editors arrive at an article to tag team and inject information into it, inserting information on 5 different occasions, that's an edit war. I will concede that Tenebrae violated WP:3RR by reverting 4 times in 24 hours, and if he had not brought the issue here in an attempt to stop the edit war I would have blocked him (though that would be punitive at this point). -- Atama頭 22:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Whoops. You're right — I'd honestly thought I was right at 3, and even said something to that effect on one or more of the talk pages. I shouldn't have gone over, but it was inadvertent. Thank you for being understanding.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:23, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

JRT is mixing apples and orange. Mark Evanier is a reliable source on comics and TV, not medicine. As well, the post this editor mentions is not Evanier's independent reporting: Evanier himself did not research and make the statement about vaccines causing GBS. All Evanier did is accept a family member's quote at face value and disseminate it with a headline literally reading "Let's Correct Wikipedia on Something!" That's not what I would call rigorous journalism, and it's certainly out of his field of expertise.--Tenebrae (talk) 22:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Let's back up a second, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. This is a biographical article about a comics professional, and Evanier is quoted a lot and has provided reliable information in the past. At least in the past he's been considered a reliable source, even in that very article. I think he's reliable when he wants to correct the cause of death of Plastino, and he's got the connections to be a reliable source for the quote of family members based on his track record and his own quotes as sources. Try to understand something--From my own perspective, you seem more offended he used that title in his article (in the talk page, you rant about it), when I can understand how exasperating it is to have to be quoted in print before you can correct an error on WP (I've been on WP longer than you, though not as active, so I'm no novice), then used the GBS quote as an excuse to revert, apparently not understanding that it can be linked to flu vaccinations, at least according to all the research, which was the main reason you reverted the page. Then we got into an argument over the cause of GBS, and all I saw was somebody make accusations over my editing motives, then immediately escalate it here without even wanting to discuss it with the other Comics group right away. From my perspective, you came across (and are coming across) as somebody who's hostile and letting his own personal ego get in the way of edits, and are getting emotional over having your own edits changed. Even in the talk page and the WP:Comics page, you are coming across as hostile, thinking I'm "threatening an edit war" on the WP:COMICS talk when I just want other comics experts involved in evaluating the statement. (Since it ends up being a class of egos if just two people disagree) JRT (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You make a good case for accepting as reliable the report of a claim by a family member. For the specific point that this injection actually caused Guillain–Barré syndrome, and that it did so in this case, I suggest that we would need relevant expert opinion. Not, on this point, the report of comics experts. Richard Keatinge (talk) 23:09, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

To be fair, I honestly don't care if the claim of his death by the vaccine should be part of Wikipedia, just that he died of the disease. The only two things I'd want to correct in the article would be (a) to find out if he did have Prostate Cancer and (b) that he died of GBS. The only other thing I'd change is I would bring back my reference to Evanier's blog (which was deleted on revert), but I wouldn't put the actual claim about the vaccine in the text of the GBS itself. In fact, I didn't actually write that, the only place the claim appeared was in the quote text in the reference. Beyond that I'd be happy. I do think the blog entry should be sourced since other references to that blog are sourced and it would be hypocritical not to source it unless you want to challenge all the other sources in that article. I simply don't think Evanier had any "hidden agenda" in his post other than to correct a cause of death. JRT (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Mark Evanier is certainly a reliable source in several fields and a person for whom I have an enormous amount of respect. I take him at his word that he indeed verified that the email was from a family member and by extension that a family member would know the cause of death. But that said I see no reason to include the flu-vaccine claim in the article. If a prominent scientist were killed in an auto accident, we wouldn't generally need to include the make, model, and colour of the other car. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:17, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Well put; I myself have quoted Evanier on comics history many times, and find him a knowledgable and engaging host of comics panels at conventions. But we can't cite his blog for medical information. He's not even quoting a medical expert stating concretely that the vaccine killed Plastino, but a biased, non-disinterested family member who is not a medical expert and who stands to gain by disseminating a claim that would make the vaccine makers and medical personnel liable. And in concurrence with Andrew Lenahan, is a cause of death even particularly necessary when we're talking about a 91-year-old?

No one mentioned anything about Evanier having an "agenda," but the cited item certainly does mention his dissatisfaction with his own experiences with Wikipedia, so I wouldn't necessarily call him objective.

RE "to find out if he did have Prostate Cancer" — why does JRT refuse to read Maryann Plastino's own quote to the New York Post a month before Plastino's death that, yes, Plastino had prostate cancer. It's right in the footnotes, for heaven's sake.

And P.S to JRT: Please stop using words like "rant". And your comments about my "ego" and "hostility" are uncivil. All I see is a host of editors here and on other pages in agreement that Evanier's blog is not a reliable source for the killer-vaccine claim. So I'm not sure who's the one being unreasonable here. --Tenebrae (talk) 01:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Evanier's dissatisfaction with WP seems more like frustration. Criticism of WP doesn't imply he's biased against it, or that he was trying to start a protest, just a correction. In fact, if he's considered a bad unobjective source, he shouldn't be quoted elsewhere in the same article. I did not "refuse" to read the source, as I have reviewed the sources better you are correct about the prostate cancer (unless MaryAnn is trying to recant that statement or was misquoted), and I have already admitted I jumped the gun--while there is some concern about vaccines and GBS it's not likely to be provable cause of death unless it's on their death certificate. But as far as "civility" goes, I'm sorry, I think you deserve some criticism for being antagonistic. I doubt this would have escalated to this state if you had been a little more welcoming, not immediate reverted an edit, and instantly assuming that there was a deliberate attempt to bias the article. In fact, if one of these other uses brought up the same point as articulately as they've done here, there probably wouldn't have been an issue here. JRT (talk) 01:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And as far as "ego" goes, I was making a statement when two people get into a WP edit war, it's mostly a battle of individual egos, so I'm making fun of myself here as well, which is why when this comes up I always try to solicit others to review and break the ties. JRT (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

There are two things here. I agree it doesn't matter who is editing the article in terms of protecting it, but that's beside my point (you'd note I never said anything about the protection) which is the second thing we shouldn't forget about. Family and friends of the subject is likely a select group of people at least some of who would be easily identifiable. Tag teaming a wikipedia article would often be seen in a negative way and therefore accusing identifiable living people of it should not be done with out some evidence they are actually involved for WP:BLP reasons. This is even more so when we have no evidence of any involvement of said people in editing wikipedia at all (which from what I can tell, is the case here). And in a case like this where as I've emphasised, there is good reason to think there would be plenty of people who should not be called 'family and friends' who may come to edit. Just because we aren't happy about something that's going on or other stuff that people have done is no excuse to accuse those people of involvement in something related with no evidence. The fact is doesn't matter is a reason not to make such accusations in the first place. It doesn't mean we should ignore it when such accusations are made. Nil Einne (talk) 12:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

That was my biggest objection to the whole thing. It was being accused of both being a family member--I am not, I simply read Evanier's blog regularly--and engaging in "Fringe Science". When my edit was rejected for that reason, I looked up GBS, and discovered that at least one time it has been linked to a vaccine, and it sounds like a legitimate concern. Obviously I was wrong and it's inconclusive, though there does seem to be enough caution regarding GBS to have some warnings. But also, the simple quote may not have enough information--perhaps the family meant to say he died due to complications from it and it didn't come out clearly in the quote. But Tenebrae instantly took an accusatory tone, saying "This evident desire to use Wikipedia to help the family score a big lawsuit settlement is shameful.", as well as assuming this was some coordinated effort. That's actually a potentially libelous statement since nothing in that source says anything about a lawsuit or the like. If the tone of the discussion had been kept on the civility levels that have occurred here, I doubt we'd even be talking about it. Sometimes, being nice is important in these discussions. JRT (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, a lot of people try to use Wikipedia to promote FRINGE ideas, and there are lots of places where one can lookup information that is totally bogus. The cause of death of the individual (last time I looked) is not known. The fact that someone might think that a vaccine was involved is irrelevant and cannot be used as the basis to assert the cause of death. There is no reason for an article to note what uninformed people think about the cause of death. Johnuniq (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Mthinkcpp and Debian edit war

I am trying to introduce these changes. There is a discussion in the talk page. mthinkcpp refuses to discuss what is wrong with the changes. Repeatedly refusing to discuss changes, especially controversial ones, is considered a conduct issue. Therefore I bring this issue to the administrator's noticeboard. 84.127.80.114 (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

• It seems to me that User:Mthinkcpp's explanation of WP:SILENCE is correct. I don't understand the content side of the issue, nor am I going to try, having been awake now for 16 hours on 4 hours of sleep. But if they gave their position earlier, and you gave yours, and they're different, then consensus has not been reached. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 04:15, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is not about whether consensus has been reached. This is about discussion. This is about a user that systematically opposes to my changes without sensible reasons. mthinkcpp has stated to be against these changes. The user does not give a reason.

Does this situation mean that discussion on the talk page has gone as far as it could? 84.127.80.114 (talk) 10:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Since there's only you and one other editor participating, I suggest opening a WP:RFC to try to attract more editors to the discussion. -- Diannaa (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

This is now at DRN (Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Debian). DRN has the following policy:

"We cannot accept disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums."

So I would ask that this be closed. It has been my experience that solving the content dispute solves any user conduct issues, and if not, someone can refile here after the DRN case closes. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Brianis19 — Continued copyright violations despite multiple warnings

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

---

Brianis19 (talk · contribs) continues to introduce copyright violations to television-related pages despite multiple warnings on his talk page since October.[39],[40],[41],[42],[43],[44],[45],[46],[47],[48]. He copy/pastes the episode summaries from various sites on the internet with no regard to these warnings. In fact, his recent comment to another editor after a warning was "Well then fix it yourself!!!". He has been told these need to be in his own words. This is an ongoing problem, and I am certain he has many other instances of copyvios that have either not been discovered or that he was not warned about when they were reverted (e.g. [49],[50],[51],[52] (note his edit summary says he wrote them himself, but this was not the case. He was intentionally trying to deceive). --Logical Fuzz (talk) 10:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I have indeffed him and opened Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Brianis19. The "fix it yourself" attitude is totally unacceptable.

That would be the third non-communicative copyvio editor I've indeffed and CCIed today. SIGH. MER-C 12:52, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

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

Australian sport naming rules; please review this process and my block of Macktheknifeau

See here for a taste of the regular and frequent disruption that has been caused to our project by the long-term dispute over whether the game Wikipedia knows as association football should be known as soccer, football or something else in an Australian context. With a view to clarifying different understandings of the consensus here, I asked some of the disputants to comment here. Most have responded positively, but User:Macktheknifeau has continued to post personal comments after being warned to stop here, and in spite of the clear instruction at the discussion (For now, please restrict yourselves to stating your own opinion in your own section about the article titles and content, and how this is justified by the consensus. Comments about the opinions and supposed motivations of other editor will be removed.) I have therefore blocked him for 24 hours. Please review the process generally and the block specifically. Thanks for your time. --John (talk) 11:49, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I think John has A Tiger by the Tail, in that he is attempting to concurrently mediate an interaction nominally about content and enforce civility on the participants with admin tools. The problem is, as indicated by the arbcom finding and the dead in all but name RFC Civility enforcement RFC, we don't have a functional civility policy, which inevitably makes enforcing it ultimately subjective and arbitrary. I've been watching the conversation unfold and participating in my minimalist fashion -- I don't think there is really much of actual content dispute, as there was an RFC last August with a pretty clear consensus ("soccer"). What I saw was tedious WP:IDHT pov-pushing -- including arguments that a local consensus can override commonname with ad hominem attacks against the editor (HiLo48) trying to maintain the article in accordance with policy. Unfortunately, while HiLo48 is a decent editor, they are not skilled at wiki-politics / infighting, which leads to a seriously tl;dr merry-go-round talk page, which makes it time consuming to pick out the signal in all the noise. It is an interesting experiment in dispute resolution and I'm curious to see how it will turn out; 1K WQA and 2K ANI edits have made me a bit cynical about the chances for success but I've been wrong before and hopefully I'll be wrong this time. NE Ent 12:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

After checking User talk:Macktheknifeau I agree that User:John made an appropriate decision to block. To get the flavor of this user's attitude, notice their unblock request: "There is an ongoing attack from users connected to Project AFL to destroy football on Australian based wikipedia articles and they are deeply involved in this issue. You cannot silence me and are merely showing yourself to be a pawn of their wiki-lawyering by letting their ludicrous attacks get the better of you." In my opinion the unblock request was correctly declined by User:Jpgordon. The latest consensus discussion that led to the naming of football-related articles seems to be the one from August 2013 at Talk:Soccer in Australia/Archive 3. EdJohnston (talk) 13:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tristan.andrade.136 - Concerns about competence

Hi, I'm concerned that User:Tristan.andrade.136 may not have the competence to edit constructively.

The user, who we are to believe is a kid, has been warned at least six times not to submit unsourced content, three times not to misuse flag icons, at least five times about disruptive editing, and twice to be mindful of spelling. User has created misspelled articles on Mari Tranior (presumably Trainor), Luitenent Gadget (Lieutenant), has submitted the word "vocied" instead of "voiced" at least six times: ([53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]) and continues to add flag icons without any rationale, requiring the assumption that the user is describing two different language dubs, maybe? User has made other peculiar edits like this one. User created an article on Walter's Christmas, which is written very poorly, contains no references and appears to contain copypasta, possibly from here or here. User has created another article here. (Come to think of it, here is a list of all the articles they have created.) User has removed proper {{Start date}} and {{End date}} templates here. More misspellings here, which could have been prevented as "its" and "premiere" appear earlier in the same sentence. It doesn't seem to me that the user understands our procedures and I question their ability to contribute constructively at this time. User was previously blocked in October 2013 by Zad68 and indicated that he wouldn't continue the disruptions, but it's clear that the user (assuming they aren't doing this deliberately) doesn't understand what they are doing is disruptive and doesn't have the ability to preempt or fix the problems they create. Rather than do nothing but template, I have tried on at least two occasions to make an impact through explanation, and I have also recommended the mentorship program to the user. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:30, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I spelled "Lieutenant" as "Leftenant" for years. In fact, I still pronounce it that way, just like others seem to do. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I respect your right to pronounce it as such. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:39, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship seems best? Obviously a kid who doesn't quite understand dangers of revealing personal information, has undeveloped language, lacks understanding why refs are important etc. If someone would like to kindergarten this guy, that would be the best, I think.Arildnordby (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. It's unclear what their primary language is. Based on their other interactions with users I don't know how easy it will be to help them, because they don't seem capable of expressing themselves well, or comprehending what others communicate.[59][60][61][62]. I'm personally a little suspicious of behavior this consistently poor, particularly when I've seen a number of vandals who feign naivety and promise to improve, then don't. But that's just my own hangup, I suppose. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 22:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

His native language appears to be French Canadian based on this edit on his page where it states he lives in Montreal  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh   20:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

United Russia

It appears this article has been vandalized by user User:78.56.70.222, who has no other edits than to vandalize this page. I have not done many vandal reports, but I think the page should be protected, with what is going on in Russia/Ukraine right now (not that I support UR, but wiki is not the place to vandalize the pages of parties you don't like)--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that was certainly vandalism. Thank you for reverting it, Bellerophon, and your request for protection makes sense. Even though the IP has only made one edit, I've given them a strongly worded warning on their talkpage, because of the nature of the vandalism, and semiprotected the article for a few days. For another time, it's generally best to request protection on WP:RFPP. I understand these boards are a labyrinth! Thank you very much for reporting. Bishonen | talk 21:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC).

Lord of Rivendell again.

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

---

You guys didin't gave much attention last time([63]) and let him go away with it, not he is vandalising my user page and writing disturbing things to his edit summary([64]), he did it because i reverted his edit on the template ([65]) by the way now he accuses my being an Islamist. Last time his accusation to me was being a Kurd as you recall. Will you take some steps now???

And yes he edits articles as he pleases, like a rogue. User:Liz, User:Chipmunkdavis, User:Underlying lk.KazekageTR (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not involved in the current dispute, but this edit does look like trolling. Given that this happens mere days after his latest deluge of talk page insults, perhaps it's time for Rivendell to be rusticated for his bad behaviour.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 21:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I too have not noticed the current dispute until now, but this needs to be stopped. It should have been stopped last time, and the attacks have now even moved on from political/racial ones to just baseless personal ones like "Are your parents also cousins?". CMD (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes yes you're totally right. How about that. That is a hell of an insult to me because I've reverted his edit([66]) : "Are your parents also cousins?"

It's worth noting that Lord of Rivendell has got in trouble over editwarring in the Turkey article repeatedly. Simonm223 (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

User:Lord of Rivendell is a serial edit warrior. Only a few hours after the protection due to edit warring/content dispute was liftented, he started the war all over again:

1. [67]
2. [68]
3. [69]
4. [70]
5. [71]
6. [72]
7. ([73])

For "fun" he added a series of PAs in the summary of his edits that I, as West-European, already judges as insulting. By now, he was warned twice to stop edit warring. he has been blocked twice for edit warring in the last few months. This is not funny any more and highly disruptive. The Banner talk 22:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

And the next revert after being warned three times (including one in the summery). The Banner talk 23:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Independent of this discussion, RolandR filed a complaint at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring: [74]. The Banner talk 01:42, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

He's now been blocked for two months for the edit warring. Hopefully he'll get the hint. --Ironholds (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's one month, not two, and after such egregious cases of trolling he should be blocked permanently, IMO.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 14:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) One month actually. But Canterbury Tail has warned him that the next block will be indefinite, which seems just right. Bishonen | talk 14:07, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

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

User:Tbhotch

This user keeps harassing me and threatening to block me and is coming across a bully can someone sort them out for sake of mind? 217.43.162.104 (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note this user is THE GTA Guy (talk · contribs), aka AlisaJay (talk · contribs), aka MariaJaydHicky (talk · contribs), and evidence can be found at the respective sockpuppet investigation pages Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MariaJaydHicky/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlisaJay. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 21:56, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Note that this user has a few screws loose if all they think they can do is accuse people without facts 217.43.162.104 (talk)

You want facts. One page: Loud (Rihanna album), a constant target of you. Including a reversion of a reversion of the user 86.142.54.16 (talk · contribs), who is blocked and also comes from the same state you are currently located. Your personal attacks and EMPHASIS matches with those of Maria and your IP matches with already confirmed socks of Maria. I don't need CU evidence to know you and Maria and GTA and Alisa are the same person. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Well you're going 'round calling it a personal attack; ever heard the expression "The pot called the kettle black?" 217.43.162.104 (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

IP blocked for block evasion. Acroterion (talk) 22:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

So calling me "freak" and to ask some one to "fuck me off" are not personal attacks. Neither "dumbass", "you are pathetic", and multiple of your attacks are not personal. It has no sense to talk with you (edit conflict).

In a side note to other users, is it possible to get this guy/girl banned from this site now? Nothing has changed since the User:MariaJaydHicky era, and now this person has decided to play to be a victim of circumstances s/he provoked her/himself. © Tbhotch^™ (en-2.5). 22:16, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

If no admin agrees to unblock, that's a de facto ban already. Epicgenius (talk) 15:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

silly season in full force and vigour at Michael Grimm (politician)

Previous discussion here at [75]

Edit: [76]

IPs and "new editors" are in edit war mode to get the "extended cut" of the Grimm story into his BLP. The editors involved are unlikely to be "truly new" here, and the use of IPs for reverts stinks IMO. Will someone please tell them how the prior discussion here went? All they are saying is "notcensored" and similar stuff now. And the claim is now that it requires consensus to remove the contentious material. Please someone, anyone, help on this. They even push the anonymous claims again -- and I think a stand should be taken on this. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I took the unusual course of reverting out the BLP material which was previously discussed here, and full-protecting the article. I thought this was better than blocking people. I'll be happy to unprotect once the dispute is over. --John (talk) 22:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks -- though I think the miraculous IP edits are less than likely to not be socking :(. Collect (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

• The sanitization of this article and protection with tools is complete bullshit. The news event wasn't an "interview," it was a televised threat. BLP claims are bogus. Carrite (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I charge User:John with tool abuse. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Video links for context, by the New York Times and Alternate Version to YouTube. Carrite (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• • This is concurrently being discussed here, WP:BLPN and Talk:Michael Grimm (politician). If one of these conversations results in a resolution of the BLP dispute, feel free to ping me and I will unprotect, as I said above. Your melodramatic "charges", Carrite, will be treated, I'm afraid, with all the seriousness they deserve. --John (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Constant arguing over parapsychology

Basically a new user PhiChiPsiOmega has joined Wikipedia a few days ago with plans to do "major" revisions on the parapsychology article, unfortunately this user has not read Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience or fringe theories. So he has ended up ranting on the talk page of the parapsychology article and using it as a forum [[77]] and basically disagreeing with pretty much everything and anyone has said to him. He's now arguing with users here [[78]]

PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs)

69.14.156.143 (talk · contribs)

If you check his talk page he admits he disagrees with the scientific consensus about parapsychology and even wikipedia. He has left some aggressive comments a few times (both on his account and on his IP) on my talk-page, I am not too bothered about this but he's done the same thing on the parapsychology talk-page and elsewhere. I don't see anything positive about this user on Wikipedia. His existence here seems to just want to argue with people because his belief in psi is not supported on Wikipedia. I think he should be topic banned on the topic of parapsychology.

To make things worse, he's now hooked up with a fringe proponent Tom Butler (talk · contribs) (an anti-Wikipedia editor who talks about Wikipedia editors censoring his paranormal views) who has written "Ah, but that is my point: in Wikipedia, they are not real people, and not being subject to social norms, are technically immune to embarrassment. They do become aggressive when cornered, though, and band together to eliminate opposition whenever possible ... with great success." [79] amongst other nonsense.

I can just see these two editors getting worse and worse and they are obviously not on Wikipedia to improve any articles or doing anything productive but just argue with editors so I think a lid needs to be put on it now before their trolling spreads to other places on wikipedia. Goblin Face (talk) 03:12, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Parapsychology is subject to discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBPS, so the correct venue for this would be WP:AE. I recommend withdrawing this complain and filing it there instead. N^oformation ^Talk 03:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think PhiChiPsiOmega needs to learn about Wikipedia policy in general and WP:AGF, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT and WP:NOTAFORUM in specific. However, as a slight mitigating factor, he is a very new user and I don't want to bite the newcomer. It's clear that he believes very passionately in his topic and there's nothing wrong with that, however the situation on the constellation of parapsychology and pseudoscience articles shouldn't be changed just to accommodate one passionate editor. I think the best thing to do would be to pair PhiChiPsiOmega with an editor who has absolutely no involvement with anything even remotely related to parapsychology as a mentor. Encourage him to learn the ropes of Wikipedia somewhere where he's less likely to enter into antagonistic situations with long-standing editors. After all, passion speaks to boldness and we want bold editors here. However we also want editors who are willing to seek consensus even when it might chafe their passions. Simonm223 (talk) 03:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. He's a new user (very new) and I think he is allowed some leeway to picking up an understanding of WP policies and guidelines. I know many editors who had a bumpy landing when they started editing WP and, unfortunately, PhiChiPsiOmega wandered into one of the most conflicted areas on Wikipedia. I think that editors who regularly police this area are on the lookout for potential "disruptors" and are overly vigilant. But Parapsychology is not the DMZ or the old Berlin Wall and any editing errors can be reversed. There is no call to block new editors who are not aware of ARBCOM sanctions and the history of these articles. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Liz but you have done comments like this which doesn't help. "Welcome to Wikipedia, User:PhiChiPsiOmega|PhiChiPsiOmega...where if you aren't sufficiently skeptical, you're considered "fringe" and a quack. Happy editing!" [80].

Two issues remain here. PhiChiPsiOmega existence on Wikipedia is to just stir up trouble over the parapsychology article (psi is even in his name). He's made it clear he is not convinced by the scientific references on the topic (the hundreds that are on the article), and he rejects the scientific consensus:

• [81]
• [82]

Here he even claims the arbitration committee is wrong:

• [83]

Basically everyone is wrong apart from himself and he isn't going to stop arguing about the subject. I am bringing this to the Administrators' noticeboard now because if it doesn't stop now it's just going to go on and on. The second issue is that this user Tom Butler (talk · contribs) is a troll off and on Wikipedia. Off Wikipedia he's created countless blog and forum posts against Wikipedia like this, and even an entire website against Wikipedia policies [84]:

Tom Butler anti-Wikipedia comments
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"After being remained about the futility of trying to reach consensus with Wikipedia editors, my natural reaction is to take my efforts for balanced reporting elsewhere. Perhaps a wiki titled: “Wikipedia Truth Watch.” In their devotion to mainstream ideals, skeptical editors are well organized and help one another while more moderate editors are not inclined toward activism nor are they inclined to organize. Reliable sources are required for every statement of substance; however, that rule is used to say that virtually all publications supporting the study of things paranormal are not allowed as references while virtually any publication negative toward things paranormal are allowed–This is a result of skeptic control of the encyclopedia." [85] "I would like to add my two cents worth. I have been an editor for a number of years and was involved in the decisive administrative action that resulted in a permanent ban of probably the last truly effective editor who was a supporter of fair treatment for paranormal articles." "Editing Wikipedia is truly an exercise in futility. I let myself be drawn in from time to time to at least put my point on record, but also to see how the problem has evolved. I learn more about people each visit, but my wife Lisa and I have otherwise concentrated on countering Wikipedia with education." [86] and he has an entire anti-Wikipedia website here: [87] "The problem is that Wikipedia policies have made it possible for Skeptics to dominate parts of the online encyclopedia. These faceless people have run off virtually all of those of us who think an encyclopedia should say what something is without characterizing it as good or bad. Those who persist in making what they consider more balanced entries are often subjected to abuse that is more like the Lord of the Flies than a collaborative community." [88]

And you only need to look at his Wikipedia user page and comments on Wikipedia to see he is only here to cause trouble. Here is encouraging a user to quit Wikipedia and "give up here" to join his own paranormal alternative [89] On his very own user page it reads "Editors blocked for attempting fair treatment of Rupert Sheldrake The public will know these editors as maters of the search for fairness." and now he's encouraging the user PhiChi [90]. I have no idea why this editor is still on Wikipedia considering all the damage he is trying to do to it on and off Wikipedia (he's even hosted online petitions against Wikipedia). The way for this issue to be solved is to ban these users because they are not here to edit Wikipedia, they are using the site to stir controversies over parapsychology and it is going to spread if they are not warned. That's all I am going to say on this. If action is not taken then in a few weeks time someone else will just be coming back here complaining about these users and it is going to get worse and worse. Goblin Face (talk) 06:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather go there than deal with the lack of objectivity and quote-mining I get here. Look, GF, I understand that psi is an uncomfortable topic for you, but he has good reason for posting those things: You are not looking at this from a neutral point of view. I disagree with the skeptics because they DON'T represent their opponents very well, and that their opponents represent a small niche in the scientific community. Appealing to the "hundreds of articles against" (while ignoring the hundred articles ' ' for ' ' ) psi is just proving my point. Don't you dare do anything to Tom Butler. Neither he nor I are here to cause trouble, as I've said (and as can be seen on my talk page!) several times over. My name comes from the last four letters of the Greek alphabet, not an appeal to "psi". Quit reading into things. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we're supposed to call editors trolls, and one could argue whether "troll" is strictly accurate because it looks like an editor who is not trolling but who genuninely believes a bunch of FRINGE stuff, and is disappointed that it is so hard to push it at Wikipedia.

PhiChiPsiOmega has a highly original manner of editing, changing the opening sentence of Parapsychology to read "Parapsychology (or psi phenomena) is the somewhat controversial scientific study of psychic and paranormal phenomena." (diff). Clearly PhiChiPsiOmega's edits will need extensive scrutiny, and WP:AE can be used if nothing is learned within a week or two. Johnuniq (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Johnuniq, but I'm not a "pusher". It is fact that Wikipedia isn't citing the full spectrum of scientific opinion. Not all parapsychologists are woo-meisters or New Age gurus, and a great deal of them are well-respected physicists, psychologists, and statisticians. My point is that the debate can't be just given over to everyone uber-skeptical of psi. I even cited a skeptic who thought parapsychology was a science, but its findings inconclusive. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I think the inevitable result of this will be that PhiChiPsiOmega (talk · contribs) gets shepherded away from Wikipedia articles. He's going to waste editor's time because he seems incapable of understanding basic policies. The break is either going to be voluntary or enforced under WP:ARB/PS, and it's either going to happen sooner or later. Right now, I wouldn't be pushing for a ban, but I think it's ultimately inevitable. Barney the barney barney (talk) 11:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

via my crystal ball and potent psi powers, i can see it is only a matter of time before the user is escorted off the premises. its merely a question of how much disruption we allow before the inevitable. WP:ROPE -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:25, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

TRPoD, that was so funny I forgot to laugh. Look, the only reason I'm here isn't because I irrationally believe in the face of evidence, or that I believe non-scientists over scientists, or that I am a woo-pusher who wants to cause trouble. I am here because there is a wide spectrum of opinions on psi, and that, at best, you can call it an extremely controversial science that few defendants hold to, but not pseudoscience. Just because a lot of people think psychoanalysis is pseudoscience doesn't mean it's classified as such. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 12:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

• I fully agree with noformation. ANI threads about disruptions in the topic area of pseudoscience are always problematic. That is why we have discretionary sanctions and this thread should be filed at WP:AE to stop the TLDR text and the peanut gallery. Second Quantization (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Wolfie, WP:AE limits us to providing diffs of WP:ARB/PS issues. Tom has a long history of WP:COI, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and WP:IDHT issues. If this isn’t the right venue to deal with a chronically disruptive editor then what is? 76.107.171.90 (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The discretionary sanctions available apply across pseudoscience and fringe articles, broadly construed. This includes all contributions where there are issues such as IDHT, NPA etc in that topic area. Second Quantization (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm really trying not to be a peanut gallery. I just think it's better classified as "fringe science" than "pseudoscience". PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 14:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that Wikipedia is not about what you think it's about what the reliable sources say and there are hundreds of scientific references which classify parapsychology as a pseudoscience, it's not Wikipedia's problem that you disagree with the reliable sources. In response all you are doing all over the place is offering your own opinion and stirring up arguments. You are a single purpose account who is just going to keep arguing about the subject. You have made it clear you disagree with Wikipedia policy on pseudoscience and fringe theories. You seem to be using this website as a forum and just using various talk pages or places to argue about what you think about the subject. It really has got boring and if this isn't stopped now you are just going to log in everyday doing it and more and more articles or places on Wikipedia are going to be disrupted. When Tom Butler next logs in there's just going to be even more arguing over this issue and he feeds off it. I would appreciate an admin's response on this current issue but also this Butler character and why he has not been banned considering his purpose on Wikipedia is only to stir trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 15:28, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience. For the record, reliable sources also say psychoanalysis is pseudoscientific. That doesn't make it so. And I presented reliable sources to you, which you ignored repeatedly (which makes me wonder why I'm still talking to you). Once again, I've made my position clear: I am not just a pot-stirrer. I'm saying this topic needs to be looked at more. I only disagree with parapsychology being placed as pseudoscience, and even Wikipedia protocol seems to be open to just calling it controversial or questionable, but not completely pseudoscientific. Tom Butler may have bizarre beliefs, but he's right in saying this has gone in the wrong direction. PhiChiPsiOmega (talk) 16:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

PhiChi says "And the reliable sources indicate that parapsychology is fringe science, but not outright pseudoscience". This is nothing more than trolling and it' utter nonsense like all of your other unreferenced personal beliefs that you have spammed on Wikipedia talk pages (you have failed to present a single scientific reference to make your case). It's trolling because there's countless references on the article which indicate it is a pseudoscience but every time you say it isn't. Can you not read the parapsychology article? There are over 10 references which indicate it is an obvious pseudoscience and many listed on the talk-page. It is even mentioned in the lead, and is cited in mainstream books on pseudoscience like Massimo Pigliucci, Maarten Boudry. (2013). Philosophy of Pseudoscience: Reconsidering the Demarcation Problem. University Of Chicago Press p. 158. "Many observers refer to the field as a "pseudoscience". When mainstream scientists say that the field of parapsychology is not scientific, they mean that no satisfying naturalistic cause-and-effect explanation for these supposed effects has yet been proposed and that the field's experiments cannot be consistently replicated." This is just a waste of time. No matter what is said you are just going to continue to promote your personal fringe beliefs on the subject, arguing, ignoring what people have said to you and causing disrupt. If someone wants to take this to another venue they can, but I am not wasting anymore time on this. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok guys, let's not have this argument here as well. Let's either take this to the appropriate venue, as suggested by Second Quantization and Noformation or just simmer down and let people cool off a bit. Simonm223 (talk) 16:20, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

There is only one reason I spend pretty valuable time on Wikipedia. The online encyclopedia is read by the public, and as such, the articles that slander living people and give people a false impression about subjects have become effective propaganda for a demonstrably biased point of view. None of my edits, none of my comments on Wikipedia have been contrary to the belief that the public deserves a balanced view. In fact, that is the nonprofit charter of Wikipedia.

As a manager of a nonprofit myself, I am obligated to serve the best interest of the public in the nonprofit's literature. To knowingly falsely represent a subject violates that charter. As representatives of the Wikipedia nonprofit, the editors here are equally obligated to be truthful and slandering people and intentionally giving only one side of a subject, while as a policy, rejecting the other is something I have difficulty being quiet about.

You can ban me, but all that does is confirm my point. The real answer is to get off your pompous seat and try balancing the articles. I am sure editors like PhiChiPsiOmega will help. Tom Butler (talk) 17:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Proponents of Flat Earthers proponents have no claim to be equally represented in their views than Round Earth proponents. Not even at Flat Earth page.Arildnordby (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Tom, you serve no purpose on Wikipedia but are just here to cause trouble. You are anti-Wikipedia and both on and off this site you are promoting libel about various editors who you classify as "skeptics", you even have an entire website against Wikipedia which you believe is "biased". Look over your edit history there's nothing constructive but you are encouraging people to cause trouble on here. It's also stupid you claim to be "neutral" but you have written books claiming people can talk to the dead. Basically anyone who is not a believer in your fringe beliefs is "biased" and you attack Wikipedia in the process. Goblin Face (talk) 17:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, if you had read any of that material, you would understand that my behavior here is a learned one as a last resort. I am also demonstrably neutral in the study of these phenomena. For instance, I am a lone voice against a couple of popular techniques. I may seem biased toward the subject because I write about what I learn. Were it otherwise, then I would be preaching and this is not about religion.

If you do not consider yourself a skeptic, then why do you have "This user is a skeptic" on your page?

And to Simonm223, I can support that contention about slander. Rupert Sheldrake was very close to suing Wikipedia for slander. Other living persons have expressed to me similar points. I have even heard talk of a legal defense fund. Do you want to make a case of that? It is the skeptics who use terms like Woo and quack. As a general rule, the most we do is say you are a skeptic.

I will also note that I would not be aware of PhiChiPsiOmega if it were not that many of you were complaining about him on the Fringe Notice Board below where you mentioned my name. I do not monitor the parapsychology article ... it seems silly to try to help those who do not help themselves ... but it seemed only fair to warn PhiChiPsiOmega you were talking about him.

I know it is eating at you that I am inviting editors to come help in Citizendium. You should be happy that I am offering them a way to help that is out of your hair. Citizendium is an outpost on the Internet, but is a good place to develop balanced articles. The existing editors there will assure we do not develop propaganda, but they seem dedicated to balanced treatment of articles. If I were you, and looking at all of the complaints, I would be encouraging people to go there.

I think it is time to stop complaining and either fix the articles or admit that you want them as billboard for your opinions. Tom Butler (talk) 18:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Archiving parapsychology argument

I have archived PhiChi's argument on the parapsychology talk page because it's now been posted on Dean Radin's blog [91] and there is going to be problems over this. The guy commenting on Dean Radin's blog is the notorious conspiracy theorist and internet troll Ben Steigmann, he has been banned on 60 sock puppets on Wikipedia already. An example of just one of his accounts here [92]. I think this issue needs to be quickly resolved before loads of these fringe proponents start turning up to cause trouble. Goblin Face (talk) 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Goblin, it is inappropriate to completely archive a talk page. Also, your reasons are way off base. If I am not mistaken, this is a troublesome pattern of some editors that needs to stop.Tom Butler (talk) 21:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I will not edit war with you over this, but be advised that the archive is deliberate tampering with an open exchange in information and will not hide the conversation from the world. Tom Butler (talk) 22:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Lupita nyong'o

I have been in an edit war with another user on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lupita_Nyong%27o page. The actress is from Kenya but was born in Mexico when her father was there as a professor. She has never referred herself as a Mexican, the media calls her a Mexi-Kenyan. The editor I have been engaged with "Rekx" come under several names it edit the page and to say the actress is a Mexican. I state that just because just because a person is born in a country does not mean they claimed citizenship of that country. Many Americans are born overseas but they are still Americans. I expressed to him/her that that his/her logic is wrong, because it would mean that Senator John McCain is Panamanian. Just because he was born there. The editor thinks its personal and that "I just don't want her to be Mexican" the editor brought an interview from a latino gossip magazine, it is in written in Spanish and she/he is claiming it is an interview of Lupita stating she his Mexican and Kenyan. I told him/ her that, it is not a valid source, its a gossip mag and its in a foreign language. English Wikipedia requires it sources to be in english for all anyone know. It can be the words to Mary had a little lamb. I suggested that we can put it in the body of the article as "According to..." this way I thought wouldn’t be controversial, because the truth is there no record of her being or saying she is a Mexican national. I thought I worded it in a way for us to some form consensus, but the other user refuse to work with me and I know I am very guilty of the edit war too but I think we need an admin to intervene.

The user editor has used many different names and devices including a mobile phone and is now under the name http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Rekx 68.194.18.81 (talk) 10:03, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This was my last edit [[93]] 68.194.18.81 (talk) 09:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And I will also like to add that even though the user I had the edit war with has many different names. Other people had engaged in an edit war over the same issue68.194.18.81 (talk) I initially put that she was a "Mexican-born Kenyan" that's what CNN and other refer to her as but the other editor said she didn't like how that68.194.18.81 (talk) 09:52, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Update: The editor has reverted my last edit but has chosen to ignore the notice I posted on his/her page to come here to talk 68.194.18.81 (talk) 10:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have made my last edit to the page, I have reverted it back to how it was before. The other editor added his/her claims and "sources" 68.194.18.81 (talk) 10:48, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Like I said with his/her logic it would be that John McCain is Panamanian, being born in Mexico affords you the right to be Mexican Citizen but that does not mean she claimed it. Foreigners who have children in countries that practice "Jus soli" have to right to claim it or not claim it. Especially if her father is a diplomatic official there on duties. It's not imposed by force. I took out the Kenyan-Mexican part and work "Lupita Nyong'o is an actress...and according to... because we don't know if she has dual citizenship. You are just making the assumption that she is a Mexican national only because she was born there, And your only proof is from a gossip magazine in a foreign Language. Stop trying to make this personal trying to make it seem that I don't like Mexicans. If you have proper facts state it. All nations practice jus sanguinis (right of blood), so regardless of where one it born you are form where your parents are from. Her Parent could have or didn't claim Mexican citizenship for her. That why it article originally had "Mexican-born Kenyan". 68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:14, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

And stating a wiki article on Mexican Nationality laws as your source that shes a Mexican national is not a valid source.68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Also we are both to be blame for warring but I never vandalized. I reverted your claims without sources and constant disruption of edits what you did was vandalism, so don't point the figure at me and don't try to make it seem like I don't like Mexicans either68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Reading what you've written below makes me realize you still don't understand, you need valid sources and you also have know that just because, you born in a country does not make you an automatic citizen, Keanu Reeves was born in Beirut, Lebanon, is he Lebanese? Joaquin Phoenix was born in Puerto Rico is he Puerto Rican? Rocker Tommy Lee was born in Greece is he Greek? Amy Adams was born in Italy, is she Italian? the list can go on. Like I told you before, if she has Mexican citizenship then of course the article should state it, but there's no proof. 68.194.18.81 (talk) 11:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Lupita Nyong'o

I am the user who the editor above (with IP address 68.194.18.81) is referring to. Contrary to what he/she says about me having different names, I figured I would just create a Wikipedia account and start using it to post, whereas before only my IP address showed.

The user with IP address 68.194.18.81 has a problem with the inclusion of Lupita Nyong'o's dual-nationality status on her Wikipedia page, Lupita Nyong'o, and he/she seems to be content only when her Kenyan nationality is highlighted. When I edited the article to state that "Lupita Nyong'o is a Kenyan-Mexican actress...", the other user subsequently deleted the Kenyan-Mexican bit to leave only "Lupita Nyong'o is an actress..."

However, before I updated the Wikipedia article with this dual-citizenship information, the editor with IP address 68.194.18.81 had no problem posting "Lupita Nyong'o is a Kenyan actress..."

Nyong'o herself has stated in an interview to Reforma (a serious Mexican daily newspaper) that she indeed has both Kenyan and Mexican citizenships. You can access the Reform article here (via paid subscription): http://www.reforma.com/gente/articulo/713/1425085/

That same interview by Reforma was syndicated to Terra Networks and was made available for free here: http://entretenimiento.terra.com.mx/cine/actriz-de-12-years-a-slave-presume-orgullo-mexicano,741bce2e04ef0410VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html

In it, Nyong'o states:

"Nací en la Ciudad de México, y antes de cumplir un año me llevaron a Kenia, donde crecí. Mi padre tuvo un trabajo (como diplomático y profesor) allí, y por eso mi acta de nacimiento dice que soy mexicana, tengo ambas nacionalidades..."

Translation:

"I was born in Mexico City, and before turning one I was taken to Kenya, where I grew up. My father had a job (as a diplomat and professor) there, and that is why my birth certificate says I am Mexican; I have both citizenships..."

Note: I have added this citation to the Wikipedia article.

Furthermore, Mexican nationality is automatically conferred to "individuals born in Mexican territory regardless of the nationality of their parents;" as noted in Mexican nationality law. This is also cited (and locked!) in Lupita Nyong'o's Wikipedi article. The reason it had been locked is because this the editor with IP address 68.194.18.81 kept vandalizing Lupita Nyong'o's article in the past.

I ask you to please prevent this editor from further vandalizing the article.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekx (talk • contribs) 10:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Can it be any more clearer than Lupita Nyong'o herself stating that she has both Kenyan and Mexican citizenships? No. It cannot get any clearer than that. That is from an interview she did which appeared on Reforma on 8 September 2013. http://www.reforma.com/gente/articulo/713/1425085/ (Syndicated here for free: http://entretenimiento.terra.com.mx/cine/actriz-de-12-years-a-slave-presume-orgullo-mexicano,741bce2e04ef0410VgnVCM5000009ccceb0aRCRD.html )

Update:

My 11:47, 2 March 2014‎ update had been made to reflect this in a language that is clear and not prone to confusion:

"Lupita Amondi Nyong'o (born 1 March 1983) is an actress and film and music video director of dual Kenyan and Mexican citizenship."

It cannot be any clearer than that. Please prevent the other user with IP address 68.194.18.81 from vandalizing the page any further. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rekx (talk • contribs) 11:56, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

This thing sounds like a content dispute. You two need to stop edit warring and calmly talk the issue through on the article talk page (which is empty of any discussion on anything!) before editing restrictions on both of you or the article result. And stop making mutual accusations of vandalism for stuff which clearly isn't WP:vandalism. I won't comment on the content dispute since this is the wrong place. But I will say that as [Wikipedia:Verifiability]] makes clear, while we prefer English sources, we do allow non English ones if non suitable English replacements exist. As this is a WP:BLP we also require high quality sources, although we would generally be more tolerant of lower quality sources if it's an interview with the subject, particularly in cases relating to self identification (but note there's a difference between someone acknowledging multiple citizenship and national self identification) or other simple factual details of the subject. Nil Einne (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Vandal, harassing threats of lawsuits

• 58.7.243.245 (talk · contribs)

Have reported to AIV. Pending a block, probably wise to report here as well, given the lawsuit bullshit. JNW (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) The IP has been blocked for 72 hours by CIreland. (t) Josve05a (c) 15:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It's dynamic (what a surprise). Bishonen | talk 15:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC).

issue on French WP (diff in French)

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

---

Hi, For several weeks now, French WP administrators have been thinking I was another contributor (due to one (wrong) filter reaction after a revert of mine). After 6 requests which only met ironical and blunt rebukes, I asked for a CU (about myself). They not only did not do it but blocked me (as a sock puppet of the other contributor !!!). I feel completely offensed by their attitude and as I cannot manage having them facing facts, I decided I could try here, where good faith and civility are not an option. See this diff for instance : http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipédia:Vérificateur_d%27adresses_IP/Requêtes/mars_2014&diff=prev&oldid=101725742 Template:Fr I understand that Fr WP and en Wp may not be the same but as part of WM projects, I hope for a resolution of this incident what I consider a blatant lack of care for this project's values. Thank you in advance. With the best, --90.96.71.143 (talk) 16:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC) I just created account User:Slinggelid so that you may be sure that I am one person, as I use a dynamic IP ad. usually.

en Wikipedia CAN'T resolve, or arbitrate on any other Wikipedia.Arildnordby (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, soo...is there any WM Ombudsman or SOMEONE on earth who could have them CHECKING facts ? I tried 2 Admin's TP, Abuse filter 3 times... Noticeboard, CU. They just refused to check it because they think that it is likely (sic) that I am another...Thank you--90.96.71.143 (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

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

IP vandalising climate data for months

75.191.173.190 (talk · contribs) has been on a trail of disruption, including undoing the transclusion of established templates, falsely claiming "updates" to data (when most government meteorological agencies only update normals every decade), "adjusting" temperatures that have been verified countless times without changing the source, among other crimes. Since this has been going on since at least New Year's Day, a several-month-long block is in order. GotR ^Talk 19:11, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Legal threats and insults

User: JohnRTroy twice today has accused me of libel, and for the last several days has been using insulting language, which I have tried to let roll off my back. But with two legal threats in one day, here and here, I think it's necessary for me to task admin to take a look and seeing if his behavior is appropriate.

He is already the focus of an ANI, above, for advocating fringe science, which he since seems to have back away, after User:Atama warned him about about adding original research to Wikipedia [94] and User:Miniapolis protected the page he was editing, Al Plastino, for a week. Redlink editors, some evidently connected as friends/familky with the subject's daughter, had been trying to add a fringe claim about a vaccine — with this editor in one case misrepresenting the CDC [95] and in another claiming, "If you read enough, there is a link to vaccinations causing GBS. This is not 'fringe science'." [96]

He's called me "hostile" [97], again "hostile" [98], "antagonistic" [99], "hostile" and "passive-aggressive rudeness" [100] (evidently since I don't name-call, I'm being "passive-aggressive"), and "hostility" [101].

These may not be curse-word insults, but they are consistent and they have gone on for days without my saying anything. He's not stopping. He's just continued and continued to bait me and poke me in the chest, and I won't respond in kind. But he has to stop. I myself lost my temper elsewhere in early February and paid the price, a one-day suspension ... my only such block in more than 8 1/2 years. My normative behavior can be inferred here. I admitted I was wrong and did my time. Now I'm on the receiving end, and being call libelous to boot. I ask for help. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:09, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I would ask those involved to review all of the correspondence between us on this very page, the WP Comics Talk page, and the article in question. My main points were I found this user's tone insulting when making comments--and in part, my comments are to ask him to be a little more civil in his criticism according to WP:Civility. I will agree with what this board says, but I am disappointed that over the weekend I have been part of two Administrative actions. My concern is that others will see this and it will reflect on WP badly.

Regarding the "Fringe Theories", I've been attempting to find out if there is a legitimate link between the viruses and I think the assumption or accusation of this was a little bit insulting, as there are certain complications that can occur. Ultimately, I think this is an over-reaction. JRT (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Neither "That's actually a potentially libelous statement" nor "Made a near-libelous statement regarding the family of Al Plastino, implying they were trying to get ammunition for a lawsuit" is a legal threat in he sense of WP:NLT. Not in my view at least. DES ^(talk) 21:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That said, it is best to avoid the term "libel" or things near it in discussing the actions of other wikipedia editors if at all possible, as it can be takenm as a legal threat. DES ^(talk) 21:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with both of DESiegel's points; no legal threats have been made, but try not to bring up "libel" at all when referencing other editors since it just escalates matters and can lead to misunderstandings.

As to the claimed civility breaches, I see Tenebrae accusing JohnRTroy of being uncivil, and JohnRTroy accusing Tenebrae of being uncivil. Why don't you both try this: ignore each others' perceived incivility. If you do that, it will magically vanish. JohnRTroy, if Tenebrae says something that you think is rude when you are debating a point, ignore it. Otherwise your accusation of rudeness will be seen as hostility. Tenebrae, try the same, if JohnRTroy calls you "hostile" or "passive-aggressive", then pretend those words aren't there, because they don't affect the argument in any way. What matters is what guidelines and policies are best adhered to, and what common ground can be found, and frankly nobody is going to care if one person thinks the other is rude (as long as it doesn't escalate into personal attack territory and so far everything has fallen far short of that). Hostility tends to fall into a feedback loop, where one person says "you insulted me", the other says "I'm insulted that you think I'm being insulting" and so on. It's pointless, and doesn't advance either of your positions. -- Atama頭 21:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree with this and will no longer make any comments involving that user in this instance. Furthermore, I will refrain from making any more edits in the original disputed article in question and will also end all comments regarding this dispute. JRT (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It appears the content dispute involved is over the cause of death of comic book writer Al Plastino. In particular [www.newsfromme.com/2014/02/27/lets-correct-wikipedia-on-something/ this blog] says that many news sources got it wrong by saying that he died from prostate cancer and that Wikipedia therefore got it wrong by repeating those news sources. At the time of the blog being published the article did not actually say that was the cause of death, but merely stated that he was suffering from prostate cancer before he died. Strictly speaking based on Wikipedia's rules we should just repeat the allegedly false information published in reliable sources (that he died from prostate cancer), but I am somewhat partial to the way the article is now, which is left ambiguous, as an IAR thing since it is a sensitive issue and we have some reason to doubt the mainstream press. CorporateM (Talk) 22:02, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Etiquette of Redmen44

Hello,

Recently, I'm coming to AN/I today because I am concerned about the etiquette of Redmen44. Recently, he removed sources on List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases with the rationale of "it slows down my apparatus", which in itself is not a very good reason to remove sources. Also, many similar Featured Lists such as List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples use individual references. I am currently trying to reference every player and he and I continued to revert each other (part of which is my fault). I finally left him a message on his talk page, but he removed it within hours of me putting it up. However, I'm not concerned just because he removes messages, but that he continued and the fact that he removes people's messages gives me no confidence that anything would get resolved, so I came to AN/I to get community input. Thoughts anyone? Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)