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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

Harassment

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

---

I consider I am the victim of harassment by user AfadsBad. It has been going on for some time but has become more intrusive recently. It seems to be designed to ridicule and discourage me and it is spoiling my enjoyment of editing on Wikipedia.

Here are some examples:

• DYK nomination for Tripedalia cystophora
• DYK nomination for Euglossa dilemma
• AfadsBad's talk page My name and reputation gets dragged into a discussion where the subject is something else entirely. User HalfGig was also harassed and stopped editing after this incident.
• AfadsBad's talk page again I ask for guidance on my errors but do not receive it.

The harassment is not confined to Wikipedia but also takes place off-wiki at AfadsBad's blog and on general discussion forums such as http://wikipediocracy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=4131 . I do not believe I have ever been anything but polite to AfadsBad and would like to be left alone to edit in peace. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I won't be visiting one of the above external links, but I find the wordpress blog entry that names-and-shames a fellow community member to be beyond the pale. Human beings just don't do that to fellow human beings, but alas it's become so easy to trash people on the internet with so little fear of reprisal DP 09:12, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Says the pseudonymous administrator who just used this project's most high-traffic noticeboard to describe, in the very same sentence, one of our community members as not being a human being. I can't tell if that's genuine doublethink or you're just a garden-variety hypocrite. — Scott • talk 21:51, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: AfadsBad has had been briefly helpful in two recent questions that I have asked of her, but most of my interaction with her to date has been unduly negative and tediously pedantic. The harassment of Cwmhiraeth is not a singular case, as there has been harassment and negative communications with several other editors, however, AfadsBad seems to have a special obsession with Cwmhiraeth that has verged onto being pathological and inimical to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. It has been going on relentlessly for about 7 or 8 months that I've seen it, and a lot of the argument is the same tune from a broken record. The argument wears a little thin--some editors find that there's little meat on the bone for her ranting and usually tune out, but the relentlessness of it contributes to driving users away, making contributing unpleasant, and that is unacceptable. I'm convinced that AfadsBad is the current name of a user who has been blocked a few times previously for similar harassment issues, although I do not have the tools to confirm it. I've mentioned to AfadsBad on her talk page that she should be more willing to collaborate with others, including Cwmhiraeth, but that advice was quickly dismissed. Likewise advice to correct errors in the collaborative spirit has been similarly dismissed. The fact that this harassment has expanded to include lambasting Cwmhiraeth's work offsite, especially at Wikipediocracy in what has the appearance of canvassing or suborning an endorsement for her continued harassment, is troublesome. As far as I see it, AfadsBad should have a one-way interaction ban from contacting Cwmhiraeth which includes the order to stop dragging her name through the mud elsewhere. If AfadsBad in her time as an underemployed scholar wants to continue bullying Cwmhiraeth, or wants to persist to criticize from the sidelines without collaboration or improving the project, she should find another hobby and be shown the door. Sorry, AfadsBad, but when it comes to several users who have said collaborate and play nice, it's time to "put up or shut up".--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:33, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I consider this a tragic situation. When AfadsBad first began editing, she made a real contribution in science-related areas. But the collaborative editing style of Wikipedia means that "expert" edits can be undone by others who might not be as knowledgeable. The fact is that a few editors can determine consensus which might not be factually accurate, it's just an edit that editors have, more or less, agreed with. So, she felt her knowledge was unappreciated and she has been complaining about Wikipedia's coverage of science subjects since Fall 2013. I don't know the particulars of this editor interaction, just thought I'd fill in some of the backstory. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:03, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I love the little dig about being an "underemployed scholar". Saffron Blaze (talk) 17:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol, I am not going to read all this. "Underemployed scholar?" Lol.

Anyway, Cwmhiraeth cannot accurately place information in Wikipedia, and her level of knowledge is frequently too low to communicate what is wrong to her, like why C4 and CAM photosynthesis have different names. Every article of hers has made up information, inaccurate information, random pieces of information that give undue weight to what she has added, and plagiarism. Her main sources are usually too old, and she cannot overcome the problems of the disagreements between 1963 taxomony books and advances in modern biochemistry. She does not repair articles when she can understand what is wrong, and continues adding the same errors.

Go ahead, check her articles against their sources. "Tropical Southern Ocean," "no cacti have leaves," "CAM and C4 photosynthesis are identical," the sea disaster corrected after it was off the main page.

Since we are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia here, it is surprising that Wikipedia editors and admins would fight to keep 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia with made up science and taxonomies in them and want to continue adding them.

WikiCup Ahoy! And onward Essjay! Or whatever his name was, he has good company with WikiScholar Cwmhiraeth. Her articles are passed and passed to the main page based on the strength of her having written so many, she doesn't claim expertise, but Wikipedia editorial superiority over the "underemployed scholar." Expertise exhibited. Taxonomy for Dummies, anyone?

Correcting bad science is harassment? So what is making up 1300+ main page articles for probably millions of hits, replacement of accurate science in Google search results with fantasy taxonomies, and making a mockery of an encyclopedia?

And Colonel Henry demanding that intrusive liquid metasediments intruding imaginary rocks is a Good Article?

You don't need experts, just qualified ninth graders.

--(AfadsBad (talk) 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, what you just wrote is completely inappropriate as it highly violates WP:NPA. However frustrated you might be with a user, do not under any circumstances patronize him/her. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 18:17, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I retract and call her an "unemployed scholar?" --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:22, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

Criticising poor article quality is not a personal attack in my book. Andreas JN466 20:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I would just comment that AfadsBad's user page also does appear to break NPA where he has this on it: "But, meanwhile, we have editors, User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know, so, I guess plagiarizing and sourcing to an anonymous science blog is kinda low on the list of offenses." The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 22:08, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Pointing out plagiarism and fake science on Wikipedia is a personal attack? --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC))

This is an encyclopedia project, not a vanity exercise. If someone with a science background says there are major problems with the science in those articles, you should first of all look at that, and find out if it's true. Because if it is, then neither Wikipedia nor the public are being served by sweeping it under the rug. There has certainly been precedent of AfadsBad's critiques of DYK science content being very well founded. Mind you, AN/I probably is hardly the right venue for that discussion. (I'd suggest Wikipedia:Editor review or an WP:RfC/U; and, for the avoidance of doubt, not for AfadsBad, but for the editor whose work is being critiqued.) Andreas JN466 00:04, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Note: Jayen466 is associated with AfadsBad (enwikibadscience) through their participation at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 04:22, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Although I think we don't like each other there, but I may be getting him or her mixed up with someone else. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

We shouldn't go for guilt by association. When Andreas speaks it's usually worth listening to him. The point that we should look carefully at what AfadsBad is arguing is valid. The manner in which they do it, well, let's just say, very diplomatically, that I have problems with it.

They have indicted me too in front of the Wikipediocracy inquisition, pointing to this edit (I think it was intended as ammunition for Eric Barbour's "Indict Drmies" mission), saying that apparently I think that "a guy's website (peakbaggers.com) is a reliable source for naming a mountain". They kind of missed the fact that it's not really "a guy's website", and that Wikipedians apparently deem the website notable enough to have a template citing it (Template:Cite peakbagger). So yeah, some of Afadsbad's comments may well be worth taking to heart, but they also have a tendency to shoot from the hip and miss.

But Andreas, the problem here is also the manner in which these things are brought up. There are helpful ways and there are shitty ways, and unfortunately that DYK brought things (some of which were not valid, or easily fixed) up in a shitty way. Drmies (talk) 18:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

It is just a guy's website, and he has no problems with that. While I use the information for climbing, I am prohibited from using anything on it for rescues because it is considered a hobby website and known to be an unreliable source as to names, locations, and altitudes. "Peakbagger.com is a unprofessional, non-commerical web site that is both a hobby and a place for me to post some of the mountain-related information I have collected over the past 30 years." It's more an ANI comment than an indictment, but, you may consider it what you like.

As to bringing things up in a shitty way, check out how I started at the GA for Desert and this is the response I got, "Thank you for your comments, AfadsBad. I will consider the points you raise and make alterations where I think they are required, but please do not remove chunks of sourced information as you did with the sentence on cacti, thereby interrupting the flow of the text. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:14, 28 September 2013 (UTC)" The chunks of text I removed was misinformation; it is not true that all cactic don't have leaves, and no sources said that. I removed the misinformation about C4 plants being just like CAM plants, and Cwmhiraeth reverted the removal and claimed that it was true, again. And, in addition, also claimed that this information was sourced. She does not listen to corrections, and the only reason she is paying attention now is because of her claims, and now yours, about my "shitty way of bringing things up." Does any one on Wikipedia care that the content is wrong? I tried just stating that it was wrong. I was insulted and scolded as if I was an incompetent child interfering with someone's owned article, and the bad information was returned to the article, again claiming it was sourced. Wikipedia editors write essays about how perceived experts are treated on Wikipedia, and it really does represent a problem.

The article Pedra da Gávea was the worst geology writing I have ever seen on Wikipedia; even a hoax would have been an improvement. It was promoted to Good Article with ridiculous absurdities, liquid flows of rocks that had never melted moving into rocks that would not exist for another 600 million years. When I pointed out, however badly, how ridiculous the article was, ColonelHenry insisted that my rant was not worth paying attention to because he had correctly followed procedures to promote it to Good Article. The important thing was to get this ridiculous joke of an article out of article space. But, the least followed policy and least important policy on Wikipedia appears to be WP:Verifiability. Made up information, if made up by a popular editor, trumps verifiability every time.

I think putting an article like that in article space is a really shitty way to treat readers of this encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

Get a new schtick, the 8-month old broken record ranting is tiresome, rant rant rant and do nothing but criticize. you could have fixed problems then, but you didn't, you just rant rant rant...it would be comical but stale material repeated endlessly would get you shouted off the stage at a deaf convention in the Catskills. Either put up or shut up...either get in the game and collaborate or stop bitching from the sidelines. Your sanctimonious b.s. gets tedious.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• AfadsBad, my comments were limited to that DYK where, as you saw, I acknowledge that there were issues with the article, but I think that the one I tackled could have been tackled easily by you, in a different tone. If you are indeed exasperated by the quality of this editor's contributions then a more general venue than a DYK nom is appropriate, and an RfC/U is, in the end, the way to go. Torpedoing one DYK (and I think you could have a. been much more specific in your comments and b. been more helpful in the actual editing of the article, beyond just placing a template) doesn't do anything for the quality of the article. I have no opinion on the GA or anything else since I haven't looked at it, and I hope you noted that I did not make any blanket indictment (civil or uncivil) of your editing here--and I don't subscribe to Colonel Henry's opinion, which I just edit-conflicted with.

  I dig that you have problems with the project as a whole, but commenting on that DYK in that manner does not address anything, neither project improvement, editor improvement, or article improvement. I'll get back to that DYK and the article, even though you might consider me an amateur who is probably incapable of avoiding scientific atrocities. And if I'm in over my head I'll call on someone to help me. If you, in turn, wish to indict me elsewhere for being a nincompoop, well, that's fine; I'll just consider (perhaps vainly) that you probably had to look real hard to find some dirt on me. Or, and that's an option I prefer, you can help with the article and the nomination--just one more way of not hiding your candle under a bushel. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 19:18, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• Which DYK are you talking about? Cwmhiraeth does not usually understand the very specific comments, so I am not going to spend time on them, though I might for the sake of the RFU. She writes a few articles a week, and I check three sentences and find multiple problems, one of her articles is a full time job--it's often difficult to even connect the cited source to the Wikipedia article. There is no means in place to fight Randy in Boise syndrome. Wikipedia has built up a defense against it. There is an essay on Wikipedia claiming that experts don't have to use reliable sources for their articles so they may not understand Wikipedia. Of course the sentence is unsourced, and it's also untrue--how did someone think this? I remove nonsense, politely, and Cwmhiraeth reverts and scolds me for doing so. I point out the worst Good Article ever on Wikipedia, and I earn an enemy for life (although an amusing one in the level of anger). Why is en.Wikipedia so defensive against correcting bad science? When I corrected the misspelled name of a plant family, that had been on en.Wikipedia for 7 years and generated 50,000 Google hits on the misspelling, and I needed help from a couple of the foreign language Wikipedias for deletion corrections, there was no problem, no reverting of my corrections, no insulting me, no fighting me that the article had been created and should be kept. Editors and administrators deleted the bad articles, made the necessary moves, corrected the spelling elsewhere within the encyclopedia. You want to shut me up? Then just put in place a method whereby when something is wrong and is not in the cited source it can be corrected. By the way, "nincompoop" or not elsewhere, peakbaggers is not, by en.Wikipedia definitions, a reliable source. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2014 (UTC))
• For those in the peanut gallery: Template:Did you know nominations/Tripedalia cystophora. Drmies (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. If you can read the sources at a low level you can probably fix this article; the information that I reviewed that is wrong was not the high level information, but it was also not in the sources. I only looked at a couple of sentences, though. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:50, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

AfadsBad, when mentioning a response of yours violated WP:NPA, it was because you insulted an editor's intelligence and level of knowledge. Completely inappropriate. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 04:53, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:Competence is required for this quote, "Many editors have ... come to believe that good faith is all that is required to be a useful contributor. Sadly, this is not the case at all. Competence is required as well. A mess created in a sincere effort to help is still a mess."

If you want to support Cwhmiraeth in creating nonsense to put on Wikipedia's main page, you might consider going to that mock Wikipedia site and putting her nonsense there. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. If someone is incompetent, the right thing to do is to stop them from contributing fake information to the encyclopedia, not shoot the messengers because you are here to social network rather than write an encyclopedia. --(AfadsBad (talk) 05:23, 1 April 2014 (UTC))

I believe my work will stand up to scrutiny and am happy to submit to Wikipedia:Editor review. My objective in making this complaint is to stop the relentless flow of criticism from AfadsBad which is interfering with my enjoyment of editing Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:10, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Then I'd propose you initiate an editor review. This will give AfadsBad an opportunity to present representative diffs and examples of the worst perceived science errors in your work. I would urge AfadsBad to contribute to that review in as patient, matter-of-fact and non-polemical a manner as possible, to ensure that attention remains on content rather than perceived interpersonal issues. With any luck, you'll both get something out of the process. Andreas JN466 09:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I have already done so. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Regardless of how one views Cwmhiraeth's comptence level, it is NOT an excuse to patronize their intelligence or work per WP:NPA. XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 06:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

• The editor review is going ahead here. As my competency is being called into question by AfadsBad, I will mention that Atlantic Puffin is Today's Featured Article. It was 11kB "readable prose size" when I started working on it last June and I expanded it to 37kB before bringing it to Featured Article status in September 2013. I knew having it on the front page would make it grist for AfadsBad's mill and sure enough, AfadsBad has already managed to root out an inaccuracy that the FAC reviewers missed. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:48, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

AfadsBad is a nasty bully, agreed, there's absolutely no need for it. She can improve wikipedia without being so condescending of its articles and fellow editors..♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:20, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I am hoping that this complaint will remain open until such time as my editor review is completed. Regardless of the outcome of that, I consider myself the victim of WP:HA, aggravated by off-wiki attacks and will be seeking some action on the part of administrators to prevent the harassment recurring. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree and second Cwmhiraeth and Dr. Blofeld's comments. There needs to be some control of AfadsBad's relentless harping and harassment--at a minimum a one-way interaction ban to prevent AfadsBad from her attacks on Cwmhiraeth, broadly construed to include both her wikihounding at the project, and the offsite harassment. Correcting an error or discussing an error is one thing...but AfadsBad's behavior, especially the counterproductive incessantly-repeated ranting and attempts to drive away editors (WP:CTDAPE), is downright bullying and abusive. I would propose some sanction also if AfadsBad keeps rehashing the same argument--it's old, it's tiresome-- she's said over five times and is older than two months (i.e. water under the bridge)--since most of her complaints have been repeated to anyone who would listen and happened last year (rehashing old shit is bad form to begin with...rehashing it as an attack is disruptive and a waste of anyone's time).--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, I would like an admin who is not involved (i.e. not one of the admins who are wikipediocracy participants, since a lot of them are lurking here...and I know who you are) to investigate my suspicions that AfadsBad has been previously blocked under other accounts where there was similar harassing and abusive behavior. Please contact me privately.--ColonelHenry (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Just popping by to concur with ColonelHenry and Blofeld in that just what I have read today in this thread alone and items linked herein is enough to blow my ears off. Cwmhiraeth is a solid editor and the commentary I saw at Cas Liber's page and User:AfadsBad as it appears today suggests a level of personal attacks that is over the top. This sort of thing is unacceptable; people can disagree over content without behaving like this. Cwmhiraeth is clearly being harassed. Unbelievable. Montanabw^(talk) 01:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

There is certainly no good reason nor intention from AfadsBad when User:AfadsBad directly names and shames User:Cwmhiraeth (see my talk page, she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct), making up information to be able to write Did You Know articles on topics that they don't know. Something must be done to stop AfadsBad from acting as so. starship.paint "YES!" 13:05, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I pointed out to Cwmhiraeth three days ago at the Editor Review that she added the following information to Desert in May 2013: "Cold deserts can be covered with snow or ice for part of the year; frozen water unavailable to plant life. They are found in Greenland, the nearctic ecozone of North America and Antarctica. The mean winter temperature is typically between 4 °C (39 °F) and −2 °C (28 °F) ..." and that this information was false. Her response to me did not acknowledge the problem, and she has not seen fit to correct the article. (If you don't understand why the information in the desert article is so wrong, look up Godthab#Climate, Qaanaaq#Climate, Cape_Dorset#Climate, or take a look at File:Antarctic_surface_temperature.png.)

So for most of the past year, the article desert has contained information about the average winter temperature in cold deserts that is completely false. Even when it has been pointed out directly to Cwmhiraeth, she has not corrected it. She also didn't correct a misleading citation I pointed out to her. I think it is fair to say that she is not very responsive to criticism, and in a collaborative project, that is a problem. Assuming AfadsBad's statement "she knows, can't be bothered to stop or correct" refers to Cwmhiraeth, it is an accurate description of what I see happening.

The desert article is rated as a Good Article, and attracts around 100,000 views a month. It is one of Wikipedia's 3,000 most viewed articles. Since the false information about the winter temperature in cold deserts was added, the article has seen around a million page views. If it hadn't been for AfadsBad's criticism, this would not have come to light. Now I would like to ask everyone who commented here to think seriously about who serves Wikipedia's reading and donating public, and indeed this project's fundamental goals, better – AfadsBad or the editor who added this and other false information to Wikipedia and shows little inclination to acknowledge that there is any problem? Andreas JN466 10:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, the statement you make above is very misleading. In my review, you made a number of comments on the Desert article and I responded to most of them, but not to the one you mention above. This was because the information was cited in the article. It was not until several hours after you wrote the post above that you looked at the article, saw the statement was sourced and added "unreliable source" tags and I have now dealt with the issue. On my editor review page you then apologized to me and hid the discussion under an "I misunderstood" heading. Why did you not also retract your accusation here? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:56, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, still, there will still be consequences for off wiki harassment and NPA violations, regardless of the quality of their edits. Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 13:19, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Says a user who has been here for just about two months and has had his user page revision-deleted by an arbitrator. Good show. Andreas JN466 15:05, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Andreas, This comment is confusing, what are you trying to get across? What should I do? Could you explain your advice? Thanks, Happy Attack Dog (you rang?) 16:02, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Andreas, was there any reason for you to attack Happy Attack Dog? It seems rather suspicious that you resorted to Ad hominem. HAD's rev-dels were apparently done to suppress revealing personally-identifiable information, by the way. starship.paint "YES!" 13:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Much like me, Andreas is unimpressed about a child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor. — Scott • talk 13:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, if a "child" can talk sense, why should I discount his opinion? You've made yourself look much worse with your comment and edit summary of Adults are talking. starship.paint "YES!" 14:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That was completely uncalled for, Scott. There's been enough mudslinging in this thread as it is. Let's keep it objective here and stick to what we know: Cwmhiraeth has charged AfadsBad with harassment, and there is evidence that while AfadsBad has some good points she could, to say the least, communicate them much more politely. Anger doesn't help a situation like this; let's refrain from slinging childish insults at each other and focus on the matter at hand - improving articles to reflect the truth. LazyBastardGuy 17:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

According to someone who calls himself "LazyBastardGuy", pointing out that someone is a child is a personal attack. I can't wait for the next Through the Looking-Glass style revelation that emerges from this discussion. — Scott • talk 17:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

More specifically, a "child offering their opinion on "consequences" for a knowledgeable science editor". Your use of "child" was inappropriate, and I do not care about the age of the editor in question (your use was more of a reference to immaturity than actual age). As for my username, it's a reference to me, not to you, not to anyone else. And trust me, the irony of it is not lost on me in this situation (I would have been a fool to expect no comment on it). Maybe if we could all step back from name calling and not care who is doing what, we could then look at the situation rationally and focus on the main ideas I've outlined above your post. I'm done here and if I were you I wouldn't respond to this so as to avoid the appearance of trying to WP:WIN. LazyBastardGuy 17:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

The only way I could "win" would be if I could magically remove all the crud Cwmhiraeth has added to Wikipedia, retroactively, so that thousands of children of "Happy Attack Dog"'s age group could have been spared from being exposed to it. — Scott • talk 18:14, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Per your points above, LBG, that I could have communicated my points more politely. When I did, Cwmhiraeth scolded me for messing up the format when I removed one piece of bad science (so, formatting is a much more important policy than verifiability?), reverted me on a second piece of bad science I had removed, restoring it to one of en.Wikipedia's mostly highly accessed articles, and ignored everything else I said. How polite am I expected to be in the face of clear evidence that Cwmhiraeth has ownership issues with articles she writes and does not take to editors making corrections on her articles? I have been pointing out her errors for months now. She is upset and considers this harrassmnt. But she doesn't see any need to correct her errors. Pointing out errors politely failed. Pointing out errors in a straight-forward manner failed.

Does verifiability and accuracy matter at all to the encyclopedia? Another editor, below, points out that Cwmhiraeth obviously and repeatedly and problematically makes exactly the types of errors I claim she makes. They are not discrete, occassional or difficult to catch. They are howlers. And she has over 1300 articles full of errors she will not correct. One GA requires a reassessment, a FA required extensive rewriting of its howlers while and after appearing on the main page, and yet another is being rewritten during her editor review. Is she making the corrections? A few, but mostly she is focused on writng more articles in the race to the WikiCup, and they all have the same sort of errors. I think en.Wikipedia culture and especially its WikiCup and DYK subcultures make it impossible to correct a "popular" editor, because the culture favors social relationships built by insiders over accuracy and encyclopedic content. :::::::::::En.Wikipedia has an essay about experts that diminishes and scolds experts to show the supposed superiority of Wikipedia's content delivery system over other encyclopedias, warning experts not to rely upon personal opinion, and that their information must not be OR and must be verifiable. It appears these rules apply to experts, but not Cwmhiraeth. There is no method that will get Cwmhiraeth to correct her howlers, politely pointing out errors was dismissed and scolded, while the errors were returned to en.Wikipedia or ignored. Are we writing an encyclopedia here? Not around those 1300 articles. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

I won’t comment on any of your interactions with other editors, but I will say this: Take a deep breath and relax; now an editor review is open and things are getting done. I hope it is to everyone’s mutual satisfaction; we’re moving forward, hopefully, to what the end result should be and should have been all along. LBG out. LazyBastardGuy 18:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see the end result being 1300 bad articles that fail verifiability and fly in the face of policies on OR and SYN remaining on Wikipedia, uncorrected, and the next editor who notes a problem wiith the science also being told, "Hold your breath little girl, you're too tense." As if this is the only problem. A GA was promoted full of nonsense, imaginary rocks and time travel. I was told the editor had followed rules in promoting it, so it could not be delisted even though it was far worse than a hoax. A Featured Pcture was promoted that contradicts the article, pic or article is either wrong or unsourced or pure OR. I noted this at the FP selection template, but the picture was promoted anyway, because consensus on en.Wikipedia is a majority vote, and, again I find that verifiability is the lowest policy on Wikipedia. There is no method for an editor to safely remove a scientifc mistake fom Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth is not correcting the mistakes she knows about, she is creating more. That is the end result, another thousand mistake-ridden articles gracing en.Wikipedia's main page to follow the last thousand she put there. --(AfadsBad (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Since I am indeed a biologist and an editor, I think I can give my 0.02 $ on this ugly mess. Yes, Afadsbad is right, Cwmhiraeth is sloppy. Sometimes she is very sloppy, sometimes she's just doing clumsy OR/SYN (e.g. by making descriptions up from pictures), sometimes she mixes things up. That is bad, and I'm glad there is an editor review on. And it is good that Afadsbad put attention on it -this kind of poor quality editing has to be noticed and fixed, that's the very point of the project. Cwmhiraeth should listen and take more care, perhaps asking for advice when she is not sure of what is writing about. It is also good that pitfalls in the GA process came to light.

Conversely, however, Afadsbad's attitude on the matter is appalling. Obsessive harassment of Cwmhiraeth both off and on wiki (calling her "the greatest vandal of them all" on WO), incessantly reminding of a couple bad edits/contents like they were the end of the world, conflating very minor inaccuracies with major errors to make them all seem a larger mess than it is etc., is not tolerable. Two wrongs don't make one right. Yes, Cwmhiraeth editing is questionable, but in good faith. Clumsy as she might have been, she does not deserve such a treatment -I hope Afadsbad has no students, because if I treated my students like she's treating Cwmhiraeth, I'd be fired on the spot (and trust me, I've had bad students). Therefore I'd like for Afadsbad to keep pointing to errors, whoever is the editor who does that, but to change attitude completely. --cyclopia^speak! 13:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's the most sensible post on this debacle so far. Andreas JN466 18:53, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet, as obvious and glaring as her errors are, they require that Wikipedia spend thousands of hours pointing out every one of them, instead of her stopping with their creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yes, but moaning won't help. As far as I can tell, you're right on the science; you just need to decide whether you care enough to do something about it here, on Wikipedia, or not. If you want her to stop creating these articles, draft an RfC/U with the appropriate evidence and make a case for a topic ban. Or simply walk away, leave Wikipedia to its devices, and contact editors of science journals. Andreas JN466 19:24, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You are right. It is especially obvious the editor review is a waste of time, although I will post a list there. Many other editors have seen and can see the glaring errors in her articles, but Cwmhiraeth is content to create more, and the community is content to let her. Verifable, accurate science articles, that are not OR and not odd syntheses of random facts and factoids are not wanted on en.Wikipedia, and my moaning and groaning about the crud will have no impact until en.Wikipedia demands competence. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Harassment ok now? Need sanctions on editor

Whatever the content problems, I can't help but wonder why this harassment hasn't been dealt with quickly per Wikipedia:Harassment#Wikihounding and Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment and anything else that might apply. Off wiki harassment wise, I see on her blog User:AfadsBad has a number of posts about user Cwmhiraeth. Why not just change the section title and content to: Feel free to trash editors/admins/arbitrators offline if the policy is not enforced? The editor needs some sanctions til she admits it's bad behavior and stops it permanently. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore WP:Verifiability should be added first, it's a higher pilar. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Criticising the quality of an editor's work, whether here or elsewhere, is not harassment. This is not a private project, but a public one, with a significant impact on public life. Any such public project should be prepared to be criticised. If someone writes nonsense in a science article read and relied on by a million people a year, that is a matter of public interest, just like stories like this, this, this, this or this. If you would like to curtail editors' freedom to speak out about Wikipedia's failings in public, this in itself will be a media story, and rightly so. Such ideas belong to places like Azerbaijan and North Korea. Andreas JN466 19:15, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not know that. (Will check the links.) Are you talking about Wikipedia:Linking_to_external_harassment which is linked from Wikipedia:Harassment#Off-wiki_harassment? So we can criticize away on our personal blogs as long as we don't link to it from wikipedia or "out" others ourselves? Even ones you are forbidden to interact with on wikipedia? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Diffs? --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Mostly conjectoral/rethorical question. Not something I would do myself, but it could get annoying and feel like harassment if others did it to me more frequently than they already done. I have seen two editors using their user names say nasty things about me on one of the Wikipedia-critical sites (one now site banned for other reasons, another who stopped editing a year or so ago). And an anonymous non-Wiki user with off wiki issues trashed me repeatedly about Wikipedia on his personal blog (someone was blocked recently for linking to one of his posts about me). So I have to have sympathy with Cwmhiraeth. Plus it's not the sort of thing we want to encourage Wikipedia wide and at the least should be considered a negative factor when looking at the whole picture, which I think the harassment policy makes pretty clear. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Too bad no one will ever be blocked for creating 1300 unverifiable articles. The criticism on my blog is largely content criticism, but, I do mention the editors who create the content. I have problems with the WikiCup which appears to create an atmosphere that encourages promotion and front page dispay of articles full of made up science. Did you create bad articles, filled with unverifiable nonsense, then revert and scold the editor who removed the nonsense? --(AfadsBad (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Actually we do want to encourage people to pay attention to bad science in articles, as well as editors who cause issues in multiple articles. It is not harrassment to look at, and point out an editors errors in detail when they show a pattern. The relevant quote from the harrassment policy (hounding subsection) would be Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles.. From the evidence at the review its becoming quite clear there are related problems on multiple articles. Well, a related problem. Perhaps next time pay attention to the whole of the policy rather than the specific bits you want to sanction someone for. The harrassment policy is designed to prevent people from being unduly harrassed. It is *not* a shield to hide behind when you come under the spotlight for your bad editing. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:28, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There's a difference between "fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles" and the incessant repeating of vitriolic harangues and browbeating to anyone anywhere who would listen with few genuine efforts to correct problems. If AfadsBad worked like a little gnome to correct errors and actually contributed to the greater pool of knowledge no one would be having this conversation. Instead, she has the kindness of a rabid hyena and can't stop sounding like a broken 45. If Cwmhiraeth made errors, fine, she's working in good faith and if approached in the ideal spirit of Good Will that Wikipedia prefers (as I've experienced working with her), she would work to correct the record. However, AfadsBad doesn't have an ounce of good will in her, and in eight months of constant harassment, hasn't done much to "fix unambiguous errors" or "correct related problems". Just ranting and obsessive attacks. Thus, sanctions are not just appropriate--they are sorely overdue.--ColonelHenry (talk) 21:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. Do you think Cwmhiraeth will correct all of the errors in her 1300 article contributions? When? She does not seem to be able to correct the errors in five articles in a week. Say 2 days/article, a couple of years from now, while those articles stay on Wikipedia? The Desert schtick is old? How come editors are still having to correct her errors in the article? What would really make the schtick old is if the errors had ben corrected. They haven't. It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. You should feel free to correct them yourself, if being here so I can talk about them bothers you. Better yet, she could correct them while stopping to add more. It is an encyclopedia, after all. And competence is required. --(AfadsBad (talk) 22:07, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Laugh all you want. Wikipedia is intended to be a collaborative project--one person adds, another adds more or subtracts a little, etc., until eventually it's polished. If you don't intend to contribute, then why are you here? If you only exist to sit on the sidelines and scream at the participants but never played the game yourself... well, I could find some colourful metaphors for "go home" that would not be in good faith.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not my job to correct her errors; pointing them out is what I choose to do. WP:SOFIXIT exists for a reason. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:41, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

When you discover an oil spill which is the better fix a) mop up the mess day after day, or b) shut off the faucet? John lilburne (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I tried. She reverted, scolded and told me that she owned the articles and would do as she pleased. And, Cwmhiraeth is well supported in this, in keeping her 1300 bad science articles on Wikipedia, on its main page, in its FA and GA queues. SOFIXIT doesn't really allow for battling a popular incompetent editor. She wins. Even you are supporting her, Bushranger, by saying the problem is not her writing 1300 bad articles, by saying that WP:Verifiability is trumped by WP:SOFIXIT, and the real problem is my not fixing them. Lol. You don't have to be competent to write Wikipedia articles, because fixing your incompetent edits is someone else's job? 8 months telling her, and she continues to add hundreds more bad articles, and it's now my job to fix all 1300 of them? It's taking her a week to partially fix five of her articles. Why don't you go fix 650, then, when you're done, I'll begin working on the other 700. Meanwhile, she'll create more. And, Wikipedia's reputation as a source will continue to plummet. Editors will question, rightly, whether they need to have verifiable articles, whether they can just fake or make up what the source says, whether they can just mix and match a bunch of different things picked randomly, carelessly, and inaccurately from sources and call it a DYK or GA or FA. Yes, look, Cwmhiraeth does that, and look at this ANI thread, and this editor review, all these people know she does it, and she wins awards and praise for it. Everyone should just do that. And, then, if anyone questions the incompetency, tell them to go fix it! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You keep bantering around that number 1,300 like it's a real statistic...so far you've complained about maybe a dozen articles, maybe 15 at most. So while you harp on about bad science, maybe you should consider bad statistics...in the vein of knowing 500% of statistics are exaggerated, put up the facts and stop the rhetoric. If you have a list of 1,300 articles with their errors, put it up. Instead of bitching and complaining and repeating yourself over and over and over again....PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Identify the specific errors succinctly (no rhetoric), fix them yourself, or go back to your day job pushing a mop at walmart and be a intolerable miserable curmudgeon on your own time. --ColonelHenry (talk) 00:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I thought you had me working as a night clerk at WalMart, now I mop floors days, too? In spite of all this work, I can still spot those science errors, like the imaginary rock formations.

Find one of hers without errors. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Can't shift the burden of proof. Put up or shut up.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Is that another one of your rules, like the Good Article review rule? Lol. Just one. She even offered a list. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

And in those 8 months have you actually done anything about the problems or just scream harrassment too? 8 months is a long time for an editor to have no improvement. It cuts both ways. Because if AfasBad has been doing this for 8 months and no one is listening, it doesnt really reflect badly on AfadsBad. It reflects badly on the people blaming the messenger. "Working in good faith" does not excuse poor writing. Well actually it probably would excuse poor writing if someone else did the clean up. But it does not excuse synthesis, bad sourcing and blatant factual errors. Nor does it excuse the people reviewing, promoting, then defending such as great work. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If AfadsBad rolled up her sleeves and got into the mix, or provided an actionable list of things to correct, they would have been corrected. Instead, aggressive rants was the only m.o. Unfortunately, trolls can only be tolerated for so long and best ignored. If AfadsBad was ignored, and she was often, it was because of method, not message. I have only so much time in this transitory life to be hunting for the chance that she's provided one gem of a worthwhile actionable correction in the massive pile of dung she spewed in her tediously repetitive rants. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:18, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to let this play out without commenting, but what the hell. The issue is systemic within the DYK, GA and FA crew. Hardly any of them have expertise in the subject matter. What the editors are doing is grabbing books from libraries, and pdfs from the web and mixing and matching the content. However, they don't have knowledge as to whether the works they are referencing are reliable, up to date, or aren't works of fiction. The mix and matching process that then takes place is an effort to avoid complaints plagiarism, by the the close paraphrasing nazis, so synonyms are used, sentences swapped about, and the science that may originally have been in the sources becomes mangled. The reviewers come along and, being just as clueless as the editor, looks for phrases in the source which are similar to those in the article. The result, to paraphrase Eric Morecambe: all the right words are there they just aren't in the right order. The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. John lilburne (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, and your opinion was heard on Wikipediocracy already. No one has ever accused me of plagiarism, paraphrasing, or being egregiously wrong in the articles I've written--so, apparently you're talking from your posterior, IMHO, in painting me with your broad brush. You find something to correct, I'll correct. But a critic who aggressively rants and raves and abuses in the petulant manner as we have seen directed at Cwmhiraeth and others, and someone like AfadsBad deserves to be banned--and I'm rather certain AfadsBad has been before (under other names) for the same crap.--ColonelHenry (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well now it is being heard here too. Now weren't you the one that promoted garbled Geology to GA status only to have it yanked 24 hours later? Despite evidence being presented you still seemed hell bent on dismissing the nonsense science in the article. I think it is plain that you are incapable of discerning rubbish science, and resort to bluster and moaning when called on it. Others might also be inclined to think that your comments here, in particular the mean minded speculations and aspersions about AfadsBad above, are little more than sour grapes on your part. John lilburne (talk) 23:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I said articles that I have written, and that you bring that up (one out of a ton of GA reviews) shows you're AfadsBad's talking parrot who flew here after being canvassed at Wikipediocracy.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You were mentioned in this paragraph The entire group of them, ColonelHenry Dr. Blofeld‎ et al with the exception of User:Casliber who can't be everywhere, are tone deaf to the science. The Geology GA review adequately illustrates the point that you are 'tone deaf to the science' in the articles you are supposed to be reviewing. I don't care about the articles you write but it wouldn't surprise me if you had Mermaids in the South China Seas based on some 16th map drawing, or talking horses because one of you had got hold of a copy of Gulliver's Travels. John lilburne (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, hic sunt dracones, and Wikipediocracy's talking horses have all shown up here--just like you and AfadsBad and Scott did before. Sounds like canvassing, or gangland bludgeoning.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yet a number of editors accused you of being egregiously wrong in the articles you promote to Good Article, with this sentence which was included in the Pedra da Galvea article when it was promoted by you, ColonelHenry, to Good Article, "The gneiss layer dates to around 600 million years ago; the granite layer is younger and dates to around 450 million years ago and is the result of lava flow.[2][6] The mountain, much like other stone outcroppings that surround the area, is the result of Meso-Neoproterozoic high grade metasedimentary rocks intruding into Neoproterozoice granitoid rocks and thin Cretaceous diabase dikes.[7]" Granite, by distinction is not a lava flow, middle age rocks that have never been liquid, by definition, cannot intrude (something that liquid rocks do) into younger rocks that don't yet exist, in particular, metamorphosed (never liquified) sediments, are very unlikely to melt, since by definition they've never been liquid, as they are metamorphic, into thin dikes that won't exist for at least another 800 million years. The amount of nonsense in these two sentences is stunning. The author, however, took blame and apologized. The promoter fought tooth and nail to keep this article, as is, a "Good Article." --(AfadsBad (talk) 23:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC))

Yawn...do you have anything else than continuing to banter around one bad GA review that I've done out of dozens from months ago that you've already repeated like 2000 times since then because you have nothing original or insightful to add except harping harping harping on tired bullshit? My dispute was that you liked to hijack reviews back then instead of collaborate. Imperious and aggressive at ranting and abuse, just like you are now.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

And yet you're still supporting her creating bad science on en.Wikipedia. Creating it, writing it, promoting it. It all leads to bad articles on en.Wikipedia. It's always about someone's behavior, but it's never about the lack of WP:Verifiability. Stop Cwmhiraeth from creating bad science articles, correct the 1300+ existing turds, and I'll stop harping on everything here. --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

WP:V isn't the crux of this issue--because if you had a list of 1,300 articles with errors, you would have put it up, if you so concerned about errors, you would have fixed them yourself. Instead you provided a wall of text with aggressive rhetoric with nothing constructive and would complain to high heaven. If you care about fixing errors, get your hands dirty. If you don't want to collaborate, go home. If you only want harass and assault others who in good faith are volunteering their time for the project, go home. Quite frankly, you're an anonymous bully hiding behind a computer screen, but unlike some of the less than palatable Wikipedians (myself included) who actually build content, you don't contribute anything but vile disruptiveness and vitriol. When you get blocked, I will raise a glass of Laphroaig to your departure.--ColonelHenry (talk) 00:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it is the crux of the issue. It's a Wikipedia policy. As for collaboration, aren't you the one that freaked out and thought that you owned a Good Article review? She keeps creating hundreds, and you and she keep getting upset that the errors are pointed out. Find one of her articles without these errors. If you don't want your errors pointed out on Wikipedia, don't edit. As for being blocked, I'm already essentially blocked from correcting errors, because correcting a single bad article takes eight months. So, you have my permission to toast now! --(AfadsBad (talk) 00:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

If this site had any kind of sane management, ColonelHenry's behavior in that disgrace of a GA review should have not only immediately disqualified him from doing it again, but also sparked an investigation into how he was able to do it in the first place. — Scott • talk 08:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm all for some kind of editing restriction on Cwimhraeth, and I'm all for some editing restriction on AfadsBad. As said above, they are both a mixture of good and bad: good faith but sloppy editing on one hand, useful criticism in a sea of harassment on the other. Both need to stop. What I would do, if I were running this place, is: 1)Restrict Cwimhraeth new article creation and article-space editing until a comprehensive review on her edits has finished 2)Put some accuracy warning tag on all articles Cwimhraeth has created, so that at least we can warn readers 3)Enforcing on-wiki harassment of Cwimhraeth by AfadsBad to stop: if AfadsBad wants to do useful criticism and/or fix stuff herself, all the best, but any more personal attacks will not be tolerated. Again, if I were running this place, but luckly I don't. --cyclopia^speak! 00:46, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sounds User:Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Even if I hadn't been constantly sidetracked by BLP nonsense in 7 years in wikipedia, I can't imagine writing 300 good articles in the relative less complex areas of politics I'm interested in. And looking into possible collusion or whatever the allegation is in the Good Article process would be helpful. (I've never paid much attention to all that ranking business myself.) If those charges are exaggerated and someone is mostly ticked articles aren't written to impossibly high standards and would rather just complain about it and harass a more productive editor, that's definitely even a bigger problem. We'll see if there's an admin willing to be proactive and creative on this. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Carolmooredc, please have a look at the editor review. We are not talking about failure to meet "impossibly high standards" here. What we are talking about is a million readers being told, for nearly a year, that the average winter temperature in cold deserts like Greenland and Antarctica is between –2 and +4 °C, for example. And that live penguins' feet are kept at deep-freezer temperatures to prevent them getting chilled. These were absurdities. Andreas JN466 03:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Endorse the opinion that Cyclopia is going in the right direction. Just throwing out an idea, perhaps Cwimhraeth editing should (for a while) be restricted to cleaning up all the previous articles that she has previously edited (if you trust her on that). But AfadsBad's attacks on Cwimhraeth simply have got to stop. starship.paint "YES!" 03:33, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I really think we need to close this and focus on the content at the editor review. Really. Bluster on both sides that engenders more antagonism is unhelpful. No comments on this thread are going to do anything but add more heat and less light. Anyone who wants to help out please go to the editor review page and please focus on (or fix) specific articles. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:41, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor review will probably help Cwimhraeth, but how will the editor review affect AfadsBad? Has AfadsBad at the very least agreed to be nice and guaranteed better future behaviour, if not expressed some form of remorse? I see User:AfadsBad still mentions Cwimhraeth. starship.paint "YES!" 03:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Fix the issues at GA/DYK WikiCup etc and the problems vanish. This could have all been sorted long ago with the animosity if people in those groups had taken notice of what they were being said. But they didn't. They circled the wagons, vomited out policy and process acronyms to avoid addressing the issues, and generally behaved as spoiled brats. All so that they could continue accumulating points for competitions, and add extra bragging tags on their user pages. The systemic problem is that those involved don't have a full understanding of the subject. That isn't a problem with writing an article on pop culture, you can rephrase stuff, use synonyms, mix and match bits from different sources, and it doesn't matter so much whether you are an expert or not. When the same techniques are used with the sciences the result is garbled nonsense. The process for GA/DYK in science articles needs to be overhauled, you need someone in there with a grasp of the subject, it is not enough to simply tick boxes: got a picture, passes spell check, passes grammar check, not obviously plagiarized - OK good to go. You need some one there capable of asking "does this make any sense at all, and is it accurate?" John lilburne (talk) 07:52, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Good idea, Casliber. But, try to emphasize that it is not just the articles at the editor review it is all of her science articles. I checked about 50 for my blog, looking at her early ones, later ones, insects, bats, plants. Every article contains the same sloppy editing, made up descriptions, imaginary colors, falsely weighted information, inaccurate information, made up information, synthesized taxonomies that are complete OR. There are only a few articles at the editor review, and it looks like it will take days for every article to be checked. There are 1300 articles that need rewritten. Time spent doing that would be time much better spent than this discussion. --(AfadsBad (talk) 04:02, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

I don't know whether all his articles contain serious errors, or whether even most do, but it seems clear that many of them do, and that this is based on a lack of understanding, not on typos or the like. The editor review lists some examples, I reviewed two other articles he proposed very recently for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Spicara maena, which contained rather blatant original research; the discussion at the DYK showed to me that this editor doesn't understand the science of the sources he is using, or doesn't care enough about getting it right. Such a thing happening in one or two articles isn't a real problem, people make mistakes and we are indeed a collaborative endeavour. But if the same problems continue to happen, then it is no longer logical or useful to wait for someone else to correct them, one has to try to prevent them as well, gently if possible, forcefully if necessary. I see no indication that this thread or the editor review will produce any change in his approach, but I may be proven wrong; if nothing changes though, a RfC/U is the next logical step. Fram (talk) 07:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Please come up with actual examples, if you can Fram. Not your vague innuendoes. If you really have anything of substance, the proper place to air it is at Wikipedia:Editor review/Cwmhiraeth. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I remember the same kind of discussion last time we met, Epipelagic, with you never being satisfied with any answer and constantly shifting the goalposts, and I have no intention of starting another round of this. If you can't see the actual example in my post and only see "vague innuendo", then so be it. Fram (talk) 11:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Things need to be put into perspective. We are talking about 1300 articles here. You have offered one specific example. Readers can judge for themselves whether this should properly be called original research, or whether it would be more accurately described as hair splitting in an over zealous attempt to make someone wrong. As for the last time we met, there was indeed "the same kind of discussion". As was said then, and seems to still apply, "Fram specialises in attacking minor issues concerning high flyers and worrying at them like a pitbull until he can turn them into gaping wounds." --Epipelagic (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is such an ugly thread. Several pitchfork admin are slavering and gesturing in hideous ways on the sidelines. AfadsBad doesn't seem to have contributed a single article of worth him or herself, so it is not clear if he/she is even capable of such a contribution. Cwmhiraeth has contributed 1300 articles according to AfadsBad. AfadsBad has been given his/her best shot at demolishing Cwmhiraeth here, and has come up with remarkably few issues with any real substance.

You ask, AfadsBad, whether correcting bad science is harassment? Yes it certainly is, if you do it the way you are doing it. It is not altogether your fault. If Wikipedia had any will to set up a functional admin system, issues like this one would be accommodated as they arose. There will always be editors who overreach themselves in certain areas. If we had an ideal system, such editors would be intercepted and guided so they are more aware of where their limitations are. All editors have limitations outside their particular areas of expertise, and often the best articles are written by editors who are writing outside their areas of expertise. That is because such writers can be more sensitive to confusions that confront people who not experts in that area. This issue has been allowed to develop in the ghastly manner we see here because Wikipedia lacks an admin structure worthy of its content builders. Having said that, I want to commend the admins BlackKite and Cas liber who have responded in honourable ways. --Epipelagic (talk) 09:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Where did I ask that? I have been talking about the bad science for eight months, on and on notes ColonelHenry. But no one is correcting it. Cwmhiraeth continues to create it, meanwhile. Other editors pointed out the same problems, two years ago on Tree, a couple of times through the years on her talk pages. Did anyone listen to them? Did Cwmhiraeth? If I had not been strident, blogged, joined Wikipediocracy, no one would have listened. Even now, I suspect she will continue adding bad science. She's working on another FA. --(AfadsBad (talk) 10:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

Another inaccurate statement from AfadsBad - "She's working on another FA." Oh, really? It's the first I knew of it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You asked the question, at least rhetorically, here. --Epipelagic (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol. I just reread your post that I haven't contributed a single article of worth. Then nominate them for deletion. My best contribution to Wikipedia came as the result of what I was doing here, adding citations, and it was an AFD, not an AFC. When you misspell the name of a plant family in the title of an article, leave it that way for seven years so the misspelling gets 50,000 g-hits, and see it translated to half a dozen other languages, AFDing the article here and elsewhere and correcting the links is worthwhile. But, as the articles I created aren't of worth, please delete them. But I think Fram covered you well enough. --(AfadsBad (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2014 (UTC))

You haven't taken your articles past the stub stage, often just one-line stubs. I shouldn't have said they have no worth. I should have said that that they are not substantial. If you risked yourself, by writing some substantial articles which could be examined as models for the impeccable standards you advocate, your attacks would carry more weight. --Epipelagic (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think John lilburne's vulgar advice at the Wikipediocracy forum, in the discussion that is has become the venue for both coordinating this assault on Cwmhiraeth and a general gloatfest by her assailants, that I should "lick his wounds or balls which ever gives him most comfort", or referring to another contributor by a sexual act is appropriate.[1]. Never understood why persons who indulge in venting their hate of Wikipedia at Wikipediocracy continue to hang around Wikipedia or continue to think their opinion matters to people who contribute to the project. You would think they would get another trollish hobby. Perhaps if Scott, lilburne, and AfadsBad were sanctioned with bans, they can spend more time griping at Wikipediocracy instead of disruptive behaviour and agitation here.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I'm coming to that conclusion myself. These people are trolls who, as far as I can tell, have no agenda to improve any of the articles they are complaining about, they only wish to attack a good-faith editor who has worked very, very hard here. My advice to these individuals is this: Before you criticize, how about getting off your high horse and try fixing the thing yourself? Put up or shut up. Montanabw^(talk) 18:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • The ways to address this have been adequately expressed above. Fixing individual issues is NOT the way to proceed. You examine the cause of the problem "the non-subject experts writing science articles by applying techniques appropriate to none science articles" and you find away of fixing that. The answer to the problem I can guarantee won't be "get some other ignoramus to check it over before promoting it to GA status, or shoving it on the main page as a DYK." Fer goodness sake last year a FA article boldly stated that Richard II was king of England in 1345, and it had been that way foir three years, the copy editor says that their role is NOT to fact check. Which is crazy because how can you effectively manipulate sentences if you don't know what the facts are? The system is broke, doesn't work, and those involved in the process are circling the wagons. Now I've shown you the way to the fix what are you going to do? BTW the sandpit with the ostriches is over that a way ----->. John lilburne (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
      • The way to address this was a reasonable discussion 8 months ago saying "this, this, this, and this need to be corrected"...instead, AfadsBad came in with the demanding ominous presence of a bat-wielding street gang. 8 months later, with her behavior of harassment, attacks, and aggression unchecked and unabating, she needs to be blocked. This is inimical to what the project is about. That you endorse this kind of aggressiveness toward a good-faith contributor is downright appalling, your attacks on anyone who disagrees with AfadsBads methods are despicable, and I hope you and your equally detestable buddy Scott can join AfadsBad's fate.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:26, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • I did say this, this and this need corrected. Cwmhiraeth scolded me for this1, reverted this2, and ignored this3. Tried and failed. Yet you keep saying that what I should have tried that failed is what I should have tried. --(AfadsBad (talk) 19:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC))
          • No you didn't, you ranted and raved, no one likes to read that shit. People are here to contribute, not to read angry vituperative and sanctimonious jeremiads that go on and on without getting to the f&*%%ng point. WP:WALLOFTEXT applies. Further, you get more flies with honey than with vinegar--I told you that--but you were downright hydrofluoric acid about it all. I told you to play nice, that you'd get what you wanted by more pleasant congenial means, you never stopped being nasty and dictatorial about it. People like you need to take your circus of nastiness to the next town, or be run out of town on a rail.--ColonelHenry (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Pointing to content problems is not "inimical to what the project is about". Turning a deaf ear to such pointers, on the other hand, is. Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch at the editor review, and acknowledges that there have been problems in her work. Perhaps it would be more conducive to a peaceful and constructive solution if bystanders here were to disengage from attempts to ratchet up tension? Andreas JN466 20:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
          • AfadsBad needs to go. Abusing another editor the way AfadsBad did is what I described as inimical. There is no doubt in my mind about that. Content disputes come and go and can be worked out, but aggression like AfadsBad needed to be nipped in the bud long ago. This would have all been worked out long ago if not for AfadsBad's relentlessly nasty behaviour. Seeing that Cwmhiraeth has never mistreated anyone, there is no doubt in my mind where the blame squarely belongs. Whether or not the message was correct, the method of bludgeoning another editor relentlessly is inimical to the project's state goals.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
            • Andreas - you say "Cwmhiraeth at least has offered AfadsBad an olive branch" - as a uninvolved editor I have to ask why isn't AfadsBad doing the same? I've already said this before above, is there any evidence that AfadsBad's future behaviour will change, or any sign of an apology for past behaviour? starship.paint "YES!" 02:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE issues of User:Cwmhiraeth

See the discussion in the section on Boring clam (should be the last). Her answers to the points I raised on a review of a random article of hers -mind you, one that she edited after the editor review and the start of this thread- make me worry that some of the unpleasant frustration of AfadsBad could be justified. --cyclopia^speak! 20:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think this is point AfadsBad was a while ago before being dismissed repeatedly. After all this time, s/he has been hardened to the point where they are now. I have some scientific knowledge especially in geology and climate and some of the things pointed out by AfadsBad and Andreas, albeit not so tactfully in AfadsBads current mindset, are serious enough to warrant closer look at all 1300 articles touched by the editor. I state this because that is the standard policy when a copyvio editor is found as if there are enough serious examples of issues, all edits come into question (I am not stating she is a copyvio editor!). She clearly wants to edit in good faith but I think she may fail short of the needed skill to incorporate science texts into the articles. Mentoring should help in that. 129.9.72.12 (talk) 11:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• The ends don't justify the means. You cannot in good conscience justify the pummelling a man close to death and say "I did it for his own good, he needed to learn". AfadsBad needs to be sanctioned and harshly for the means she employed. Just saying "but there are inaccuracies that need to be fixed" offers no excuse for her savagely wielding a bloodied cudgel.--ColonelHenry (talk) 13:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • Indeed. And where there are actual inaccuracies (as opposed to stylistic decisions to make an article readable for the masses, which inevitably implies a certain degree of simplification), the solution is to get off your own duff, go find appropriate reliable sources, and FIX THEM, not to whine and complain and then viciously attack a fellow human being who is acting in good faith. What a nasty pile-on this has become. Montanabw^(talk) 19:35, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Two issues: One is a normal part of Wikipedia; anyone can edit and some are more expert than others, and some think they are more expert than others. Incompetence is a given for every editor at some point in their WP career This is not a reference to anyone's work on Wikipedia. Second, and the sanctionable issue, is that disagreement on content is not a reason for abusive and vicious behavior, or harassment. This is both an encyclopedia and a collaborative project . Destroy the collaborative environment and the encyclopedia as it has been structured will disappear. And I 'd agree with Montana. If things don't seem accurate, help fix it.(Littleolive oil (talk) 20:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC))
  • The collaborative environment argument swings both ways. If an editor points out errors (and a good number of such errors have been pointed out now by a number of editors in the editor review, and in part acknowledged by Cwmhiraeth) and the other editor says "Go away", that too is a failure in collaboration. And it is a failure that hampers improvement of content quality, which is the core mission of this project. Andreas JN466 21:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• • The reference to a "bloodied cudgel" is completely unwarranted hyperbole. Andreas JN466 21:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• If it's unwarranted, then it ranks right up there with AfadsBad's yet unsupported "1,300 articles full of errors". I stand by my comment.--ColonelHenry (talk) 05:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• By "yet unsupported" you mean "hypothesis with 100% experimental confirmation to date". So entirely unlike your hyperbolic comment, then. — Scott • talk 12:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• "Cherry picking" works for AfadsBad as a tactic, like any one-trick pony, but it is a logical fallacy, Scott. Even you're smart enough to not to insist that cherry picking as some irrefutable "experimental confirmation."--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:28, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• • • It's the sort of turn of phrase your people like, as I'm sure you remember. Anyway, who said "Go away" (the quote marks are yours) when given concrete examples of things that needed fixing? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bashing the messenger because of his/her manner is all very well, but should not distract us from considering the message. If it is correct that Cwmhiraeth has been creating large numbers of inaccurate articles, and is continuing to create them, that is not a problem that should be obscured by personal attacks, or dismissed by saying SOFIXIT. All credit to Cwmhiraeth for requesting an editor review, but Cyclopia's work seems to be confirming that there is a problem. I think we should be looking for some more scientifically qualified editors to join the editor review. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
  • That sounds like a good idea, JohnCD. I don't know my way around the relevant WikiProjects very well, and would appreciate it if you could leave some neutrally worded messages at the relevant talk pages. Andreas JN466 21:57, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jayen. I don't disagree that collaboration has multiple layers of meaning. I do disagree that the core of this project is to build an encyclopedia or to improve content. If that were the case this encyclopedia would be edited and written by experts in their field, and subject to peer review . The medical articles and all that entails come to mind. This project is at its core two-fold and collaboration is one of those aspects. I personally, and this is my position, am fed up with viciousness. There is no excuse for it, or for off-WP attacks. There are two issue here and they have to be delineated. If there are concerns about an editor's work we do have to deal with it. Behaviour and harassment is something else. Our DR processes might be more effective if we did delineate issues. I always respect your views but I assume we disagree on this.(Littleolive oil (talk) 22:10, 12 April 2014 (UTC))

I wrote a FA with Cwmhiraeth, and found her to be a careful and considerate co-editor. We all make errors, but it seems to me that this discussion is driven by someone who is NOTHERE and is more concerned with character assassination than facts. I've not noticed any major problems with edits to pages on my watchlist by this user. It would be odd if none of the 1300 (made-up data from the "expert") bad edits were on my science-orientated list. This is a witch-hunt Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:17, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you think that being so dedicated to the cause of accurately representing scientific fact that spending months sounding alarm bells, under continuous anti-expert pressure from entitled amateurs, about an editor continuously inserting misreadings of sources, synthesis, and plain old made-up stuff into our articles - and not throwing up one's hands and walking away in disgust - is "not being here to build an encyclopedia", your understanding of what this project is has gone haywire. — Scott • talk 12:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You will notice in this discussion that there are two groups of editors, one group that is happy with my work and another that is not. I think that is because they are judging it by different criteria. The main faults found by editors led by Cyclopia involve original research. They accuse me of including information in articles that is not in the source. I think these editors are not normally "content creators" and do not understand this page where it states : "Despite the need to attribute content to reliable sources, you must not plagiarize them or violate their copyrights. Articles should be written in your own words while substantially retaining the meaning of the source material". For example, in the article Boring clam the source stated "The shell is also typically grayish-white, but is sometimes tinted with yellow, orange or pinkish-orange, too. These colors may also form an obvious band at the shell’s upper margin, particularly on its inner surface." When expanding the article I wrote "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white and there may be a band of pinkish, yellow or orange colour near the margin, especially visible on the interior surface". This was condemned as being original research and the new version in the article, provided by Cyclopia was "The colour of the valves is generally greyish-white, sometimes with a hint of pink-orange, yellow or orange colour -this colouration can form a band near the top margin, especially on the interior surface." In another criticised article Millepora alcicornis, my description of the organism was "cream-coloured, yellowish or light brown with paler tips", while the source stated "Brown to light creamy yellow, with white branch tips". My version was adjudged once more to be original research. I repeatedly argued that such close adherence to the source as Cyclopia advocated was close paraphrasing but to no avail. That this editor is unfamiliar with MoS guidelines is also shown by a comment about my referencing. I put a single reference at the end of a paragraph if all the text comes from the same source. Cyclopia wrote "I also find it quite annoying that the leads of articles you write never have inline sources, this makes it very hard to understand what comes from what. Also entire paragraphs are sourced only at the end. At least every sentence or two should be supported by a source ... perhaps there's some MOS contradicting this, but if so, it is a problem."

To return to the boring clam, I started expanding the article on 9th April 2014 and was working on the description at 10:06, 10 April 2014‎. Less than five hours later, at 14:50, 10 April 2014, Cyclopia was criticising the article as if it were a finished product and not a work in progress. If you are expanding an article in mainspace, there are bound to be periods when it is unbalanced and less than perfect. I also protested about this, but in vain. I have not continued to expand the article because I was warned off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth:, MOS does not trump accuracy. You can't just put in false information because you want to paraphrase. Your "paraphrases", simply, do not have the same meaning of the source. They mean different things. A paraphrase is supposed to convey the same meaning with different words. You convey a different meaning. And that is not all. What about the "unattached" sessile organism, for example? What about switching sexes and sizes of a species, and, in the same article, making up completely a date? --cyclopia^speak! 12:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Above is WP:TLDR but if User:Cwmhiraeth has WP:Competence issues we might as well let the last person to leave Wikipedia just turn out the light. Tigerboy1966  15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This has been a concerted and horrifying attack conducted in a manner that is offensive to any standards of decency. No less than five Wikipediocracy participants, including a shameful pitchfork admin, lay siege to a single highly committed and hard working editor. Admins responded in typical fashion as loose cannons. There was no coordinated response. Wikipedia lacks centralised control and has no guiding principles such as a mission statement or constitution. So it just comes down to individual whim. Two admins, Black Kite and Casliber, responded well, put themselves on the line and made genuine efforts to investigate what was going on. A third admin indulged a rambling all things to all people and nothing in particular to anyone line that is his trademark. At the ungodly end of the spectrum, two pitchfork admins started gibbering at the prospect of destroying another content builder. The Wikipedia community of content builders must share in the shame. Most seemed to run for the hills during the onslaught. Cwmhiraeth was largely abandoned and hung out to dry.

I commend you Cwmhiraeth, for the courageous way you held your ground. It must have been a nightmare. I apologise and feel ashamed to have been here. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that Cwmhiraeth hasn't walked away from Wikipedia given the sustained onslaught form this nasty little gang. They can't find any other Wikipedia editor who (allegedly) makes bad edits, which seems astonishing. They also come from a position of ignorance. Not having references in the lead is an FAC guideline, but of course they wouldn't know that, no interest in high quality content. Building good content takes more than five hours, but of course they wouldn't know that, no interest in high quality content (I've spent longer than that on Yellowhammer and it's still rubbish, so you might as well sanction me too. Close paraphrasing is a copyright infringement, but better to get it almost exactly as the source says and sod the Wikipedia rules and the copyright laws. This harassment disgusts me Jimfbleak - talk to me? 08:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am no part of any "nasty little gang". If anything, I am usually extremly skeptical of Wikipediocracy and the associated editors -I and them know them well. Turns out this time they are right. FAC or MOS guidelines cannot trump accuracy. Cwmhiraeth does not "paraphrase", she changes the meaning of what she writes. She makes stuff up out of nowhere. She invents "ovals" where there is none. She figured out a sessile organism was forming "unattached" colonies -why? Because it looked more plausible this way, to her. She made up a native species where there was none. Nobody says she shouldn't paraphrase and use her own words -she absolutely has to do that. But she fails to do that. She's terrible in paraphrasing, because what she writes often does not have the same meaning of the source. All of this happens in more than 50% of the articles I managed to check. --cyclopia^speak! 12:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggest an uninvolved admin close this

Discussion should revolve around reviewing article edits - all this commentary serves to do is polarise camps. Hence would be best closed and discussion diverted to the editor review page. Please. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

May I support Cas Liber in this. Cwmhiraeth is an exceptionally careful, sensible, patient and thorough editor, and extremely hardworking. This discussion is doing damage but achieving nothing, and should be closed at once. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. This discussion should inform administrators that there is a systemic issue with a prolific, good-faith editor. She is extremly hardworking, patient etc. but the fact she is constantly peppering articles with mistaken paraphrases, original research and other factual errors is extremly worrying, especially because she is completely blind to the errors she is making. This is a delicate issue, and I'd like to see experienced admins deal with that. I understand Cwmhiraeth is a nice person and a good faith, enthusiastic editor. I appreciate these qualities. I am sorry this is overwhelming her. But something has to be done -some cleanup effort needs to be put in place. There is simply too much evidence to just let this go under the carpet.--cyclopia^speak! 13:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. The editor review has revealed an ongoing pattern of poor competence in assembling and relating scientific sources, which has been reflected in our output of content at what's supposed to be the highest level of quality. It can't be allowed to continue. — Scott • talk 15:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree. There has to be sanctions against the abuses of the "nasty little gang". Criticism I will never fault, but this kind of aggressive wikihounding is unacceptable and needs to be dealt with by a swift punitive blow against those who think vitriol and harassment is acceptable as long as it corrects minor errors. Letting this go by without a sanction sets a bad precedent.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been reading this now and I agree with Casliber that this has to be closed. I'd take the following actions: Indef AfadsBad for harassmet of Cwmhiraeth, strongly recommend Cwmhiraeth to scan all of her articles to solve the paraphrasing issue (which, in my eyes, is not that critical as some users here want to note, otherwise she wouldn't have taken a couple of articles to FA. Some of the admins here should do that). I'd recommend Cyclopia to be less aggressive and try to work with Cwmhiraeth to solve the issue. I am willing to, per his comment above, to join the team and tackle this matter. I think that having a pitchfork against Cwmhiraeth is extremely counterproductive and will achieve nothing. I'd also like to say to Scott that if you criticize somebody, without providing solutions, you are being disruptive. And that's my impression of your participation here. → Call me Hahc21 16:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hahc21 ... you need to read the issue (especially the editor review) a bit more closely before coming out with something like that; the problem is not close paraphrasing, it is misunderstanding of sources leading to articles being factually inaccurate. If someone has written a number of articles with such issues because they don't understand the science involved, what good is asking the same person to check them? And the rest of your suggestions aren't exactly helping, either. Black Kite (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The priority here is clearly to continue to evaluate whether Cwmhiraeth's articles contain errors—or perhaps I should say to identify what additional errors exist and how serious they are—and to fix the errors that are found. It important that this process continue and not get diverted off course for any reason. I've seen more than one of these "review and clean-up" projects start with a burst of energy and then peter out, leaving problematic and unevaluated content strewn through the encyclopedia. I'd very much like for this not to happen here.

Several years ago, Jimbo pointed out the need for quality as well as quantity in our contributions. I enjoy the spirit of the "Wikicup" and the little motivations (GAs, DYKs, etc.) that provide psychic rewards for editors who devote their free time to creating and expanding Wikipedia. But I hope everyone keeps in mind at all times that as fun as Wikicup points and the like may be, what ultimately matters is the quality of the contributions themselves. Mistakes on Wikipedia propagate all over the Internet and can pop up in dozens of unexpected ways, as I've discovered to my dismay several times. We must do everything we can not to make them, and to correct them when they are inadvertently made.

While Afadsbad's approach to this situation was obviously not optimal, I can imagine that she was at her wit's end in terms of how to address what she sincerely perceived, apparently with some justification, as a threat to the integrity of Wikipedia's science articles. While the morale of our contributors is critically important, that cannot come at the expense of leaving misinformation in the encyclopedia we are working so hard to create. See generally Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance#Principles. There are frankly too few people who review articles, especially technical articles, for factual accuracy. Pursuing a sanctions discussion involving Afadsbad would be both divisive and distracting and we should not do so. Having said that, I'd urge that Afadsbad accept that she has prevailed in drawing attention to the problem and continue her efforts to assist (e.g. on the editor review page) to help solve it, rather than publicize it. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Newyorkbrad, it wasn't that AfadsBad is "at her wit's end"...she started months ago that intensively aggressive and nasty. The severity of the abuse has never let up. If there are no sanctions against AfadsBad for this, I will be severely disappointed--because it opens the door for other editors to say "but they are wrong, so I get to bludgeon them, hound them, relentlessly". How long until it drives an editor to suicide? Will that be "obviously not optimal"? --ColonelHenry (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hyperbole much? I endorse other comments to close this. I'm starting to feel suicidal reading ColonelHenry's comments....Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• So quick to dismiss bullying, yet the drastic step like suicide to end being bullied happens more often than you'd like to know. If there's one thing that WMF sweeps under the carpet, it is stats on Wikipedians who off themselves from on-wiki stress...but there are several examples.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is an error in the article Spicara maena that Cyclopia mentions above and I would be interested to see what others think about the matter. This diff shows the change in the article I was forced to make. That I fail to see that the change was necessary worries Cyclopia extremely. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I never mentioned that article as far as I can see -Fram did. It worries me in general that you fail to see that many changes are necessary, yes (I do not know about that one).--cyclopia^speak! 18:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(For what I can see yes, the change is necessary)--cyclopia^speak! 18:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed I thought you would, but I would be interested to know what others think. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

(Uninvolved, saw one of JohnCD's notes) I'm sorry Cwmhiraeth, but yes, that change was absolutely necessary. The referenced source says that males females change into females males, and that the largest females males are larger than the largest males females. It does not say that the sex change is triggered by the males females reaching a certain size. It could be triggered by age, environment, or a bunch of other factors. I'm truly sorry for the way you've been treated, but if you can't that what Spicara maena said was not supported by the cited source, then I'm afraid we have a tremendous amount of fact-checking to do. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 03:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@Adrian J. Hunter: Thank you Adrian. Your statement "The referenced source says that males change into females, and that the largest females are larger than the largest males" is incorrect in both particulars and is the exact opposite of what is stated in both article and source. Why criticise my wording when you are even more inaccurate yourself? Your conclusion on the need to fact check all my articles is equally flawed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

On this particular fact, Cwmhiraeth is correct. The source states that the Spicara maena fish is a protogynous hermaphrodite, meaning that it is born female and later changes into a male. I haven't followed the rest of this debate, but if this is supposed to be a typical example of Cwmhiraeth getting her "facts wrong", then she has indeed been very poorly treated. Reyk _YO! 05:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I transposed the sexes in my explanation, which was a sloppy error and particularly unfortunate in this circumstance. But my central point stands: the article said the sex change occurs when the fish reaches a certain size, but this is not supported by the source. I presume this is the reason Cyclopia found the edit necessary. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a fair point. I can't find anything in the sources listed for this article that supports this particular claim. Reyk _YO! 05:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that Afadsbad`s behavior is instead of trying to help the user he was harassing, he instead went and slang mud on the internet and started Wikihounding and harassing this poor user. Even though the user had problems with editing, couldn't Afadsbad just try and let the user know of their mistake? Or could the user just direct the user to the appropriate page. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 19:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thus I will say it slowly. Can. we. please. close. this. thread. and focus. on. the. articles. I'd close it myself but could be construed as lying more on one side of the fence. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:22, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As NewYorkBrad says, the priority is to review more of the articles. Following a suggestion made further up, I am about to post a neutrally-worded message on the talk pages of some relevant WikiProjects asking for uninvolved people to join in the editor review. I will add links here as soon as I have done that. JohnCD (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Links to requests on the talk pages of WikiProjects Algae, Amphibians and Reptiles, Arthropods, Fungi, Insects, Marine life, Microbiology. Any suggestions for other WikiProjects to ask? JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You might want to try Wikiproject Wales as well. Cwm's problems were not only on science articles. Although those obviously are the most damaging. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And WP:Birds, would have done it myself, but looks like canvassing Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I expect the editor review to produce some sort of a consequence or future guideline on Cwmhiraeth. Discussion on Cwmhiraeth should go there. But the point of Cwmhiraeth's editor review is not to result in some sort of a decision on AfadsBad. I hope that decision on AfadsBad will be made somewhere, and it seems here is an appropriate venue. In my opinion AfadsBad at the very least should issue an apology and guarantee better future behaviour towards other editors, and future forfeiture of that guarantee will incur serious punishment. Are we to do nothing about AfadsBad? If so, we seem to be condoning AfadsBad's methods. starship.paint "YES!" 01:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagree with closure if no sanctions are to be imposed on AfadsBad Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Disruption and malicious editing

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

---

Requesting assistance with the current state of affairs at Jews and Communism. The article is, in my view, being deliberately sabotaged by vocal advocates of its deletion, in order to facilitate future nominations. Particularly the users USchick (talk · contribs) and IZAK (talk · contribs), with the assistance of Galassi (talk · contribs) as an edit-warring proxy. A good example of the "sabotage" is the current campaign to deliberately prevent the article from sporting any lead image.

First, a poster depicting Leon Trotsky (in a positive light as the guardian of Russia), has been removed for being "anti-Jewish propaganda", even though it was in fact - issued by Trotsky himself (i.e. the Soviet Union under Lenin and Trotsky). Now, a photograph of Karl Marx is being removed from the lede on such grounds as "Marxism is not Communism" and "Marx was not a Jew, because he was baptized" (even though there are a half-dozen refs in the article stating the renowned philosopher was, in fact, "a Jew", and none stating otherwise). It used to be "Marx is not mentioned in the article, hence we can't have him in there", until he was actually mentioned in the article. Now of course the objection shifts.

In short, one argument more absurd than the other, essentially pro forma to allow for the clique to edit-war anything they oppose out of the article, and essentially keep it without a proper lede and lede image. See this thread, and this one in support of my above outline. Here's a quote of the latest post, to illustrate my point:

“ If this article were about Marxism or the theory of Marxism, then Marx's photo would be appropriate. This article being about Jews and Communism, Marx being a Christian is not a very good representative of Jews. Marxism is not all encompassing of Communism, so his ideas about Communism are not the best representation of all of Communism. On both counts, his photo does not qualify as the lede photo. ”

This article was the subject of an unsuccessful AfD nomination, and, very quickly afterwards, a DELREV review. Participants in support of its deletion are now very active at the article, and are stonewalling proposals to improve its quality. I hope to find out whether our illustrious ANI corps regards their arguments as honest and justified, or whether they are, in fact, malicious disruption with a mind to future deletion attempts. -- Director (talk) 20:10, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

As regards USchick, I would like to suggest for consideration the possibility of a topic ban on communism, independent of this issue. Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one, or, just now, posts like this. -- Director (talk) 20:23, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think that "disagreeing with Director" is evidence of deliberate sabotage. By the way, wondrous text like "The philosopher Karl Marx was a descendant of two rabbinic families." in the Karl Marx caption should be on some racist blog, not an encyclopedic article based on secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 21:49, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? How is it racist to say someone is a descendant of rabbinic families? Also, the term "Jew" is not purely religious. There are Jews who self-identify as atheist, so it's not necessarily contradictory to describe a Christian as a Jew. Howunusual (talk) 19:52, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I propose the communism/jews topic ban for DIREKTOR himself, on the basis of habitual pushing of antisemitic POV.--Galassi (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the best way to solve the problems of this article is an AfD as it is a first class battleground. And secondly, I am not entirely convinced that the information is true and properly balanced. The Banner talk 23:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq. As a matter of fact, I revised the caption, which was introduced in the first place as a response to talkpage claims that Karl Marx wasn't Jewish (which are, btw, actually offensive to Jewish people as well as untrue: Karl Marx was a great philosopher). Then Galassi restored the caption you're reading [2].

Further, if you believe being descendant from historic rabbinical families is insulting, then I would suggest its your own views that belong in said racist blogs. Perhaps even more so through your implication that Jews are a "race".

As for "disagreeing" with me, I invite you to actually read the exchange.

@Banner. One dispute over an image? The article is actually pretty quiet compared to many that I've seen. If we deleted all articles that are "battlegrounds" by such standards, I dare say we'd halve the project. As far as I'm aware, Wiki is here to cover controversial and difficult topics as well as the rest: whether an article is warranted or not is hardly determined by the level of controversy its topic engenders. -- Director (talk) 23:24, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

No, the entire article seems shaky to me. The Banner talk 23:32, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the text is disputed.. it really isn't. But this isn't the place for such discussion? -- Director (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure about how biased the other editors involved are, but by what I have read, I can't avoid noticing that Director is not very used to addressing actual arguments and frequently makes personal remarks, threats and fallacious arguments instead of presenting valid reasons to support his position. That can be easily noticed here: [3]. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 00:11, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'm to blame..

That's only one of several discussions with USchick, I make no secret of the fact that I am very annoyed with the user's conduct - hence this thread. But I believe I have good reason: the user is extremely unfamiliar with the topic she's trying to discuss, but insists on her positions regardless (that's the mild formulation). Please read on past the first couple of posts (which basically amount to a groan of annoyance on my part at the prospect of another "discussion" with the user).

As Altenmann points out, talking to her is WP:CHEESE, its infuriating. In that exchange she basically demands that the poster be "Jewish", which baffles me since the person in it is a famous Communist of Jewish ancestry (Leon Trotsky). It quickly becomes apparent she never heard of Leon Trotsky, and upon my explaining who the person in the poster is, she continues to demand more "Jewishness", until Altenmann realized she was talking about the religion. Yes: she wanted a communist poster with the symbols of Judaism. Her reply was "Imagine that! Is that too much to ask?". I won't relay the whole discussion, but there's the gist of its first part. She moves on to how the person in the poster isn't really Trotsky, etc.

In my view, the user is simply opposed to the article, but nevertheless hangs around the talkpage - to block any attempts at expanding it or improving its quality. When the article was posted, she attempted to blank it almost entirely on grounds that "Marxism isn't Communism"; I'm not kidding: its a "theory" she still pushes on the talkpage right now! -- Director (talk) 01:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

You claim the person in the uniform is Trotsky, and the only actual reason you or someone else gave for that is his uniform. That's not necessarily a good reason to believe it's him since other people probably wore it too. Regarding the diff concerned, all I have seen is USchick ask for a good reason to identify the person in the picture as Trotsky, which is the only reason you gave to consider the poster jewish, and I think you failed to present any proof of your point. That doesn't mean I agree with any particular political view of USchick by the way. But since you presented that diff as an example of misbehavior by USchick, I think it speaks more against yourself than her. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 02:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate, please look closer: #1 the poster was obtained from image hosting websites listing it as a poster of Leon Trotsky, and links were provided. #2 The photograph of Trotsky apparently used as an inspiration for the depiction in the poster, has also been produced (he looks practically identical in the two). -- Director (talk) 11:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It is unfortunate that Director, who otherwise is quite capable, loses objectivity when discussing Jews. He thinks the connection between Jews and Communism is self-evident and ignores that even if it is, we need sources to say that. I would suggest he avoid articles about Jews. I disagree with any action against USchick, IZAK or Galassi resulting from Director's complaint. TFD (talk) 06:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, TFD has never missed an opportunity to imply antisemitism on the part of those who oppose his various agendas. For him "its all about the Jews". To me, its about adding a damn lede image to one of our articles. He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it. -- Director (talk) 11:19, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not necessarily wrong to oppose to an article. I myself, at reading the article, wonder why is it any more relevant than if someone created an article called Blondes and Communism. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 13:43, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Well of course. But if I don't think we need an article, I don't try to torpedo it if I don't have my way in the AfD.

As for "Blondes and Communism", the difference is - sources. There are numerous sources covering the topic of the article. There are none for "Blondes and communism", or "Brunettes and Communism", or "Hot-dog vendors and Communism", etc. :) I myself don't presume to decide which topic is relevant and which isn't: I see if scholarly sources think so or not. If you think its "racist" to draw such parallels, then I can only suggest you take it up with the sources (which, by the way, appear to be mostly Jewish scholars researching the phenomenon). Its also implied in these sort of comments that Communism is something "bad" (as opposed to "very, very good"), which is a view that millions and millions of people might disagree with. -- Director (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Like this source used to justify the poster. [4] A personal blog that describes a military uniform (Шинель) as a "red dress" hardly qualifies as a reliable source. USchick (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

*groooaan* They don't mean a female dress! Uggh.. Dress (noun): 1. a piece of clothing for a woman or a girl that has a top part that covers the upper body and a skirt that hangs down to cover the legs. 2. a particular type of clothing. As in "dress uniform".. for goodness sake. -- Director (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

A SHINEL is a MILITARY overcoat.--Lute88 (talk) 23:37, 8 April 2014 (UTC)23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

She thought they mean a female dress, as in a gown. I've come to expect things like that from USchick. -- Director (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Response by User:IZAK

1. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a highly skilled, obviously extremely professional and highly knowledgeable editor who writes on a very high academic level and therefore I have enjoyed co-editing the Jews and Communism article with him. Prior to this I do not recall having any interactions with him. DIREKTOR has rightly been complimented for his extraordinary abilities many times. But when he enters controversial zones, he seems to be blind to the raging fires that are already built into such topics as "Jews and Communism" or "Communism and Jews" where it is vital to keep calm and avoid WP:BATTLEGROUND and WP:LIBEL at all costs so that, as I have warned a number of times, WP not become like a shadow of the antisemitic and racist anti-Jews and anti-Judaism Jew Watch hate site God forbid! That much should be obvious. It is truly amazing how DIREKTOR manages to come up with mountains and myriads of sources on short notice as if he had a staff of people, or very good data bases backing him up. Well done, we don't know how you do it! Not everyone can be as efficient as DIREKTOR is and he often uses his skills and resources to swing articles his way and resulting in a WP:OWN syndrome, so that whenever he is challenged he complains bitterly and simply cannot fathom that other users may feel just as deeply and passionately as he does about a topic and also have the ability to go toe to toe with him, and while they may lack his resources and his ability to dredge up sources on short notice, they are not afraid to stand up to him if they can survive the frustration of his tactics, such as running to ANI when nothing is wrong about just some ongoing CONTENT disputes over a contentious topic with everyone behaving in line, albeit in a feisty spirit.
2. The recent article Jews and Communism was created on 27 February 2014, by two determined users User PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) who clearly and consistently violate WP:OWN in all their interactions with other users. For some or other odd reason they fail to see and blithely ignore the fact that this is a highly volatile and inflammatory topic that needs to be handled with utmost care and a high degree of WP:NPOV and skilled editing so that it not come across as a violation of WP:LIBEL in and of itself and that it not read like a mere accusatory "list" against Jews or anyone, as is self-understood by any truly neutral observer.
3. To add insult to injury one can fairly say that this article was born in sin/controversy. See the AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jews and Communism (1 March 2104) with a huge majority of 22 users in favor of deletion, 3 to merge, and 14 to keep. That was then taken to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 March 14 with 17 users endorsing the closure and 14 voting to overturn it in favor of deletion. With the over-all topsy-turvy results, that in the AFD the minority won while in the DRV the minority lost.
4. But be that as it may we all go on, and in my case in the AFD I had not voted to delete, rather, if possible, to save all content and redirect to History of Communism [5] [6] for the sake of better context and NPOV.
5. There have also been several good faith suggestions by a variety of users on the talk page to rename the article into a more suitable NPOV name, see Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move; Talk:Jews and Communism#Alternative proposed move: Communism in Jewish history; Talk:Jews and Communism#Proposed move: Jews in the history of Communism, some resolved, some still wide open.
6. I have been contributing to the article constructively since 13 March 2014 always striving for NPOV and to keep up with WP:RS and WP:V: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13].
7. I have added a number of sections to the article, some about other Jews who were communists and those who opposed them [14]; and about Jews as victims of Communism [15] [16] always using WP:RS and WP:V citations often found in other related articles as well.
8. I tried to move the page to a more NPOV balanced title of Role of Jews in the rise and fall of Communism since many other articles deal with the topic this way [17] backing it up in a "See also" section with [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] but I was reverted. I did not agree but I accepted that even though the current title is very unclear and will always be a problem.
9. I have always tried to engage User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) in good faith serious dialogue but he finds it difficult to communicate with an equal -- but that has not deterred me or others, see examples at Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Response by IZAK; Talk:Jews and Communism#Name change without consultation; Talk:Jews and Communism#Recent additions by IZAK disputed by Director; Talk:Jews and Communism#IZAK's draft; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosenbergs; Talk:Jews and Communism#"Jews as victims of Communism" suggestions; Talk:Jews and Communism#Picture of Marx for the lede; Talk:Jews and Communism#Pic of Emma Goldman; Talk:Jews and Communism#Rosa Luxemburg and Spartacist League.
10. As for the Trotsky poster File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, that DIREKTOR would like in the lede, there is already one good photo of Trotsky in the article that I have never disputed. As was discussed in Talk:Jews and Communism/Archive 1#Edits by IZAK. The problem with it if left in the lede is that it is not truly NPOV because with one glance it automatically evokes a feeling of either "you hate Trotsky or you love Trotsky" (as it was meant to do as a propaganda poster) and is not suitable for setting the tone of an already volatile enough topic because it is a blatantly very controversial caricature. People can agree to disagree but it is not "obstructionism" and it does not belong on an ANI discussion.
11. The issue about Marx, after long debate, seems to have been somewhat settled at this time (obviously, how it will develop no one can know). After my and others' initial objections, DIREKTOR finally added some lines about Marx's connection to Communism. No one disputes that at the age of 6 Marx was converted into Christianity by his father when he renounced his and his children's Judaism and at 16 Marx by free choice personally confirmed himself as a Christian and practiced as such, all before anything else Marx became famous for, and I created a section to deal with DIREKTOR's insertion and my additions with citations added, with the pic of Marx in it [24].
12. As they say in the classics, DIREKTOR should stop over-reacting, quit demonizing other editors he does not agree with, stop the crankiness and deprecating lines, and return to the bargaining table of the talk pages and improving the article bit by bit and as best we all can together in the spirit of WP:CONSENSUS and most vitally WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 04:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

About the poster: I would like to point out that the red soldier in the poster is highly stylized, without very much detail in his uniform. Anyone who claims this person is Trotsky, lacks a basic understanding of communism, and maybe that's why Director is having trouble finding sources to support his novel idea. In communism, the individual, even the leader, is not at all important, as demonstrated by the credo "All for one and one for all." The reason it can't possibly be Trotsky, is because to single out any one individual in a communist movement (like a revolution) would destroy the movement. The soldier in the poster represents a regular soldier, part of the proletariat, which is much more important than any specific individual. As proof, you can see his sleeve. The uniform in the poster is very generic with no tabs on the sleeve. If this soldier were Trotsky, the uniform would have a tab on the sleeve showing the rank of an officer [25]. I respectfully request a topic ban for Director on the subject of Communism, since he lacks a basic understanding of the subject matter. USchick (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Director wrote above "Please review the (frankly appalling) exchanges like this one" and I did have a look at it, I agree that it is appalling, but not in the way Director means. Director wants to use a poster of a soldier in a red uniform dominating a map of parts of Eastern and Central Europe as an illustration of "Jews and communism". USchick wants to know how that image is an illustration of the topic. Director tells her it is because it is a drawing of Trotsky, who was Jewish, and refers her to two websites, which however when you click on the links, do not bring up that poster or a discussion of it. USchick thinks that is not an appropriate image to illustrate "Jews and communism" and Director responds by repeatedly insulting her.Smeat75 (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I see, having looked closer at those links Director provided, that if you search for that poster on them you will find it and they do say it is a drawing of Trotsky. This would not be obvious to readers though and it makes me wonder why Director wanted to use an image of a scary looking soldier dominating huge parts of Europe, brandishing a rifle with a bayonet on the end of it, and bringing his heavy boot down on grovelling people at his feet, as the lead image for an article on "Jews and communism".Smeat75 (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, either I'm posting fake links, or I'm trying to push some kind of sinister image. Typical. The image itself, once somebody clicks on it, naturally provides the source. Further, aside from the links, there's also the Photo of an Identical Trotsky.

To answer your second post, the caption says "Be on guard!", and its meant to show Trotsky guarding Russia from the foreign, pro-White interventionists who were invading it at that time, and also the Poles, who were also invading the country. Its a defensive pose, he's defending Russia, he's not shown "dominating" any part of (non-Russian) Europe ("Russia" was much bigger back then). The reason why Trotsky is in uniform, is because he is the founder and first commander of the Red Army, actually leading the military at that time.

Also, that's the only poster I could find of Trotsky, aside from this one. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Considering that this is such a historic poster, is there a historical explanation that goes with it? From a reliable source? USchick (talk) 22:26, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "reliable sources" here? Are you seriously requesting a scholarly publication that covers obscure Russian Civil War posters?

This is the sort of thing I'm talking about. The poster is obviously Trotsky, that's pointed out wherever the image is hosted, and there's the photograph of him looking exactly as in the poster. Yet its impossible to introduce it in the article due to WP:CHEESE arguments like that. -- Director (talk) 22:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

If you want to claim it's Trotsky in the poster, yes, you need a reliable source if you wish to make that claim. It could be lots of other people as well. [26] USchick (talk) 22:46, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Completely undaunted by the "dress" thing above, you just keep on going.

That's just more of your absurd, malicious WP:DISRUPTION. The person in the poster is effin' Trotsky. The sources are perfectly reliable for the confirmation of the blatantly obvious - why don't you present a source that its not Trotsky, considering everyone else in the world seems to think it is. If every image on this project required a scholarly publication as the only "reliable" source - we'd be left with twenty images. -- Director (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

That image, whether of Trotsky or anybody else, of a huge intimidating soldier bringing his boot down on pitiful, grovelling figures at his feet, is completely inappropriate as an illustration of "Jews" in any context at all. The fact that Director does not seem to see this makes me question if he should be editing articles connected to Judaism or Jews.Smeat75 (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Its not an illustration of "Jews". Its an illustration of a Jewish person defending his country against foreign incursion - issued by his own propaganda. The person was very much a military leader, as are many Jewish people. If Trotsky and his party thought it appropriate - who are you to say its somehow misrepresentative (though again, its supposed to be the "stomping" of aggressors). But all that is not the subject here, because you're voicing a completely different argument from what we saw on the talkpage. -- Director (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this argument really over which image to use in the lead of the article? What is wrong with the photo of Leon Trotsky that is on the article now? This seems like a talk page discussion and off of AN/I. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:38, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Basically what I'm asking is a review of the arguments presented in the two discussions, as I hold them to be indicative of a pattern of disruptive conduct aimed at deliberately diminishing the article's quality. -- Director (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I have not seen any rs that says it is Trotsky. The artist, Dmitry Moor issued another poster in 1920, "Have you enlisted?", that has a similar figure. But rs says the figure represents a Russian soldier not Trotsky.[27] TFD (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

1. 1 Everyone says it Trotsky. #2 I don't see anything in your link. Does your source say its not Trotsky in that poster? -- Director (talk) 05:14, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone. Trotsky's uniform is not red. It's OR and wishful thinking to claim a soldier representing the Red Army [28] and wearing a coat that doesn't belong to an officer is Trotsky. See my first comment about why it's not him. It may look like Trotsky, but it also looks like Colonel Sanders [29]. I hope an admin can stop the madness. This is a perfect example of Director inventing history as he goes along and expecting everyone else to go along simply because he said so. USchick (talk) 05:47, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Getty images: Soldiers of Red Army hunting profiteers and foreign invaders, 1920, Poster by Dmitrij Moor (1883-1946), Russia, 20th century [30] No mention of Trotsky. USchick (talk) 06:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If you click on image in your link it says, "Dmitrii Moor: Be on Guard! (1920) Moor produced over fifty political posters for the Revolutionary Military Council during 1919-1920. This one, showing Red Army defending the Russian border, appeared after the Russo-Polish war and warned that enemy armies--depicted as capitalists incited by a French officer and a Ukrainian hetman--may again invade. Source: Peter Paret, Beth Irwin Lewis, Paul Paret: Persuasive Images: Posters of War and Revolution from the Hoover Institution Archives. Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1992." No mention of Trotsky. Your argument that it could not have been Trotsky is convincing. He looks too manly. But we should not have to do that. Director should not have introduced this picture without evidence that it was Trotsky. TFD (talk) 06:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Director 's argument of "prove it's not Trotsky" is an inversion of the burden of proof. That blog is not a reliable source, not to mention it could even belong to Director, who knows? "Everyone" is not saying it's Trotsky, and also "everyone" does not constitute a reliable source even if they did. In the absence of real evidence and sources to support this picture, Director is making use of fallacies to try to prove his point. That may be a sign of a non-neutral point of view, otherwise why did Director not just leave the picture, since there are plenty of further ones in the article? GreyWinterOwl (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Once sources have been provided, the burden is on the user opposing them. Its an obscure poster, sure, but here's a zoomed in, full length version [31]. You might notice its signed "Л. Тро́цкий". Also, here's another hosting link (in addition to the two in the thread). Have you seen the photo? -- Director (talk) 15:15, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The poster is not "signed by L. Trotsky." The words printed on the poster are attributed to L. Trotsky. [32] USchick (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The poster is, in fact, signed by Leon Trotsky. -- Director (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Whether or not it is signed by Leon Trotsky does not prove that the figure in the picture represents him. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

In fact there is no signature. His name is printed under the message of propaganda attributed to him. Here's a higher resolution. [33] USchick (talk) 16:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't the discussion of this poster and the identity of the person depicted on it continue on the article talk page rather than here?Smeat75 (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh for god's sake.. its a printed signature, USchick.

@GreyWinterOwl. One could hypothetically raise the bar of "proof" on these things until it becomes such that we'd need to delete or exclude every single image on Wikipedia. I submit that:

• three different websites hosting the image describe it as depicting Leon Trotsky.
• that Leon Trotsky, leading the Red Army, appeared exactly as in the image [34].
• that the poster is signed by Leon Trotsky.

And I hold that it is silly to demand some kind of scholarly publication in further evidence for an obscure 100-year-old poster. The general idea, as I thought, is to improve the quality of the article. -- Director (talk) 16:25, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• 3 different unreliable sources put together don't make a reliable source.
• Is his face visibly Trotsky's face or just the uniform? Was he the only person to wear the uniform? Was that a military basic uniform of his troops?
• The signature does not prove it is him on the picture. Mona Lisa is signed by Leonardo and obviously isn't his depiction.

If you think it's silly to demand a reliable source for anything in Wikipedia, then your concept of working on Wikipedia is very different from what I have understood from reading the guidelines. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The question here is about who is being disruptive. Director is pushing OR with no reliable sources about the identity of a cartoon and then claims that the cartoon is Jewish. Then he pushes OR that printed words L Trotsky are a signature. When presented with facts, he feigns reading comprehension and pushes more Synth and POV. USchick (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, clearly the websites are trying to slander Trotsky by implying he was a Communist? That must be their POV? Owl, its not the uniform: its the face in the uniform. Also, right off the bat, I could link some a hundred prominent Wikipedia images that have sources just as "reliable" as these.. some image hosting site or whatever.

Mind you, as a poster bearing Trotsky's message, it could justifiably be included even if its not him being depicted (as it obviously is).-- Director (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the process is for an uninvolved editor to register a constructive contribution to a discussion like this, so I'm just going to say here that the poster is quite clearly Trotsky and it's very confusing to understand why USchick is giving DIREKTOR what seems to be such a hard time about this, as if the goal might be to neutralization of possible inclusion of the poster by exhausting the participants w/ what appears to be WP:CHEESE, even as the article seems to merit a primary or lead image, which the poster would seem to be a good fit for. So again, I don't understand why USchick is giving DIREKTOR such an apparently/possibly-uncivilly hard time, despite my best efforts to understand by reading many of their comments. JDanek007^Talk 23:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Asking for a reliable source is not giving someone a "hard time." USchick (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

To refocus the discussion on user conduct, I'd like to point out that this was first opposed as an anti-Jewish propaganda poster, then as a double depiction of Trotsky - and then as not depicting Trotsky. -- Director (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

An unidentified cartoon on a propaganda piece attributed to an atheist person from a Jewish family is the best image available for the lede in an article Jews and Communism. Synth? USchick (talk) 17:12, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

"Unidentified"? "Cartoon"? "Synth"? I swear, half the time I don't even know how to respond to your posts, USchick. -- Director (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Those 3 different objections to the picture are not necessarily self-contradictory. They may just mean that the picture is inappropriate for more than one reason and whether or not the cartoon depicts Trotsky. And I can't see any obvious similarity between the cartoon's face and Trotsky's except for the presence of a mustache, which I doubt is an exclusive remark as much as the uniform. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

That's a very narrow perspective, and naive, in my view. It doesn't correspond with the manner in which the arguments were presented. The goal is simply to keep the article from having a lede image - any lead image, and by any "arguments" necessary. When stock arguments ("its antisemitism!") turn out to be ridiculous, a poster is equated with a photograph and a double depiction is claimed. When that does not work, it is argued that its not Trotsky at all. When another image is posted, the story goes on ("Karl Marx was Christian!", "Karl Marx was not Communist", and so forth). Now, a photograph was removed from the lede on grounds that it should be less than 190px wide. -- Director (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I do agree that to oppose a Marx photo on an article about communism is silly. But that's not the image we are talking about. If the problem is having any lede image at all instead of the specific poster of a man in a red uniform, then I think the best way for you to try to prove your point is to forget the cartoon poster, about which I don't think you are right on your claims, and focus on real misbehavior by the people you accuse. Asking for a reliable source or proof that the cartoon depicts Trotsky is not misbehavior. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The article on Christianity prominently features Jesus, who was a Jew, not a Christian. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Return of User:PRODUCER

The horse is dead, it's ceased to be. If you have legitimate evidence that this is puppetry, WP:SPI is thataway, but look out for boomerangs. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. NOTE: For the record, as this discussion unfolds, and after a relatively longish absence, now that User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is bogged down in the very ANI discussions he initiated, all of a sudden his partner and virtual doppelganger User PRODUCER (talk · contribs), the original creator of this article, appears on the scene and starts to aggressively edit this controversial article. It is truly amazing how their names and work compliment each other as if in PRODUCING and DIREKTING a movie with a "producer" and a "director" with the virtually identical coordinated moves. Hopefully he will oblige us with a visit here soon. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC) The sockpuppet accusations have been brought up repeatedly and refuted repeatedly. Yambaram found himself in some rather hot water recently after doing this, and will likely be blocked if the accusation is repeated. I think you can essentially consider yourself in that same boat. Knock it off. Tarc (talk) 17:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC) Hi Tarc, I am not making any such accusations, just an obvious observation about a curiosity about the way Users PRODUCER (talk · contribs) and DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) compliment each other perfectly to the point where it is hard to know the difference between them on the work they do in unison "producing " and "directing" this article. That much should be obvious for anyone following the way the article was created and is being guided by DIREKTOR and PRODUCER in unison, neither of whom has had any know WP:EXPERTISE as regards the topic of Jews that I have been around for over eleven years on WP, that makes this all very odd, and even disturbing to some Wikipedians (we can agree to disagree, but you cannot stifle the troubling feelings of how and why this is so), to ignore this would be acting tone deaf to a not so subtle disturbing undercurrent. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC) I think this at the very least is a case of meatpuppetry.--Galassi (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC) The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Failure of DIREKTOR and PRODUCER to answer the question Why?

1. As anyone in academia knows, at the outset there are two important questions that begin any inquiry or topic: What? (including Who? and When?) but then more importantly Why?
2. So far all this article does is list the "Who" and "When" and "Where" but nothing more! This is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY (viz. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed") and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing") and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (viz. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources").
3. Together the question/s of What/Who/When/How AND answer/s plus the question of Why? fulfill the needs of the Empirical domain and research.
4. It then goes further than that because the next issue is how to deal with the Normative domain meaning of "What ought to be?" and that is accomplished by understanding the values that people attached to things. It is too early to expect this to be dealt with at this time.
5. So far, all that Users DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) and PRODUCER (talk · contribs) are doing is compiling a bare-bones mind-numbing List of Jews who have been Communists without ever explaining Why? that was so, or How? it happened.
6. There are plenty of good sources and a wide variety of reasons (historical, political, social, economic, religious etc) for why and how Jews were drawn to Communism but the article presently does not supply them. Even if mentioned in other related articles. But DIREKTOR and PRODUCER limit, enforce would be a better word, the title to its narrowest limits without ever allowing it to become a rational and informative scholarly article e.g. [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42]. This is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and obviously of WP:OWN. When I have tried to insert that into the article e.g. [43] they immediately react and cut it out with feeble excuses and deprecating comments e.g. [44] [45] [46].
7. Not just that, but any time a user tries to get into the question/s of why Jews were so drawn into Communism and not to Nazism or Fascism as many of their gentile compatriots and countrymen were, both DIREKTOR and PRODUCER will react by either censoring it out or excoriating the one making such efforts.
8. It is time to move beyond the creation of a de facto list and start working on explaining and understanding why and how Jews were drawn to Communism and for DIREKTOR and PRODUCER not to stand in the way of that. In fact they would go a long way to clear the air if they lead the way with providing such important material to fill the ever-growing gap that straddles what is nothing more than a list that could be misconstrued as just looking around where to find 10% Jews here or 3 out of 10 there, but never talking about the other 90% or even who the 7 out of 10 were or why that was so. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:31, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

I have at random clicked one of the diffs you gave above, [47]. I can only applaud the work of (in this case) User:DIREKTOR in keeping such extreme POV-introducing edits out of the article. The above post by IZAK shows the same inclination to use the article as a means to present a POV instead of giving the facts, and is littered by badly applied links to Wikipedia policies, like WP:NOTFACEBOOK. Now, there may be problems with the article or with User:Direktor, but the above statement and the edits by IZAK are at least evidence that trying to get him out of the picture at that article is a logical request. Fram (talk) 13:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just saw your comments and with all the complexity involved here, I have clarified, see above: WP:NOTDIRECTORY (viz. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything in the universe that exists or has existed") and WP:NOTSOAPBOX (viz. "Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing") and WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE (viz. "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources"). Please check all the diffs for accuracy and I will gladly respond. You also need to focus on the difficulty of moving on the question of Why" and how to formulate that. I have always provided as many sources I can gather with the building of each step. It's a process that takes time as any user knows. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 13:43, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
  • You have changed your statement, but I don't see how it makes any difference. In the above diff I repeated from your list of diffs, it is your edit that clearly violates WP:NOTSOAPBOX, trying to use an article for propaganda, and thereby completely missing the topic of the article or the balance required under WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. And (after edit conflict) your edit did nothing to address the "why" at all. Fram (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Hi Fram, I was in the middle of posting my final version when you jumped in and it does make a difference. I honestly posted as many diffs as I could for the sake of comprehensiveness. Please point out the exact diff you are referring to and I will respond, I cannot respond to you until then because in some instances material was inserted taken directly from other WP articles and not from my head, in others I was not given a chance to build in the spirit of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, Rome was not built in a day and as you know it is laborious to write and contribute. Again, please show which diffs show that it is "me" that has anything to do with "soapbox" when all I am talking about is putting things into context and giving reasons for the question of Why, of course with sources. This is a long tedious process and one cannot provide sources for every word as one types. If anything is not obvious and needs a source I will provide it, and I have done so many times. I have also given many examples of where I did not dispute removal of material that I inserted even if it did have source, and that would have helped answer the question Why something that is lacking from the article. Again, I ask that you look at all the diffs and not cherry pick anything out of context. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
      • You were in the middle when I jumped in? There was more than 1 hour and a half between your post and my reply... As for the diff I'm talking about, it was given in the first line of my first reply above, [[48]]. Fram (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
        • Hi Fram, I am not a quick typist, it does take me hours to type and I am not that young, and it takes time to notice all the comments when there are a few subsections and threads going on simultaneously, so I was not aware and did not notice your points. Okay, I now took a good look at the diff but it is a diff of DIREKTOR editing DIREKTOR and has nothing to do with the context of the material. In addition, whether one agrees with DIREKTOR or not there are plenty of refs in what he edited out, it was only DIREKTOR's POV that it was not good, now as you see DIREKTOR wants ANI to take care of the problems he creates (controversy and dissension, few are happy with what's going on) rather engaging in dialogue and article building. Most of the material cut out by DIREKTOR in the diff was not original or POV because it was taken and/or summarized from sections in the History of the Jews in the United States article, such as (1) History of the Jews in the United States#Revolutionary era, (2) History of the Jews in the United States#World War I and (3) History of the Jews in the United States#Postwar (see and compare it's all from there) and was not a violation of anything on the contrary it was obviously meant to create more historical context that in turn would show Jews in the USA in a NPOV position (it is not "soapboxing" to state that fact!!!) to prove that the vast majority of USA Jews had nothing to do with Communism at all. Quoting verbatim from another WP article is not "soapboxing" but rather it shows familairty with other related WP content and is good research and it's good faith and WP:NPOV desire to put the topic "Jews and Communism" in the kind of context answering the question Why? and How? this all came to be and not just creating what DIREKTOR and PRODUCER want which is just a raw List of Jews who were Communists without any attempt at getting into the reasons and factors behind such an important topic. If you have any questions about any other diffs please feel free to ask and I will try to put it into the context of the discussion and the subject as a whole. Thanks for your interest, IZAK (talk) 13:26, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
          • It was a diff you provided, of Direktir removing material you provided, so I don't see what your objections are against using it. But if you prefer, we can take the edit where you added all this and more, [49]; a 5K addition of the section "American Jews as non-Communists with no relation to Communism" in a general article on Jews and Communism. That is a WP:UNDUE violation, no matter where you got the material from (and you should have attributed it if you copied it from other articles). Material that is suitable for one article may well be soapboxing when used in another article, and e.g. a lengthy addition of what one American Jew did in 1781 is not a good addition to the Jews and Communism article, and seems only to be there to demonstrate that American Jews are good Americans, and the occasional bad apples like the Rosenbergs get sentenced to death by their fellow Jews. The section is about seven times as long as the one on Jewish American Communists, which is much closer to the subject of the article and doesn't discuss people like Rose Pastor Stokes, or Frank Oppenheimer, J. Robert Oppenheimer or other Jewish Americans who became a victim of McCarthyism. Your edit didn't bring balance to the article, but slanted it excessively in one POV direction (your edit strongly gives the impression that one can't be a communist and a good American at the same time, and that it is essential for an article about Jews and Communism to clearly show that Jews have done more than their share of good citizenship in America throughout its history, no matter if it had anything to do with Communism or not, like fighting in WWI). Fram (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Fram, I do appreciate your observations. Please consider that contributing to articles is a complex process and takes time. We can spend hours debating these points but one cannot place them on a knife's edge, writing and editing is a far more complex evolutionary process. In the course of spending many long hours on finding related texts and starting the process of adding balance not every attempt will succeed. No one sits down and writes up "the perfect article or section" in one shot because as you know it is a process. The section you refer to was removed and I did not dispute it, that is part of the give and take, so its a moot point really. At no point am I trying to say anything about "American Jews and Communism" and I was not drawing your conclusions, what I was trying to do was start the process of creating balance, reaching for the question of Why? and How? not just focus on inserting names of Jews who were Communists, something neither DIREKTOR nor PRODUCER have even done, other editors have done that and they deserve to be complimented. As I have mentioned I have inserted a number of other sections and they have been retained, albeit in summary form in an effort to improve the over-all balance of the article. Bottom line, I have added sections and even names of Jews who were Communists (such as the Rosenbergs in the USA [50] [51]) to the article. I was the one who added sections that are still integral parts of the article, namely, Jews and Communism#Downfall of Soviet Union [52](later abbreviated); Jews and Communism#Persecution and emigration [53](later abbreviated [54]) [55]; Jews and Communism#Karl Marx [56]. Thanks again, IZAK (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So, a diff you gave as an example of their problematic editing, "This is a violation of WP:NOTCENSORED and obviously of WP:OWN.", now turns out to be "The section you refer to was removed and I did not dispute it, that is part of the give and take, so its a moot point really.", and on the other hand you indicate that a fair number of sections you added have remained in the article, also indicating that the problems are not so extreme as your post here strongly suggested. So, basically, some things you add remain, some get shortened, and some, like the one I highlighted, get correctly removed. Isn't that all part of normal editing on a contentious topic? No editor is obliged to add sections on "why", and the section you added on Jewish Americans had nothing to do with "why" anyway. If you can create a well-sourced, neutral, and not excessively long section on "why?", then it could be a good addition to the article: but no one else is obliged to write such a section to satisfy your demands, and at least one of the examples you gave above have nothing to do with people stopping you from adding such a section, and everything with keeping POV and UNDUE sections out of the article.

Randomly checking other diffs you gave, I note that you complain about edits that got reverted like this one and this one; but looking at the articles you linked there, I see nothing related to Jews and Communism, the topic of the artcle, so it is normal that these ones were reverted. It would greatly help your case if you would stick to the real problems, because as it stands a casual glance of your complaints indicates more problems from your side than from the ones you are complaining about. Either this actually reflects the situation, or you have very badly presented your case. Fram (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Third lede image removed

IZAK has removed a third image from the article's lede. So lets recap:

• He removed the poster of Leon Trotsky, on grounds that it was anti-Jewish propaganda (it is in fact published and signed by Leon Trotsky himself). Then he removed it on grounds that it was a "double image" of Trotsky. Now its claimed that its not Trotsky at all.
• He pushed down the photo of Karl Marx because Karl Marx was baptized as a child (and, in spite of sources, IZAK decided that makes him not a Jewish person: "Marx was a Christian and that is what defines him").
• When yesterday I moved up the photo of Trotsky to the lede as a sort of compromise, he demanded that it be the same size as before [57]. When I pointed to the MoS, he removed it from the lede [58]: "Trotsky is neither the founder nor single most important person in Communism" - yes, that's after he removed the photo of Karl Marx.

The user, as I said, seems to be deliberately out to hurt the quality of the article.

As regards Karl Marx, in his long essays you will find IZAK basically rejects sources out of hand as a basis for Wikipedia editing. This was essentially my position:

IZAK - its very simple: the sources say Karl Marx was a Jewish person. You say he wasn't. Provide sources that say that. Exactly that. Not sources that say he was baptized or whatever, wherefrom you draw your own conclusions - but sources that directly say that which you claim. I can not accept your own opinions, nor any of your own "conclusions".

IZAK responds with things like this (buried in massive tirades)

Wikipedia cannot accept half-baked half-truths and partial theories, even if accompanied by so-called "sources".

And of course, provides nothing at all in support, other than his own OR. The whole thing is here. When "so-called sources" provide a problem for IZAK, he assumes the position that his own evaluation of a prominent historical personage stands above ("Marx was baptized hence he isn't a Jewish person"). That's just the Marx affair of course..

This article can not move forward while these folks hang around, being nothing but disruptive obstructions, to even the most basic and obvious improvements. -- Director (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

The reason people are finding it difficult to agree about what image represents the subject matter is because the relationship between Jews and Communism has not been established in the article. USchick (talk) 19:35, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a big difference between communists who happen to be Jews, and Communists where their Jewishness is somehow intrinsically linked to their communism. Marx may meet the technical definition of a Jew, but the sources are not saying that his Jewishness is an intrinsic part of his philosophy - to the contrary, they repeatedly say he lived his life as a Christian, and that his parents converted before he was born. Had he been born a woman, (s)he and all their female descendants for 100 generations would technically be Jews too. There are sources discussing the intersection between communism and Jews - that does not mean all jewish communists are in scope, anymore than an article on the crusades brings all soldiers who are christians in. Images for the article needs to be ones that are specifically and explicitly being discussed in the scope of Jewish Communists. Surely there are propaganda (pro or con) images that are using both communist and jewish imagery. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nazi_Lithuanian_poster.JPG etc. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

A user has found what I believe is a suitable image and added it to the article. Another user mistakenly believed that the article "Jews and Communism" had been plagiarised from a banned site, as you can see in the section "Plagiarism" on this page, but it was the other way around. The fact that the banned site was so eager to copy this WP article is not a good sign in my opinion. I do believe the article "Jews and Communism" in its current state is pushing an anti-Semitic agenda.Smeat75 (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, at a meta-level, there is almost assuredly a notable historical argument (Jewish Bolshevism). That argument was anti-semetic. But our covering of that argument is not itself anti-semetic, but we should be covering the topic at a meta level, and not just repeating the historical argument itself. I am not convinced that this isn't just a WP:CFORK of Jewish Bolshevism, unless there are other sources discussing the intersection of communism and Jews from a scholarly angle (which there is some evidence of [59]). Gaijin42 (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Your link shows that a scholar has written an article about "Jews and Communism in Eastern Europe." That does not establish that the topic Jews and Communism in Eastern Europe is notable. Notability only occurs when more than one person writes about a subject in reliable sources. And the scholar's article is too narrow in scope to support an article about Jews and Communism globally. If a scholar were to write a book or article about Jews and Communism, he or she would have to mention examples where Jews played little or no role in Communism, compare their membership in liberal and social democratic parties, and explain the reasons for these phenomena. Otherwise we just have a coatrack where we pile on examples of Jews who were Communists. That gives the article an implicit thesis, that Jews and Communism are connected, not supported by external sources but by our researches. The connection may be obvious, but that does not absolve us of having a source that draws the connection. TFD (talk) 23:50, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

So, I guess TFD is just going to keep repeating the rejected argument over and over and over again.

I think everyone here would have to be pretty dumb to actually buy the concept that the topic of "Jews and Communism" is somehow different from the topic "Jews and Communism in [region/country]". It is only to be expected that the vast majority of historical studies focus on the relationship in specific geopolitical and historical circumstances. You are latching beyond all reason onto one statement from a source where the author expresses his wish that a global study be conducted (scientific publications often list subjects as suggestions for further study). The source does not indicate that the topic is not covered, merely that it would be good to conduct an overarching, global study. Such research, if ever conducted, would in either case be of dubious value (compared to the detailed research) due to the very different conditions in which the relationship has developed.

The idea that large amounts of reliably-sourced content, dealing with a topic, should be deleted from our project because we don't have a "global" study on the topic - is, in my view, preposterous to the point of absurdity. Even if that's actually the case, though it seems we actually do have research dealing with the topic with a view on whole regions, in addition to specific countries. But I guess TFD is perfectly willing to ignore all these sources and actually claim the topic is not notable. Weird, and disturbing. -- Director (talk) 00:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A google search for "Blonde and Jews" gets over 30,000 hits under "books" like this one [60]. Just because people write about something, doesn't make it notable. A relationship between Jews and Communism still needs to be established in the article. USchick (talk) 01:35, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Director, the behavior of a race in one country may not relate to its behavior in another. For example studies about the relationship of blacks in the U.S. to economic and political power may not be relevant to nations in Africa, unless one assumes that black people have racial characteristics that determine their economic or political achievement. And of course we are discussing Jews as a race, because we are including "Jews" who were Christians. If we want to create an article about "Blacks and poverty" for example, we would need a source that addresses that not just blacks and poverty in America. TFD (talk) 02:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol, the relationship between Jews and Blondes would be easier to establish than Jews as a Race. USchick (talk) 02:27, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion seems to be losing any focus on what the participants are asking admins to do. I don't think there is any reason for an admin to block or ban any editor from what has been posted here. "Jews and Communism" is a terrible, terrible article, blatant anti-Semitism imo, unfortunately I did not know about it when it was proposed for deletion, not that it would have made any difference I suppose, but admins are not going to do anything about that. As the AfD failed, there is nothing to do but try to improve the article, hopefully this thread will have brought the article to the attention of others as it did me, and the discussion should continue on the talk page.Smeat75 (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. There are no such things as "races", TFD. Certainly Jewish people are not a "race". -- Director (talk) 08:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

And apparently it is not a religion either, otherwise an atheist who was baptized could not be a Jews. So what in your terminology is it? TFD (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

How about a nation? Or ethnic group? Talk about your false dichotomy.. Frankly I'm more than a little appalled that you view Jews as a separate "race". -- Director (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

DIREKTOR, when you stated above that "He, USchick, IZAK, Galassi, these are all users vehemently opposed to the article, and, apparently, to any attempts at improving it": firstly, by now it is obvious what you mean by "improving" the article, for you it is just about adding more people to the List of Jews who were Communists and nothing else because you never give any reasons why that happened, just spending time looking for the 10% here and there who were Jews that got mixed up with Communism. Secondly, you are surely being facetious at best as regards myself and it is a false accusation against me that you should apologize for. You know full well that I have never asked that the article be deleted, ever, my constant request is that the topic be put into greater context and not just read like an accusatory list almost like a "Gestapo/KGB/Stasi list of most wanted/hated/feared Jewish Communists". Thirdly, as you also so know I have added sections and even names of Jews who were Communists (such as the Rosenbergs in the USA [61] [62]) to the article. Fourthly, I was the one who added sections that are still integral parts of the article, namely, Jews and Communism#Downfall of Soviet Union [63](later abbreviated); Jews and Communism#Persecution and emigration [64](later abbreviated [65]) [66]; Jews and Communism#Karl Marx [67]. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 11:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• NOTE: 1 At the present time the question of a suitable pic for the lede is moot because User Pharos (talk · contribs) has recently introduced an excellent compromise File:OZET poster.jpg [68] we can all agree on with his logical reasoning that "better to have image in lede representing a movement/group, rather than an individual". 2 DIREKTOR conflates and mixes up all sorts of things creating half-truths. For example, in his first point above about about my removal of the controversial Trotsky poster (I was not the only one who has given reasons for its removal in such a controversial article) File:Russian Civil War poster.jpg, my own position was an remains that one good picture of Trotsky File:Leon Trotsky (crop).jpg is okay and it's in the article and I have never disagreed with that. I have never gotten into the discussion of who is depicted in the controversial poster, just that it sure looks like a mean caricature meant to stir "love-hate" emotions, and that should be left out of a NPOV lede no matter who is depicted in the poster or who made it. 3 The good pic of Trotsky File:Leon Trotsky (crop).jpg that was in the article was not suitable for the lead should and is a part of the section on Russia as I noted "...put him back where he belongs with Russia. This article is about the worldwide involvement with Communism by Jews." [69]. But DIREKTOR never lets facts get in the way of trying to get his WP:OWN way even if it means confusing different users edits and positions to suit himself, as Yoda might say "good he is, at that". 4 A lone imageof Marx was inserted which is all that DIREKTOR/PROCCER wanted, and the objection was that it should be kept out of a major discussion of "Jews" in relation to Communism, eventually DIREKTOR put in a one liner in the article so that got the image of Marx into the article as well. As for Marx, he was baptized as a Christian at age 6 and he confirmed it at age 16 and I have provided sources that are even in the article, that is not made up, and according to Judaism, DIREKTOR does not seem to be an expert in Judaism at all to know that someone who converts to Christianity is no longer Jewish or regarded as Jew in the Jewish religion which is the source of the ethnic definition of a Jew as well. DIREKTOR only cherry picks what is good for him and PRODUCER, Judaism and Jews be damned. This discussion is way beyond what DIREKTOR can fathom, so he keeps harping on the fact that Marx was born Jewish, which is true but he ignores the equally true fact that Marx was an official Christian whose family renounced Judaism which puts their Jewish status in doubt. There are sources for this but it does not belong in a discussion about Communism so I have limited the talk about that even though I have tried some minimal discussions on the point that just misses the mark with DIREKTOR that I cannot help but that he uses as some sort of pathetic "complaint". 5 Finally, the utterly absurd and false claim about me that "The user...seems to be deliberately out to hurt the quality of the article" is hilarious because by now everyone knows DIREKTOR's and now on the scene again PRODUCER's aim is NOT to create a "quality article" on the contrary their idea of "quality" here is to produce as massive a List of Jews who were Communists and damned be the question of WHY that happened or any true and relevant historical, political social, economic etc factors that cause this as any normal study of historical events and personalities deserves, and as all my attempts at improving the article clearly show if you look at everything I have done to make this article move beyond being an ongoing hot potato point of dissension and divisiveness on WP. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

as massive a List of Jews who were Communists - and using a very wide definition, without explanation or nuance, of who can be simply labelled "a Jew". For instance, the article has a quote "Hungary was ruled by a Communist dictatorship. Its party boss, Béla Kun, was a Jew." An editor attempted to clarify this to a certain extent by inserting "(Bela Kun was actually half-Jewish and raised a protestant)." [70] According to Béla Kun, his father was Jewish, his mother was a "former Protestant", they were secular, non religiously observant, Kun was educated at a Calvinist school. Presumably as an adult he was an atheist. However any clarification of this kind is not permitted in the article and it was reverted [71] so that the article once again says flatly "the party boss was a Jew". There are many instances of this kind in the article of people born into nominally Jewish families, quite a few who converted to some form of Christianity, then as adults and communists were completely secularised atheists, who are simply given the label "Jew" and any qualification of that removed.Smeat75 (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Passover and Jewish editors and this discussion

NOTE to closing admins, with the close approach of the Jewish Passover holidays, Passover eve is on Monday April 14th, continuing through April 22nd, it will greatly limit the ability of Jewish and Judaic editors to respond adequately to this discussion. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This discussion should be over by now, what makes you think it will extend until then? ES&L 14:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

What does a fast from eating leavened bread have to do with Internet access?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Um.. I'm not very religious myself, but isn't Easter at about the same time? I imagine most Wikipedia editors would be celebrating a holiday these days. -- Director (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

This comment was meant for closing admins. Unless you are a closing admin, if you have any questions about how people celebrate their faith, please google it. USchick (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you ought to stop posting these offensive/strange posts everywhere. -- Director (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you a closing admin? This comment is not for you. Belittling statements about why or how people celebrate holidays is highly inappropriate. USchick (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Belittling ? Highly inappropriate ? Lighten up. Religious practices don't get a special pass. People can ask whatever they want. They might learn something. Ryulong asked a question, Collect kindly answered it. The end. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:28, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Jews become a tad more "orthodox" during Passover, and many will, in fact, not be on-line during that period. Even typing on the Internet can be viewed as "work" not to be engaged in. Walking is "in" as is using the stairs, for many. The Internet is not on the "in" list. Collect (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

YMMV, as some like to say. In other words, SPADFY. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

"SPADFY" has no meaning that I can find. My post was expository, and not directed at you by any means at all. I have had Orthodox friends and relatives, so am pretty sure that what I posted is correct. Collect (talk) 12:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Strongly Oppose Passover brisket. The entire sedar is unappetizing, but that abomination is a crime against nature.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

True enough -- though I suppose this means you put an orange on your seder plate… Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested admin action

I am sort of surprised there have been no admin comments on this long thread, they seem to be happy for long content discussions to go on here, although as I understand it, maybe imperfectly since I am not an admin, this is supposed to be a board where incidents that need administrator attention can be reported. Here are the actual requests for action that I can see on this thread, people can comment, support or oppose underneath the proposals, I probably won't set this up right, maybe someone else can correct any mistakes.

USchick to be topic banned from discussion of communism

as suggested by Director at 20:23, 7 April 2014

• Oppose.Smeat75 (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because User USchick (talk · contribs) is a reliable and feisty and knowledgeable hard-working editor who writes well and will not be bullied into submission by anyone. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I see nothing in the differences provided to support a ban. TFD (talk) 21:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews and communism

as suggested by Galassi at 21:52, 7 April 2014

• Oppose,see below Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs) is a good editor, however he has to accept that he cannot impose his WP:OWN view on a situation and that other editors will oppose him. He must learn to live with WP:CONSENSUS and at all costs avoid WP:LAWYERING by using WP policies to stifle other editors from contributing. 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of communism

as suggested by Uschick at 14:55, 8 April 2014

• 'Oppose - I don't know enough about his editing history with regard to communism to want to ban him from that.Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose because everyone is entitled to their private and personal POV provided they stick to WP:NPOV on WP when creating and editing articles. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews or Judaism

which I am suggesting right now Smeat75 (talk) 20:10, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• 'Support as nominator. The fact that he wanted to use a grotesquely inappropriate image of a monstrous figure, identified by him as "a Jew", trampling on a map of Europe and crushing pitiful people beneath his boot as the lead image for an article called "Jews and Communists", makes him a highly unsuitable person to be editing in this area in my opinion.Smeat75 (talk) 20:18, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 to be sanctioned for personal attack and slander.

Amazingly - everything you wrote is wrong, and disgusting in its implication. The image is an (early) Soviet propaganda poster, depicting a Soviet soldier (probably Leon Trotsky himself). Unless the Soviet Union depicts its soldiers as "grotesque" and/or "monstrous" in its own war propaganda, then maybe if the poster is a bit crude - its because its from the middle of the misery and chaos of the Russian Civil War?! And the figure is NOT "trampling" a map of Europe, he's supposed to be defending Russia from the foreign intervention and Poland ("BE ON GUARD!" is what the poster says). The figure is actually not outside Russia at all: I honestly think you have no idea about the proportions of the country in the period.

If anything, the demonstrated lack of knowledge and understanding of the relevant history indicates you ought perhaps not involve yourself in the topic. Not to mention that this was all explained about a dozen times, and included in the caption as well - which may in fact say a thing or two about the effort you devote to reading other users' comments. Either that, or this is an attempt to get another user sanctioned through deliberately posting offensive falsehoods.

All that said, I don't doubt there'll be "support" for your proposal, among everyone else over there who'd rather be without someone who disagrees with them. -- Director (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Are you sure you posted enough subsections to topic-ban me from the article you're now involved in, opposing my position? How about an attempt at discussion at least, before you try to eliminate your opposition over here? -- Director (talk) 20:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a discussion is necessary. Considering that collectively, we have wasted enough electricity to power a small country, I think a ban on Director for all proposed topics seems reasonable. USchick (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you spend some of that electricity to improve the article. -- Director (talk) 20:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

I did, but you reverted it, because you asked to wait for someone who can count in decimal points. USchick (talk) 21:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

• Opposed to suggestion that "Director to be topic banned from discussion of Jews or Judaism" but he, i.e. User DIREKTOR (talk · contribs), should be encouraged to develop a kinder and gentler understanding attitude that shows he is sensitive that other users may be offended when he gets into the sensitive area of writing about Jews or controversial ideologies such as Communism, as has quite obviously happened in this case, and he should please avoid "anything" that is bound to stir controversy and lead to either de facto or de jure WP:BATTLEGROUND and create dissension that does not enhance either the editing environment on WP or the reputation of WP. IZAK (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Support unless Director agrees to leave the red coat man poster. The fact that director spends so much energy and is so eager to put that single specific poster as lede image, even after failing to provide evidence that it's Trotsky or any jew at all, is in my opinion a sign of personal POV which may be as Smeat described, or even if his intention is not anti-semitic, which we can't be sure. I also find very relevant that the article seems not to have established any causality between Jews and Communism, being at the moment merely a List of Communist Jews. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 17:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually including the "red coat main poster" as the lede is no longer an issue, and hasn't been for some time (did you check the dates?).

"That said, if the file is widely opposed, I'll naturally concede. Its an entirely arbitrary issue. But I would like to see alternatives presented. An article needs a lead image."

It was brought up as an example of user conduct, not to discuss a content dispute on ANI. We do now have a decent lede image. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support Director appears to be unable to edit objectively about Jews. TFD (talk) 17:42, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
  • TFD I think you are one of the least qualified people to lecture other users on objectivity. You have blindly tried every possible attempt to get rid of this article and its information, be it by merging it, deleting it, splitting it, or, most recently, accusing it of being plagiarism. The last one could have easily been avoided if you bothered to spend a maximum of 30 seconds checking what the dates were and who "plagiarized" who. I think that speaks volumes of your "objectivity". Your eagerness to jump at any possible attempt to minimize or suppress it and other editors is incredibly transparent. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@TFD. One could just as easily say the same thing about you, with your unapologetic 180 degree flips on issues whenever it suits your immediate needs. -- Director (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose : Per IZAK, and this article had so many red links. Made me discover about less known people. OccultZone (Talk) 18:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
• Comment - this AN/I thread was opened five days ago by Director with a complaint of "Disruption and malicious editing" directed against a whole group of editors and the thread quickly switched focus to be about his editing, not others'. Now, while this thread is still open, he has started a second thread on this very page with a complaint about another editor entitled "Racist personal attack" and the focus appears to be switching in a similar fashion. It seems to me that Director has a problem collaborating with others and lacks sensitivity in dealing with the highly-charged ethnic/religious issues he chooses to edit in. I never heard of him before this thread which he started drew my attention to the disgraceful article "Jews and Communism".Smeat75 (talk) 13:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Template:Comment from uninvolved editor Smeat75, do you fail to see the irony of your wanting Director banned from editing any articles related to Jews and Judaism while stating, "... this thread which he started drew my attention to the disgraceful article "Jews and Communism"..." in the same breath? Your objectivity seems to have been tainted by your personal WP:POV ambition of WP:CENSORing articles because you believe them to be offensive (WP:IDONTLIKEIT). --Iryna Harpy (talk) 01:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

*Clarification please? When did this ANI turn into an RfC? Should uninvolved non-admin editors be commenting here? The request was for Admin participation, not for an RfC. USchick (talk) 01:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Clarification being provided for you, USchick: Not only have I been following the article in dispute for some time, I have also been following this ANI since its inception (something which you are well aware of per[72]). Considering that Smeat75 only became involved with the article concurrently with the ANI, and his/her only contribution to the article itself has appeared to have been a tendentious one[73] IMO, I'm wondering why you made no objection to his/her involvement here. Perhaps your objection lies with who is responding to the comment left by Smeaty75, rather the substance of the observation. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The answer to your question above "do you fail to see the irony" etc is yes, I do fail to see it. If you want to discuss my "tendentious" edit to the article, I think it would be better to do that on the article talk page than here.Smeat75 (talk) 05:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Smeat's ability to criticize others for a lack of objectivity while at the same time removing sourced information on the basis he finds it "disturbing" and that he considers facts from reliable historians anti-semitic is astounding. As is his quickness to dismiss in an unrelated incident bigoted racial personal attacks against Direktor because he is in a dispute with him. [74] --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 15:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What you are referring to was not "sourced", it was a misquote which took a very debatable statement and twisted it (do you think there might be, oh, a teensy little difference between "violins" and "perpetrators") into blatant anti-semitism and yes I do find that "disturbing".Smeat75 (talk) 22:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, uninvolved editors are allowed to comment on ANI discussions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is this partly about the Dmitry Moor poster ? Are you looking for an academic source that discusses the poster and its use of Trotsky ? If so try "Iconography of Power: Soviet Political Posters Under Lenin and Stalin", p. 152, University of California Press, ISBN 978-0520221536 Sean.hoyland - talk 18:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well I'll be. My thanks, Sean.hoyland. Try as I might I couldn't find anything on GB. Lets quote from that publication:

In 1920, [Dmitry] Moor designed a striking poster, "Bud' na strazhe!" (Be on Guard!) that featured a drawing of Trotsky holding a bayonet and standing, larger than life, on Russian territory, with minuscule enemies around him.

So I guess its not, in fact, the Loch Ness Monster "trampling Europe", as some have suggested? Its frankly unbelievable that, with the photos provided, with Trotsky's own signature, alongside the labels and descriptions all over the internet - we require an actual Google Books link before the sky is recognized as being WP:BLUE. -- Director (talk) 22:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, that poster is clearly not Trotsky. There are no spectacles and no beard, present in every photograph or representation of him since at least 1915. Instead, it is clearly another version of the much more famous figure in Did You Volunteer? created by the same artist in the exact same year.--Pharos (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake... In every photograph? No. Please click on the link. Lev Trotsky did not wear a goatee and glasses at that time. And what are we doing now? contradicting published sources in addition to everyone else on the net? The ref is by Victoria E. Bonnel, professor of sociology at Berkeley specializing in "Soviet/Russian and East European Society". I don't care if its actually included, but the person in the image is Trotsky. I honestly don't know what additional sources anyone could possibly provide. Its not ours to speculate, but its entirely possible the figure on the Did you volunteer poster was actually based on Trotsky in some way. Even if its not, that doesn't mean this poster somehow can't be Trotsky: note that the poster carries his message, and is signed by him. -- Director (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The figures in the two posters are clearly the same, the fact that the vastly-more-obscure version has been misinterpreted by one author should have no bearing. If the identification with Trotsky was real, it should by any reasonable standard be documented for the much more famous version. FWIW, you have given a rather low-res image of that photo, the Wikimedia Commons version looks very much like a short beard to me. There is no way there is enough evidence that the clearly drawn clean-shaven soldier in these two posters is Trotsky.--Pharos (talk) 03:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"vastly-more-obscure version"...not sure about that. It's one of the more famous posters by one of the most famous propaganda artists of the period. It's true that it's debatable whether the soldier is Trotsky but the text is certainly Trotsky's as Director says. The important point though I think is that it would far better for people to spend their time improving the neglected articles about these immensely talented artists than trying to get each other blocked especially if the motivation is a misinformed interpretation of the poster's imagery and what the poster's use tells you about an editor's intent. Sean.hoyland - talk 06:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not making any comment on the general ANI rigmarole, just wanted to put my two cents in on this particular image, which I've spent in inordinate amount of time researching lately, along with a few others of its kind :) Perhaps we should move it to another room.--Pharos (talk) 08:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is still going on?? Pharos, not to imply any disrespect, but your own impressions are not something that needs to be discussed. Either you've got someone who says it somehow isn't Trotsky, or you don't. -- Director (talk) 12:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Much more serious than the argument about that image,which is not being considered for inclusion any more anyway, is that Director and Producer have found a quote which says "the first violins in the orchestra of death of the tsar and his family were four Jews", referring to the people who actually fired the pistols, which they change to "the main perpetrators of the death of the tsar and his family were four Jews" and pay absolutely no attention to the four sources I have provided so far which confirm the now accepted historical fact that the killings were ordered by Lenin.It is not only me who opposes that lie "Jews killed the Tsar", which you only find on extremist webssites, but when it is removed, one or the other of them put it right back in again. I appeal to some admin or authority or someone reading this to take some action, please do something. Does WP really want to turn into an anti-Semitic website?Smeat75 (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is impossible to engage in a discussion, let alone reason, with someone who consistently projects onto other users as claiming nonsense like the "first the Jews killed Christ then they killed Christ's representative on earth, the Tsar" [75] and states that users like Altenmann (talk · contribs) and I push a "straightforward anti-Semitic slur". He criticizes others for their wording yet his only alternative to throw sourced statements straight out the window based on him feeling "disturbed". You clearly lack the ability to refrain from such absurd behavior and thus continue to ignore inconvenient reliable sources and try to associate other users with malicious statements or views. You have a personal beef with Vaskberg based on some emotional past reading elsewhere and consider his work a "lie". All I can say is tough luck: your personal feelings are utterly irrelevant and constantly crying wolf does not help your case. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 13:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, you'd better have me thrown off WP then, hadn't you.Smeat75 (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Just be civil and stop inferring at every chance possible that anyone who disagrees with you is an anti-semite. Not asking for much. --◅ PRODUCER (TALK) 14:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for putting that Veksburg quote back to the original. I did not say his quote was a lie, it was a lie the way it was misquoted. Original says the four people who pulled the triggers were "the first violins of the orchestra" and Sverdlov, a top Bolshevik was "the conductor" which does not necessarily conflict with the fact that Lenin ordered the killings, after all, an orchestra and a conductor did not write the music, who was the composer?Smeat75 (talk) 15:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to point out that Director inverts the burden of proof by demanding other editors to prove the man on the poster is not Trotsky when he himself has no evidence that he is. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 18:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's only true if we assume there was not enough evidence already to dispel reasonable doubt, as I believe there was. Descriptions of the image on several host websites have been provided, photos of Trotsky appearing as in the poster, and Trotsky's own message and signature below the illustration. For goodness sake - its the spitting image of Trotsky from the contemporary photographs.

If you're referring to my latest request up there addressing Pharos, then there is no question at all with regard to reasonable doubt, since by that point a scholarly source explicitly stating its Trotsky has been added to the pile. Demanding proof negative is perfectly justified in the presence of proof positive. -- Director (talk) 23:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect, per Director's comment above, GreyWinterOwl. Please check again carefully through this RfC to get Director topic banned from virtually every area of Wikipedia... er, I meant ANI turned upside-down by those being brought before it (and disregard sections asking for personal time out 'cos we ain't done with the character assassination yet') and you'll find that he has provided an RS. In fact, Sean.hoyland has even provided an easy link to the ref in question. I've seen some bizarre, protracted ANI twists and turns, but this one seems to be intent on taking the kangaroo court prize.

Incidentally, Smeat75, I have no intention of being lured to the talk page as it will compromise my neutrality. --Iryna Harpy (talk) 23:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible that Iryna Harpy is suffering from the same difficulty with reading comprehension as Director? USchick (talk) 23:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Are there any circumstances in which comments like the above are not considered vitriolic WP:NPA violations? Are all the adults mysteriously absent from this entire thread? This discussion has stretched out into levels of unbridled absurdity. Tarc (talk) 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, when people take facts and misconstrue them. I agree about adult supervision. USchick (talk) 00:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am relatively new to Wikipedia. But if someone can help, I'd like to file a complain about USchick. The few times I have crossed paths with her is just general unpleasantness. It's not just comments like this above[76][77], but just the whole ove-the-top waving policy in people's face[78], general argumentativeness and unwillingness to even listen to others' discussion [79], constant POV pushing and marginalizing anything Russia related [80][81]. Frankly, it's toxic to the community. She does sometimes have good points...but the way she delivers them and the inability to even accept others' opinions even once, not a fan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JNC2 (talk • contribs) 03:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

USchick and WP:CHEESE

This thread is already huge, but I really feel I have to quote this latest exchange in entirety. Its from this thread

Politics in Israel is even more complex than the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Anyway, there can be several communist parties in the same country, particularly in Israel.
In Belgium, we have 3 communist parties for next pools (2 French speaking - 1 Flemish).
Pluto2012 (talk) 20:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope Director reads this comment, since he continues to push his POV that all communism is the same everywhere. USchick (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I find it amazing you still have no idea what I was saying. I would have thought that "all Communism is not the same, but all Communism is Communism" was about as clear as human language can strive to be. Either that or "Marxism, Leninism, Marxism-Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, Guevarism, Castroism, Titoism, etc - are variants of Communism" [82]. Incredibly though, you persist in disrupting this talkpage with WP:ICANTHEARYOU.

I still think someone who believes Marxism is different from Communism, or that "Soviet" is an ideology - can not contribute here. It implies difficulty in understanding the concept of a wider term (which is pretty basic stuff). -- Director (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source for your opinion. or is it OR? USchick (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes: she's requesting sources that Marxism is a form of Communism; just to make sure that's not my "OR".

This comes after weeks of discussion and numerous "debates" in threads like this one, where she virtually blanked the entire article removing Marxists and Stalinists on grounds that these are not Communists. I am NOT kidding. That was five weeks ago or more. In the meantime she's argued that Karl Marx is a Marxist, and therefore not a Communist (as shown above), and argued that the word "Soviet" denotes an ideology. She still insists that Marxism is not Communism, and for all I can tell, probably still maintains Karl Marx was not a Communist. Karl. Marx. The author of The Communist Manifesto. And this is all just an example. These sort of things carry over from the old article as well.

But there's more here: "DIREKTOR pushes his POV that all communism is the same everywhere" - she never even bothered to figure out what's being said. When folks were saying "Marxism is a form of Communism", she read that as "Communism is the same everywhere". The logic of that ("if Marxism is Communism, then Communism is all the same") is so appalling, one has to conclude, without trying to offend(!), that USchick is likely a very young person, not equipped at all to discuss the subject. That her involvement over there is generally detrimental to the development of a serious dialogue and discussion.
(This is in addition to the fact that she seems to equate political parties with ideologies, thinking that three different Communist parties must have different ideologies.)

Marxism is, of course, the central form of Communism, and is practically synonymous with it. This is WP:DE, and I think something needs to be done. Conversing with USchick is about as close to a literal replay of WP:CHEESE as anything I've seen or could imagine. -- Director (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yah.. and up there she just said I "have trouble with reading comprehension". "With reading comprehension". I mean this sort of thing is just infuriating. You'd need the reserve of a canonized saint, or a brick wall, just to get past the appalling nonsense, let alone discuss an extremely difficult topic. -- Director (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

History page vandalism?

I can't say who did this, since the history page has been altered, but in the Estes Kefauver talk page I pointed out that the map was inaccurate and the map was altered (still inaccurate, but that's not really germane) and the history was then altered to make it appear that the map alteration occurred several months before I complained, not several months after. This is easily confirmed by a look at the internet way-back machine. This makes me look like an idiot who can't read. Who even has the power to do this and isn't this a violation of some rule? I assume whoever did this must be abusing a position of trust here and probably has continued to do so. Is this an accepted practice here? My initial post is under the name ezra c v mildew desire Jr. Vladimir tsarejamewitz (talk) 04:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The article uses templates and images. Those are edited separately. Perhaps someone edited the image in question. Enigma^msg 05:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think the OP is referring to File:1952DemocraticPresidentialPrimaries.svg. The map was changed on February 2013 which amongst other things, added DC. So the history is indeed there, the OP was simply confused about where. Nil Einne (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I was going to link to the history of the image in question, but there was more than one image and I didn't want to spend the time figuring out which one he was referring to. Heh. Enigma^msg 19:59, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The DC info was NOT added in 2013! Check the page for may 2012 and you'll see that it already lists DC and other changes which were responses to my Dec 2012 talk page entry. This is a falsified history, and the proof of this can be found via the way-back machine. I STILL would like to know if this is an accepted practice here or if it is against the rules, And how it can be determined who is messing up the history.

And Enigmaman, the image history shows the image I referred to being replaced BEFORE I mentioned it (again, the way-back shows the truth). The first image was the one there when I complained, the second was the one added after that, although the relevant wikipedia histories show it being added before my complaint(that is, unless the page histories have been altered again!) And learn some damn manners, enigmaman, if you have a question try asking it instead of laughing at me while you discuss me in the third person. Or do you feel that all the grandiose talk here about civility is somehow beneath you?Vladimir tsarejamewitz (talk) 17:03, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am always civil. I was not "laughing" at you. If you don't understand how Wikipedia works, try asking a question rather than being rude to the people trying to help you. I was trying to help and this is what I get. Enigma^msg 21:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T2851

When you view an old revision of an article, it always displays the current version of the used images and templates. That's just how the software works. The wiki source of the revision is rendered as it would look today. If you want to see the history of an image or template then you must view its file page or template page. PrimeHunter (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

But that won't always be the case.... — Scott • talk 19:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The Koenraad Elst machine

It seems to me (and to other editors) that the work of Calypsomusic (talk · contribs) amounts to little more than writing up articles on non-notable books by Koenraad Elst. Their contributions to the many AfDs started by Darkness Shines (DS, you are hereby pinged) indicated that they lack much wherewithal in the areas of WP:RS and WP:NPOV--now that's no crime, nor no sin either, but given that they are basically an SPA, one wonders if this warrants administrative action or at least wider discussion. So far any disruption seems limited to copying and pasting "keep" rationales in AfDs and then flooding said AfDs with walls of text and links to blogs and supposedly important testimony, and I'm in the process of closing some of those AfDs, but I think this is worth being looked at by others. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Relevant AfDs: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Saffron Swastika, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decolonizing the Hindu Mind, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya and After: Issues Before Hindu Society, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ayodhya, The Finale, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Negationism in India: Concealing the Record of Islam, and there may be more. Note: I have closed a few of those as "keep", on admittedly on the basis of less-than-ideal evidence. I just closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate as "redirect" on the suggestion of Tokyogirl79; I have no objection whatsoever to the ones I decided as "keep" becoming redirects as well. In a nutshell, I found the "mentions" brought up in those AfDs to be relevant enough, but there is no way they are going to help in article writing. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Weird, I never got a notification that you had pinged me? Darkness Shines (talk) 10:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I gave up participating in those AfD discussions due to the walls of text, incessant comments and potshots being taken by Calypsomusic. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What Flat Out mentioned is flat out important. When AfDs get hit by walls of text like that - and I've unfortunately seen it happen a lot on AfDs related to South Asian politics and religion - people lose interest in participating. That's bad, because such discussions are enhanced when more editors participate and share thoughts. Additionally, it becomes a hassle for the closer as they have to sift through a lot of text, much of which is often irrelevant. It just messes it up for everybody. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The account seems dormant now. It made its first edits on March 11, and its last edits on April 11. Exactly one month of activity, and now that the AfDs have been closed the activity has stopped for now.

Shall the problem areas simply be noted and we move on? The editor is a noob; if they come back, there is a chance they could be guided toward more productive editing. Most of us made large blunders when we were new. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well, they're back, with The Rushdie Affair: The Novel, the Ayatollah, and the West, some book with an afterword by you-know-who. Drmies (talk) 00:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The user is now engaging in the same problematic behavior. In addition to another bunk article created on the same grounds, there is now a measure of battleground mentality on the talk pages of some related articles. Interestingly enough, while the user is engaging in such behavior at those locations, they have not participated in this discussion so far.

For most users reading this, I don't need to go over what we all know could happen. We have all seen intelligent editors who either don't get Wikipedia policies or don't care gradually waste more and more of the community's time; when nothing is done, they get bold. I see that starting here. So the question is, can some sort of community intervention be performed? MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Personally I figure this is a sock, given the way he has followed just about all my edits. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Please Temp-Block Dicklyon for Disruptive Reversions

Dear Admins,

Please block {Dicklyon} from editing articles because he deems that my editing generally is bad and evidently that he will save Wikipedia from it by reverting whatever past edits of mine he disagrees with--sometimes without my knowledge.

He began on my talk page, calling me incompetent and telling me to stop copy-editing. Sixteen minutes and another talk page message (I only discovered it now) later, he reverted an edit of mine; three minutes later, another; one minute later, yet another! I had already faced this problem before, driven into a month's anxious silence and failed dispute-resolution efforts by another editor's threat to call AN/I: I sought arbitration for this longstanding problem of accusations and threats, with Dick's deeds being the straw breaking the camel's back.

I told Dick I sought arbitration, which would have sufficed had Dick not made this problem urgent by openly reverting three more of my edits and, I discovered, reverting three more without telling me. Some of his edit summaries were just "Please stop that," or "Removed more of Duxwing's odd editing," evincing that his problem is not with the articles but me. Most egregious were his secretly reverting my Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium and Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus. I cannot understand why his disliking my editing has not driven him to instead call administrators to block me: any reasonable person would know that seven reversions and two talk page threads cannot be simultaneously discussed and that however many secret reversions cannot be discussed at all. Dick has thus neglected the "Discuss" of Bold-Revert-Discuss, whereby articles are edited throughout Wikipedia, and circumvented editorial conduct dispute resolution to effectively block me. I therefore want him blocked from editing articles until he and I can resolve this dispute.

Open Reversions

1. [83]
2. Rocket
3. Impulse
4. Turn
5. (Crocodile)
6. Awareness Office

Secret Reversions

1. Principle (consensus)
2. of Style (consensus)
3. Music

Note: This request for administrative help is my first and therefore may contain unintentional errors.

Duxwing (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

• Well, this edit on the Hardy-Weinberg article makes sense to me--esp. the last tweak ("are in real populations") is an improvement. More importantly, how is this a secret edit? Drmies (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

By "secret" I don't know have any idea what he means; perhaps whether he received a revert notification. Please see discussion at his talk page. And please do let me know if you think any of my reverts were less appropriate than the one you said makes sense. Dicklyon (talk) 22:12, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you're right. The "secret" reverts were reverts that undid Duxwing's changes but not directly after Duxwing made them (there were intervening edits), so Duxwing wouldn't have gotten a notification about them. I feel like pulling the old man's "back in my day" rant... The whole automatic notification thing still feels new to me. :) -- Atama頭 22:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not use the word "incompetent", but yes I was less gentle or patient than I could have been, because I saw in User talk:Duxwing that quite a few editors before me (Tony1 (talk · contribs), Joel B. Lewis (talk · contribs), Cyclopia (talk · contribs), U3964057 (talk · contribs), Darkness Shines (talk · contribs), McGeddon (talk · contribs), Supasheep (talk · contribs), Velella (talk · contribs), Jim1138 (talk · contribs), Theroadislong (talk · contribs), AddWittyNameHere (talk · contribs), David Eppstein (talk · contribs)) had tried to get him to improve, modify, curtail, or stop his "copy edits" that were doing so much to make articles worse; his edit on the WP:MOS is what drew my attention in the first place (see Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Copy_Edit_of_Lead where 3 other editors explain to him that his edits were a big problem). On reviewing his recent edits, I found quite a few doing more harm than good, and felt that a revert would be most effective; if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that. But instead he jumped straight to trying to get some higher power to remove me as an obstacle; see our brief interaction of yesterday at User talk:Duxwing#Copyediting. If anyone sees portions of these reverted copy edits that would be worth salvaging, by all means go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing's complaint has no merit. The user has failed to improve despite the many suggestions from more experienced editors, leaving Dicklyon to conclude that Duxwing is a net drag on Wikipedia's resources. I agree. Binksternet (talk) 22:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Oh dear, I remember this user. I urge administrators to look at User talk:Duxwing and to his contributions. There is something... weird. He seems to be bent on doing "copyediting" edits which regularly make the articles worse, since he has poor command of English language and grammar (this is evident even to me, not a native English speaker). See where for example he changed "callus" to "callous", with a totally absurd reason. I think we are in definite lack of competence territory.--cyclopia^speak! 22:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

cyclopia, I think you are speaking in jest: are you? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dick You are woefully misrepresenting what you said, which was: “Duxwing…back off on the [copy-edits] ... you should not be doing them.”

I'd like to add that Dicklyon's behavior seems justified per WP:HOUNDING: "Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles." -- Atama頭 22:55, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Binksternet I have already covered your point: if Dick believed that I were a net drag, then he should have called for my blocking instead of so reverting my recent consented edits as to prevent my knowing that he did. I had to root through his edit history--which never explained the consented secret reversions--just to find what happened. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:DISPUTE, it is conventional to try to talk things out first, not go straight to asking admins for sanctions. And there's no firm rule against being a net drag on the project, as far as I know. It's a thought, though. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, take a look at WP:WATCHLIST; you'll find it a lot easier to notice when someone edits an article that you have edited, making it easier for you to be aware of "secret" reverts. Dicklyon (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dicky, I find your claim that I could talk about the reversions disingenuous considering how many and what kind you did. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to use cute names for me. The various article talk pages are a good place to talk about your edits. Or your talk page, where you told me to get lost. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not tell you to "get lost". I told you I would not talk to you because I sought arbitration because you would not stop reverting my edits even when I tried talking to you--you seemed not to care what I had to say. You ignored the very dispute-resolution process you claim I broke, and claiming that I was in the wrong because I should have put those articles on my watchlist to accommodate your preferences is victim-blaming.

@Atama Hounding continues to describe how these reversions can be used, indicating an intention for this allowance. Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing (talk) 23:05, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Here is one of his edits that I haven't reverted yet, but will, unless someone beats me to it or pipes up to question whether reverting it would be the best thing here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

This sort of reversion is exactly what I am talking about. The only difference between this discussion and our last is that in this one he warns me. Do you understand that I cannot carry on a multithreaded AN/I discussion and dispute your reversions? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful. Dicklyon (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The SSME edit just got reverted by an IP Address. Quite a coincidence, eh, Dick? Duxwing (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

The same IP is reverting my edits one after another--literally seconds apart. I think you are sock-puppeting. Duxwing (talk) 23:32, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Given the open discussion of your edits here, and since Dicklyon is active on his account, that's pretty weak evidence for sockpuppetry. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone is working hard to make one or both of us look bad. It happens. Dicklyon (talk) 23:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no friends, Dick, and to my knowledge you have no enemies. You already have shown that you don't care for discussion. Why should you care about AN/I? Duxwing (talk) 23:39, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I reviewed your edits as the discussion here was of interest. I reverted your edits as you have much to learn about copy editing. 86.135.164.83 (talk) 23:41, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

We therefore can conclude that "if he then wants to go the next step and discuss one or more of those, I could do that" is a lie because you have just agreed that "I [Duxwing] ... am the obstacle" to your goals and therefore not someone with whom you would discuss any edits: why should we believe that you have good faith--or anything you have to say that isn't nailed-down with diffs? If you are willing to lie before this Administrative Board, then we must doubt whether you even thought my edits were bad--you very well may just be "working hard to make [me] look bad". And even if you are not, lying to the board is wrong in itself; furthermore, declaring it too a mere object that you must "railroad" and admitting that you cannot take responsibility or understand others also evinces your contempt of its decisions and our Wikipedian community, thus further evincing that the IP is a sockpuppet.

Most condemningly, the IP's edit history begins with exactly the edit that you proposed to make--reverting my edit to the Space Shuttle Main Engine--and beyond the other rapid-fire reversions has only one edit, which it made after its post here. Coincidentally, this edit was also a reversion. Whatever I accusations I have previously made are trivial to the ones that your agreement has evinced.

Duxwing (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I say the above not to assassinate your character before the mods but explain why you would be controlling the IP: you have already done unto me like it has. Duxwing (talk) 23:57, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Awful convenient of you to do exactly what I was complaining about to exactly what Dick was talking about, eh, IP? Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, when you started this thread I understood what you were saying. Parts of it made sense and the logical gaps were, well, clearly logical gaps, so OK. I can't claim to have read the threat in its entirety, but toward the end I don't know what you're talking about.

Many WP articles need copyediting. A quick look at your copyediting suggests that you get some things right and some things wrong. Here, you change "A large number of" to "Many". Excellent. "Many" is what "a large number of" means. (If it didn't mean "many", it would be misphrased.) Perhaps you should concentrate on some kinds of edits rather than others. Famously, there's a (to my mind) unfortunate page titled Wikipedia:Be bold; one of these days I should write a superior replacement, "Be timid". -- Hoary (talk) 01:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Hoary, would you please move this concern to my Talk page if you think moving it is appropriate? I want to keep this discussion focused on Dicklyon's conduct. Duxwing (talk) 01:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Hoary Thanks for your first paragraph, which I missed.  :) I recommend reading the entire thread to understand what happened.

@Mods, can we continue this discussion? Dick has admitted to my claims and even bad faith (not caring what anyone, and therefore AN/I, has to say about his behavior) and lacking empathetic competence (not understanding how people work). I think these problems exceed my original complaint and therefore warrant more discussion about whether and how Dick should be among us: good faith and competence are required here. Duxwing (talk) 03:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nonsense. Dicklyon is of immense value to the encyclopedia while you are a net negative. You have no leverage against him. This whole discussion should result in a WP:Boomerang effect. Binksternet (talk) 03:14, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Being of "immense value" does not excuse bad behavior, and being "a net negative" does not prevent me from reporting it. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Noting this discussion it seems this is a new user who needs useful feedback. Someone should point them to WP:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, and maybe WP:edit warring, and maybe a place where they can do something useful (patrolling?) as they figure out how things work. Reverting a good edit with the edit summary of "vandalism" is not good practice. —Neotarf (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I already know about BRD, and I was specifically trying to get Dick to participate in it when he evidently refused. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. As I pointed out, about a dozen editors tried patiently to counsel him before me. My multiple reverts were partly to get him to understand that he needs to take input. If you'd like to volunteer to mentor him, maybe he can be helped. Dicklyon (talk) 05:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That's disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The only advice anyone asks me for these days is about leaving Wikipedia. If he wants adoption there is Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user, or failing that, the tea house or Wikipedia:Questions. Otherwise I have restored one of your edits that he reverted, that's all I have time for. Someone should check the rest of his edits, a lot of articles don't have page watchers.—Neotarf (talk) 06:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What do you suggest doing?

The issue here is skill. Your editing skill is being questioned, but you do not have enough skill to understand the issues other editors have with it. The choir analogy is a good one here. IMHO you need to take a break from doing the kind of editing you have been doing, and either do something else that will develop your skill in that area, or find a different area where you have better skills. Instead of working style issues across a broad range of topics, it might work out better to pick one or two topics you are passionate about, or want to read up on, and work on articles in those areas. The style issues that are such a stumbling block for you now would come more naturally if you were trying to find a way to express something you found important about that topic. Or if it is style issues that really interest you, there is a huge internet world of grammar and lingua-blogs out there, not to mention community resources, that can help fine-tune your understanding, for instance, of the difference between descriptive and prescriptive grammar.

The Wikipedia is really an interesting phenomenon. It is a place where you can learn things about human nature, and about yourself, that you would never be able to find out in real life. But in the end it is also about building an encyclopedia, and when it gets to the point where you are actually causing other people more work than you are doing, it's time to change direction. —Neotarf (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If I am so unskilled as to not understand their complaints, then would you please dumb them down enough for me to understand? :)

Style issues are what interest me here, and if you would please show me the way to improving on them, then I will take it. Duxwing (talk) 18:18, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You will have to take their complaints up with them directly, if they have the time to engage on the issue. But this is a little bit like walking into a car mechanic shop, not knowing what a carburetor is, and expecting to have it explained. For linguistics you might start with Language Log, or maybe David Crystal's "Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language"--it used to be readily available online for download, or just start googling to see what interests you. If you can't access your local university or community college's writing courses, you might try Perdue OWL. —Neotarf (talk) 19:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Neotarf, it's not really productive to tell newby editors "Go back to school and don't edit until you're good at it." What's needed here is simply a change of behavior and attitude. Many editors have taken the time to explain to Duxwing exactly what's wrong with any edit that he cared to inquire about; as I would have, if he had asked. He can easily fix the problem by putting more time into asking and listening, rather than just complaining that his campaign of editing is being impeded by those who revert him. Dicklyon (talk) 19:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My "campaign of edits" is not what I'm complaining about. I was complaining about my talk page and not being able to keep up with the pace of reversions. Duxwing (talk) 20:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, the more I look at this, the more it looks like a WP:COMPETENCE issue. Multiple explanations have been given here, by many many editors who have issues with his editing, and Duxwing has not shown that he even understands them. In fact, he has asked for simpler explanations. If Duxwing can't keep pace with the reversions, he is the one who needs to slow down, and understand just one edit at a time. —Neotarf (talk) 03:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I disagree with Duxwing's description of his MOS edits as "Manual of Style edits, which were already consensus". If he is referring to his edits [84] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics, then three editors at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Mathematics have disagreed with them and no others have supported — those edits were definitely not consensus. It was also disturbing that Duxwing should edit the MOS while in the middle of a discussion at Talk:Waring's_problem#Copy_Editing, in order to support his minority opinion in that discussion. Deltahedron (talk) 07:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Another editor had removed only the parts of my edit with which he disagreed, and Dick, ignoring the Talk page, carefully reverted everything else. Thus, Dick removed my consented edits. And I did not change it to support my opinion; I changed it because I happened upon some errors, just like I do any other article. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this diff at the WP:MOS lead, I changed your #1 to #2 because your version used the unnecessarily awkward plural possessive, the "like" where "such as" was correct, and other non-useful differences. There's a certain idiomatic parallelism to "certain X ... and others", which was lost in your version where "others'" seems ambiguous, as if it might be referring to input from other people. You could have asked me for further info on this one or any other one, but I don't think you did:

1. (yours): fully covering various topics (like punctuation) and presenting others' key points.
2. (longstanding): covering certain topics (such as punctuation) in full, and presenting the key points of others.

The fact that you had not yet been fully reverted does not mean you should claim you had consensus for this part of your change. Dicklyon (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I came upon Duxwing after their edits to the Maths MOS. I also had a look at their user page where they described themselves as a grammar hammer. It was pretty much immediately obvious to me that they had a highly inflated opinion of their own competence and were determined to fight to stick in their changes. From the discussion here it seems to me they have been fighting for quite a while. this puts me in mind of something I read recently in Help! How to deal with choir members who sing out of tune? which I think is an interesting read on a similar type problem in another setting, and the last section on 'the biggest problem of all' is particularly relevant here. Dmcq (talk) 10:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I wrote "The Grammar Hammer" as a joke about my edit summaries when I helped a Netherlander write Spore fanfiction when I was twelve; I liked how "grammar" and "hammer" rhymed and had tired of writing "spelling, grammar, and style". I don't think I'm some magical grammar guru, just that I can fix bad grammar like anyone else. And I am not determined to "stick in my changes" because they are mine: I think some wordings are good and others bad, and when I think of a good wording to replace a bad--often after having considered many also-bad options in quick succession--I pursue it to better Wikipedia. Hence my seeming narcissism: I would not knowingly and purposefully make an edit I thought worsened the article. Duxwing (talk) 13:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you put in edits that you think would worsen articles. What I'm saying is that in my opinion and that of a number of other people as shown here your edits often worsen articles. That is why they are reverted. You are fighting to put in your edits; you have raised a complaint here trying to block a person who reverted some of your edits. In terms of the blog I pointed at you are a choir member who sings loudly out of tune but says yes when the choirmaster asks them if they think they are pitching correctly. Dmcq (talk) 14:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not saying you accused me of bad faith but trying to explain why I do what I do. How often is too often? I am only human, having about five hundred edits and only thirty-five ever contested, giving a 93% success rate. What is the requisite? 95? 99? A perfect record? I asked for the block to prevent his vendetta against me--one whereto he has admitted--from ending with my entire history's being reshaped to his satisfaction. Your comparison of me to the choir member is inaccurate because less than one in ten of my edits have been reverted; I am at worst a choir member whose voice cracks every once in a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duxwing (talk • contribs)

Ok, you can't have it both ways here. If you've only had 35 of your edits complained about (which I doubt it's that low), then you have no need to be bringing ANYONE to ANI - you should back away, and learn. Nothing worth complaining about with 35 - and I'd bet that they weren't all complained about by Dick, were they? Now ... in reality, it's actually more like only about 35 of your edits have been good (maybe 35% on a good day) ... that's a number I can get behind. DP 17:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I counted in February (25) and added the ten from this dispute (35). Even if I missed another ten (45) I'm still over 90% success. I got AN/I wanted to pre-empt the problem from occurring, like it almost did when the aforementioned IP editor reverted four of my edits faster than I could refresh this page. Can we separate this discussion into two parts: one about Dick, and the other about me? My head is swimming with the effort of keeping this stuff straight. Duxwing (talk) 17:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I am confused why Dicklyon is being singled out in this way. I too have had very significant differences of opinion with Duxwing and I now chose not to respond to his comments on my talk page because it just leads to endless time wasting. The whole editing pattern by Duxwing seems to be set upon entangling editors in endlessly arcane discussions about the minutiae of English grammar and its meaning which is a grave waste of everyone's time and energy. I have not yet seen an edit by Duxwing that adds anything of any merit (although I certainly don't go looking for his/her edits - there are much better ways to spend my time) but I have encountered several that have had a seriously deleterious effect on the articles and which I have had to revert. There are many other editors who expressed serious concerns about the editing style, the bizarre use of often archaic English and about grammatical constructions that are most awkward and unnecessary. I shall try and refrain from any further significant inputs to this debate, but it seems very clear to me that the complainant has no case, and that the many reputable and established editors who have properly raised concerns on the complainants talk page have raised very real concerns that cannot be allowed to continue unabated.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick is not being "singled out". I wanted to slow his reversions to a pace I could discuss. I am disturbed that you would doubt my good faith. If you have read only a few of my edits, then why should we believe your categorical condemnation of my editing is anything but a hasty generalization? I have gone to great lengths to address those concerns, stopped only by people like you, who simply refuse to tell me whether my editing has improved. Duxwing (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody simply refuses to tell you if your editing has improved; it has not. If you think that I reverted something that was actually worth keeping, point it out and let's see if others agree. The input will do us both good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:26, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

First, I said "whether" not "if," including the possibility of its not having improved; don't twist my words. And people can and have refused; e.g., you by admitting you see me as an "obstacle" and Velella by saying he "chose not to respond to [Duxwing's] comments on [Duxwing's] talk page". The falsehood of your assertion that they do not is so obvious that I question your good faith. The question I've brought here is not about the reversions or the edits; it's about your having made them so quickly that I never could dispute them all. Finally, stop disingenuously pretending you care about this input: you already have said the AN/I and I are only "an obstacle" to you. Duxwing (talk) 16:55, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

My point was that you could start by disputing any one of my reverts; what you learn might apply to others, and then you wouldn't need to dispute them all. Can you pick one to ask me about? Have you ever asked me about one? If so, I don't find it (checking back, I find your very first words to me were on your talk page, where you wrote "I will request arbitration on this issue because I have already discussed my copy-editing with other editors and want to permanently resolve this issue."). Since you referred specifically to the MOS edit above, I provided details reasons there for why I reverted. If this process is slowing you down, we seem to have agreement that that's a good thing. If it's slowing down a half dozen others, such as me, that's less good. Dicklyon (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick, you are misrepresenting the truth again. Your very first words to me were, "Duxwing, I seriously think you should back off on the copy-editing" followed by three reversions. I then correctly reasoned that you only saw me as "an obstacle"--why has no one commented on your admitting that you do?--and one never talks to obstacles unless necessary to remove them. Duxwing (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The boomerang has to hit

It seems there is a consensus that Duxwing (talk · contribs) edits are overall disruptive, and that he refuses to hear when they are called into question. I fear some edit restriction would be in order. --cyclopia^speak! 17:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Cyclopia, whether my edits are overall disruptive or not (remember that my editing changed after the February conflagration on my Talk Page) I so do not refuse to hear other's complaints that I have spent this entire AN/I discussion trying to get Dick to tell me why he reverted my edits and to slow my discussion with him to a reasonable pace. Moreover, any restriction would be pointless because my only edits were to the IP's sudden reversion of my most recent edits. Duxwing (talk) 17:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

If you had really changed in February then you would not be here now at ANI. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Exactly - a quick review of Duxwing's talkpage - and my sincere attempts to assist being ignored and questioned as to "why" shows that Duxwing hasn't learned anything. I'd never heard of Duxwing until yesterday DP 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

DP, I am sorry for not having replied to you sooner--your huge message necessitated a huge, considered reply--and I really was only curious about "why".  :) You have not been ignored, and I greatly appreciate your help. Duxwing (talk) 17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Let's start with a warning, by an admin with the power and intent to enforce it if the advice to behave better is ignored. Something like "Duxwing is advised to follow the "D" part of WP:BRD; when edits are reverted, they should be discussed, preferably on the article talk page, and the reverted edits or others like them should not be repeated unless the problem is resolved; he is warned that further disruption such as repeating contested edits or seeking adminstrative sanctions for simple editing disputes will lead to a block." Or whatever some admin sees as more appropriate. Dicklyon (talk) 17:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That wording works for me. Binksternet (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why are you talking about BRD? You stated and admitted you were never open to it in the first place. And if you look on any talk page of any article wherein I have recently had contested edits--e.g., Manual of Style or Hardy-Weinberg--then you will find that I have always followed BRD. You are the one who broke it. Duxwing (talk) 17:22, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no wish to be unhelpful, but there are times when attention to the First law of holes can be helpful.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   17:27, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you want me to drop the request? Duxwing (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's enough to ask Duxwing to do more discussion after his edits are reverted as he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved. The issue as I see it is that he persists in what he calls "copyediting" and does not understand - even after receiving detailed feedback - that these edits change the meaning of articles and/or make articles more difficult to read. Therefore it seems that there may be a WP:COMPETENCE issue that I don't think talking or explaining more will alleviate. Perhaps direct oversight of his edits to articles by a mentor will eventually help, if such a mentor can be found. Failing that, a restriction on "copyediting" might help, if such a thing is possible. Ca2james (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, not practical. WP has a policy of tolerating semi-competent writers by getting them to behave sensibly. Where you say "he is already doing that and his edits have not substantially improved", that's half true. The problem is that he stopped discussing and went for administrative interference. I don't mind reverting every incompetent edit he makes, if he'll then take the time to go the talk page of the article in question and discuss what improvement he thinks he is making; sure I might get impatient with him, but more likely he'll eventually learn that there are ways to move forward and ways to be stuck, and that everything he has tried so far has left him stuck. Dicklyon (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing has Duxwing explaining (perhaps for the first time) that one of his goals at Wikipedia, even his main one, is to rewrite articles to use "less ink", based on what seems to be his misunderstanding of "the Wikipedian Copy Editing Guide I read years ago". It may be the case that this goal was so obvious to him that he never brought it up when his edits were challenged, assuming that every other editor was operating under the same imaginary policy. I'm not quite sure what to make of this, but skimming his edit history, very nearly every "copyedit" edit he has made since last July has a red, negative number next to it. --McGeddon (talk) 08:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Competence is definitely an issue. Although Wikipedia generally suffers fools gladly, usually the editor must show an interest in changing the objectionable behavior. Otherwise people like Dicklyon will forever be spending their precious energies dealing with the editors' messes. That seems like disruption to me. Sławomir Biały (talk) 11:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is my competence an issue if my edits are due to a single misunderstanding, and when did I say that I would not stop trying to shorten articles if it were against policy? Duxwing (talk) 15:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not a single misunderstanding. This is at the very least 12 competent and committed editors expressing real concern over a period of months about your editing conduct. Please do try to understand. You brought this issue here , but if you hadn't another editor would probably have done so quite soon. You may recall my advice to you some months ago that your editing conduct might lead to a block. Unless there is some real sign that you both understand that and the seriousness of the comments being made, I regret that my warning all those weeks ago, may become a reality. If you need help, then fine, we can give help, but there has to be a real sea-change in behaviour and understanding before I, for one, will wish to expend much more time on this cause. Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   15:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

With respect I ask: would you please elaborate? I think you mean to say that I should have from the complaints' number intuited that I needed a general review of my editing, and that I should have therefore sought someone to help me. I did both back in February with Jim1138, AddWittyNameHere, and seraphimblade and stopped getting help from them only because they would or could not reply. I concealed my deeds, concerns, and hurt feelings as much as possible because, knowing almost nothing about Wikipedia, I assumed one false move would cause my doom and that the less anyone knew, the less they could hurt me for or with; e.g., when you told me my editing might get me blocked, I stopped for thirty-one days despite Wiki-withdrawal and quivering every time I saw the site.

I recognized the concerns' seriousness again today when I asked for adoption, which seems necessary to help me with my confusion about copy-editing and this AN/I discussion. Again, with respect: is this behavior the sea-change you described?

P.S. The misunderstanding I mentioned was of Wikipedian Copy-Editing policy. The twelve-editor pile-up is a fiasco wherefore I apologize. Duxwing (talk) 16:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Proposed Resolution

Seeing that I cannot seem to resolve my dispute with Dick, I want to get some help understanding what happened and various other concerns. Anyone know how to get adopted? Duxwing (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

That could be a great step. See Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user/Adoptee's Area. Dicklyon (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, I feel like all my complaints about Dick's behavior have been ignored. Why? Duxwing (talk) 20:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ignored? You've got hundreds of kilobytes of reactions to your complaint right here. Read it. Dicklyon (talk) 21:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon's behavior is a lot like mine would have been had I taken an interest in your edits like he did. Binksternet (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I am not wholly convinced that off wiki posts like this are actually very helpful to your cause, being neither true nor mature.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   23:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The problem with the above is that Dick hasn't really done anything wrong. He's protected articles from issues that have been approved by the community as a whole. So, you actually don't have compaints about Dick, you have complaints about the decisions of the community, and Dick's your target by substitution. Oddly enough, the community has tried to bend over backwards to get you to see things in one way, but you merely attack and argue otherwise. You are the one showing poor behaviour against Dick and the rest of the community, not the other way around. ES&L 11:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Lots more to clean up

Whatever the resolution here, it would be useful to have more eyes reviewing Duxwing's contribs, and repairing the widespread damage. I just found one that remained current since Feb. 1 (that is, on a thinly editted article), and reverted it becaused it mangled the meaning and grammar of the lead: [85]. There are lots more needing repair. Dicklyon (talk) 20:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm cleaning up another I just found, per my detailed explanation at Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing, where I make the point that each of the 8 sentences he touched was made worse, not better, by his copy edits. If anyone disagrees with any of these points, this would be a good time to say. Dicklyon (talk) 20:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, not so many. As I scan his edits, it is very hard to find any that have not already been reverted by someone previous to me. You would think this would be a clue ... Dicklyon (talk) 22:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick, I have plenty of non-reverted edits:

• [86] (actually 2 in a row)
• [87]
• [88]
• [89] (actually 4 in a row)
• [90]

If you want more, then I can provide them. Do more research before making a huge allegation like that one. Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Be careful what you brag on. In the first one (including your edit before it that the one you linked was patching), the copy edit that was most obviously needed, to fix number disagreement in the lead sentence, was just worked around to churn other things (the article is so thinly edited that the mistake inserted in 2008 by Michael Hardy (talk · contribs) here had gone unnoticed all these years). And you did several of the "there exists" manglements that you have discussed extensively with another editor. See if you have learned anything: try to fix it yourself before someone just reverts it. Are any of the others net wins? Not clear. Dicklyon (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Too late, most of them have now been reverted and/or otherwise fixed. Did you make any edits that survived review? Dicklyon (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be better if Duxwing would agree to discuss any changes on the talk page *first*. And considering the way he has misinterpreted the lack of consensus for his proposals in the past, going to far as to change the MOS to support his proposals, it would be better if someone else made the changes. Perhaps Duxwing would agree to limit his edits to talk pages. —Neotarf (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I did not change the MOS to support my proposals: you are presuming bad faith not even reading my edits, which changed only the article's form. For how long would I limit my edits to talk pages, and are you essentially seeking my indefinite blocking? Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is not true. Duxwing made this edit [91] to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Mathematics replacing "The lead should as far as possible be accessible to a general reader, so specialized terminology and symbols should be avoided as much as possible" by "The lead should be accessible to general readers: avoid special terminology and symbols", signficantly changing its meaning on a point directly related to a debate at Talk:Waring's problem relating to that very topic, in which Duxwing was arguing for his own wording on the grounds that the article lead was too technical [92]. Deltahedron (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I blush at that edit when I regard it in retrospect, and I apologize for having accidentally muddied the waters. It was part of a larger one I made because I noticed tons of word cruft in the article, and removed the qualifiers because the article already had a general "common-sense" qualifier in its heading. Duxwing (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, simply. Duxwing has a good eye for what seems to be expressible in fewer syllables. And thus for example, yes, a passive clause with "by" plus noun phrase can be reexpressed as an active clause. But reexpressing it so doesn't necessarily improve it. English doesn't have passives merely in order to give twits like Strunk and White something to write about; on the contrary, the passive is a handy information packaging device (as are "it-clefts" and more besides) and is a good tool for certain expository purposes. People who don't realize this should reserve their BOLDness for areas other than copyediting. -- Hoary (talk) 05:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Where can I learn about these subjects? Duxwing (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Request immediate admin attention

Is taking the dispute public off-wiki like this tolerable within WP policy? If not, I request an admin take appropriate action against Duxwing. Dicklyon (talk) 05:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Not only is it tolerable within our policies for a user to take a dispute off-wiki, half the admins here currently are (or have been) members of sites devoted to "watchdogging" this place. See WP:OFFWIKI. Doc talk 05:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And tolerable to tell such vicious lies about a fellow editor? Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

From what I understand, only the most egregious offenses on off-wiki forums are actionable here. Like posting your home address and threatening your life. We have no jurisdiction over what people say about us in off-wiki forums. Doc talk 05:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I see Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki attacks says

Wikipedia cannot regulate behavior in media not under the control of the Wikimedia Foundation, but personal attacks made elsewhere create doubt about the good faith of an editor's on-wiki actions. Posting personal attacks or defamation off-Wikipedia is harmful to the community and to an editor's relationship with it, especially when such attacks take the form of violating an editor's privacy. Such attacks can be regarded as aggravating factors by administrators and are admissible evidence in the dispute-resolution process, including Arbitration cases.

So, I hope some admin will take this aggravating factor into account and do the right thing here. Dicklyon (talk) 05:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You're requesting "immediate" action here (a block?), for a personal attack that occurred off-wiki. Request denied. The link you provided lays out how off-wiki attacks can be cited as evidence in a future case. Doc talk 05:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I was requesting immediate attention. Thank you for that. If the right thing is nothing, so be it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry as well if I was terse. The first time I went to Wikipedia Review I was shocked how many active admins were there. Cheers :) Doc talk 06:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And don't demand justice with Dirty Hands, Dick. You see me like I said I saw you: "Furthermore, Dick, you clearly cannot take responsibility for your actions or understand how others function: "So sorry I dragged you into this AN/I discussion, so you don't have time to discuss anything more useful". You have thus already decided this issue yourself--just like you decided that I needed to be stopped without telling me why--and railroad anyone standing between you and your goal. I, not you, am the obstacle. Duxwing (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 12 April 2014 (UTC)" Duxwing (talk) 06:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Minus the chimpanzee and substituting a common username for a real name, WP:DOX states, "The fact that a person either has posted personal information or edits under their own name, making them easily identifiable through online searches, is not an excuse for "opposition research". I want this attempted outing removed. I think I may have accidentally removed a comment. How can I replace it? Duxwing (talk) 07:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no "outing" here. Google "Duxwing Wikipedia". And in reading your own quote above, note the "under your own name" part. Lots of editors here edit under their actual names. Even if your name is legally "Duxwing", you have no outing case here. Doc talk 07:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it was not outing; it was also not me. The off-wiki link was posted up-thread by another editor, but nobody reacted there. Dicklyon (talk) 15:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Although taking things "off-wiki" in that specific fashion is not against policy, it's indicative that a) Duxwing 100% fails to recognize his own errors, b) Duxwing is under the immature/naïve belief that such an off-wiki post was a "good idea", and c) Duxwing has COMPLETELY missed the point: nobody is "kicking him off Wikipedia", and such ridiculous rhetoric is astronomically bad ES&L 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have recognized several of my errors. I have been adopted, learned (for example) that "like" cannot replace "such as," and am learning what I did not before. Duxwing (talk)

Oh, and I love this response to Dux's thread there: "How can we know he is lying about your competence as an editor if we have no evidence of your competence?" <--- this is pure gold, AND is the crux of the matter! ES&L 11:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This and this really does seem to be an overreaction by Duxwing, wholly against the tide of opinion. Regrettably this whole saga seems to smell of trolls.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   14:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I did overreact, and I apologized to Dick. I meant no trolling. 15:37, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I posted there because I felt and feel that enough of my objections to Dick's behavior were ignored to necessitate external review of the AN/I discussion. Duxwing (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dicklyon, that may not be a recommended practice, but I found it a very good example of the problem with Duxwing. He posted at that forum that his edits were being unfairly reverted at Wikipedia. When asked to provide an example or two, his response was, in essense: "Are you saying that I'm lying?" More than WP:COMPETENCE is involved here: I'd also recommend Duxwing understand & apply WP:Assume good faith in dealing with others, both on & off Wikipedia. -- llywrch (talk) 19:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I will take a look at the overall situation in the morning (US ET) and try to bring this thread nearer to a conclusion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 06:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Analysis and proposal

I have carefully reviewed this thread and many of Duxwing's contributions linked in it, as well as some of his other contributions.

Duxwing appears to lack the skills necessary to add value as a copyeditor, at least of technical articles. Dicklyon is correct that Duxwing's copyedits introduce more errors and infelicities than they remove. The discussions at locations such as Talk:Waring's problem#Copy Editing and Talk:Convergent_evolution#Copy_Editing speak for themselves. Duxwing is unfamiliar with basic usage of terms in mathematics and perhaps science, and his "copyediting" of articles in these areas is counterproductive. Duxwing's lashing out at the several editors who have pointed this out to him does not change the fact.

Duxwing has done some more acceptable copyediting on less technical articles, typically in situations where he has changed a particular verbose phrase to a less wordy one (e.g. "a large number of" to "many" as was noted above). My impression is that Duxwing's copyediting may be largely based on applying a series of simplifying rules to sentence structures—the sort of thing that the Wordrake software does for lawyers. But successful copyediting can't merely employ a "find and substitute" model; a good idiomatic ear is needed to test whether the revised, shortened version of a sentence or paragraph communicates the same information as the original and in at least as straightforward a way. Too often in the case of Duxwing's copyedits it does not.

With regard to Duxwing's raising the dispute off-wiki, it is permissible to discuss a Wikipedia-related dispute in another forum, and no one will be sanctioned merely for doing so. However, in his off-wiki post about Dicklyon, Duxwing asks members of another forum for advice on how to get another editor who is a "sociopathic engineer" "perma-site-banned for great justice and vengeance." If I see much more of this sort of thing I will certainly suspect intentional trolling.

I believe Duxwing should be restricted for some period of time further copyediting efforts, particularly in the fields of mathematics and science. He also needs to refrain from personal attacks who make good-faith criticisms of his edits. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Dick refused to engage in BRD and then accused me of not engaging him. I have no complaints about the community's decisions, and I visited AN/I partly to seek one about my editing because I knew that AN/I reviews and passes binding judgments on everyone's behavior--hence the "settling" I mentioned in my first message to Dick, whose post was merely the straw that broke the camel's back of long-term confusion and pent-up frustration. Perhaps telling my story over the long term would help explain why I have acted how I have.

I joined Wikipedia about two years ago, noticing some bad grammar and correcting it. I eventually signed up and continued lonely copy-editing. Until about February I knew almost nothing about Wikipedia's back end, encountering only rare reversions. In February I noticed that many of my edits had been reverted and that many editors were complaining, and I had no idea of what to do about either. Ignorant, I did everything wrong: I let my ego get involved, assumed bad faith, and said a few uncivil things. I meanwhile felt very scared, insulted, and frustrated because I knew almost nothing of Wikipedia's conduct policy, and I per Wikipedian policy I told as few people as possible because I eventually became paranoid.

A few editors offered help, and I accepted. The help was brief or non-existent. I therefore was paranoid, frustrated, insulted, ignorant, lost, and alone. I figuratively bumbled around in the dark, trying to conclude this fiasco with what I learned was called "consensus" (see the eponymous heading in my Talk) about what my editing problems were and how to solve them. I received few, if any, replies. After visiting the IRC, I regained my courage and resumed editing, starting to enjoy it again with my collaboration of Sex Differences in Human Psychology; when editing alone, I made my best guess about what the editors wanted and tried to apply it.

Then came Dick with his harsh talk page message and rapid reversions. I could not stand this months' long uncertainty any longer: I went to AN/I to figure out what Dick was on about and get some closure on what was wrong with my posting, my peers, or my mind because this problem was keeping me up at night and making me shake. I was willing to take this extreme measure because I would feel lost without Wikipedia and wanted to improve it either by resolving the dispute or fixing my editing.

Figuring out exactly what I must do was foremost among my worries, which learning about and entering User Adoption has alleviated. It has the structure I need to objectively determine my knowledge and skill, and my adopter is kind and often-available. I hope never to encounter problems like this one in the future, and if I do, I hope not to need AN/I again.

With sincere apologies for my misconduct, which I am only beginning to understand Duxwing (talk) 17:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

PS If I am to be restricted from copy-editing, then how will we know when I will be able to resume copy-editing? An indefinite block from editing articles unrelated to my adoption until my competence can be determined would seem more appropriate. Duxwing (talk) 17:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Duxwing, can you explain what you mean by "he refused to engage in BRD"?? What BRD means is that if you make an edit, and someone reverts it, YOU the originator of the edit are required to then go to the article talkpage to start a discussion about the proposed edit in order to try and gain consensus for it. BRD isn't a policy - it's a guideline on prventing people from edit-warring. It does not mean that he's required to come to your talkpage to discuss it. It does not even mean that he is required to start a discussion about why he reverted - the onus is on the person who made the first edit ES&L 18:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean "... instead of re-reverting, YOU the originator...". Correct? I was complaining that he was already unwilling to Discuss. Duxwing (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think I said exactly what I meant. I know that you complained that he was unwilling to discuss - but you fail to show a single article takpage where you opened a discussion for all editors of that page to discuss and come to consensus about your proposed changes. All you said is "he was unwilling to discuss" ... but where did you try: his talkpage? Your talkpage? Someone else's talkpage? Some off-wiki Forum? The washroom where you work? The confessional in your basilica? (Hint: all of those are the wrong place) DP 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This is me refusing to discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Still, Dicklyon reverted his edits for no good reason, they were completely legit edits...... 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Um, no ... consensus is quite the opposite. "Good faith", yes we think so, "legit", no. DP 23:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, I don't think I ever suggested that the edits were not "legit". Just that wikipedia was improved by reverting them. I don't even claim that I couldn't have done better than reverting them; I could have, but my patience was short already, after reading his reactions on his talk page up to that time. The point that needed to driven home, that he had been rejecting already from others, was that his edits, though legit and done in good faith, were making things worse, not better. Still nobody has disagreed with this assessment, and still Duxwing has not seemed to accept that this is what the community has been telling him, sincerely and with good reason, without doubting his good faith (until recently). Dicklyon (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Since Duxwing says he is now in an adoption program, at this point would it be appropriate to hear from the adopter? —Neotarf (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

There's no particular need to prejudice his adopter by calling his attention to his mess if he hasn't already looked at it. If he has, maybe he'll advise Duxwing that an actual apology, not accompanied by excuses, but accompanied by an apology at the off-wiki forum as well, might go a long way to showing an intention to do better, and showing that he can take input. Dicklyon (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologizing at the off-wiki forum is certainly not necessary here. Even it that were somehow needed (and I can't imagine why), Duxwing is still unwilling to understand that linking that forum here is not "outing" him to begin with. If you tell an editor to ask any admin on the site if what you're advising them is incorrect, and they not only don't bother to ask anyone else but insist they are right, you have issues with competency, IMHO.[93] Doc talk 07:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Doc, if, (and that is a big If) Duxwing has now understood how wrong his edits were, then he will also have realised how right Dicklyon and many others have been in their often patient comments. He should also conclude that the off-wiki post was totally wrong in so many ways that it would be endlessly boring to list them all. If the off-wiki posts were retracted and apologised for, then that would, at least, give some sense that the penny had dropped. I see no activity in this adoption process other than a single request and one edit, and edits contesting this very process are continuing, even earlier this morning here. This is all bluff and bluster but no commitment and no action. Good faith ? - sorry , for Duxwing it's blown out of the window and can only be regained by some real tangible evidence and not weasely apologies.  Velella  ^{Velella Talk}   09:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It may not even be possible for him to remove his posts from that external site even if he wanted to. He could post some apology over there, but what's the point? Extra humiliation? He thought he was in a "safe zone" where he could say what he wanted without fear of it getting back to him. He was wrong. The next move is his, and it will hopefully be a well-considered one. Doc talk 10:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And what would be the point of him leaving his vicious accusations hanging out there, instead of admitting he was in error? Dicklyon (talk) 21:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Not much and it is wrong but you can't afford to worry too much about what somebody on the web says. If they don't change then they'll just continue as they are and be banned eventually after causing more trouble and that will be the end of them. If the process was a bit faster then less editors would get pissed off in the meantime. Dmcq (talk) 22:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, it's likely impossible for him to remove his comments there even if he wanted to. He'd basically have to delete the entire thread, since others commented. I very seriously doubt that the admins over there would allow that to happen, especially for personal attacks of Wikipedia editors. The comments are out there for eternity, I'm sorry to say. Apologizing here for the comments is a different story entirely. Doc talk 22:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Look, each party has its own "Problem." Duxwing has been asking for suggestions for punishment outside of Wikipedia, and Dicklyon has been uncivil, I think that we should take action on BOTH editors as both have different issues. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Where has Dicklyon been uncivil? Haven't seen that, or seen it proven. Now Dick, you know we cannot control what happens off-wiki. Someone with a sense of remorse might apologize and/or try to remove their posts - but they'd have to recognize that they had done wrong, and it's only a "might" - we cannot force it. Who wants a forced apology anyway. Ignore the off-wiki, ignore Dux until he's had some mentoring, and let's all waddle along! DP 23:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean closing the thread as no consensus? Because if that is what you mean, Im all for it! We can just close this and keep an eye on it. Problem solved...... 12.251.225.250 (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Nobody even accused me of being uncivil. And the consensus here is quite clear. Who is this new IP shill muddying the waters with nonsense? Dicklyon (talk) 00:45, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Closing as "no consensus" would have no basis in the reality of the discussion. DP 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for having caused a ruckus with my angry forum post. Duxwing (talk) 23:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

@dicklyon, I am actually User:Happy Attack Dog on vacation. I am not trying to stir up trouble or murk the waters. 12.251.225.250 (talk) 01:48, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Ohconfucius

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

---

This concerns wholesale removal by Ohconfucius (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) of flagicons from sport articles and continuing to do so despite being challenged under the terms of WP:BRD. There has been a case at Edit warring & 3RR which resulted in Ohconfucius being warned. He escaped a block because one of his four reverts was not in the same 24-hour period as the other three. The key article here is Manchester United–Arsenal brawl (1990), which was elevated to WP:GA on 7 April.

Ohconfucius edited the article 04:51 on 9 April and made his first removal of flags from the lists of players, arguing in his edit summary that "per [[MOS:FLAG - nationalities have no relevance whatsoever in this context". At 23:46 on 9 April, the edit was reverted by PeeJay who argued in the edit summary that he "completely disagrees, as it (use of flags) shows the international make-up of both teams". Thus far, everything complied with WP:BRD and Ohconfucius had made a bold edit and PeeJay, citing a valid reason for disagreement, reverted it.

At 01:44 on 10 April, Ohconfucius re-reverted and so made the first violation of WP:BRD as well as commencing an edit war for which he has subsequently been warned. At this stage, no attempt had been made to open a discussion. At 02:12 he followed up with a removal of three categories which is itself contentious though outside the BRD issue.

At 02:42 the article creator VEO15 became involved and pointed out that the article is about the full match and not just about a twenty-second brawl within the match, as Ohconfucius was arguing (this, by the way, led to a later proposal that the article should be renamed but that is a separate matter). VEO15 also restored the three categories. Immediately, at 02:45, Ohconfucius reverted both VEO15 edits.

The matter was then taken to a talk page when, at 02:51 on 10 April a discussion commenced on the WT:FOOTY talk page when Ohconfucius complained about "opposition to my attempts to eliminate MOS:FLAG violation". This received its first answer at 08:26 on 10 April when PeeJay defended the use of flags and criticised WP:MOSFLAG. The discussion then grew with several people contributing but the salient point raised is that hundreds of articles with flags already removed by a script, run by Ohconfucius, must be restored/reverted and the script modified to stop this happening, especially as the script fails to replace the graphic information with textual information. The main complaint is that Ohconfucius, having initiated the discussion on WT:FOOTY, subsequently unilaterally removed acceptable flag icons from hundreds of match and season articles, via his script. All of these articles should be reverted and use of these scripts by Ohconfucius must be stopped.

In between the 02:51 and 08:26 talk page posts, VEO15 restored the flags and categories at 05:21 and, at 07:18, Ohconfucius reverted for the third time and, having opened a discussion about the issue was now clearly in direct violation of WP:BRD which clearly states in its discuss criterion: "Do not continue to revert, which is the beginning of edit-warring. Leave the article in the condition it was in before the Bold edit was made (often called the status quo ante)". Ohconfucius can have no defence against his actions in direct violation of that standard.

What has made matters worse is that, since opening the WT:FOOTY discussion at 02:51 on 10 April, Ohconfucius has continued to run his script removing flags from hundreds more sports articles: for example, the 2006 FA Cup Final. He made a fourth revert of the disputed article at 18:37 on 11 April but this was more than 24 hours after the previous one and so he was warned and not blocked when the matter went to the 3RR page.

Meanwhile, at 11:17 on 10 April a discussion commenced on the article talk page when Tony1 raised an issue about the use of flags. An argument developed there which lost its way because of Tony1's views about graphics being a distraction and eventually it has evolved into a proposal that the article should be renamed. Ohconfucius has been involved in this secondary discussion but it is really of academic interest. The main thrust of discussion has taken place at WT:FOOTY as described above.

In summary, I would contend that Ohconfucius has acted irresponsibly by continuing to revert edits and run his script in defiance of WP:BRD while a discussion about his issue is still ongoing. In addition, I recommend per several comments at WT:FOOTY that his script should be decommissioned and that all sporting articles it has edited are reverted or restored. GnGn (talk) 11:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

GnGnome alerted me to this thread. I must say I was confused already by the conflation of several themes on that page. Can this not be worked out through discussion? I'm sure Ohconfucius won't remove more flagicons while this is ongoing. Tony (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Why has this been brought here when there is a current proposal on the article's talk page to which Ohconfucius has responded, and an active discussion at a football related project page? Flat Out let's discuss it 12:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Other than flagging up how weak the GA process is, what is the merit of bringing this here while it is under discussion in two other venues? --John (talk) 12:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I think User:Flat Out and User:John need to read again what I have said above. Yes, there are discussions going on as required by WP:BRD but Ohconfucius has flagrantly edit-warred and continued to remove icons while the discussions are ongoing in direct breach of WP:BRD. Doesn't that stike you as wrong? Why does User:Tony1 hope he won't remove more while it is ongoing? GnGn (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

What I see is an editor attempting to apply policy, and then taking up the issue appropriately in the other forums. Flat Out let's discuss it 03:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Thank you Ohconfucius for trying to apply MOS:FLAG. Flags and other pointless decorations are not helpful for an encyclopedic project. Johnuniq (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Answering Flat Out, I have no objection to Ohconfucius "attempting to apply policy" as that is the first part of WP:BRD and no objection to him commencing the discussion at WT:FOOTY or taking part in the secondary discussion as, again, that compies with BRD. The objection concerns his edit warring in violation of BRD and continuing to attempt his application of policy (as he interprets it) after the discussion on use of flags in football articles had begun. There appears to be a consensus forming here that his interpretation of "policy" is correct. So, you are effectively saying that he can ignore BRD because you agree with his interpretation of MOS:FLAG. In that case, what do the people at WT:FOOTY do given that they interpret the policy differently and they believe there has been widespread disruption to football project articles? GnGn (talk) 07:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is that there was no reason to bring it this forum when is already being discussed at any forums. If you believe Ohconfucius is edit warring then take it to AN3. Flat Out let's discuss it 10:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRD is not a reason to ignore standard procedures, and neither is WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. There may well be a group of editors who like flags (there have been several such groups in the past), but that is still not a reason to ignore standard procedures. Johnuniq (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

So, is WP:BRD a redundant policy that anyone can just ignore? What is the point of having something like that on the site if it has no effect? GnGn (talk) 07:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. --John (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It is not policy to remove all flags. He did a heavy string of removals (100s) on tennis articles awhile back but they were systematically all reverted back with warnings at Wiki Tennis Project to treat them as instant rollbacks in the future. The bot did a lot of good things so we had to carefully dice what stayed and what went, which took hours. I really haven't seen a big problem since over there. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: I think you've missed the point of the icons in those articles. They are not simply there for decoration, they are there to provide extra information to the reader in a more efficient format than simply naming each country. Flags are universally recognised as being representative of their countries, and the ones that are easily confused (i.e. and ; or and ) can be easily looked up by clicking on the flag thanks to the functionality of {{flagicon}} providing a link to the appropriate nation's page. By all accounts, WP:ICONDECORATION is desperately outdated in that regard. – PeeJay 09:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What extra information do the flags carry that text alone would not? Why is the nationality of every player in a domestic match so vital? ICONDECORATION enjoys strong project-wide consensus and has done for quite a few years now. Is there a special reason that certain sport articles should be exempt from it? --John (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I've lost track of where each argument has been made over the course of this incident, so I can forgive you for not having noticed earlier. Nationality is an extremely pertinent issue in many professional sports (especially football), and indicating the nationality of each player in a domestic match helps the reader understand the international nature of the sport. Having just read the article on the 2009 Lamar Hunt U.S. Open Cup Final, which somehow managed to get to FA status without flags, I found myself desperately seeking info on the page about where each team's players came from. Without the flags, I could have easily assumed they were all American, since the game was played in the United States between two American teams. The reason flags are more appropriate than text is that icons are more efficient at conveying the information and at saving space; the aesthetics of the flags are a bonus, yes, but they are not simply there for decoration, as many people seem to be assuming. – PeeJay 09:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Is there a definition of what "nationality" means in the context you describe? In an international encyclopedia, that word is rather fluid and would mean different things to different people. What is the pertinent issue addressed by knowing a player's nationality? I'm sure some readers would be interested in knowing the religion or ethnicity of each player—why not include that? Johnuniq (talk) 10:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity have no effect on the regulations regarding which players may play in a match (and never have done), whereas nationality has been a determining and limiting factor on some teams' squads in the past. Furthermore, nationality is defined in this case as the national team for which the player is qualified to play, which is easily sourced for 99.99% of all players, while religion and ethnicity are barely sourceable for even 0.01% of players. This isn't about what readers might find "interesting", it's about providing pertinent information in as efficient a manner as possible. – PeeJay 12:49, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Religion and ethnicity have had a great impact in one of the countries which invented football, and before about 1980 there was one famous club who did not employ Catholics. I am sure there are a great many readers in certain parts of Western Scotland (and possibly elsewhere) who would find it very interesting to see which religion and ethnicity all the players were. Why would that situation be markedly different from this one? --John (talk) 14:15, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

That is a false analogy. Rangers almost exclusively picked Protestants, while Celtic almost exclusively picked Catholics, and by the time either side began drawing from the other side of the Christian divide, it really didn't matter. Plus, when you talk about football on a global scale, one rivalry really makes very little difference. – PeeJay 15:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Oof. Totally wrong. Read up on it. Disagree on flags too. Global consensus trumps local, especially when no coherent reasons can be given to diverge. --John (talk) 15:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What the two Johns say. And Ohconfucius. Global consensus etc: no amount of text in FOOTY and the tennis project, never mind the Tour de France, can change the fact that this usage of flag icons is disruptive for a reader, useless, and not in compliance with MOS:FLAG, even if typically in such discussions the MOS adherents are outnumbered by the other parties. It's ironic that in MMA, where "local" interests ruled the roost for so long, the MOS is being followed.

In most cases nationality is simply irrelevant (esp. in those club articles, and esp. since the Bosman arrest). Athletes in the Tour, in non-international soccer games, at Wimbledon, etc. are simply not representing their country in any official sense, though the heart may disagree--one of the saddest days in my life was missing the Wimbledon final when Krajicek finally won one for us, but that's emotion, not national representation. Drmies (talk) 15:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

In what way is it disruptive for the reader to use flags in this manner? If you were talking about flags breaking up the flow of prose, I could agree, but it is ridiculous to say that a flag in a sea of whitespace is disruptive. Just to quickly address the tennis point for a moment, whenever I watch Wimbledon, the players' nationalities are often clearly stated next to their names in scorelines, and the nationalities of the winners are frequently recorded for statistical purposes. The same really applies to football. – PeeJay 16:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing to prevent you setting up a fork of Wikipedia which uses flags in the way you suggest. On this project we have decided not to. To change this would take quite a major reconfiguration of the community's opinion, which you are also welcome to try to do. In terms of admin action, I don't think Ohconfucius should or will face any sanction as he is right and those opposing him are wrong. --John (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Back from a weekend away and so late to this discussion, but we need to consider the fact that an awful lot of reliable sources used on these articles also use flags to indicate nationality, including the website of FIFA (though they also use their trigramme - that is perhaps a compromise that should be introduced here, and indeed is already in use at Boca Juniors#Current squad). If the template is wrong, or violates current MOS, then a discussion needs to be had to change the template or the MOS - but mass removal of flags, without discussion and against the current use of the template, was borderline disruptive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GiantSnowman (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. The most important tennis websites use the flag icons and Tennis Project also found his mass removals disruptive. This was pointed out to him. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:32, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Mmm. That's a super suggestion; I suggest you take it up at WT:MOS and have the MoS amended if you can attract a consensus. Meantime, we'll continue to use the one that currently enjoys consensus. The suggestion that editing to make articles more compliant with MoS is "borderline disruptive" is borderline stupid. --John (talk) 17:40, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for the tone of my previous comment but still stand by the point I made, and those above. --John (talk) 19:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I will do; I suggest we all re-locate to WT:MOS. And no, my comment was not stupid - what was was suddenly blanking content from a template that a) has been in place for years and b) is in use on thousands of articles, without attempting to raise the matter somewhere first (ideally with the relevant WikiProject - we are very active), by citing a MOS that is clearly not fit-for-purpose for these kinds of articles. GiantSnowman 19:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion started at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons#Proposed change to MOSFLAG for sport articles. GiantSnowman 19:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Giant. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, this argument is going from discussing edit warring to talking about policy, any changes over policy should be taken out on the aprroprete policy page. But just to keep this on track, here are the key points:

1. Ohconfucius has been accused of Edit warring
2. Ohconfucius has been using a script to remove flags from articles, claiming he is following MoS:FLAG
3. Ohconfucius has been warned for edit warring before

12.251.225.250 (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Bit of a late joiner to this discussion, but I think it's probably time this was closed. BRD isn't policy. While it'd be nice for OhC to follow it, since he didn't he hit (but did not break) 3RR and was warned. The rest of this is a content issue and doesn't belong at ANI. In short: The 3RR issue was handled at 3RRN, the BRD issue is a non-starter, and the content issue does not belong here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 02:29, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Bigoted personal attack

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

---

Reporting highly inappropriate comment by Silvio1973 (talk · contribs):

"I still do not understand why you are so aggressive. If you were not from the Balkans I would be offended by the way you talk to others (not just to me). But looking to the last 70 years of former Yugoslavia I understand why you do not find peace. Basically, because you do not need it. Now I am busy but as soon as possible I will ask for a Move review. In the meantime Dear Direktor, take a break. Wikipedia is not Vukovar. Silvio1973 (talk) 11:51, 12 April 2014 (UTC)"

("Vukovar" refers to the Battle of Vukovar.) The context here is Silvio1973 posting an RM on Talk:House of Gundulic, upon the failure of which he posted an RfC entitled "RfC: House of Gundulić/House of Gondola, which version of the name is more prevalent in English sources?". For the record, this isn't the first time I've had the opportunity to be enlightened by Silvio as to the inherent nature of my nationality (see the last two paragraphs here). -- Director (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any racial issues being mentioned in any of the diffs you give; Slavs and others in the Balkans are quite obviously white Europeans like the Italians. Not the most civil, but there's nothing in your diffs that warrants a civility block. If you want any kind of sanctions, you're going to need to provide more diffs of incivility. Nyttend (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Direktor, really thank you for posting this ANI. Because you have been offending me for the last 2 years and I never replied. Because I never gave enough importance to your aggressivity. Indeed even my last post is a mild reply compared to the words you used towards me many times before. And by the way, the issue is not merely between you and me, because you used similar words also with other users. However you never really offended me. I lived many years in the Balkans and I know that there people are very direct and confrontational. Unfortunately the last 70 years of their history confirms how disgraceful this can be. And mind well, that this is not a fact of racism, because being confrontational is not 'per se' a negative feature.

Now, for the benefits of the WP community let's list some of your inappropriate "comments", so everyone will understand how incredibly patient I have been so far. --Silvio1973 (talk) 12:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

19 February 2014 - Lets be blunt: Silvio is an Italian-nationalist POV-pusher who goes around the project searching for areas where he believes Italy has been "wronged" and then posts masses of posts in bad grammar that ignore most of Wikipedia's policies ("heraldry expert"?) in pushing a pro-Italian bias.

31 October 2013 - User:Silvio1973 is here only through following my edits, as a sort of petty "revenge" for my opposing his edits elsewhere. He is not here to provide a constructive position, but only to oppose my own, and you may expect that's pretty much all he's going to do (in poor English). I personally doubt he has any background understanding of the Republic of Kososo issue.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

28 September 2013 - You are obviously and unfortunately unable to contribute here due to your lack of English skills. You do not posses sufficient knowledge of the language this wiki is written in. Go away please. I will not be the only moron on this project stupid enough to discuss with someone who doesn't understand me.

22 September 2013 - I used to think its a communication issue. But now I'm convinced you're just a nationalist POV-pusher attempting to have his way through fraudulent referencing and edit-war. You would have to be institutionalized if you did not understand: #1 non-Italian/Yugoslav sources. #2 Scholarly. #3 With page number and quote. Very simple...

Not sure we need a list. I agree with Nyttend. I don't see the racism. I don't even see it as particularly heated, just a little snippy. If we blocked for "snippy", Wikipedia would have less than half the articles it now has. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:01, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Dennis Brown, I beg your pardon but I really want to list the comments Direktor directed to me. I believe he really should take a break and this ANI could be the right occasion to make him understand that should pay more respect to the others.

I'm not here to tell you what to do, my comment was only that it wasn't needed to address the original complaint, which looks to be without merit. If you want to present a new complaint with diffs here, you are certainly welcome to. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Fellas, you've got to be kidding me. Here he is telling me I'm "aggressive" because all people from the Balkans are uncivilized barbarians, insulting whole nations - and that's "snippy"? Yes, it is racist: you and I are perfectly aware it doesn't make sense, but I think you may be missing the local political context - namely Italian fascist ideas about the "barbaric Slavic race" [94], very common in the far right even today. Hopefully I won't have to elaborate further on that distasteful subject.

As for the rest of Silvio1973's disruption and appalling conduct, I don't think I'll be writing up some stupid "counter-list". I posted this to hopefully put a stop to this user's ethnic personal attacks. Though it does seem the user was thinking he can insult others however he likes, and get away with it, by being ready to post a cherry-picked compilation of anything they wrote from the last five years or so. -- Director (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm going to have to say that this is a lot more than "snippy". Imagine, for example, that there was a dispute on Racism in the United States and one editor had posted "You are being aggressive to me, but that's understandable because you are black". I don't think anyone would dispute the racism inherent there. Clearly, Slavs aren't a "race" but there's clear bigotry involved here. Black Kite (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

agree with Black Kite. Denigrations, dismissals, or even calling out someone based on ethnicity or national origin are unacceptable. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

From reading this thread it appears that the complainant is "Slavic" and the one being complained of is Italian. Those are not two different "races" therefore it cannot be a "racist" attack and I think it is highly inappropriate to fling that word around like that.Smeat75 (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You gotta be shitting us. — lfdder 13:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The whole point of being a "racist", is insulting people on the basis of non-existent "races". All "races" are more-or-less generally viewed as non-existent in the scientific community. Racists often do view Slavic people as some kind of inferior "race" (the irony being I'm mostly Italian and Austrian by ancestry). I will also mention that Smeat75 and I are currently involved in a discussion elsewhere, hence I feel I ought to question his impartiality.

And besides, is it really better if its "just" an ethnic personal attack? -- Director (talk) 13:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For interest see the United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, Article 1.1[95]

• "In this convention the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life".

Sean.hoyland - talk 14:00, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I see Silvio1973 saying that there has been a lot of aggression in the formerly Yugoslav area over the past 70 years, that is quite different from the claim that he is calling all Slavic people "uncivilized barbarians". Considering how many times I've seen comments implying Americans are gun-toting rednecks, this just seems like standard Wikipedia incivility that goes by unsanctioned every day. It's not great, to be sure but I come across much worse almost daily. Also, considering the comments he posted, it seems like the ethnic slights went both ways. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 14:09, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Uh.. no. What he is saying is "Balkanites are naturally aggressive so I don't take offense at your 'aggressiveness'", an #2 "People from the Balkans are naturally aggressive and do not need peace". Topped off with a condescending remark to the effect that "you must think you're fighting one of your Balkans wars" (i.e. Vukovar). And no: I never insulted Silvio1973 on the basis of his ethnicity; I'd be pretty stupid if I did, as I said - I'm mostly Italian myself.

As for Silvio's English skills - they are pretty much terrible, and his posts are borderline-unintelligible most of the time (unless he puts special effort into into it, but they devolve again pretty soon). I reserve the right to say that, esp. after damn near going crazy trying to discuss with the user [96]. Its terrible when you have to repeat your point over and over and over again, while the other user acts like he understands you, but just continues on as if you wrote nothing. -- Director (talk) 14:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Silvio's posting most definitely is an ethnic slur and a personal attack, and frankly I am shocked to see how some outsiders here on this board are willing to excuse and downplay it. It's completely unacceptable. What makes the whole matter worse is another aspect of Silvio's behaviour: it appears that he has been disrupting that House of Gundulić talkpage with an endless single-purpose POV campaign about a renaming demand, for multiple months, in a form that has clearly gone beyond the bounds of "WP:STICK" and "WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT". That in itself is sanctionable, and I'm quite willing to apply WP:ARBMAC on it if necessary. Has he ever been formally warned about discretionary sanctions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear Liz, there is no issue of racism here. It is regrettable that Direktor believes that here there is an issue of racism, but does not surprise me. It's so easy to reduce everything to an issue of racism. Indeed the problem is that he really think there is such issue. Mind well that a lot of tragedy had place in the Balkans in the last 70 years because problems of economical and political nature are perceived as issues of race and ethnicity.

However, I will show you with how much incivility I was treated in the last two years, so you might understand that I have been so far very patient. And about my proficiency in English, I never had an issue with anyone. Not in the real life and neither in Wikipedia. Again, in the last two years Direktor has been offending me all the time qualifying my English of being crappy. I am above that, but I believe I have the right to be respected. Even if my English is not good as those of a native.Silvio1973 (talk) 14:30, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Future. Yes. -- Director (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Direktor, I have been warned less times than you. And opposely to you I have never been blocked. Is it worth mentioning that you have issues with a lot of people, not just with me. Silvio1973 (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

@Silvio1973: Are you going to admit that it was personal attack or not? If you want to talk about blocks and warnings, you must be aware about the fact that you have 2,063 edits, DIREKTOR has over 51,000. OccultZone (Talk) 15:42, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

The Balkans peoples are not a race or even an ethnicity. They include Slavs, Italians, Greeks, Turks and others. IOW they are people of diverse ethnicity who live in disharmony. This is a case of projection on the part of Director. He denigrates another editor and when that editor complains he accuses him of racism. I do not think any action should be taken against Silvio, but suggest something be done to stop Director. TFD (talk) 16:48, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

TFD and I are involved in a talkpage dispute at the moment. I can't imagine why he's posting these sort of things here.. TFD, as far as I can see, the Balkans are in perfect harmony, thanks for your concern. In fact, as far as I know, the people of ex-Yugoslavia fought each-other twice in recorded history. And, uh.. no, there aren't significant Italian populations in the Balkans. -- Director (talk) 17:29, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Direktor, you are involved in issues with a lot of people. However, I hope someone will give a look to the nice comments you made me during the last two years. Really you should learn to respect the others like you want that they respect you. And yes, you are right. There is not anymore any significant Italian population in the Balkans. I am pretty aware of that. Silvio1973 (talk) 17:37, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I really think someone should read our exchanges in full (this and this are the latest installments, where Cyclopia also tried to deal with him). In my opinion (and I think this shows), Silvio1973 is neither capable nor willing to contribute to this project in any useful way: his English skills are below such as might allow him to participate. It may not seem that way from the few posts here, but 90% of the time, unless he makes a special effort - he doesn't understand the arguments presented to him, and writes posts that in turn also require a special effort to understand (if they're at all intelligible). Of course, that wouldn't be so bad, if he didn't also act as if he fully understands the language - by simply ignoring that which he doesn't quite get, and taking offense when clarification is requested. And that's just the tip of the iceberg. He regularly misquotes sources, completely ignores WP:OR and policy in general, posts ethnic insults, constantly assumes bad faith, his article contributions are barely-intelligible and require proof-reading, but he'll edit-war for them anyway, he won't "accept" when you've sourced something, he demands to modify sourced text in accordance with his POV, etc.. I could go on.. -- Director (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• This is getting spread out in too many directions, and this isn't a brawl. As for "racist", I think that is overstated, although it is obviously rude. I do see plenty of good old fashioned incivility on both sides, and looking a bit closer I can see that Silvio1973 does have a WP:DE problem starting a new move discussion less than one month after one just closed against his wishes. I just had to threaten to block another user for doing the exact same thing in an equally problematic part of the encyclopedia. That was accurately described as a WP:STICK and WP:HEAR problem. I closed that RFC, it is not been long enough since the last discussion and hammering away like that is simply disruptive. I strongly suggest Silvio drop the stick for 90 days on the name, and that both of you pull back on the incivility. Perhaps avoiding each other for a few days will help. Otherwise, Fut. Perf is correct that ARBMAC will be justified there and discretionary sanctions become an option. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:21, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Dennis Brown. I have no problem in following the suggestions coming from a more experienced user. I will wait for a while before touching again the articles in dispute. Fair point. In the meantime please appreciate I have problems only with Direktor and still I do not understand why he denigrates so much my English. Honestly, are my edits so bad to the point of being not intelligible?Silvio1973 (talk) 18:40, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Director, Italy controlled several coastal areas in the Balkans, such as Fiume and still controls Trieste and Gorizia. There is still a sizable Italian population in Istria. The point though is that the Balkans is not an ethnic group but a region containing many ethnic groups and is a byword for ethnic conflict. (Hence terms like "balkanization".) Of course you may be right that all that conflict is in the past. TFD (talk) 18:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Silvio, English is a funny, mangled language. If I hired someone to create a new language, and what they produced was English, I would fire them. There is so much nuance, so much variation, so many subtleties that it is an easy language to mangle or misunderstand. I can talk to Brits in English such that they have no idea what I am saying, and they can do the same to me. If your English isn't perfect, don't feel bad. The same is true for most people who speak it as a first language. Direktor is an experienced editor. He is not without his flaws (we all have flaws), and he often is a bit more blunt than he needs to be, but he is experienced. If you find you disagree, it is better to go get an outside opinion instead of pushing ahead. WP:3rd opinion is one such place, or just ask a random admin. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

None of this takes away from the fact that what Silvio said is bigoted -- it's not just 'rude'. Are you telling us you don't see that? — lfdder 19:34, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In this discussion, there is dispute to how far the comment goes, so my singular point of view isn't as relevant as the consensus view. Administratively, my concern isn't about punishing anyone, it is about finding a way forward so similar acts are less likely to occur in the future. I think it is pretty obvious to Silvio that if those comments are repeated, he will likely be blocked on the spot. More importantly, his tone is more conciliatory, so a little WP:ROPE is warranted. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't ask you to take any administrative measure. You don't have to answer if you don't want to, but don't give me this evasive crap. My impression is Silvio's slur has been made to seem more mild than it is 'cause some of us thought it important to debate the semantics of 'racism'. — lfdder 20:15, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Many Wikipedia editors seem to be bigoted in one way or another, or at least have simplistic models of out groups. Sometimes, like in this case, it occurs to them that their opinions matter enough to be shared with others. It's not so bad, just people talking. I'd rather deal with an honest bigot than a dishonest sociopath who hides their bigotry beneath carefully constructed language to game Wikipedia's rules any day of the week. It's the editors who spend their time imposing their bigoted views on Wikipedia content that are the real menace and they need to be brutally suppressed. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance. Sean.hoyland - talk 20:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree, but that doesn't mean we don't acknowledge it for being bigoted (see also TFD's, Nyttend's and Smeat75's replies above). I've not said that he should be blocked for it or anything of the sort. — lfdder 20:24, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

You have to also understand that an insult might be more obvious to one person than another. "Redneck" is one example. To some, it is a badge of honor, to others, it is an insult. Again, my focus (including on his talk page) is to insure it doesn't happen again, whether or not I "get" the full gravity of the insult. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:28, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Dear all, I never said my comment was polite (and I did not intend being polite). It was impolite exactly like the comments Direktor directed to me before during two long years. But there was no racism, it was just a sad consideration. Said that, I find somehow surprising that I can dialogue in English with anyone in my real life and on Wikipedia, understanding and being understood by everyone except with Direktor. And the way Direktor talks to me (and to many other users) is not less unacceptable. And strange for someone with more than 51,000 edits. --Silvio1973 (talk) 20:39, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I went to Silvio1973's talk page to give them one last warning to stop personal attacks against me and found a link to this ANI. I would like to add that this user has made personal attacks and did not AGF numerous times in the last week or so. User behaves as an edit warrior with a battleground mentality on all things Russia and Ukraine related (see edit history on Russia, this AN3, and comments on Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects and Talk:Russia#Text now coherent with the source). So many horses have suffered in this edit war. Frankly I'd like to see a topic ban. EvergreenFir (talk) 02:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Seriously? This discussion is about Battle of Vukovar. Uninvolved editors with an axe to grind who have been warned in unrelated Russian/Ukrainian topics [97] asking for a topic ban? Which topic exactly? USchick (talk) 03:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

From Russia/Ukraine stuff, but I know it's a pipe dream. I was warned for 4 edits in 48 hours. Never warned for personal attacks, which is what the issue is here. I linked the AN3 because it contains a personal attack (again). My "axe to grind" is about Silvio's behavior. USchick, you are not assuming good faith. We've butted heads in the past, but have always been able to resolve things civilly and for that I respect you. But Silvio seems to be unable to let an opportunity to make a dig at me slide and I'm getting sick of it. That's why I commented here. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

If you have an unrelated disagreement somewhere else and you're "getting sick of it," is it good faith to come here and Wikipedia:PILEON and throw the kitchen sink at an editor simply because you don't like him? You're asking for a ban on unrelated topics and then you claim to be the victim. That doesn't reflect very well on your behavior. USchick (talk) 05:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is going to far. And this is not the place to solve the issues that other people have for other reasons. EvergreenFir, please be aware that you posted a 3RR report and the endehaviour was that we are both warned to be blocked. Concerning the discussion we had, you could aknowledge that in the end I proposed a solution acceptable for the both of us.

EvergreenFir, I have currently a problem with Direktor but I am not participating in any of the ANI's involving him if I was not involved. So if you have a problem with me feel free to report me, but use some common sense; the last time you did it you were warned of being blocked, Have a great sunday EvergreenFir. Silvio1973 (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not surprisingly some people have been concerned with my behaviour and told me that I might be blocked. The issue is that Direktor speaks to the others very badly but takes any comment directed to him extremely serious. However, I might seriously report him in a few days. The issue is that I am not experienced enough to know if there are the conditions to report him. The only thing I know is that he treats me like shit and I do not like it. However, the next time he will bluntly and boldly make a comment about my proficiency in English or about my alleged political orientations I will report him. Because I also have a dignity and Direktor has been litterally walking on it for the last two years. --Silvio1973 (talk) 13:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This is a thread discussing your conduct. Its precisely the place to bring up other personal attacks. There's a difference between being not-entirely-polite after months of fraudulent referencing and language issues, and posting bigoted, condescending, arguably even racist attacks based on nationality and ethnic group. Or indeed, insulting whole ethnic groups based on offensive stereotyping you seem to sign-up to.

And I'd like to request the crew from the above discussion (Smeat, USchick, TFD) kindly refrain from carrying over grudges to completely unrelated threads. The point of this is ultimately to invite uninvolved (admin) input. -- Director (talk) 00:24, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

But it isn't WP:RFC/U. Enough points have been made that now I question if we are just beating a dead horse. He's admitted the comment was rude, he has been warned, perhaps you need to drop the stick and see if if the lessons stick. Otherwise, you are making the situation worse. This can probably be closed without further action, as we've had enough drive by comments and poking. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Ok, dropping it. -- Director (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:Schily's personal attacks and biased editing on Cdrtools and other UNIX topics

Schily (talk · contribs) (Jörg Schilling) is the author of cdrtools, a collection of tools for interacting with disk drives. He was recently blocked for edit warring, POV editing, and personal attacks by Bbb23 (talk · contribs) after this AN3 discussion. After the conclusion of his block, he returned to Talk:cdrtools and made statements I think fall on the wrong side of BLP, such as:

[I]t seems that you are just missinformed by anti-OSS people like Eduard Bloch […] In September 2004 Linus Torvalds introduced a fatal Linux kernel SCSI interface incompatibility while claiming to fix a security bug.
— User:Schily 10:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Bastardized variants are created by people that have more self-confidence than knowledge […] The SuSE programmer that discovered how to send file descriptory via sockets in 2001 and believed to be a security expert for this knowledge. […] : The Debian packetizer Eduard Bloch that discovered how to call make in 2004 and then believed to be a C and SCSI expert with more knowledge than the authors of cdrtools. He managed to add aprox. 100 own bugs within a year and wins a price for the best long term support in preserving bugs over 10 years.
— User:Schily 19:00, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether these remarks fall far enough outside WP:BLP that they need to be struck, but they most certainly seem to be a continuance of the original problematic behaviours for which the editor was originally blocked. I do not believe he is able to contribute to this topic productively. For that matter, his contributions show a history of edit warring and POV-pushing, dating back to (at least) 2010, see User_talk:Schily#Bourne_shell_section_on_criticism, User_talk:Schily#Edit_war, User_talk:Schily#March_2012, and other examples later on the talk page.

Disclaimer: I am involved in Debian as a volunteer developer (and am also involved in the Ubuntu distribution). While I am on the team that reviews new packages for inclusion into Debian, I do not believe I have interacted with Schilling's software in this capacity. I also made some edits to the article to clean it up. LFaraone 16:20, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Per policy, BLP applies to talk pages. However, practically speaking, a little more leeway is given editors to say negative things on talk pages than they do in articles (who is Eduard Bloch?). What troubles me most about Schily is his obvious conflict. Some article subjects can simply not edit their own articles without creating problems. However, they can at least offer useful suggestions on the talk pages. Some authors, though, even if they restrict themselves to the talk page, which Schily hasn't done (although he has since his block expired), they are disruptive. I believe that Schily falls into that category. Although I know this isn't a blatant legal threat, another disturbing comment Schily made on the talk page is:

Note that soneone who likes to express his doubt on the legallity on the other side needs to present a valid legal reasoning. If he is not able to present such a reasoning, his clains must be seen as no more than libel and slander. This may look unbalanced, but sorry - this are the legal rules from law. A laywer that discloses internals from a client will go into prison for 1-2 years, depending on whether the disclosure was made in order to harm his client or not. A company that asked their lawyers and ships cdrtools verifies that there is no risk. A company that does not ship cdrtools does not verify anything. ([98])

Mentioning libel, slander, and prison all in the same post is inherently problematic. Schily has a total of 581 edits (284 to articles and 244 to article talk pages) since he started editing using this account in 2006. 47 edits have been to cdrtools. 69 have been to the talk page. Most of his other edits have been to related articles, e.g. Cdrkit. At a minimum, I would suggest a topic ban for cdrtools and its talk page.--Bbb23 (talk) 18:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the recent block for me: I am not sure why this happened, but the pretended reason (personal attacks) was not true. I did critizise a user because he intentionally added false claims to an article. This was of course not an attack against his person but critics against his behavior. Critizising someone for what he did is something different than attacking him for his person and needed if you notice that this person is intentionally adding false claims.

I am not sure what you like to achive overall, but maybe you can help me to improve the cdrtools article. The article is currently full of personal attacks (false claims about me) and attacks against the cdrtools project. The people that added the attacks and unbalanced or false claims mostly have a direct connection to Debian - note that Eduard Bloch from Debian started attacks against the cdrtools project in 2004 after he has been unhappy that a patch from him against cdrtools was rejected by me because it had only bugs and no usable benefits to the project. His modifying activity on the copy of the cdrtools sources at Debian resulted in aprox. 100 Bug reports in the debian bug tracking system. The problem with the unbalanced claims in the article is that they are usually tagged with pointers to quotes that do not prove the claims, but they may look as if they did on the first view. The most problematic editor in this context was User:Chire. Without his edits, I am sure that the other editors could agree on something that is fact based. User:Chire seems to be on a crusade against cdrtools since 2010 as he shows similar activity against the cdrtools project at different places. In discussions, he repeats his claims many times even after his claims have been proven false. I am not sure how this is in the US, but in Germany you can get sued if you publish claims you cannot prove against a person. Please note that User:LFaraone who started this thread recently started to edit the cdrtools article and introduced unbalanced claims and modified text so that the new text is less balanced than it has been before.

If you don't care about the correctness of Wikpedia articles or if you like to allow people to use wikipedia as a platform for propaganda against OSS projects like cdrtools, it may be the best if I stop trying to help wikipedia. If you however care about what is in the articles, I like to get help and advise on how to deal with people that are poison to discussions and advise on how to get to balanced articles even if there are editors that try to prevent balanced articles.

Are you interested in balanced articles and can you help me to achieve this? Schily (talk) 23:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Again, you come very close to a legal threat (Germany and lawsuits), and you attack two editors. Given your attitude and approach, your idea of no longer editing at Wikipedia is a good one. It will certain save us the effort of having to block and/or ban you.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Please try to understand what really happed, you then will see that I am the victim and not the attacker. Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

"I will sue you!" is a legal threat. Saying "lawyer" threes time is not. NE Ent 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, NE Ent, wikilawyering about legal threats. How appropriate. I never said Schily made legal theats. I said he came close, and he did. How many lawyers does it take to initiate a lawsuit? None.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems that you missinterpret the text. I did never say "I will sue you". I did however explain why a lawyer is not allowed to say anything about a specific case because Chire in former times wanted to have detailed information about three legal advises from three independend group of lawyers that happened in the past and that caused Sun, Oracle and SuSE to publish cdrtools. This proves that there are a lot of false claims in the licensing section of the cdrtools article - if the claims in that section would be correct, no distribution could risk to ship cdrtools. Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can attest that Schily is right about this point. The paragraph at hand was not a call to involve lawyers in the edit process, but an explanation of why Schily thought the section described was inaccurate and its sources unreliable - he was describing the references, not the edits. IMO his interpretation is wrong, but its intention with the paragraph that Bbb23 has copied above was in no way close to making legal threats against Wikipedia editors. Diego (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Saying "an editor inserted false information" is a comment about their behavior. Saying "an editor intentionally inserted false information" is a personal attack. See the difference? We do want, as best we can, correct information in the encyclopedia. Because we're amateurs, the way we try to do this is respectfully and collaboratively work with others to find reliable sources to determine what to put im. Disparaging others doesn't work well in the long term, so you'll get blocked again if you keep that up. NE Ent 02:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

How would you call it if someone inserted false information and after he has been proven to be false, repeatedly inserts the same false information again and again? BTW: you may like to look a bit down and will see again false claims against me, I did give away cdrecord-ProDVD for free (when it was closed source because of an NDA) and I made cdrecord-ProDVD OpenSource after that NDA did no longer apply.

But the question still stands: how do we get the false claims and unbalanced wordings out off the cdrtools article when a group of people is adding more and more of them? How can we deal with unrelaiable sources that are used by this group of people, when you need to dig to verify that these sorces are just copies from one initial false source? Schily (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Schily, I have pointed out repeatedly how you could get to balance the article, but you're not listening. It is of no use that you go on describing in the talk page why you think the claim should be removed; any information that you write at Wikipedia itself is useless for the article because of the No Original Research rule. If you think some claim in the article is false or inaccurate, you need to give us a URL to an external site that explains how the claim is wrong.

If the URL points to a reliable source, this can have two different effects on the article, depending on the claim. It can show that the source used to support the first claim is not reliable, in which case we would remove it. Or it can show that there are two different and opposing views on what happened, in which case we would describe both, as a counter-balance for the original claim. There's no guarantee that all the claims that you think are false will be removed, sorry; Wikipedia simply isn't written that way. But you could use your knowledge about the history of the cdrtools project to points us toward places that document it, and that we could use to improve the article. Diego (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Schily, your habit of personally attacking people, often for things they may or may not have done 10+ years ago is really a bad trait. You should stop this, in particular on Wikipedia. Also your notion of "fact" and "neutral" diverges from Wikipedias, unfortunately. Wikipedia tries to document reliable sources; you try to insert your personal opinion (and call this "balanced").

I tried to research the whole quarrel, to find some reliable sources. None of them are worth citing in an encyclopedia, though. What I could find is actually E. B. openly defending you: "he is still the upstream and author of good software products. And he wrote code for Unix systems when some of us were in kindergarten." as well as "Pissing of the upstream by making changes without telling him is not a good way go to." [this refers to adding a dvd writing support patch, while you were trying to sell cdrecord-ProDVD]. Stop making personal attacks. Your behaviour is really inappropriate. --Chire (talk) 07:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The root of the problem is that the article isn't adequately sourced. I see only two RS, which don't mention cdrtools at all but talk about OSS licensing in general. The rest are primary sources and a few blogs/user created content sites. Almost all of this is about the internal controversy and doesn't even firmly establish the notability of the software. A lot of excessive detail about a software that is becomming increasingly obsolete (what is a CD-ROM? :) This isn't encyclopedic at all, but a playground for internal quarrels. 80.132.79.144 (talk) 12:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Schily has gone back to editing the article with this choice edit. Note the reference he provided: "Cdrskin does not support UDF and thus cannot edit hybrid images that include an UDF filesystem". I had no idea we could reference material in that way. I again support a ban, at least an article ban, but preferably a ban that includes other related articles.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Could you please explain why you believe that it is OK when Tzafrir adds unbalanded text but it is not OK when Schily tries to correct the text to be more balanced by adding a 100% correct statement?

Could you please explain why it seems to be bad to name persons with their real name in WP but LFaraone does not get a warning when this user adds a real name in his text? Schily (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bbb23, the latest edit from Schily just corrects a tiny partially false claim (see the end of this diff). Schily's edit was the first one since his recent 72h block, and there has not been any official ban for him. Schily has already started with a more collaborative approach, as most of his recent edits are now on the Talk page. I'm sure Diego would agree with an unofficial-only article ban for Schily, which would mean that any controversal edit from him, once reported, would turn the unofficial article ban into an official article ban. In other words, I don't think it would be fair to decide an article ban because of an non-controversal edit. Thanks. Ekkt0r (talk) 12:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Can someone explain to me something? If Schily is the actual author of the software tools, why in <insert deity>'s name is he editing the article about those tools? This is the perfect example of why WP:COI editing is bad, very bad. As the author of the tools, he has an obvious deep personal and professional desire to see both him and the tools protrayed in the best light possible. As such, by nature, he will take great personal offence to anything that appears negative of contrary. The results of the addition of negative/contrary material - as required to maintain an overall neutral point of view are being met with personal attacks and anger. Where the hell are basic ethics from this editor? Schily needs to a) stop editing ANY article where he has direct COI (even the talkpages, considering their abusive behaviour), and b) not edit any related articles or the articles on similar or competing products. Hell, he shouldn't even read the articles. So, I suppose this means I support some extensive topic ban ES&L 11:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I agree with you, EatsShootsAndLeaves. Frankly, I wish the rule against editing when you have a conflict were more restrictive than it is. That said and in response to others who seem to see nothing wrong with his edits because he's the only one who knows everything, there's nothing to prevent him from suggesting all of his changes on the article talk page. I might also add that material here must be noteworthy and reliably sourced. If Schily knows something that either only he knows or can only be sourced to him, it probably isn't noteworthy and it certainly doesn't comply with policy.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:30, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would like that Schily helped in crafting an accurate history of the cdrtools project, which played a significant part in the ability to play DVDs on open source OSs; he may be the only person with a comprehensive knowledge of the various disagreements and forks the software suffered during its life. Conflict of interest is not a ban on editing articles by involved editors, it's a ban on problematic edits - of which I agree Schily has plenty. I have warned Schily that I will denounce any edit he makes to the article to the COI noticeboard, but I would still like to see him collaborating, provided we can make him understand that he must assume good faith and that any edit he disagrees with is not a personal attack. Diego (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Such an history is outside of the scope of Wikipedia - detailed cdrtools history is probably not that relevant, is it? It would give undue weight to document this in detail on Wikipedia. IMHO, the article should only cover enough to explain why cdrtools is still not present in many distributions. But User:Schily could publish his opinion on the cdrecord homepage, and we could easily reference it as a primary source for those readers interested in his view. This would be a clean way to avoid WP:COI as well as WP:OR. From a Wikipedia point of view, a balanced view is just mentioning all stakeholders, and referencing them; not deciding who is right or wrong. --Chire (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Since May 2004, a group of Debian related people is attacking cdrtools. If you check recent edits, you will notice that many of the recent edits have been done by people with a Debian background. These people have a real conflict of interest and several of the edits from these people have been made in order to harm the cdrtools project. Other edits could be at least seen as unbalanced. If these unbalanced or false claims would not happen, there was of course no need for me to correct them. So why are these people with Debian background continuing to add false or unbalanced claims to the article? Please note that I was the first to make the proposal to remove all the tainted text and to start from scratch on the talk page. I even made more than one proposal for a starter text. Unfortunately, the Debian related people with a conflict of interest continue to add new text that was not previously agreed on at the talk page. My question still stands: how to we achieve to get an unbiased article while there are several people with a conflict of interest that constantly add false or biased claims? Schily (talk) 14:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and reverting of edits without addressing in Talk to gain consensus

Coretheapple has made repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses throughout Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, while making changes to Fort Lee lane closure scandal that are in contradiction to previous Talk discussions.

It was agreed at Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality & Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion that details of Zimmer allegations would be included in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. This was agreed to even though it was acknowledged that the two separate scandals would be investigated by the same state and federal authorities, and other organizations.

It was just addressed again in Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart in which Coretheapple raised the issue of whether details of Zimmer allegations should be added. I reminded everyone that Zimmer allegations should be contained within the other article. Coretheapple made no further comments about a statement for inclusion in the Fort Lee article that reached consensus between JackGavin and myself with no reference to Zimmer and a link to the "Governorship of Chris Christie" section.

Instead, Coretheapple went into the Fort Lee article and started adding detail about Zimmer allegations.

I opened up Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Need for any additional details in this Bridgegate scandal article about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid to address content based on Coretheapple's addition of details about Zimmer allegations.

Coretheapple responded with the same points they made in a variety of Talk discussions that did not accept those arguments. I addressed each and every point that Coretheapple made about adding more content about Zimmer allegations and explained why they were not needed and that it contradicted consensus reached in past Talk discussions. Coretheapple began to make personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses.

Coretheapple's latest personal attacks and denigrating comments against me in their Talk discussions included their entries of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of edit comments.

I repeatedly requested Coretheapple in that Talk discussion and my recent History edit comments, (i.e. [99] and [100] ) to address their arguments in Talk about content additions for details about Zimmer allegations. Instead, Coertheapple either ignored my Talk requests and History edit comments or made more personal attacks on the Talk discussion page, and then continued to add details about Zimmer allegations (see [101] and [102] ).

Instead of complying with my requests to address content, Coretheapple has continued with personal attacks on the Fort Lee Talk discussions and History edit comments in the Fort Lee article.

As clearly shown in Additional details for Zimmer allegations, Coretheapple is in violation of Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette, Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus, as they did not reach any consensus and ignored and contradicted consensus reached in past discussions in complaints, Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion, and content issues about Zimmer allegations that I previously cited above.

I have tried to work with Coretheapple in accordance with Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle and Wikipedia:Consensus based on Coretheapple's bold additions for additional Zimmer details.

Based on evidence of Coretheapple's unacceptable and disruptive edits in contradiction to consensus reached at past Talk discussions and their objectionable personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses or edits, I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 16:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just for the record, I have found Wondering55 to be one of the most difficult people when it comes to a) working with others and b) taking advice. Astronomically difficult. As an admin, I've just had shake my head and say "WTF" quietly to myself many times DP 17:08, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

For the record, rather than address the facts that I present for this particular case, DP has mis-characterized my past efforts and clearly good faith efforts for this particular case, and continues to make negative assumptions about me in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith. When a Wikipedia administrator has to refer to another person's good faith efforts, as demonstrated in this specific case, as "WTF", rather than address the specific facts and actions by another editor with clear evidence of personal attacks against me and my comments that appears to violate multiple Wikipedia guidelines that I presented, there is something seriously wrong. Wondering55 (talk) 17:43, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Ohhh, you're right ... something is seriously wrong. Remember, when you file at ANI, your own behaviour will come under the microscope as well DP 18:33, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I welcome review of my behavior for this particular instance and these particular facts. To try and confuse the issues with a debate on other past issues would be disingenuous and very time consuming. So far, I have not seen any constructive, neutral points of view about the facts of this particular situation. Wondering55 (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Based on my Talk comment of "Let's be reasonable" and my subsequent editing to give Corethapple practically all of their requested revisions with only one brief mention of Zimmer's name, Coretheapple goes in and adds more details about the allegations and puts back Zimmer comments about the investigation into her allegations, none of which were agreed to in the Talk.

Coretheapple's changes below were removed since they were not made in accordance with WP:BRD, as clearly shown in the Talk discussion. Coretheapple was requested to go back to Talk to address these issues based on [103].

[104]; [105]; [106]

Coretheapple ignored this request and put back details below into the article.

[107]; [108]

When those changes were reverted by me with another request to go Talk, Coretheapple simply reverted the changes and claimed that their revert details "are explained on the talk page" without indicating that the explanations, which were contrary to all past Talk discussions in several Talk topics, were not accepted on the Talk page.

[109]

In essence, Coretheapple reverted previously agreed to modifications three times within a day's time without addressing or gaining any consensus, as requested in my History edit comments and Talk. This does not even include Coretheapple's other previous edits regarding the addition of details about Zimmer allegations that were not in accordance with past Talk discussions with other editors and Additional details for Zimmer allegations. Wondering55 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Just from an uninvolved editor's perspective, not many people will want read through all this text and weigh the merits of your complaint. Can you boil it down to two paragraphs and 3 diffs that best illustrate the point you are making? I'm only saying this because I assume you want editors to respond to your posting here and you're demanding a lot of attention from them. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:49, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

In Additional details about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken Sandy relief aid, Coretheapple's repeated personal attacks and denigrating comments against me and my responses culminated in their final inaccurate and denigrating insults of "wall-o-text", "rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped", "utterly beside the point", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting" and "hooting and hollering", as well as "blah blah/ comment" and "blah blah/reply" in their History of Talk edit comments, as shown below.

[110]](April 12 13:34 - 14:09)

Those comments were made in response to my previous Talk discussion where I indicated "Let's be reasonable" on April 9 that was followed by my April 12 response below, which included "In a spirit of cooperation, I updated article to show the statement below, which incorporates all of Corethepple's revisions with a brief mention of Zimmer."

[111] April 12 4:01)

Other examples:

[112] (My April 9 15:36 response to previous personal attack about my comments as "insane" and "blah/blah reply")

[113] (My April 9 16:54 response to previous personal attack of my comments as "blah/blah fix")

I had repeatedly stated in that Talk that further details, which were removed, about Zimmer belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation as per consensus in past Talk discussions:

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal/Archive 1#Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality { See [114] (February 16 00:08) }

• Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Legal representation chart { Starting at line 514 in [115] (April 7 15:28 to 17:06) } Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Governorship of Chris Christie#Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections.

Coretheapple continued to make changes to the article in contradiction to those Talk discussions.

Coretheapple's changes for adding more Zimmer details were reverted in accordance with Bold Revert and Discuss with a request to address their proposal in Talk to see if they could gain any consensus for adding details. Instead, Coretheapple simply reverted these changes on three separate occasions within a days time between April 11 & 12 (if needed, see my previous response at 20:53, 12 April 2014 for diff examples) and put back all of the Zimmer details without any further Talk discussion.

I responded in Talk that Coretheapple's actions were in contradiction to Wikipedia guidelines for Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus and that Coretheapple's final retort contained so many personal attacks against me and my comments. They violated Wikipedia:No personal attacks, Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Etiquette.

The changes made by Coretheapple for adding details about Zimmer allegations in contradiction to past Talk discussion and no consensus for including them based on the latest Talk should be revised.

I ask that Coretheapple be temporarily blocked since I have made every effort to try and work with Coretheapple based on content issues rather than any personal attacks or denigrating comments like Coretheapple has made. Hopefully, Coretheapple will learn their lesson and work with me in the future. Wondering55 (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well done. Asked to "boil it down to 2 paragraphs and 3 diff's" and we get a wall-o-text. Helpful indeed, and indicative of behaviour so far DP 10:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

More denigrating comments and personal attacks by DP rather than focusing on the facts. DP continues to question my good faith efforts and behavior in contradiction to Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:No personal attacks. For some reason, DP has a very biased view of me. That is not right, particular by a Wikipedia administrator.

It should be clearly seen that my updated presentation makes it much easier to focus on the facts. DP's unnecessary claims of wall-o-text is clearly contradicted by that guideline that addresses "overly long unformatted statements". My clearly outlined and focused presentation with very short paragraphs is in accordance with the guideline's recommendation to "distill one's thoughts into bite size pieces."

As per the very constructive request, the first 2 paragraphs clearly highlighted the overwhelming amount of personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that clearly support my position. That is all the administrators need to focus on regarding my request to block Coretheapple based on their personal attacks.

As requested, I provided the diff's for 3 long past Talk discussions, so that administrators could quickly see past consensus that contradicted Coretheapple's proposal to add details about Zimmer's allegations into Fort Lee lane closure scandal rather than include those details in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple was previously requested to comply with this consensus in one of these referenced Talk discussions, without any objections by Coretheapple.

I also referenced 3 Fort Lee article diffs to show how Coretheapple repeatedly added details about Zimmer allegations without discussing or gaining consensus in Talk in violation of Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, Wikipedia:Edit warring, and Wikipedia:Consensus.

The facts are clear and my updated presentation focuses on the key information with very clear diffs that should make it much easier for a constructive and fair review by Wikipedia administrators.

While not as blatant, Coretheapple is continuing to make condescending remarks about my behavior and editing, rather than neutral constructive comments. Wondering55 (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• The above Mt. Everest of text concerns approx. 15 words in the article, and my efforts to lure this editor into a discussion of the merits have been met by the kind of tactics that we see here. Wondering55 is especially emotive on this because he was blocked for edit warring based on a complaint I brought a few days ago, during the course of which his access to his own talk page was blocked. I am almost literally out the door for a few days and cannot respond further, but I am sure that Wondering55 will have plenty more to say on the "consensus" that did not exist and the terrible "personal attacks" to which I have subjected him, most recently concerning some comments concerning overuse of the word "indicate" in the article which didn't involve him at all and were not directed to him or any editor. I am not the first editor who has had this kind of encounter with Wondering55, and I am sure that I won't be the last. Coretheapple (talk) 16:37, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Once again, rather than focus on the facts of this particular situation, Coretheapple continues with their inaccurate denigrating comments of "Mt. Everest of text", my supposed "tactics", which incorrectly implies bad faith on my part, and "especially emotive", and brings up totally unrelated incidents to this particular situation, which stands on its own merits. The diffs for the 3 past Talk discussions that I provided clearly show the "consensus" of editors that Coretheapple has repeatedly ignored. Coretheapple's personal attacks are very clear in the first diff that I provided in my updated presentation (06:38, 13 April 2014). I am not even sure why Coretheapple even raised the issue of the overuse of the word "indicated" in the article since I never thought or indicated anywhere in this Talk or the Fort Lee article Talk that Coretheapple's comments were personally directed at me. I have not brought up any other past questionable behavior by Coretheapple since I wanted to focus on the clear facts of this situation where Coretheapple has made personal attacks and inaccurate/inappropriate denigrating comments against me and my editing.

There have been close to 200 editors in the Fort Lee article. Coretheapple has been the only editor to continually ask for additional details about Zimmer's allegations about Hurricane Sandy relief for Hoboken that is separate from the Fort Lee lane closure scandal. All other editors agreed that those details, with a link to that other article, belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation, along with many other scandals that have been publicized as people have looked into other aspects of the Christie administration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should also be noted that Coretheapple had added around 55 words (fifty-five) about Zimmer and her allegations in the article in their past edits in contradiction to consensus and Talk discussions. Coretheapple's final edit has added 41 words to the article. All other editors were satisfied with no additional words about Zimmer and her allegations beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation. Wondering55 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hmmm. Am I the only one thinking that the WMF server and bandwidth bill doesn't need this user? Guy (Help!) 7:03 pm, Today (UTC−4)
  • No, Guy, I'm another. Of course the most precious commodity the user is squandering isn't server space but the attention and energy of other volunteers. Bishonen | talk 07:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

My updated request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 has 440 words, not including links to the diffs or Talk pages. It is in line with requests below that were answered without discussions about their length.

Disruption and malicious editing – 502 words

Brews_ohare, Snowded and others – 490 words

Disruption and malicious editing – 401 words

User:Ohconfucius – 781 words

First 2 paragraphs, which only have 160 words, highlighted personal attacks and denigrating comments by Coretheapple and my efforts for conciliation and compromise that were rejected by Coretheapple, along with 4 diffs that support my position. That is not time consuming in order to focus on my request to block Coretheapple based on their attacks and comments.

Remainder of request addresses Coretheapple's violations of BRD, Edit warring, and Consensus that led to these attacks and denigrating comments, instead of focusing on content, as I requested. I suggested that Coretheapple's edits, which added between 41 to 55 words to the Fort Lee scandal article should be undone since there was no consensus and their revisions contradicted agreements and consensus in 3 past Talk discussions in which there were to be no words about these allegations, beyond a link to Hoboken relief funds investigation.

I would appreciate the courtesy of a review based on the facts that I have presented in my request at 06:38, 13 April 2014 that is within the length of other requests that were addressed. Thanks for your consideration. Wondering55 (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an uninvolved Admin, I took a look not only at the section of the Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal indicated, but at a random selection of other edits on the article page, & exchanges on the talk page. I could find no explicitly stated "consensus" there. My opinion, however, is that Wondering55 does respond to comments by others with impenetrable slabs of text. Stating an obvious fact is not a personal attack; truth is always a defense against libel. I also would like to point out Coretheapple's last response to Wondering55 included the passage: "If you want to engage in a discussion of the merits of adding 15 words to the text I'll talk about it with you. But if it's more personal attacks on me, more wall-o-text wikilawyering and boldface ranting and hooting and hollering, then I'm not going to waste my time." I interpret these sentences to mean Coretheapple is about to stop editing the article entirely. Seeing how that user made only 3 edits after that, I think I'm right about that.

And even if Coretheapple was rude, then gave up editing the article? What more does Wondering55 want done? I'm thinking the best solution here instead might focus on Wondering55. -- llywrch (talk) 20:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Coretheapple has not given up on editing the article.

I want to know if Coretheapple can be blocked for personal attacks and denigrating comments (like those quoted and shown in the diffs below) that are simply opinions, and not facts, in the one cited Fort Lee discussion. I continually asked Coretheapple to focus on content without this derogatory language, and yet Coretheapple persisted. Coretheapple even edited one of their saved responses, which already had derogatory language, just to add more derogatory language. If Coretheapple cannot be blocked, will this type of language and behavior be allowed, or are there other alternatives to prevent or address this situation? Wikipedia and professional environments frown on denigrating opinions among colleagues.

• "wall-o-text rantings", "insane discussions", "you slapped at the top of this insane discussion", "wikilawyering", "boldface ranting", "hooting and hollering", and "this discussion is insane, and that's a statement of fact, not a personal attack", as well as "blah/blah/fix", "blah blah/comment", and "blah blah/reply" in their Talk History edit comments when responding to me.

• [116]] (April 12 diff with multiple revisions by Corethepaple with the most significant derogatory comments)

• [117] (My April 9 15:36 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

• [118] (My April 9 16:54 response to Coretheapple's derogatory comments)

This situation occurred while I addressed content and suggested that a significant portion of Coretheapple's revisions could be included. I used words like "compromise", "let's be reasonable", and "in a spirit of cooperation" to try and work with Coretheapple. When Coretheapple could not gain consensus for their entire proposal, Coretheapple started with their derogatory comments and repeatedly added details (with up to 55 extra words in various revisions, and ending up with 41 extra words in final revision) about Zimmer allegations about Hoboken issues to the Fort Lee article rather than just refer readers to Hoboken relief funds investigation, in contradiction to past agreements among editors (as shown below) for the Fort Lee article.

• Rebooting the Scandal Page discussion General consensus shown between February 12 and February 21, 2014

• Complaints about media coverage & Neutrality (February 16 diff)

• Starting at line 514 in Legal representation chart (April 7 diff) Coretheapple was told by JackGavin and me that details about Zimmer allegations belong in Hoboken relief funds investigation. Coretheapple made no objections. Wondering55 (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Behavior of Boeing720 at Landskrona BoIS

This whole disagreement is very silly, but user Boeing720 has been conducting himself in a manner that has caused me to feel that I cannot contribute to the Landskrona BoIS article. My attempts to clean up the tone and grammar of the article are consistently undone by Boeing720, and now he is resorting to simply reverting my edits (repeatedly, borderline edit warring), [119][120][121] despite the objections of User:Reckless182 [122]. He has also posted a disruptive edits warning on my talk page, quite unjustly I would think. I hope that someone can convince Boeing720 to allow edits of his writing, as at the moment continuing to edit this page is pointless as it will simply be undone by Boeing720, who seems to think he has some ownership over the page. — Swedishpenguin | Talk 14:26, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

These matters generally have two sides to them. I have warned Boeing720 for miscalling the edits of others as vandalism. Let us see how this plays out. --John (talk) 15:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The background to what has happened here, is that two other users, for a rather long time now, have attempted to destroy the history part of the article. Which I find to be well referenced and containing a University level composition and other good sources. Their so called "help" have included re-writing of the material in the way that statements needs references (that preaviously was sourced) aswell as unnecessarily shorten down the prehistory of the club. What led to a merging between two clubs and which other sport clubs that played importaint part of making football popular in Landskrona. Allegations of all kinds of "WP:THIS" , "WP:THAT" like the article being POV, aswell as harassment at my talk page. Especially one of them. Their intentions are disruptive, possibly due to the fact that the history part now has become longer than most history parts of Swedish sports clubs - or possibly that I don't think that history must be boiled down to table format. I wanted to tell the history of Landskrona BoIS by the use of available sources. When I've put destroyed part of the text back, I may have done it in an unconsciously wrong way. But it wouldn't have happened if it wasn't for the two "helpers". I have called for help by administrators in several ways now, and I thank You for your intervention. By the way, may I ask - is putting a headline to a certain time period POV, even if waht the headline states is sourced in the following part ? Like Helsingborgs IF history part (I'm not certain of how well referenced those headlineas are, bur assume they are). Reason one of the "helpers" states that it's POV to do so. Thanks again. Boeing720 (talk) 13:09, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just want to add that User Reckless again has made disruptive edits in the first chapter of "History" (Wich I labeled as "Prehistory" but accepted "Roots of football in Landskrona"), He has removed lot of the essence of how the club emerged. The material had university level references. Also, I have two times before attempted to reach administrators (just didn't knew how), I'va asked User:DIRECTOR (wich atleast I believed to be an administrator) and administrator Jhunterj, long time before Reckless involved You. I have asked for arbitration of some kind. I think Reckless is vandalising the article. Boeing720 (talk) 14:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In history file he states "let's try this again now that an admin has established that the edit wasn't vandalism"- but Your comment wasn't about his edits but the wrongful way that I reverted the text. It is at the very least a Warring from his side. Last line is "Diana also had a strong youth program, and a formal leadership structure, both things that another Landskrona club, IFK Landskrona, lacked.[citation needed]". As the text was written before the "citation needed" wasn't needed. He has also removed a picture. I suupose his next step will be a flag "this article needs better sources" (or whatever it states). Can You see my problem ? Boeing720 (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

For the reasons of clarification, what I have considered to be POV in the section titles have been titles such as "1924–42 Well established in Allsvenskan", "1942–54 An instable period", "1980's and early 1990's Mostly a dull period", "1994–1996 Financial disorder led to dubble relegations" and "The third millenium - a good start". I am not in any way saying that it is POV to describe the section title with a good title, I have even proposed alternative titles for Being, but he has disregarded these immediately. What Boeing doesn't seem to understand is that the POV issue in the article is not only in the section titles but all over the article. I have made numerous attempts to explain this to Boeing but he ends up always referring back to the section titles. The last edit I made after the John's conclusion is not in any way "disruptive". I simply restored Swedishpenguin version of the article which Boeing previously had called "vandalism". The accusation that me and Swedishpenguin have harrased Boeing720 is preposterous. See here and here for examples of Boeing720 ill temperament. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, here are a couple of examples of Boeing720's edit warring, some with inappropriate edit comments: 1, 2, 3, 4. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My intentions with this article have never been harmful. I am the co-founder of the Sweden task force at WikiProject Football and therefore I care for all articles regarding Swedish football. I noticed how the prose and section title of the article were very much biased from out of a supporter perspective. There I put a POV tag at the top of the article to warn readers since I didn't have time to fix the issue myself (I am currently writing my masters thesis). At first I didn't specify the issue further at the talk page which I should have done. In a later stage I have proposed numerous examples of POV issues in the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see that You ever had have any good intentions regarding the history section of Landskrona BoIS. Whatever task-force You may be in, what has that got to do with the article ?. If Your intentions are good, howcome you then shorten down the pre-history part to almost nothing ? And now You have also removed the IFK Landskrona photo (You have even admitted that old photos pubished in Sweden are public domain, but just stated that the "limit" is 1944 not 1967. But the photo in question is undoubtedly far older than both, which You also can see in the university level source http://www.svif.net/dokument/%2001%20Andersson.pdf. And like I stated before why make an "improvement" that includes [citation needed] , you have simply added an unsourcered claim that "Diana also had a strong youth program, and a formal leadership structure, both things that another Landskrona club, IFK Landskrona, lacked." This is not stated in the source. Reguarding the latter team, the source mainly states that they brought players to the new club.

So you make assumptions that is not included in my version. And finish with a [citation needed] - do you really call that "help" ? And since you have flagged the article with POV / Souce Improvements time after time, I find it even more strange (if your intention really is "to help"). There is also the academical question of the use of "white/blue collar" instead of common "Middle class" and "Working class", like the source states. So why change it ? Especially non-native-English speakers are very likely to not understand. But plausable also native speakers of the English language. If it was only up to minor differencies like "economical disaster" [for the club] vs "close to bankrupcy" we could have agreed. But since You not even can explain how Helsingborg IF history headlines not are POV, while any Landskrona BoIS headline is. Then it gets very hard to believe your "good" intentions. While as I have kept me to good sources, and your "help" has never been needed, not under the history section anyway. Boeing720 (talk) 20:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't remove any photos on purpose, I simply restored Swedishpenguin's version of the article. He shortened down the pre-history since most of it was of no relevance to the article. You had written a lot of material concerning the history of sport in Landskrona, not history regarding the club Landskrona BoIS. Also there was some concerns of some sentences regarding social class. We really shouldn't get into a political debate in an article about football. A previous edition which you wrote also had a strong bias against the Swedish media, without any references entirely. I restored Swedishpenguin's version of the article since I fully support it, don't accuse me of anything else. As I told you once before, I would love to see the article as a featured article, but with your persistence of not letting anybody help you with POV issues and language issues then the quality of the article will remain very poor. And please, please stop bringing up Helsingborg, Yes I agree with you that the sections are POV, but we are discussing the article about Landskrona BoIS here. Just because one article is of poor quality doesn't mean another one has to as well. I have been involved in several featured article and featured list reviews so I know what it takes for an article to achieve top quality. Trust me when I say that this particular article is in very poor condition due to several POV concerns as well as pace and language concerns. The article would benefit very much from a clean-up from a more experienced such as Swedishpenguin, the problem is that you falsely accused him of vandalism when he improved the quality of the article. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:00, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstood it once, but the only reason that I mentioned feutered articles was, as you have known for a while now, that writing history must not be reduced to "data stackin" - it can be telled (including adjectives where appropriate). As an example of this, I mentioned that excellent prose is a demand for getting an article feutered. I have never stated that I've intended to get Landskrona BoIS article feutered (among less than 0,1 % of all articles). But I still want to tell the full story of Landskrona BoIS. Another thing - I've never used phrases that includes lauging at You or Swedpenguin - but you both have. I have kept my criticism at the level of the article, not person. You have though (mis)used your superior knowledge of WP:MATTERS and how to do things, in order to make the article less useful for the readers. Boeing720 (talk) 21:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Now (23:40 CEST) everyone can judge for themselves, which early history part of Landskrona BoIS that is the better. Boeing720 (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, articles should be written in storytelling fashion, but an article at Wikipedia is also of encyclopaedic art. Therefore, as Wikipedia's second pillar so clearly states: Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. Landskrona BoIS is clearly not written from a neutral point of view, it is written from a supporter point of view. You do not own the article about Landskrona BoIS, so if I or any other editor would like to increase the quality of the article we should be able to do so without you accusing us of being vandals. Even if you do not strive for the article to be a featured article in the future, me and several other would certainly want to. I think, like everything else in life, that we should always strive for the best. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that Boeing720 has yet again reverted the changes of me and Swedishpenguin. --Reckless182 (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Voice-to-skull

Greetings. I created an entirely new article on this subject. I understand there is some sort of dispute over a previous article that was deleted (and subsequently recreated) repeatedly. I looked into the subject and found that it is in fact notable. It seems to be written about with hyphens, so that's why I used them. Another editor has redirected. I have reverted. I also need help redirecting the Voice to skull page to this article since that page has been protected. I know people can get testy, but this is indeed a new article created in good faith so it should be treated and assessed as such. I don't see any issues as far as notability as it is well cited. Thanks for any and all insights and assistance. I am going to be offline for a while, but will check back in when I get a chance. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Utter bullshit. Only one of the sources cited even uses the term 'voice to skull'. This is a clear and unambiguous attempt to recreate an article on a subject deleted as non-notable fringe nonsense in a recent AfD. The topic (in as much as it merits discussion at all) is already covered in other articles, and has no independent notability - it simply doesn't exist except as a term bandied around on conspiracy-theory websites. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

You are most welcome to take it to an Articles for Deletion discussion. You say it is covered elsewhere, but where? Electronic harassment seems to me to be an entirely different subject. So where exactly do you think this subject is already covered? Candleabracadabra (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Acoustic harassment. I hope this satisfies Andy's concerns. I still need help with the redirect requested above. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We don't base articles on a single source. [123] Everything else you included in the article - by clear and unambiguous synthesis, since none of the other sources used the term 'voice-to-skull' - can be covered, if properly sourced, in existing articles actually discussing real technology. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, that article has just recently been deleted TWICE, at AFD and MFD. I'm debating if I need to just CSD it under G4 and salt it, if someone else doesn't beat me to it. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

"Voice-to-skull" is a POV re-hash of material already covered at Electronic harassment and Psychotronic_weapons. I've redirected accordingly. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

What does the acoustic harassment, as in fact used on birds and marine mammals, have to do with the weird electromagnetic warfare articles you are talking about? Please restore the article so it can be discussed. Also, if you don't think it's notable you are welcome to propose a merger or better yet take it to Articles for Deletion. I welcome the scrutiny because the subject is obviously notable. And I suggest you actually READ the article so you have some idea about what you are talking about. Are acoustic harassment devices covered in the articles you are talking about? That's all I will say for now. Hopefully some cooler and calmer heads will weigh in with some rational input. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Deleted and salted for 3 months. Full protected Voice to skull 3 months as a redirect as well. One AFD, one MFD, plus a few times failed at AFC have already clearly shown that the community says "no" to this article. Please note that this may be subject to discretionary sanctions under Fringe Science.... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:16, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

LMAO Here are Google book results for acoustic harassment. And Dennis Brown is clearly involved. This is a gross and incompetent abuse of his tools. I hope he will come to his senses and revert himself. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• You are welcome to ask about my incompetence at WP:AN, or my involvement. I haven't edited nor participated in the deletion discussions on the articles, so not sure how you get WP:INVOLVED out of that, I was just helping the previous editor understand why the article isn't going to happen at Wikipedia any time soon. That makes me informed, not involved. Just as you claim I was canvassed on my talk page, and I have no idea who canvassed me. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:22, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that none of the articles cited used the term 'acoustic harassment' either. Synthesis is synthesis, regardless of the article title. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

...and it should be noted that Google books search results on marine aquaculture have nothing to do with 'neuro-electromagnetic devices' supposedly developed by the U.S. Army to transmit voices into people's heads. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm puzzled why they were put forward by Candleabracadabra as some sort of proof. At best, this is a WP:COMPETENCE issue. JoeSperrazza (talk) 19:00, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good deletion/salting/protection. It looks like a UK website called "Christians Against Mental Slavery" is a major hub for pushing this topic.

Question: Shouldn't Voice to skull redirect to Microwave auditory effect instead of Electronic harassment? --Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter to me, several others said EH was the best choice, but any admin can change it easily if a discussion finds a better redirect. Had others not previously redirected it, I would have just deleted and salted it. I'm not sure the redirect is needed, but it was the community's call. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:56, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The Microwave auditory effect is a real thing that delusional people have latched onto as supporting their delusions that Electronic harassment can and is taking place. To redirect V2K to MAE would only reinforce that delusional association between the two things. GDallimore (Talk) 21:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Well spotted, Guy, I was looking for the off-wiki source of this POV-push. That group was apparently founded in the UK, which suggests that Mike Corley might be involved. Guy (Help!) 19:39, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Synsepalum2013

Can we finally do something about User:Synsepalum2013, and his/her relentless, tendentious and clueless campaign to add fringe conspiracy-theory drivel concerning supposed 'voice-to-skull' devices (allegedly created to project voices into peoples' heads - if you believe the dingbat websites) into Wikipedia? We've gone through multiple AfCs AfDs, Mfds and god only knows what else, but :Synsepalum2013 is still insisting that policy doesn't apply here, and that Wikipedia should provide a webhosting service for the delusional - this in spite of clear and unambiguous warnings from admin Dennis Brown EdJohnston that the subject is covered under discretionary sanctions regarding fringe pseudoscience, and that repetition of the tendentious behaviour already noted would lead to repercussions. [124] As the latest MfD discussion illustrates, Synsepalum is still basically saying that Wikipedia policy doesn't apply, and that his/her interpretation of policy overrides everyone else, and that s/he is entitled to argue endlessly with anyone who suggests otherwise. [125] - and to make it worse, even after everything else, Synsepalum is now once again arguing that the failed AfC (a recreation of the article already deleted at AfD by overwhelming consensus) somehow deserves to be moved into article space: [126]. It seems self-evident that isn't going to stop wasting peoples time with this nonsense until he/she is indefinitely blocked, per WP:NOTHERE, WP:COMPETENCE and as a humongous waste of time, space and energy. Enough is enough. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:45, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

We have an article on that, Microwave auditory effect. Same thing right? Darkness Shines (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Minus all the synthesis, unreliable sourcing, and general moonbattery, yes, quite possibly. Though I think our article on auditory hallucination is actually far more pertinent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

This editor is promoting a fringe organization which is fighting a fringe battle against notional targeted electronic harassment. I see big problems with WP:HERE—the user is not here to improve the encyclopedia. The user is bull-headed, refusing to listen to all of the experienced editors saying 'no'. I see no future for this person on Wikipedia. Binksternet (talk) 20:07, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• EdJohnston issued a discretionary warning on their user page, under Arb's decision on fringe science, and since then I've tried to help keep it from being exercised against the editor by educating them, although I won't claim success. I've already done some G4 deletions and salting on this topic, so will leave it for others to adjudicate. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 20:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
• If this is till going on tomorrow, I say we show him the door. This is someone whose only interest in Wikipedia is as a vehicle for their own mad ideas. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Made this a subtopic of the "Voice-to-skull" topic that was one section above. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:11, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• These links might help for both issues above: the AFC, and the MFD as well as the older AFD. Also check out the talk pages for the editors, and my talk page, and the AFC talk page. Oh, and Jimmy's talk page. It's complicated... Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
  • And now there is another copy in user space, User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment. I'm starting to think that someone else needs to get involved in a very real way here. Discretionary warning might be a good first step. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It's not really complicated. I created a completely new article with quality sources. When it got redirected because someone thought it was the old article I posted here so I could get more scrutiny. Within minutes Dennis speedily deleted the article with a dishonest edit summary with claiming it was a recreation.It wasn't. The article had absolutely nothing in it about mind control as I didn't find any mention of that subject (which seems to me to be totally distinct) in any of the sources I found. Dennis violated numerous policies, he was involved, and he should stop trying to hide the truth and cease bullying those he disagrees with. If he thinks the new article isn't on a notable subject he's welcome to propose a merge or take it to AfD as per policy. I'm absolutely confident that acoustic harassment is notable, but maybe he can get enough people to vote "I don't like it". At any rate, we don't obliterate subject so editors can't see what we're discussing and then misrepresent and lie about what we've done and why we did it. That's bullying of the worst kind. Candleabracadabra (talk) 06:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree it's not really complicated. This is an offsite campaign to advance an extreme fringe POV by stating as fact a belief that is held primarily by people who are mentally ill, and is already covered in electronic harassment. It's been deleted a few times now, so it's time to stop. And Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra/Acoustic harassment for good measure. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

These claims of involved, bullying, dishonesty, policy violations are of course complete bullshit. Help, I'm being repressed. Drmies (talk) 14:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but both users seem to be expert wikilawyers and it really is past time this nonsense was shut down once and for all, otherwise we'll be arguing with them until the heat death of the universe. Guy (Help!) 15:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Closure

Looking at the history, it seems that Synsepalum2013 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was well aware of the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Voice to skull, but nonetheless created Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull, which was moved to article space, deleted again, then re-created at Wikipedia:Articles for creation/Voice to skull. Sensepalum2013 seems to be completely unable to accept that there is any problem with this, and unwilling to accept the judgment of others that this subject is adequately covered at electronic harassment. Synsepalum2013 is a single-purpose account. The case for a topic ban of Sensepalum2013 from the subject of voice to skull, under any title or in any article, seems very strong.

Candleabracadabra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems identically unwilling to accept consensus against this article. There is some suggestion of off-wiki collusion. Candleabracadabra is a user in good standing. In this case I believe an admonition to drop the stick and step away from the deceased equine is warranted. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see no point in a topic ban for Sensepalum2013 - s/he is clearly not here for the benefit of the encyclopaedia, and there can be no realistic prospect of useful contributions from someone so clearly incapable of working in a collaborative environment. An indefinite block would be simpler, and we've wasted too much time over this already - a topic ban would simply give Sensepalum2013 another excuse for Wikilawyering nonsense. As for Candleabracadabra, I can't say I'm convinced by suggestions of collusion, and inclined to put the article recreation down to poor judgement - I suspect that if it hadn't been for Sensepalum2013's interminable tendentiousness, we would probably all have been less hot-tempered about it, and much of the strife could have been avoided. I still say that the article Candleabracadabra created (under whatever name) is synthesis, and it certainly shouldn't have been called 'voice to skull', but this is largely a content dispute, and not really an ANI matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I could get behind a topic ban (edit: provided that a breach of the ban is dealt with in a decisive manner by moderators confident enough not to engage in pointless arguments/wikilawyering and wasting their time. If he breaches the ban, that's his fault). Oversimplifying my reasons, it's more of a moderated, preventative measure rather than outright punishment, and I like that idea even though I agree with Andy that there is no likelihood of positive contributions. Having said that, Andy, you need to learn to walk away stop engaging (sorry, I didn't mean "walk away" from the article, I meant walk away from an argument which isn't going anywhere) when it's clear you've won and stop wasting your own time unecessarily. I'm bad at it, but you're worse than me! GDallimore (Talk) 09:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is worth noting that Synsepalum2013 has already been given a DS warning via Fringe science, so a topic ban can be unilaterally be implemented by any admin (although that is NOT my favorite way to issue a topic ban). As for Candlebracadabra, they have been abrasive to everyone at every turn, and I still think that a DS warning is due, allowing any admin to use whatever methods are necessary in the future, should they not comply. Also note, they have a copy of the article in their user space, showing an unwillingness to drop the stick and use the processes here to get a review. Both have shown an unwillingness to consider community consensus and instead try to bypass the system. That is troubling, thus why the DS warning is needed. As I'm already neck deep in this, I would prefer a different admin consider this. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 11:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It seems reasonable to notify Candlebracadabra of ARBPSCI so I have done so on the basis of this discussion. Guy (Help!) 13:21, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

That's fine, but let me add that I also have no reason whatsoever to suppose that Candle is colluding with this other editor. I mean, it's possible that they've been emailing or whatever, but whatever Candle did in that userbox did not require the other editor's help. Sure, they're abrasive, but this article they're working on is an effort to improve the project--at least according to their opinion. If Synsepalum is to be blocked (I have no opinion, not having checked their entire record), Candle certainly should not be blocked for the same reason. I say let them move their article to main space and settle it, if it needs to be settled, via an AfD; it is a content matter, not an ANI matter. Drmies (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not saying anyone needs blocking, but the warnings are appropriate, and they should understand they are individually treading in areas with a low threshold for action. Candle did start the article with the exact same name before changing it, but I haven't drawn any conclusions based on that, except to assume two people are recreating material the community has definitely and clearly said "no" to. If they want to seek review, I have no problem with that, but personal sandbox versions and multiple RFCs are not the proper way to seek review, they are ways to bypass the system altogether until (hopefully) no one is noticing. That is very much a reason to get blocked via discretionary sanctions if it continues once the editor has been informed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Drmies: You will see that I too draw a definite distinction between them. One is a WP:SPA, the other not. However, we already have a clear consensus on this subject: the article is not warranted, the sources do not adequately distinguish between the fictional concept of V2K and the mental illness that is describes in electronic harassment (or possibly auditory hallucination if that's considered a sharper redirect). It may well be that Candle's input is an unhappy coincidence, coming hard on the heels of a determined POV-push by Synsepalum. The best thing for Candle to do right now is go back to other subjects, or possibly collaborate by adding sources and detail to the redirect target rather than agitating for an article Wikipedia clearly does not want. Or do it the proper way and request DRV, but I hold out no hope of that working. Engaging in apparent attempts to subvert deletion of the article, is a very bad idea, especially right now. Guy (Help!) 16:59, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Considering Candle's charges against various admins (including JzG, Dennis Brown, and me) it's probably best if another admin look at their most recent contributions, esp. at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Candleabracadabra-Acoustic harassment, but also on their own and Dennis's talk page, to see if those personal attacks cross the line. Drmies (talk) 17:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that Dennis and Drmies posted a video on their talkpage mocking me, Drmies has also referred to me as a puppy, his buddy templated me and gave me mock "novice editor" award, and Guy made a bunch of absurd allegations against me. So tageting me for supposed NPA violations is really laughable. Drmies should refrain from bullying and cease his hypocrisy. Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Huh? I referred to you as a puppy?? That's news to me. Dennis and I do not share a talk page, and that video, he posted it--though, not to mock you, I presume, but rather your whining about censorship and admin abuse and bullying and dishonesty and false edit summaries and collusion ("buddy") and blah blah blah. Can't teach an old dog a new trick, I suppose--speaking metaphorically. But what a shame. Drmies (talk) 02:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I gave you the template as a friendly gesture, because of this comment: [127]. Drmies told me to go and leave this article alone -> Red Easter egg, and work with dog and puppy articles (my speciality), it was not about calling you a puppy, BUT, if someone would call you a puppy than is infinitely better then telling Drmies to piss off and to Dennis to fuck off, when those two administrators were try you to help you edit Wikipedia conforming to the rules. I am not involved in your editing dispute, but I do address Candleabracadabra on two issues here:-
  (a) Wikipedia:Assume good faith
  (b) you should take note of Wikipedia:No personal attacks as for -... -piss off you are not welcome here- -[128] -fuck offthis ... and such ...

• PS: (and that video was a silly Monty Python sketch, a silly joke on Drmies page that had absolutelly NOTHING to do with you.) Hafspajen (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Razvanus

The user persistently attempts to push a confused sentence at Moldovans. Attempts at dialogue end in failure. Judging by this outburst, this is a clear case of WP:BATTLEGROUND in dire need of administrative intervention. --illythr (talk) 20:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

The user "illythr" delete my posts at article Moldovans. This is not normally does it. I don`t delete nothing of any users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Razvanus (talk • contribs) 21:19, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To editor Razvanus: Oh really? What do you call [129] and [130]? Illythr and Razvanus, please take this to Talk:Moldovans. Anon126 (not an administrator) (talk - contribs) 01:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I already took it to their talk page. The reaction made it pretty clear that taking it anywhere else but here is pointless until an admin makes them realise that at least some Wikipedia rules need to be honored 'ere the Light of Truth may be shone in its articles. --illythr (talk) 21:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To editors Illythr and Razvanus: I specifically recommended the article talk page so you could get some outside input on the content. But I think an administrator should comment on this ANI thread, anyway. Anon126 (talk - contribs) (not an administrator) 22:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

*shrug* I added a discussion topic to the talk page. Not holding my breath there - discussing content is not possible when there's a demonstrable lack of interest in such a discussion by the pushing party. I mean, sure, other users may revert him and eventually get him procedurally blocked for violating 3RR, but the whole point of creating this thread is to avoid the senseless revert warring by having an admin head it off. --illythr (talk) 23:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and declared personal views seemingly incompatible with NPOV editing concerning User:Drowninginlimbo

User:Drowninginlimbo is a relatively new editor but has often edited contentious articles concerning gender issues since joining. Their conduct can be quite disruptive, particularly of late, and has included edit-warring (here is the 5th revert [131], this occurred despite clearly knowing all about 3RR previously[132]). This was immediately followed by false accusations of vandalism [133], there's a general failure to understand Wikipedia policies not to mention what appears to be deliberate misinterpretation of people's advice [134]. I previously warned the editor against making false accusations, yet opening Wikipedia today to find one concerning NPA on my own talk page.[135].

Most significantly, I've also noticed the editor added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles to their userpage upon joining Wikipedia[136], these deny the very possibility of the existence sexism against men because of their gender or the gender of the perpetrator[137], not to mention the supposed impossibility of racism against groups of people simply because of their race[138]. These have now been removed but the comments that accompanied them appeared to condone the material and the editor has made equally extreme remarks in discussions. The real concern is not simply these links, but also the editing pattern that has accompanied them. From their very first edit DIL has sought to delete material concerning sexism against men from Wikipedia: [139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149], this is something that continues to this day. It may well be the case that views they endorse not to mention their statements such as "There is no discrimination against men and this non-issue distracts from real issues" [150] make it impossible for Drowninginlimbo to edit certain articles from a NPOV. I'd also remind people that men's rights topics (broadly construed) are under probation[151], therefore making much of the above even more serious than it might be otherwise. As the probation notes state: "Very little leeway is allowed in pages under probation, so contributors need to show themselves to be model Wikipedians". Anyway it would be useful to hear some input from others. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 21:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• A rather obvious sockpuppet, Gorgi88 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has arrived. Sock blocked indef, sockmaster for a week. Guy (Help!) 22:47, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Are you sure? Why would he/she be edit warring with themselves? http://i.imgur.com/hgwCY44.png Ging287 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Umm, I don't know about sockpuppeting, but what exactly was, quote, "very extreme and highly offensive" about the linked articles? WTF? That's just an obvious, dishonest, attempt at poisoning the well by User:Shakehandsman. If he genuinely believes these to be offensive, well, then he's the one with the problem. If he doesn't, that doesn't reflect well either. I have seen no problem with Drowninginlimbo's edits from a POV point of view, indeed, their edits have tried to introduce a measure of neutrality into a topic area which it seems (I just stumbled into it recently) is dominated by dedicated and tendentious POV pushers, who have serious WP:OWN issues.

Actually, yes, let me comment on the sock puppet allegation. It could be true. I don't know. What gives me pause is that Drowninginlimbo was reverting his own supposed sock puppet: [152]. Why would the sock master revert his own sock? I guess, it could be some kind of misdirection ruse or something, but at least as far as the WP:DUCK goes, it implies that it doesn't apply. Has a checkuser been run or something? Or is this just some arbitrary decision? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Note - edit conflict. I'm making the same point as Ging287 above.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

To think that Gorgi88 is a sockpuppet of Drowninginlimbo is ridiculous. Apart from the fact that they edit-warred with one another across a number of articles, Drowninginlimbo can write a grammatical sentence whereas Gorgi88 cannot. Their editing styles are completely different. I won't believe the one's the sock of the other without CU evidence. It's absolutely implausible. I agree that Drowninginlimbo has edited intemperately at a number of articles, but he listens to reason and reverted himself at my suggestion when he'd violated 3RR. He's learning how to edit calmly and will probably end up being a valuable contributor. I'm not familiar with current activity at the article that the OP is concerned about, so I won't comment on anything to do with Drowninginlimbo's behavior there, but I think it's absolutely unreasonable to conclude that Gorgi88 is a sockpuppet of Drowninginlimbo. I think it'd be best to drop that idea entirely and unblock Drowninginlimbo so that he can participate in this discussion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:24, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I really don't' see any sock puppetry here either. A block appears to be justified for Drowninginlimbo, but it needs to be issued for the correct reasons, otherwise they won't learn much from it. And no one seems concerned about the main problem here, which is that a totally innocent party, User:Gorgi88 has been caught up in all this and blocked indefinitely for absolutely no reason--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yep, you're right. Obviously Gorgi88 should be unblocked too and if Drowninginlimbo's to be blocked, it should not be for sockpuppetry. Calling Gorgi88 totally innocent, though, is a little much. Not guilty would be closer to the truth.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 01:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• comment I haven't looked into the sock issue closely but I agree on the surface it doesn't make sense at all, diff editing patterns and conflicting reverts. I had suggested to Drowning in the past that they avoid the topic of "Violence against men" since a number of their edits demonstrated a strong bias against the category and topic even existing. Drowning seems to have a strong interest in gendered issues, which is fine, and Alf seems to have taken them under their wing, so I think with mentorship and some guidance from other experienced editors Drowning can become a strong contributor here, they just need to check their POV at the door and edit in a neutral fashion - as we all do.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Shakehandsman, I'm sorry, but I'm unable to understand one thing you say. It may well be the case that views they endorse not to mention their statements such as "There is no discrimination against men and this non-issue distracts from real issues" make it impossible for Drowninginlimbo to edit certain articles from a NPOV. I've re-read this sentence several times and can't parse it. <It may well be the case that> <views they endorse not to mention their statements> <such as "There is no...issues"> <make it impossible...NPOV>. What do you mean by "views they endorse not to mention their statements"? Nyttend (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Apologies if my comments aren't clear, I think Obiwankenobi sums thing up pretty well. Essentially, the point is as follows: Any user with with views so extreme that they think a genuine topic cannot even exist, should not be going around Wikipedia attempting to delete swathes of material pertaining to that topic, and it is unlikely that they should be editing in that area at all. Their behaviour constitutes blatant activist editing, and their use of such an extreme and clearly nonsensical argument as grounds for removing material means it is likely to be impossible for them to edit neutrally. If an editor has shown such this incredible bias by stating that a topic cannot possibly even exist, then their concern is not in improving Wikipedia coverage the topic in question, but simply eliminating as much material as possible in order to back up their fringe belief system.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I assure you, my editing is not activist editing. I am just trying to improve articles that I see faults with. That specific quote is something that I said in my first days editing and I probably phrased it badly. I'm going to explain what I meant in that quotation. What I was trying to say, and this is still a personal belief of mine, is that men do not face sexism as women face sexism, just as white people don't face racism as persons of colour face racism (something that you also seem to be offended by judging by your mention of my mistake of seeing a "supposed impossibility of racism against groups of people simply because of their race" aka white people) This certainly isn't a fringe belief, but I appreciate that it wasn't helpful for me to have used it as an edit summary when editing that particular article as it is independent to the sources. Do you plan to push white rights articles after the men's rights ones? There is little academic backing for the men's rights movement, which is possibly due to the SPLC report equating many faculties of the movement to a hate group, so I'm afraid those articles or categories will probably be under a little more scrutiny than feminist ones. This is the result centuries of academic writing and activism for women's rights that has resulted in a huge body of work that we can use for sourcing. However, if there is basis for these articles categorisation, then they will stand up to Wikipedia standards despite any activist editing. There is nothing wrong with me editing certain articles, and my view on the category itself, which I believe is your issue, has mostly changed since these edits a month ago as I learned more about how Wikipedia functions. Furthermore, my editing has actually improved the sources on some of these articles that I supposedly am biased against, as it brought them to the attention of other editors and brought other sources to them. I have not deleted any articles and at worst have removed a category or two from some. I struggle to believe that this is grounds for banning --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

My concern here is not one single aspect of your contributions, but the pattern of edits and events taken together as a whole. Linking to those abhorrent articles isn't completely wrong in itself, and discussing and documenting such sexist and racist views can be ok too. The problem comes when editors endorse such views, and when their editing seeks to validate such positions, (and the content of some of those articles is rather more extreme than what you talk about above). I realise you are learning, but the fact is that your editing here is still far too combative, we do not define articles and topics as "yours" (or "mine") as you still continue to do above, such statements still suggest a battleground mentality on your part (and therefore possibly further activist editing), and in my opinion this mentality and your strong views cause of many of your problems here, such as making false allegations, giving inappropriate warnings and edit warring.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't have sexist or racist views and certainly articles don't document any, saying such is a clear clear personal attack. I don't define articles as "yours" or "mine" either, stop making claims based on absolutely nothing. If anybody has made false allegations here it is you and this whole ridiculous thing. If you would really prefer it, I will remove the allegation from your page. I still think it stands though --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Guess I imagined you just writing this "so I'm afraid your articles or categories will probably be under a little more scrutiny"--Shakehandsman (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Well no, you didn't imagine it, you misunderstood it. My argument was that feminist articles have the benefit of centuries worth of books, discussion, and activism behind them. These constitute sources. So yes, considering the men's rights movement (and I am male) is relatively new and doesn't benefit from that, so of course it's articles will be under more scrutiny. I mean, in my month or so editing, I encountered two attempts of one faculty of the movement to vandalise articles and documented both:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Controversial_Reddit_communities#Section_Blanking_after_Article_is_linked_by_r.2Fmensrights

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Villa_M%C3%BCller

I would also like to repeat that sections of the movement were classified as potential hate groups by the SPLC:

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2012/spring/misogyny-the-sites

But all of this is against the point. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and there definitely should be articles of topics that the men's rights movement covers, but it does not mean you can push the fact that discrimination against the male gender happens. and is at least as worse as the discrimination that women face, based on books that have not been written and sources that are not well documented. That is independent research and synthesis at best. I don't understand what you perceive as sexist in that Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:44, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

EDIT: Apologies, I misread what you wrote, I meant to type those in place of your --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 15:06, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore, Shakehandsman himself seems to be controversial as an editor, and not really one who should accuse anybody of having a bias --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI that RFC was closed years ago with absolutely nothing coming of it, most significantly some of the key parties behind it now banned from Wikipedia for life for harassment.--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see that it is dated in 2012, I was just noting that you have been accused of bias in a similar fashion to this --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 13:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

And just yesterday I was "accused" of breaching NPA by an editor of a similar mindset to those in the RFC. This accusation concerned comments I made some two years before they had even joined Wikipedia (presumably the theory being that I had used a time machine!)--Shakehandsman (talk) 13:54, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are trying to say, I found the dispute on your talk page just. I am trying to state that you have previously been accused of exactly what you are accusing me of. No time machine needed Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have unblocked both and apologised for my error: this is not a sock, as others have pointed out. The two were engaged in an edit war, that hasn't changed obviously. Guy (Help!) 08:28, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Hello, first of all I just wanted to say a huge thank you to all of the editors that argued in defense of me not sockpuppeting. Many of you are names that I have edited with across various articles, and it is encouraging to see that even users that I have disagreed with in the past lent their voice to this discussion.

I indeed am not the user Gorgi88.

In concern to the post above, most of the edits you list are from my first days on the encyclopedia. I received advice from the community, specifically the user Obiwankenobi, concerning those, and have changed my editing style somewhat since then. I think you will notice I have not tried to delete any more categories either.

Although I think it is arguable that the links are not offensive, I agree do not belong on Wikipedia, mostly as they are blog articles, and if you are interested you can see that they are not currently on my User page. In fact, I removed them very shortly after adding them in case they offended other users, and did so on my first day on the encyclopedia.

Concerning the 3RR and edit warring violation, an admin has already looked at that, and they posted the following on the page. You can read the results here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Radical_feminism#Locked

Otherwise, I don’t think I have to say anything else in my defense. I personally believe that the user Shakehandsman put this admin notice forward, rather than discussing it with me directly, because he does not personally like my edits, and that’s okay, but it doesn’t mean it is worth the admins time --Drowninginlimbo (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Indeed there are issues with the editing of @Drowninginlimbo:, he had 3-4 reverts on Rape culture during march 14, and he had a meaningless revert on Gang rape. I am not saying that he should be blocked or banned for that, but I hope he will understand. OccultZone (Talk) 15:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello, concerning that edit on Gang rape, the article mentioned child grooming and the first removal was made by an IP editor so I thought that it may be appropriate to keep it in, but I left it after you edited back. I stand by my edits on Rape culture and those are reverts from different edits Drowninginlimbo (talk) 00:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I can see improvement in you. Hope you will keep it up. OccultZone (Talk) 04:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The accusation that DIL "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles" is a bunch of crap. As far as I can see, the links DIL added provide layperson's explanation of academic theory. I could probably find a reliable high quality academic source for most of the statements in the articles DIL linked. You may not agree with the articles, but there's nothing wrong with someone linking a 101 article that reflects widely held academic views on their userpage. Even if you think academia is offensive, WP:RS. If DIL can edit within the constraints of policy - and except for some 3rr violations that I don't imagine DIL will repeat - even if DIL has quite strong opinions, they can absolutely continue to edit their areas of interest. Point out specific instances where DIL has violated specific policies (and remember we don't block let alone ban for stale 3rr violations). Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mods can close now -several apologies have been made and Drowninginlimbo has clarified his comments and has realised all his mistakes with the one outstanding issue now resolved too. He has even awarded a barnstar to those he previously disagreed with and agreed to follow previous advice about editing a wider variety of topics. A successful outcome all-round, and his improved approach is quite a contrast to certain other parties who've posted here.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:50, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I think before this section is closed, there should probably be some discussion of your original statement that DIL had "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles." DIL added links to articles that summed up pretty mainstream academic views, at least one of the links DIL added would even be situationally a reliable source. (By further discussion, I even potentially mean you just saying you realize what was wrong with your statement and retract it.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Well if people deliberately cherry pick tiny parts of statements, take them out of context, refuse to view an argument as a whole, and can't be bothered to read the full discussion, then it's possible to pretend that almost anything is "wrong". Obviously, I'm not really keen on such nonsense and I won't be retracting a single word as there's not the slightest need to do so. Mods please close, thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You may want to read WP:BOOMERANG. Just because you started an ANI section doesn't mean you get to decide when it ends. You started a section about a relatively new user who certainly doesn't yet understand all of our policies but whose behavior exhibits a pretty decent of good faith (selfreverting when requested etc,) suggesting that they should be topic banned, in part because they posted links to a bunch of "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles" that were literally just links to posts that mostly just summarized viewpoints that are widely held among academics and in reliable sources. Suggesting that someone should be topic banned because they link to articles that summarize viewpoints that are widely held among academics and in reliable sources is confusing, even if it was only part of your reasoning. To me, suggesting the articles DIL posted are "very extreme and highly offensive" indicates that you are yourself unwilling to accept WP:RS or WP:NPOV, both of which are policy. It is worrisome if you think that mainstream viewpoints are so very extreme and highly offensive as to warrant a tban. So again, please either retract, explain your statement, or even do something like provide an example of a viewpoint in one of the articles DIL posted that you consider so offensive as to warrant even partially justifying a tban that isn't easily found in reliable sources. Kevin Gorman (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Propose topic ban from gender issues for User:Shakehandsman

I do agree with User:Kevin Gorman above. The original post by User:Shakehandsman alleged disruptive behavior on the part of User:Drowninginlimbo. The discussion got side tracked by a mistaken sock puppet accusation which turned out to be unfounded (and the admin involved very quickly corrected their mistake to their credit). But the original reason for the thread remains. However, it's pretty clear that this is an instance where WP:BOOMERANG may be applicable. Shakehandsman's complaint about Drowninginlimbo was that the latter, quote, "added links to very extreme and highly offensive articles". Now, anyone who cares to click these "very extreme and highly offensive articles" can easily verify that they're actually pretty mainstream anti-sexism webpages. In other words, if some user links to them then that's probably the kind of a user that Wikipedia should wish to attract (especially given the controversy about the alleged (true or not) misogonist and male dominated culture here). For a user to have problem with these kinds of links, and for them to label them as "very extreme and highly offensive articles" raises some serious red flags. What adds further concern is this warning [153] on Shakehandsman's talk page from arbitrator Newyorkbrad, although from what I can see, the problems with Shakehandsman's behavior go beyond the issues raised by NYBrad. Hence I propose that User:Shakehandsman be topic banned from all articles relating to gender studies, to "Man's Rights", or to crime cases involving women (this was the main issue raised on their talk page). Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support - pretty much per my post above at 04:55, 15 April 2014. The articles DIL posted pretty much represent mainstream viewpoints - not universal ones, but definitely viewpoints held by significant numbers of reliable sources of the highest quality. I think that Shake viewing the articles DIL posted as so "very extreme and highly offensive" as to be worth bringing up in a tban discussion indicates that he would be likely to have too significant problems abiding by WP:RS and WP:NPOV as to be a productive editor in this topic area. As an after the fact edit: having just read NYB's section on Shake's talkpage, I now feel significantly more strongly that this is a warranted step. Kevin Gorman (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• oppose reading SHM's defense to NYBrad's accusation and some diffs I don't see a case here for a topic ban. As for the links Drowning posted, that's really a matter of personal opinion, there are a great deal of sources that demonstrate discrimination against men based on their sex and claiming such cannot exist can be quite offensive to some, especially if you've been a victim of it. If you say 'ah ok that's discrimination against men based in their sex but it's not institutionalized therefore it's not sexism', it is pedantic AND it misses the point feminists have themselves made about gender roles, which men must conform to as well - anyway this is not the place for debating those links further but suggesting they have mainstream academic consensus is false (all of the links are blogs, not academic journals or RS) Drowning started their time here with a rather POV series of edits and statements that have since been toned down and I am among the editors who noticed this trend, so those links Drowning posted must be taken into context with actions Drowning undertook on the wiki shortly thereafter. For example, to try to de-link Violence against men from Violence against women (ex: protesting a "see also" Edit summary: "'Violence against men' is irrelevant to 'Violence against women' category and distracts from feminist values (my bold)) and then trying to have the Violence against men category deleted, and then attempting to empty it, so it wasn't too hard to connect the dots. SHM made IMO a too eager case here against Drowning, and engaging on talk would have been my preferred modality but a topic ban is a very serious result and I see no such list of problematic edits to merit such. NYBrad accuses SHM of editing in a particular area but I myself saw edits by SHM to highlight child murderers, certainly a subject we don't need to bury under the rug. All we have otherwise above are vague accusations. I think it would be a good idea for SHM to apologize to Drowning for bringing a big case before the court (although, as far as I know, a topic ban was never formally proposed by SHM, was it?) before really engaging more deeply on talk, so if SHM will consider to voluntarily undertake such I think we could close this out with cookies all around.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The viewpoints represented in the links DIL posted represent mainstream academic views. They're not universal, but they are widely held enough that an editor who views them as hate speech is going to have a hell of a lot of trouble complying with WP:RS with regards to those views. If you are questioning any specific aspect of what I'm saying, I can literally find you a prominent academic source that says the exact same thing. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Easy there. I don't think anyone called this hate speech. And again, context matters - if DIL had posted "These are a few academic articles that I find interesting", that is one thing; but posting a whole slew of such blog posts, and then going on to attack and push that same POV in the following days and weeks is quite different. I can find you a prominent academic source that says such claims are bullshit. What's the point? I personally have a strong bias against any academic claim in the sociological domain that is absolutist as those claims are - e.g. not "It's less important, it happens less frequently, it's less severe" - but instead "It's impossible". Only in the realm of pure math do we ever get "impossible". In any case, we should drop this, we can continue the discussion elsewhere...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose SHM's original accusation against DIL was fueled primarily by DIL's careless reading of a talk page and subsequent intemperate and misguided warning of SHM. DIL is known to have been intemperate and is learning to be calm. Both SHM and DIL are happy and back to work. SHM may have been out of line for including DIL's external links in his original post here, but he was understandably upset by DIL's accusations. I think at this point, Kevin Gorman is stirring the pot (and ought to knock it off) and Volunteer Marek, while well-intentioned as he habitually is, is overreacting to this specific situation. That being said, there might well be a case for a topic ban for Shakehandsman, but there's no evidence supporting such an extreme measure here, and this section, having been clouded by a bunch of other stuff since its creation, is not the proper venue. If Marek, Gorman, or anyone else believe such a step is warranted, I urge them to gather diffs and start an appropriate process de novo. A topic ban decided as a result of this thread would be inherently unreasonable.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose I actually think there could be a good case for a topic ban for user Shakeshandsman, at least considering the evidence provided by Kevin Gorman as a small sample, but I think further research should be made into user Shakeshandsman's edits before doing so, and it shouldn't be done on the back of his accusations against myself Drowninginlimbo (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose Yet again, Kevin and Marek are cherry picking from the material in question and making false statements. I won't go over all the excellent points that others have highlighted as there are plenty more issues of concern. Firstly, not every article is as extreme as the other, and some really aren't too bad at all,. The concerns aren't with the most innocuous material posted, but with the very worst, combined with the apparent endorsement and subsequent editing pattern. comments and misconduct. Even if material were by a scholar, well many academics have supported vile concepts such a slavery, racism and eugenics, to imagine that we're somehow now uniquely at the first point in history where no sexist or racist people work in such fields is a fantasy.

Lets take a look at the views being defended: "There is no such thing as reverse sexism" "(women) cannot be sexist or “reverse sexist”. (That sexism against men is "even possible" is again dismissed later in the article). The article then goes on to grossly downplay the odds of sexual harassment of men at work as "negligible", again totally false and offensive [154] A second article informs us: "There is no such thing as "reverse sexism". There just isn't." "So next time you hear someone make an accusation of "reverse sexism," just remember, it simply doesn't exist." [155] A third link states "some folks started claiming that white folks could be the victims of "racism" too.  Even though I thought, from Tim's article, that the impossibility of that was clear" http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/15/884649/-Why-there-s-no-such-thing-as-Reverse-Racism

Denying that someone can be a victim or racism or sexism, simply because of their race or sex, is hugely offensive to many people not to mention sexist / racist in itself. For someone to open a page and be confronted with sexist and racist materials could be considered a pre-emptive personal attack, particularly given the types of edits made and article choice. My contributions to Wikipedia clearly shows I'm not against appropriately documenting extreme views, far from it, and the evidence points to others here being far closer to that particular position.

Anyway, I think I've seen it it all now. Neither of the two editors above see anything wrong in declaring that a notable topic doesn't exist and then removing as much material from that topics as possible in order to validate this clearly false position. The fact that the view being pushed was offensive and in an area subject to sanctions then makes this worse still. On top of all that we have finally see an attempt to impose a topic ban on the party who exposed the problems and who was offended by the offensive content. This is blatant bullying, something I'm not exactly a stranger to here.

DIL has offered multiple apologies to me for what occurred, and seeing as there's a consensus that I brought this matter here slightly to hastily then I apologise to him for doing so. In my defence, there has previously been a regular pattern of abuses on my talk page and elsewhere being completely ignored, and I've communicated with numerous parties in the past in order to deal with this, usually without even the slighest acknowledgement. DIL already appreciates this may have been a factor in my decision and came to such a conclusion entirely independently. I should also note that there was no topic ban discussion, that's a false accusation - my desire was for DIL to change their behaviour and the issues to be discussed. A topic ban would be the last resort were the issues not resolved and troubling statement not retracted (though as someone who mostly edits conservatively, partly due to regular harassment, I probably wouldn't have been bold enough to propose it).

Finally, if anyone here does actually hold the extreme sexist views we've highlighted, then I would politely remind them that they are not welcome on my talk page at present. A notice to this effect has been in place for a number of years.--Shakehandsman (talk) 16:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Your post here is literally accusing mainstream academia of being sexist and racist. If you think mainstream academia is sexist and racist, I think you'll have more than a little bit of trouble following NPOV. This entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy talks some about the idea that reverse racism is impossible (although the author of the entry doesn't agree with it.) He does however talk about T. M. Scanlon's view that reverse racism is impossible. Scanlon holds a named chair at Harvard and is a very well regarded scholar. His views are shared by huge number of other academics, though certainly not by all. Do you believe that you would be reasonably able to accurately weigh the works of people like Scanlon (a book published by an academic press, written by a named chair at Harvard, etc) versus other viewpoints? Also, there's just something really weird and silly about the fact that you pretty much just said that if a named chair and distinguished scholar wanted to post on your talk page, you wouldn't let him. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

A lot of people on every side of every issue think "mainstream academia is sexist and racist," including e.g. bell hooks. Do you think that disqualifies her from editing Wikipedia? Why don't you just drop it? How can you possibly think that prolonging this is helping anybody or anything?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

If bell hooks showed up suggesting that viewpoints held by mainstream scholars were so "very extreme and highly offensive" that even including them on your userpage precluded you from being able to follow RS/NPOV, then yeah, I'd seriously question whether or not she should be editing gender issues on Wikipedia, and if she asked anyone who didn't believe the patriarchy should be smashed to not post on her talk page, I'd see an even bigger issue. I think I'm going to some sort of feminist hell now for suggesting I'd consider topic banning bell hooks, heh. You're right that this is a discussion that really needs to be conducted with diffs (that I don't currently have time to collect,) but there is a significant issue here, and one that will become more significant in the future if Shake doesn't explain his behavior. Kevin Gorman (talk) 19:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The only person who has explaining to do here is you. You totally misrepresent all my arguments and do so repeatedly and seemingly intentionally by only viewing half of what I say (or less). For one final time, I'll state it was all the behaviours COMBINED that were the problem. You know full well that I have no issue in people discussing and documenting blatantly sexist and offensive views. However, when they promote and endorse them, use them in arguments here on Wikipedia, and try to delete swatches of related material, and edit disruptively, it becomes a major problem and is about the clearest possible NPOV breach imaginable. In some circumstances people with extreme views can edit neutrally, but all the evidence here quite clearly suggested otherwise and there is a strong consensus here about this. Your repeated defence of the misconduct is absolutely disgraceful and quite astonishing. I will not be interacting with you any further given the repeated false statements you make about my position not to mention the bullying conduct you are engaging in. The whole purpose of that notice on my talk a page it to serve as a buffer from exactly this sort of behaviour and your actions only further validate its necessity. For one final time, mods please close as this serves no benefit whatsoever.--Shakehandsman (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Tag team on homeopathy

cjwilky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just been topic banned, so topic banned user george1935 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has popped back up on talk:Homeopathy. The two comments there are an egregious violation of the topic ban, but as an involved admin I will not enact the inevitable block. I don't suppose it's worth CheckUser, there are enough homeopathists collaborating off-wiki that meat puppetry is far more likely. Guy (Help!) 22:55, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for blatant topic ban violation. I haven't looked into a link between the accounts. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 23:01, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not questioning the block and (cards on the table) I supported the original topic ban during the straw poll at ANI. But I am concerned that an editor has been blocked for responding to post-ban comments in a thread he started (pre-ban) that specifically referenced points he had made. Ideally, that thread should have been hatted once the ban was enacted to ensure no suggestion that the editor in question was "baited" into responding there. I don't think that was the case and the continued discussion seems entirely good-faith, but we need to look at this from his perspective. He started a thread, got topic-banned and others continued having a (now one-sided) argument to which he couldn't reply. He finally snapped, responded and got blocked. Again, I don't think that was the intention of those who continued the conversation, but it was the result. The SPI suggestions need to be dealt with but I think everyone would benefit from that discussion being closed so that topic-banned editors can't be "tempted" to defend themselves. I'm going to go ahead and do that (as a relatively uninvolved non-admin) but I think the context could do with some more discussion here. Stalwart111 05:29, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't agree. If it was a problem for him to see the discussion continuing without him, he could have posted a single message there along the lines of "due to a topic ban in place I am unable to comment here. I would appreciate it if editors would not reference me or my arguments as I cannot respond", and I'm sure no one would have thrown the book at him. Continuing the debate on the talk page of an article clearly covered by a topic ban is not ok. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 07:33, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also why wait this long? The comment to which he replied was made a week ago, and was not in any case aimed at or discussing him specifically. If he wanted to demonstrate that he's unable to drop the stick, then mission accomplished, otherwise it's hard to see why he chose this time to reply to this comment. Guy (Help!) 08:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Basalisk's suggestion is a good one, and it is that sort of thinking that prompted me to post here in the first place. The text of the banned editor's only real contribution to the talk page since his ban (the other was a minor copy-edit of his own comment) read:

Isn't kind of dishonest to keep arguing against "banned" editors? If they are not allowed to answer to your "arguments" - (If you ban everybody who disagrees with you it is really easy to achieve consensus. I will say no more.)

Sorry, but I just can't see how that's "continuing the debate". He didn't re-argue his point - he simply wanted to point out that he thought it was unfair that the discussion continue in his absence. His version might not be as eloquent as Basalisk's but I think the purpose was fairly clear - "I can't participate here any more; it's unfair that this discussion continue if I can't respond". Should he have posted it? No, probably not. I would have thought the better option would be to close it so that he wasn't even prompted to respond in the manner suggested by Basalisk above. But it wasn't and he did. But are we really at the point where we're handing out week-long blocks for asking process questions that aren't actually related to the topic of a topic-ban? Stalwart111 09:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It is, however, an unambiguous violation of the topic ban, with no obvious excuse since the comment he replied to was a week old and not aimed at him anyway. In the case of a productive editor with multiple areas of interest, we can forgive a little exploration of the terms of a topic ban, but George1935 is a WP:SPA and has not edited anything at all since the topic ban other than to add two links to a potential copyright violation. This is a user who has only one focus of interest, and shows no interest in moving on. Guy (Help!) 12:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but he wasn't blocked for being an WP:SPA - he was topic-banned for that, and rightly so (with my support). He was blocked for what can only be described as a relatively minor breach of said topic-ban. As is often the case with SPA's, the topic ban was a pseudo-block anyway - it prevented him from editing the only topic he was interested in editing. That is reflected in the fact that he then (effectively) didn't edit for a week following its implementation. I know, given what has gone on with this editor, that its hard to assume good faith any more. I don't begrudge you for that and I respect your decision not to block him yourself per WP:INVOLVED. Blocking someone for a week for asking a question (though badly worded) just seems very "slippery slope" to me. Stalwart111 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree re topic banning SPA's. I think it's kinder just to block them. I disagree that this is a minor infraction, becaus eit is a week later and not on his talk page. I expect a bit of pushing the boundaries in the first few days. I expect some comment on an active thread somewhere. But commenting on a week-old comment in a dead thread? That falls under "what part of topic ban were you failing to understand". Me, I'd have issued a strong warning and maybe a 24h block, but as far as I can see this is only headed one way and frankly I can see why someone might want to shorten the death agonies. Guy (Help!) 23:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111, you raise an excellent point. I've tried to reach out to this editor, as have several others, and what we're doing isn't working. I've seen this problem play out across multiple WP:FRINGE articles: a new editor comes in wanting to help but offering low-quality sources, the editor gets reverted and hit with a blizzard of acronyms, and if the editor does not possess an unusual amount of social grace and academic training, blocks tend to follow shortly thereafter. If we're optimizing for the quality of the immediate article, then all appears well. If we broaden our focus to the (non-fringe) articles that editor could have improved had they stayed, then we can probably do better. Perhaps the solution is earlier mentoring? I'll raise the issue over at WP:FTN. I'd be happy to hear your comments over there. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stalwart111 - the comment as I suggested it and the comment he actually made are very different. The sort of neutral wording that I used would have been fine - to use petty, sniping language to further the dispute is absolutely against the spirit of the ban. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 16:41, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely, and he has to live with his poor choice of wording which, in this case, involves a block. But I don't think he intended for it to be "sniping" or "petty". He thought it was dishonest and he said so. And you have to ask yourself, what are we preventing with this block? More badly-worded questions? Blocking for a week seems punitive and punishing given an editor has been blocked for breaching his topic ban with a question about decorum in his absence while he is topic-banned. Anyway, nobody else seems to have a view on this outside OP and yourself as the blocking admin so I can only surmise that my playing Devil's Advocate any further is a fairly pointless exercise. I wanted you to think about it in more detail and you genuinely have; that's enough for me. Thank you for entertaining my advocacy. Stalwart111 23:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

User:79.97.64.240

To put it simple, User talk:79.97.64.240 needs a good hard block. I have tried to reach them via dialogue, tried to be civil as of late in the face of snide, taunting abuse, but now I give up entirely. They have repeatedly inserted a comment on the Talk:British Isles article which violates the WP:FORUM rule in a blatant way. They have repeatedly made offensive comments against British people, they have acted in a WP:IDIDNTHERETHAT manner etc etc etc. I'm bored of this. Done. FYI it's a shame because this user can make good comments such as the one they left on Talk:Greencastle, County Tyrone. --Somchai Sun (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It would be instructive if anybody looking at this also looked at the abuse and threats instigated by the above editor and left on my page history. The extremity of her language and persistent harassment of me is disturbing, to put it mildly. I refuse to engage with her because of that. 79.97.64.240 (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Stop playing the victim, because you aren't. I'm following Wikipedia procedure. I am not stalking you, the British Isles article is on my watch list. You have absolutely no defense. Abuse? Threats? Rubbish. I lost my temper last month and got told off for it and stopped it. And I am a he and make that perfectly clear, please use correct gender pronouns. --Somchai Sun (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Article needs a semi-protect, we get this pattern of editing from IPs on a mission from time to time ----Snowded ^TALK 11:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There isn't a problem with the article as the history shows. It's the talk page where the IP is active. CBWeather, Talk, Seal meat for supper? 12:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The IP editor is clearly not here to help. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 12:12, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

On articles related to the British isles? No he isn't. He is however clearly capable of making constructive edits on various other pages. --Somchai Sun (talk) 12:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

So User talk:79.97.64.240 does not need a good hard block? Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:46, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Continuing Problems With Mrm7171

@Atama:@Mrm7171: I complained here about Mrm7171’s behavior toward me[156], and I’m back because the problem persists. Here’s what Atama told them after he almost banned them.

"But I'll give you a chance, probably one more chance than you merit at this point, but I'll offer it anyway. Would you agree to leave these editors alone? To stop undoing their edits, removing their references, bringing them up on noticeboards, challenging them on user and article talk pages? Will you do something useful for the encyclopedia? -- Atama頭 15:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)"

Since then Mrm7171 has not been leaving me alone, but has been going to articles that I have been heavily editing and they have not, such as Musculoskeletal disorder and Organizational Behavior, arguing, challenging on talk pages, and undoing my edits.

MSD article. I removed I/O psychology from see also list because it is not relevant and there is no information about MSDs in the I/O article. [157] Mrm7171 restored it without explanation of why it is relevant. [158] Mrm7171 deleted another of my edits on 4/2/14, and challenged on talk page with long discussion. [159] [160] Then continued on Atama’s talk page [161] (see end of this section).

Organizational Behavior. They add discussion of I/O psychology (using a synonym of organizational psychology to the lede [162] I moved it to the history section because the sentence is about history [163] and they put it back in the lede [164]. I tried again because now there’s redundancy, [165] and they put it back in [166], and then add even more [167], then add a reference where they misquote the source [168]. They argue on the talk page, and now are accusing me of being hostile (see also my explanation of what Jex & Britt actually said). [169]. When I made my original complaint I pointed out examples of Mrm7171 relying on personal opinion, primary research, and misquoting of sources, so this is not an isolated instance of that sort of thing.

The Organizational behavior article contains a journal list [170] that I have actively edited but did not create. Here it is before I arrived [171] I worked on a similar list in the Human resource management article taking it from [172] to [173]. I last worked on the list on April 12, and the next day they are here challenging the legitimacy of the list. [174] [175] The merits of Mrm7171’s points about the lists or these other issues are not why I am here. The issue is that they agreed to leave me alone, and here they are coming to articles I am very actively editing and editing my edits, and then challenging me on the talk page, and making accusations of bias and hostility. Here they accuse me of systemic bias[176].

I believe that much of the problem arises because Mrm7171 seems to be going out of their way to promote Industrial/Organizational Psychology by putting mention into article after article, often in articles where there is little or no connection, and then getting into conflicts when other editors try to modify, move, or remove mentions. Here’s a sample [177][178][179] [180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192][193][194][195][196][197]Psyc12 (talk) 12:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I have seriously had enough of this baseless reporting by psyc12 here on the admin noticeboard and now consider it a personal attack, rather than psyc12 trying to engage in consensus building, as we all should try and do. I resent these titles "problems with mrm7171 in an attempt to discredit me! I find this completely offensive and psyc12 using Wikipedia's resources in this way. I gather psyc12 is also a professional in the field and there are a few major articles we obviously share common interest in. For the record, I have edited a lot of articles and take time out of my own professional life as many editors do, to contribute to the project. Please see my entire edit history over the past 14 days for instance in all articles I have edited. I have made very positive contributions to Wikipedia and continue to do so. I completely stand by that. I also have not harassed psyc12 in any way. There are a number of articles they have edited, and I have no history on. Most of the articles they talk about I had an original edit history on. I am sick to death of having to defend myself here quite frankly. Psyc12 is trying to scare me away from these major articles so they can edit solely how they like. Reporting me here again, for no reason is another example of this. I therefore counter this report with my own report of being personally attacked by psyc12 posting this here on ANI and not engaging in civil, cooperative consensus building! I resent the disrespect and lack of civility by reporting me here! and resent psyc12 dragging up the past and throwing it in my face here on the public noticeboard!Mrm7171 (talk) 14:26, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I also do not add I/O psychology indiscriminately as Psyc12 states. In fact, many articles I have edited, I have not included I/O psychology in The articles I have included I/O psych are relevant and well placed and of benefit to the reader! And I should say are solely based on Wikipedia policy.Mrm7171 (talk) 14:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Providing some evidence to my counter claim here, I just looked at Psyc12's edit history and articles they have edited over the past 14 days. The vast majority of these articles they have worked on, I have no edit history on. Starting with occupational health psychology then Work–family conflict, work accident, social psychology, accident, turnover (employment), job analysis, stress (psychological), repetitive strain injury, Epicondylitis and others. I have stayed well clear of Psyc12 on all of these articles, contrary to their claims above. Only on major articles, as I have said earlier, like management, HRM, and organizational behaviour, where we obviously have similar professional interests, have we had any interaction. I should also note I had previous edit history on those articles, before psyc12 came along. On those articles I have interacted in a civil, courteous manner with psyc12 at all times. I have also, as promised to Atama, that I stay well clear of any occupational health psychology articles. Please see my edit history as proof of this too. I also told Atama I would not bring up psyc12's COI issues again and I have not done so. Not once.

Also please refer to the editing work I have done on many different articles in the past couple of weeks for instance, where no overlap of interests apply and I have added value to the project. Why can't psyc12 try and interact in a civil manner on the few articles there is some overlap instead of posting here as soon as I have tried to engage in much needed, civil consensus building on these few articles where edits had been needed. That is what Wikipedia is all about, I thought? I have looked recently at the legitimate postings here of serious cases of Wikipedia breached protocols, where editors are being accused of racism, open verbal abuse, even threats of violence, repeated sockpuppetry and gaming the system, tag teaming, article ownership, edit warring, vandalism, copyright violations, blatant conflicts of interest, legal threats against Wikipedia and others etc etc etc and I literally cringe when I see psyc12 so flippantly posting me here on this page, again, simply because, on a few major articles of overlap recently, I have tried to make some much needed edits that they obviously don't like. And instead of psyc12 trying to engage in civil consensus building they run straight over here instead and present a very distorted presentation of the actual circumstances.Mrm7171 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Per my very strongly suggested good reading essay WP:ANI Advice #16, would you two quit bickering at each other? You've already bashed each other in other places. This isn't the place to continue talking to each other. Wait for someone else to intervene and ignore each other here until then. It doesn't matter which if you is right, your dispute will get no result satisfactory to you if you can't control yourself.--v/r - TP 20:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• I thought things had settled down after a discussion on my user talk page where I'd suggested that the problem at Musculoskeletal disorder wasn't whether OHP or I/O issues where more relevant, the problem was that the article wasn't actually about the disorder itself but about how it related to the workplace and other tangents. I think that only temporarily deflected the underlying problem (at best). Clearly there are still unresolved issues. :( I'm worried about parties on both sides of this conflict, see my comment on my talk page where I worry about myopia from all three of the editors involved in these conflicts (people who are all well-intentioned but probably too focused on their specific fields and viewpoints). -- Atama頭 21:07, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

There does appear to be a problem with editors following each other to articles. For example, a quick look at some recent editing shows that Mrm7171 first started editing Repetitive strain injury, Musculoskeletal disorder, Stress (psychological), Leadership and Management since this issue was last at AN/I, and always very shortly after Psych12 had edited the articles. It may be that they are both editing the same general areas, and it may also be that there are cases where others may have followed Mrm7171 to articles, but there is cause for some concern. Perhaps stronger sanctions on all parties will be needed. - Bilby (talk) 21:52, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Can the whole Naghmehetaati family be preemptively blocked?

User:Naghmehetaati was indeffed for doing nothing but posting long irrelevant screeds in Persian on some high-traffic talkpages. Since then, guess what, Naghmehetaati 1, 12, 13, 14 and 15 have been blocked in turn, for doing the exact same thing. (No, I don't know what happened to 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11. Maybe they're sleepers.) Anyway. It seems likely that the individual will realize some time that it would be smarter to invent a whole new name, but since they haven't so far, could coming siblings be pre-emptively blocked by name alone? I believe there are clever filters, but the information about them isn't written in my language, I tend to stop reading when I come to words like "regex". (No, please don't explain it do me, it's been tried.) Bishonen | talk 12:42, 14 April 2014 (UTC).

• Wanting to nuke the whole family? Once they have edited once, in Persian, then "sock" is obvious. You might get a CU in the loop if you think this has spread beyond the one "family". Otherwise, if the name is an obvious continuation by simply incrementing to the next number (and not a different type of use of the name), then it would seem sockblocking is appropriate before they edit. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Yes, but I'd like to abort them. To block (filter?) them before they're even born. Bishonen | talk 12:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC).
    • I too would like to comment on this issue: IT'S ANNOYING! So I wouldn't say no to your plan Bishonen. --Somchai Sun (talk) 13:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
      • I'm not smart enough to create filters yet, although it is on my list of things to do. Can we at least name the filter #RU486? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

She seems to be a student who thinks she can talk directly to world leaders by posting on their article's talk pages. Wikimedia should make that happen, WikiSpeakTruthToPower or such like. She's probably using her real name so perhaps she'll stick with that. Maybe pointing her towards twitter.com/HassanRouhani and um...the place you go to talk to Obama might help (Between Two Ferns with Zach Galifianakis?). Sean.hoyland - talk 15:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just reverted a leftover contact attempt (February 2014) by the sockmaster at Talk:Hassan Khomeini. Shearonink (talk) 16:14, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The place you go to talk to Obama? http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

Related: http://www.reddit.com/r/ThanksObama/

I hope this helps... :) --Guy Macon (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that I asked about the possibility of creating a filter a couple of days ago on AN and was poo-pooed in pretty much the same way Bishonen's post here has been. Anyone who gives this issue a teensy bit of thought would realize that sooner or later the editor is going to stick beans up their nose, which is why I thought a filter of some sort would be worthwhile. It's not a major issue but, as Somchai Sun says, it's annoying. BMK (talk) 18:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I think a pre-emptive filter would be wonderful. I will gently disagree that this is not a major issue...*anything* that takes our time away from actually writing and editing content and improving this encyclopedia is a major issue to me. Think of all the time conscientious editors have to spend to keep the tide of vandalism at bay...think of if at least *some* of that time could instead be spent creating and/or contributing useful content... Yeah. Shearonink (talk) 18:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Yank Barry

In 7+ years of my time on Wikipedia, I think I've only ever opened a case once on this board. I just prefer to settle issues through discussion. But I have a situation that I believe is in urgent need of administrator attention.

The article Yank Barry has had a problem in the past with editors who have conflicts of interest. I actually became involved with the article through a COI noticeboard discussion (see here) where an editor whose username matched the Twitter handle of Barry's charity organization (Gogvc) was removing all negative information about the article subject, and inserting fluff (including unverifiable claims to various awards). That particular editor was eventually blocked (though not by me). After that, I started editing the article in the attempt to bring balance (which didn't just mean removing unverifiable promotion, I've actually tried to de-emphasize his legal troubles which I don't feel are due that much coverage, see discussions on the article talk page).

There have been other editors besides Gogvc who have shown similar promotional behavior. The three other editors that I know of are:

• Accurateinfo973 (talk · contribs)
• Megavox (talk · contribs)
• Theprincessmom1 (talk · contribs)

The editor "Megavox" hasn't edited Wikipedia for years (almost 5 years to the day, exactly). Their entire editing history has consisted of creating Barry's biography on their user page (which you can still see). About a year after Megavox stopped editing, Accurateinfo973 was created and immediately began editing Megavox's user page (my personal belief is that Megavox stopped editing under that user account for whatever reason and created Accurateinfo973, which itself isn't a policy violation). Accurateinfo973 then created the article by copying the info from Megavox's old page into article space. The majority of Accurateinfo973's editing history (not all of it, but most of it) has been related to Barry.

After I became involved at the article, things seemed to be proceeding pretty well. I collaborated with Richfife, John Nagle, Nat Gertler, and Grayfell (Nat Gertler and Grayfell didn't get involved until after the disruption began again, see below) to try to balance and expand the article and clean up what the Gogvc account had done, working together through article talk page discussion. Then a new account appeared named "Theprincessmom1", removing large chunks of sourced information (just about anything that wasn't flattering toward Barry) and reinserting the information about Nobel Prize nominations (unsourced and unverifiable information, and also against previous talk page consensus). I'll note that ClueBot reverted one of the edits, believing it was vandalism. I reverted Theprincessmom1's edits as being against consensus. Then Accurateinfo973 reappeared to revert me and further whitewash the article, claiming in the process that the negative information was a "smear attempt". I did not revert Accurateinfo973 immediately, not wanting to edit war, instead I asked them on their talk page to please join the conversation at the article talk page, explaining that we have been working to create a balanced article and that their edits were disrupting that effort. I waited a day for them to join the article talk page, but they didn't, so I reverted them with another request to join the talk page discussion. They did not do so, instead reverting me again and accusing me of having a negative COI (which is ridiculous). At that point I gave up on trying to get through to the editor, and have not reverted their edits (again, I stay out of edit wars) but the other editors working on the article have reverted Accurateinfo973 (twice since I stopped editing the page directly).

All of this prompted John Nagle to create another COI noticeboard report asking for assistance. Unfortunately, COIN does not get a great deal of administrator attention. That is one of the reasons why I volunteer a lot of time there, but since I'm involved I can't use my tools in this situation. Were I uninvolved I would probably block Accurateinfo973 for edit-warring, NPOV edits, and refusing to discuss issues despite multiple requests, but I can't. I'm not sure if there is sockpuppetry going on but that is a possibility. I'd just like it if an uninvolved admin can lend some help, this is far beyond a content dispute. -- Atama頭 16:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

As an aside, Accurateinfo973 is sitting at 3 reverts in the past 24 hours on the article (their most recent revert happened while I was typing up this report). They haven't quite broken 3RR but they've made 5 reverts total in the last few days. -- Atama頭 16:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of clarity, let me note that at least two of the editors cited above (myself and User:Grayfell, were not cleaning the article before User:Theprincessmom1 was involved. At least in my case, my attention was drawn to the matter by the COIN postings. None of that should be seen to contradict the basic gist of the above; the article has been subject to heavy editing by folks deleting negative, sourced information and installing unsourced and improperly sourced positive information. --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Nat, you are correct, the two of you didn't get involved until the disruption started up again. I apologize for confusing that, I'll adjust the report above. -- Atama頭 16:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 has violated 3RR now. I left a 3RR warning on their user talk page, which I should probably have done when they were at 3RR, but hindsight, etc. -- Atama頭 18:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I came to the Yank Barry article because it was mentioned on WP:COIN and seemed to need some work. Most of the content issues have been discussed on the talk page, so I won't repeat them. The editors mentioned above (Accurateinfo973, Megavox, and Theprincessmom1) all have rather narrow editing interests. "Theprincessmom1" has edited only the Yank Berry article, and has a one-day editing history. "Megavox" is an inactive account, but back in 2009 was devoted to Yank Berry articles only. "Accurateinfo973", the currently active editor here, has an editing history back to 2010, but it's almost all about Yank Berry. The editing pattern is to inflate the achievements of the article subject, and to remove sourced negative information. (For an amusing example, see this diff: [198]) John Nagle (talk) 19:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Accurateinfo973 has finally made a comment on the article talk page, seen here, but unfortunately it was mainly just an attack on Richfife. I tried to respond encouragingly to the editor, but with the caution to keep things civil. -- Atama頭 20:58, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

TLDR: An editor violates WP:SPAM, WP:NPA, WP:3RR, you name it

I'm afraid I over-explained myself above, which probably dissuaded anyone from helping. You can read the above for the whole story, but the bottom line is that we have an editor who may be a sockpuppet, probably has a COI, but is definitely edit-warring (though that has temporarily ceased) and is lashing out at every other editor there, basically accusing everyone else of having a biased COI and not being "legitimate editors" conducting a "smear attempt" (their words). They're rejecting such core concepts as verifiability and consensus, and insisting that "the truth" must be reflected in the article regardless of what can be verified. I'm trying to give the editor respect (probably more than is warranted) and offering to help them but since I'm included as part of the "smear" it's probably futile. I can't act as an administrator here so I'd really appreciate help from an uninvolved admin. :( -- Atama頭 16:07, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Vandalism on Growth of religion article.

I and User: Delibzr are having conflicts of editing on the article Growth of religion. User: Delibzr keep changing the lead and adding texts that I believe is a original research which as not supported by any third party reliable source. I tried to explain my points on User: Delibzr's talk page and the article's talk page[199]. I am not a much experienced editor and I think User: Delibzr is not too so requesting a proper neutral edit on the article from administrators. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:30, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows that asiantribune.com, patheos.com, wwrn.org, abs.gov.au are reliable sources. If they don't favor your wishes, it is certainly not my problem. You are on a wrong noticeboard, you should be at DRN. Delibzr (talk) 16:36, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say abs.gov.au is unreliable. You are again distorting my comments here too. I said for the asiantribune.com and the blog post from patheos.com. I also tried to explain you the original research you made which is not supported by any of the asiantribune.com, patheos.com, wwrn.org or abs.gov.au. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

If anything is multiple in amount it can be referred as "number of" if you don't know english you should take english lessons. Even if you said that about Asiantribune and patheos, it is extremely incorrect. Thanks. Delibzr (talk) 16:47, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

The sources only mention the country Australia and Ghana so you could have mention Australia and Ghana only but why you're concluding "number of" instead? Also, please, avoid personal attacks. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 16:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You cannot mention all countries on lead. Delibzr (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Similarly you cannot mention all religions with no significant persistent growth rate in the lead. Also, you made another unconstructive edit here[200] by removing sourced material from the article. I doubt if you really took the time to read the sources. Thanks, Benfold (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was already added in later sections, so why it should be added to lead? When you remove every other religion from lead? You have to keep balance on lead. Delibzr (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I strongly advise you to read WP:Lead again. Lead summarises the most important aspects and the overall trend is that Islam is the fastest growing religion with reference from very credible sources.Benfold (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

I advise you to stop using this board as dispute resolution, and stop repeating yourself. According to WP:LEAD "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." It says "aspects", but you are only using it for a sole "aspect". And "lead should be written in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view;" while you are only pushing subject, not any others anywhere on whole page, forget about just lead. Delibzr (talk) 17:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

See discussion between these users and myself on Talk:Growth_of_religion#Growth_of_religion. Seems to be misunderstanding about general editing policies. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You don't even know what is WP:LEAD and you talk about policies. Laughable. Delibzr (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Also read WP:CIVIL. Your account is new, but you seem to know the policies so I would expect you know you should not make personal attacks. But I do know what LEAD says. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

It was not a personal attack, and if you know about lead then why you trashed sourced content with reliable sources on the page? Delibzr (talk) 17:48, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

You seem to start attacking editors who disagree with your point of view. This is not good for a collaborative work. Benfold (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be a content dispute. I don't see any actionable request for administrative intervention (asking for an administrator to rule in a content dispute is clearly not that). So I suggest those involved look in to some form of WP:dispute resolution.

As an aside, from experience, most of the time if I come to ANI and see a long discussion but the main participants are those already involved in the dispute, this is usually a sign that one of 3 things will happen. 1) Nothing will happen and thread will be archived often without even much comment from uninvolved parties. 2) All of those involved are going to end up blocked (not so much because of the ANI thread but because it's a symptom of a wider problem. 3) One or more of the editors are going to leave the dispute because they grow tired of the argumentation. This may seem like the best outcome but it's generally not desirable, particularly when the obvious other alternative is for the editors to learn to work together and it's likely some of the editors not leaving are part of the problem.

The point of my aside above is that if you do have a genuine issue for ANI, there's usually no reason for a continous back and forth between existing participants when few outsiders have even commented. In fact it's unsurprisingly often harmful. And this extents to most other areas where you're asking for external participation of some sort.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

P.S. With EvergreenFir's involvement, it may be that there's no more need for outside help. However if the matter still can't be resolved or EvergreenFir decides not to participate further, it would be best to look in to some form of dispute resolution unless administrative intervention (blocking, protection, topic ban etc) is really needed and hopefully it doesn't come to that. Nil Einne (talk) 19:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

IP edits reverting sockpuppet edits

An IP user has reverted a significant number of edits stemming from the GoldDragon sockpuppet case. A revert that I reverted was correctly turned back as it contained closely paraphrased material. However, the user had simply stated sockpuppetry as a reason for removal. Looking further through the reversions, several good edits[201][202] have been overturned, as well as several trivial[203][204] that did not require reverting. The pace of the reversions on 12 April suggests wholesale, rather than considered reverting.

I don't typically get involved in user disputes as I'm more of a content person. What is the best course of action here? SFB 16:51, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

@Sillyfolkboy: There is no mandate that all of a sockpuppet's edits must be reverted. But it's also not completely disallowed. An editor like GoldDragon is de facto banned from the project, as their repeated use of sockpuppets would dissuade any administrator from unblocking them (see here where the "standard offer" is discussed, the kind of discussion we have with banned editors who want a ban overturned). Per WP:BMB reverting all of a banned editor's edits is allowed. Not required, but allowed. Anyone who undoes the revert of a banned editor is personally vouching for the edit and is responsible for it, so if you reinstate a banned editor's action and it is judged to be a BLP violation, vandalism, or other form of disruption then you would be treated as if you were the person who originally performed the edit. But sometimes it's best to reinstate it anyway; if a banned editor makes an edit that is unquestionably good (or is undoing something that is unquestionably bad) then reinstating that action is the right thing to do.

Essentially, I don't particularly like what the IP is doing, the indiscriminate way it's being done doesn't sit well with me. If you prefer to go through the IP's reverts and undo any that you think should be undone, feel free. But no action needs to be taken against the IP, because our policy allows it. -- Atama頭 16:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anon repeatedly removing maintenance template

An anonymous editor is repeatedly removing a maintenance tag from beside contested material the anon added at Royal tours of Canada, doing so until today while not engaging in the associated discussion at talk; doing so now after leaving only a dismissive comment at the talk page. This appears to be a blockable offence. Could someone consider this, please? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:10, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Page with no citations

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

---

Greetings: While following picture links from Wikimedia Commons, I came across this page GeraldPinkenburg from Dutch Wikipedia. Looking at the page history here, I see that there are at least two editors who might be the subject himself, by name. The first editor who started the page was contacted by another editor with suggestions on how to improve, but the article still has no citations. It is possible that the anon. editor "80.187.97.168" is also the same user. The initial edit included a weblink to the subject's webpage, so I'd like to suggest this is probably a vanity page created by one someone with more than one account. Thank you for your help. Ellin Beltz (talk) 19:19, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Dutch Wikipedia is not in the area of control here, this is only the English language Wikipedia and people here have no authority over another language version of the project. You'll need to contact people over there about it. Canterbury Tail talk 19:25, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that we don't have any authority over the German wikipedia either (which is what you linked to, not the Dutch). Also if you do want to ask the German wikipedia about this, you may want to tell them what accounts you're referring to. You only named one account here and an IP address/anonymous editing. Looking at the page history I don't see any other accounts likely associated with this person. Note that editing with an IP address is not only not editing with an account, it may not be a violation of policy either to fail to log in to edit an article you've edited before with your account if it's not done for bad reasons (but I don't know the German wikipedia's particular policy on this). Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

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

Large backlog at WP:ANRFC

There is a large backlog at WP:ANRFC of discussions waiting for a formal close. It is concerning that many of the entries have been there for multiple weeks without any kind of assessment and are still untouched. Some of the shorter requests are being fulfilled, but it appears as if the larger discussions are being neglected. How can we encourage progress here? 86.170.98.9 (talk) 20:27, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

• Good question. Pay admins to close them! Or let's have a culture where a closing admin doesn't get bitched out--happened to me a few times and it quickly takes the fun out of it. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
• When closings aren't celebrated with molotov cocktails, pitchforks and torches, then it will be easier to get admin to jump on them. What few I do, I do begrudgingly because it always turns into massive personal attacks against the admin by one side or the other, which gets old after a week or so. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • I've largely had pretty positive experiences with closes and I've closed some ugly ones. I think the key to getting this done is to get some uninvolved experienced non-admins involved. As long as you explain things clearly, people are generally willing to accept things. And there is generally no need for the bit. Hobit (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • Wait a second! We don't get paid?! (I jest.) It does get very old very quickly closing discussions that aren't simple or obvious. I'll close one at ANRFC once in a blue moon, but nothing too contentious. I closed many as a non-admin, but that was even less fun. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
• Yeah, I wish there was an answer to getting more people to close these as well. The thing is, closing some of these discussions can be a serious investment of time, like several hours. And like as was said above, you have to be motivated, prepared for the backlash, and more fundamentally, you have to have the time for some of them. That said, I'll try to close some tonight. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I am the same IP who posted the message originally. Would administrators be interested in barnstars? I have just given one to TLSuda, who has closed a contentious discussion since this message was posted. As others have predicted, he was targeted by an aggrieved user who sent it to move review, but all except this user are endorsing the close. Could something similar to the feedback request service be used, where groups of volunteering administrators are randomly allocated discussions to close? The next ones seem to be at Talk:Pablo Casals (there is apparently consensus except for a vocal user who is insisting on a formal close) and Talk:British Isles. 81.135.61.62 (talk) 20:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Its always nice to be appreciated for doing something, but I don't think barnstars would be enough to get editors interested. Sometimes its just not worth the hassle as we can see today. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'll settle for some expensive Belgian beers. The WMF has my address so you can have it delivered. I JethroBT, the RfC/U I closed last night (Arzel's) took 45 minutes or more so yeah, it's a lot of time to invest. TLSuda, if you've been an admin as long as I have you get $2 per deleted article and $3 per block; $5 for an indef block and $10 for an indef block that requires ArbCom to get involved. RfCs are freebies. Drmies (talk) 01:41, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

IP Hopping editor

There's a problem that I can't find a specific solution to and I felt this was the only place I could take my suspicions and that's here. I've been watching a number of pages that are visited quite often by an IP hopper. This hopper uses the range 59.101.*.*. The biggest issue seems to be not knowing WP procedure, and constantly adding non notable material. A few times he's been caught removing AfD templates. The issue that brought me here was his attempt to run five pages that are not notable - New South Wales Surge, Victoria Maidens, Western Australia Angels, Queensland Brigade and 2013–14 LFL Australia season. The first four I have tried to maintain a redirect to Legends Football League#LFL Australia but he just doesn't get the message. I left the season one alone and notability tagged it, but I have just sent it to AfD after four months of no action to rectify it. The suspicion that brought me here is that I think it could be User:Pidzz not logging in making these edits. I ask for a checkuser on that one if possible, and if it is him he needs to be warned. There are many issues (too many to link here) but if you were to check the history of the pages I have given you may get the idea. As an aside for...I can't think of the word as I type this, it may appear that I'm a hopper as well, but that's forced by an inevitable reboot of my modem - and I don't hold an account here and never have (and never will). The hopper has been hopping far more frequently. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 23:08, 14 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, you are an IP hopper by definition. "IP hopping" doesn't imply an intent to avoid scrutiny or some sort of maliciousness; it just means you're on a dynamic IP. Given WMF policy's preference for privacy ahead of the good of the encyclopedia, there's no way a checkuser would tell you whether there's a connection between Pidzz and the IP address. I'm going to guess that the only practical solution here is a rangeblock. However, I absolutely refuse to implement one — I can never remember even the theory behind them, so I'm almost certain to make a big mess. I would welcome help from anyone familiar with rangeblocking. Nyttend (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree that a range ban would not be appropriate. I think - and I'm guessing - that the only time a range block would be appropriate would be for a clear range of proxies. But I would point out that the IP hopper that I'm reporting here hops way more frequently that is natural for a dynamic IP (like mine for example). I think I've seen it happen more than once in a 24 hour period, which suggests to me malicious use. It's a shame that there isn't enough for a check user on Pidzz, because for myself I am certain that it's him. However my opinion isn't enough, and that's partly why I came here to begin with - to find any other way to get this sorted. 124.180.170.151 (talk) 05:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Sergecross73

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

---

Admin user Sergecross73 with no proof using needle in haystack logic block my original account "Potatoechip" for false block evasion.

He is sketchy as well, mention spirit check but won't do it because he will get in trouble for blocking me false. Some one needs to Remove him. Potatoechipplus (talk) 00:13, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jakandsig. This is yet another of a month-spanning sockpuppet. Common traits include:

1. Creating the account minutes after the latest accounts had a confirmed checkuser investigation. (See link above.)
2. Editing the same articles, (Underdog/underselling video game consoles, like Sega Saturn and Sega CD.
3. You also made sloppy additions to the opening sentences of any article, another thing Jak did.

There's nothing to see here, though if someone wants to start up the 5th investigation to fully confirm the 20 to 30th sock here, by all means, go for it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:22, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Another thing to note after this was removed by a different editor it was readded by 198.228.195.8. I think that address should be checked out as well since that does not seem to be a coincidence.--67.70.140.89 (talk) 00:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

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

User:77.101.41.108

This IP user has been quite disruptive over at ITN lately. This user has been quite rude towards other users. The user also does not appear to understand the purpose of ITN. For example, the user got annoyed when another user nominated an attack similar to one the IP nominated, despite the two attacks being unrelated overall. This is just a little bit of the IP user. They have been writing some walls of text in nominations, contradicting themselves in their comments, and generally not understanding the whole point of ITN. When confronted about their behavior, they just removed the comments left on their talk page. I understand this may not be enough diffs to do anything but this IP user has been more disruptive than what I have linked. I honestly believe this IP user is acting in good faith, but does not have a fully clear understanding of what ITN actually is. If what I have posted is not enough, you can look at his user contributions and see more. Other ITN regulars (those who are active in the whole ITN process) have been dealing with this IP user for a few days and some have shown dislike towards this IP, so I am not the only one here who has an issue.

Again, sorry if what I have linked is not enough. I don't post at ANI often and I am not the best at typing out reports like this. If you want more proof or evidence you can look at the IP user's contributions. Andise1 (talk) 01:24, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Anise1 summed things up pretty well. Since this user arrived on ITNC the page has become roiled with discussions flowing from their comments and repeated nominations. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

77 here-

Firstly I want to say thank you for providing such a wonderful resource and awesome well of information. In the short time I have been posting here, I have had many interesting stories to think about and have met many kind and interesting posters. The great majority are of course a credit to this site, and have been both accessible and informative, much like this site.

Unfortunately, some of the ITN users have displayed hive mind characteristics, and have decided its their duty to repeatedly attack and harass me, whilst I struggled to understand the format we are using. Furthermore they have often misrepresented the aims and goals of wikipedia and ITN as stated in wikipedias own wording, and have acted as little tzars of one of its lesser moderated sub sections. I have at all times refrained from instigating ad hominem and insults, as its a personal rule, but have responded in kind when people have made repeated personal attacks and sniping comments, because i did not have easy recourse to moderation, or to redress.

I do enjoy the site, and I am happy to contribute. In the last 24 hours, 2 of the stories I worked on have been put into the ITN header on the main page. I personally believe that sadly there is a lot of jealousy and resentment in some of the more pedestrian and challenged editorial members, as they see this as some kind of home forum, and not a format for making articles available for stories of widespread interest, and indeed making wikipedia a great encyclopaedia.

I am used to dealing with hive mind mentality online, and it is an ugly thing. However it is always the vocal few who act as trolls, who treat a format or forum like a bridge and chase away anyone that doesn't validate their own insecurities. I am not so easily scared away, by petty and irrational vindictiveness.

In the last couple of day I have been misquoted by someone who is complaining here, in what was an unprovoked attack. I've seen two members display unwarranted and unsolicited hostility to me and to others, which has actually been rebuked by other members on sight. I've seen a member ignore a story that I nominated only to later duplicate the nomination later one. Ive also seen the posters who are complaining here, act in a petty and vindictive way, posting notes on walls and making personal comments behind my back, as if we were in high school. Some of this is process, and thats fine, but when the same people are misquoting me explicitly in front of me, on the boards, in attacks, and colluding with hateful messages to each other, I drew the line and told them to go to admin if they had an issue.

I am not in charge of wikipedia's attitude and manners towards new posters, as reflected by its poorer members.

I've done my best to work to understand the format and to contribute positively, and indeed in the last few days ive learned how to do everything up to and including making articles, making ITN nominations, making the blurbs and making titles that correspond to Wikipedia traditions. I do come from a journalistic background, despite my typos, and I already understand and appreciate the importance of things like sourcing, quoting, and lay out.

I am here to contribute and if you don't appreciate or want my contributions, as much as I've enjoyed helping out, I am happy to leave. Most of your posters are good eggs, and I am grateful to the ones who have been kind enough to help out and to encourage. I could name right now who the best guys are in that room, but fortunately the majority are great. Unfortunately, I've also ran into bad posters too, who have acted as poor people as well as poor editors and whose reputation writ large is the reason women dont post here and many people dont want to help.

I've done my best and learned a lot. I thoroughly enjoyed debating these things and helping out. Thank you, and that is all.

Cheers. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 01:56, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Calling my paraphrasing a personal attack is just wrong. Nowhere did I call you names and I challenge you to show that I did. 331dot (talk) 01:58, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You came into ITN and demanded we do things your way. The best advice is to sit back and watch and learn for a few days/weeks before contributing to understand various naunces with WP's policies. --MASEM (t) 01:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

No, Masem. I demand only to have the right to have an opinion, and to politely express that opinion without personal harassment and a little hive mentality, of 4 or 5 posters who are ruining it for everybody and keeping well meaning new comers off this site. My opinion is my own. You opinion is your own. We should all have the right to express our opinions and not to be forced into a false consensus on things. I am not campaigning for ron paul here. I had to deal with a wall of angst just for putting up a picture of Snowden, on a nomination about the pulitzers. you are saying people should sit back and see how you and a few others chose to do things. But you are not wikipedia or indeed any kind of majority even in this subsection of wikipedia. When I am working off a template fashioned by every major news net work on the planet, minus MSNBC, I do not expect a wall of angst and personal remarks, simply because I chose to use a snowden picture like they all did. Its unwarranted and its unlikely to make much sense to anyone who has ever worked in the media or professional journalism.. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:10, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have to concur there's an issue here. My gut feeling is that this apparently new user, editing ITN at full steam from his initial appearance, is a sock or a blocked user. There's no hamfisted article editting to indicate the user doesn't know exactly what he's doing. Regardless of whether that's the case, his contentious and insulting walls of text on every thread he engages in are disrupting to the point he's got experienced admins flummoxed.

A search for his name on the page gets over 100 hits (my browser gives up over that number) and many of the threads he posts on consist of say six comments, one each by six editors, and six comments by the IP user in response to each of these editors. The most recent discussion, NSA has 10 comments by him, six uses of the word irrational to describe other editors, and at most 2-3 comments in response to him by any other single editor. The user should be warned, and I think an SPI is warranted, given his behavior quacks like a previously blocked editor. μηδείς (talk) 02:05, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• μηδείς - I can honestly say, you are a consistent and unremitting source of negativity, sniping, shit stirring and unwarranted, unsolicited hostility bordering on harassment. I have little surprise that wikipedia find it difficult to attract female editors with poster like you around to target and attempt to prey on people who are new, that you happen to have disdain or negative interest toward. You have made no effort to be friendly. No effort even to meet the most customary tenets of wikipedias expressed policy toward new posters, or any posters for that matter. In the last few days I have learned the format here top to bottom, and you are still posting irrational, objectively ignorant, irrelevant things in an adult discussion and taking every opportunity to hate on people without just cause or reason. I have worked out an alien format in a matter of days, and you still find it impossible to even understand the concept of good faith or being polite and cordial to people you dont know online. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The editor's comments above are a perfect example of his reaction to any disagreement he has, challenge he imagines, or any comment made in regard to his action; snide insulting comments about his perfect innocence, the conspiracy (hive mind) against him, and his ability to determine who at the page is good, and who evil. I apologize for not providing diffs, but a simple reading of any nomination he's commented on at ITN will bear out the complaint. μηδείς (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

77 does somewhat remind me of Gruesome Foursome (talk · contribs), although I am fairly confident 77 is a new user, not the reincarnation of a previous one. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You continually attack the poster and not the post, and hide behind a few friends to validate your poor form and behavior. I dont hide behind anyone and I maintain the right to have an opinion and to express that opinion. I dont instigate personal attacks, ad hom or insults, but absolutely reserve the right not to falsely attest to a false consensus. I am not perfect, but my intentions are clear, because I am a morally cogent person. I can not judge you, but I do find your attitude, behaviour and actions to be quite deplorable and impossible to justify if I was the one doing it. I dont jump into nominations and attack people I dont know, unwarranted. I dont talk about others behind their backs, with little hate notes. I dont approach objective adult conversations, carrying resentments and grudges against people I dont know. I dont talk childishly and ignorantly, in objective debates. So no, I dont judge you, because I dont know you, but I find very little about you to defend, to like, to trust, or to recommend to admin as anything other than a deterrent to new posters and to female posters in particular. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

FYI, μηδείς is female. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• μηδείς - just now in the ITN nomination on the Pulitzer prize- I posted the ITN, and also penned the framework of an article. For some reason you proceeded to post - "Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again... If you weren't so beligernet, 77, I'd already have posted this before your nannying."

I have no idea why you are calling people belligerent or indeed misspelling belligerent. I have no idea why you are calling people nannys or why you are talking about snowdens mug, or bringing up miley cyrus in an ITN nomination. I have no idea why you are communication visceral disdain for snowden, the guy in the headlines of CNN, Fox news, BBC, AJZ and Reuters news casts on this story. I have no idea why the first two times you posted anything toward me it was hostile and insulting, or why you were leaving little hate messages on another posters wall about me, and your disdain for me. It makes no sense to me. I am an adult and work around adults. Its completely incredulous behavior to me. But each time I treat you with equanimity and you come back with open hostility and childish behaviour. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Note that in response to the collapsed "discussion" at this Hall of Fame nomination I pointed out to Thaddeus the irrelevance of 77's anti-American arguments and suggested he not argue back, as 77 was trolling him. This is what 77 refers to as a "hate" message above, but without giving a diff, since of course there was no "hate" message and the comments are perfectly justified by the ITN/nom section that was collapsed (albeit not by myself, but another editor who saw its futility).

Likewise, the fact of 77's belligerence is born out by almost half of his 140 current comments at ITN/nom. And his nannying by such things as his worrying above about a typo not worth correcting. Here he edit conflicts while to tell me with his immediate knee-jerk objection to absolutely everything, in a nomination of his which I am supporting. But even then he has to lie about the matter, saying in his post above, without diff, that I have a "visceral disdain" for Snowden, mentioned in the nomination. I happen to think Snowden did the world a service, and certainly said nothing about disdian, but why not lie about my statements and accuse me of "hate messages" further to push a point? I stand behind beligernet and my other expressed opinions. I'll be unwatching now, so if anyone has questions, please talk page me. μηδείς (talk) 03:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• 331 dot, you openly attacked me, in the main section, with a false quote that added to my original quote to misrepresent my position on something, in an attempt to mock me. It wasnt insulting. It was silly. I posted you a copy of the reuters journalists handbook, pertaining to properly quoting a subject, and that led to your friend calling me combative and confrontational. What did you want me to do? You were literally lying about me, in front of me, and I was laughing at this cultish hive mind sillyness. I would ordinarily say "grow up" but I didn't want to be personally insulting. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:31, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• μηδείς - "10 comments by him, six uses of the word irrational to describe other editors, and at most 2-3 comments in response to him by any other single editor. The user should be warned, and I think an SPI is warranted, given his behavior quacks like a previously blocked editor." Another characteristic baseless and categorically incorrect personal attack. I said that a guy revulsion of snowden, seemed to be an irrational consensus, given his picture is on the story in the CNN, BBC, Reuters, AJZ, Fox news, ABC, accounts of the Pulitzer prize awards. I didnt call individuals irrational, but the revulsion of snowden, in the context of a story relplete with his image, potentially an irrational consensus. I think sought an admin opinion. And again you are accusing me of being a previously banned troll in essence, and making nasty comments about me. None of this is warranted by anything I've done or said to you. You simply chose to hate on the new comer. I read this trash, and its baseless and incorrect, and I remain calm about it, and you just get further upset. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Not only did you call people irrational, but you compared opponents of your position to "3 men and a dog" here. 331dot (talk) 02:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

When Medeis posts unhelpful nonsense in that thread like "Nothing against Snowden actually, but if I never see his or Miley Cyrus's mugs again...", we can't complain about someone calling it irrational. To me, it seemed there was also pretty strong evidence that some editors' posts WERE influenced by a dislike of Snowden. That too is irrational, by the literal definition of that word. 77.'s behaviour has certainly not been ideal, but several other editors were behaving less than ideally too. "Let he who is without sin", etc. HiLo48 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• That isn't what I did at all, but it is clearly useless to press that point. But go ahead and keep demonstrating the qualities that everyone else is ascribing to you. 331dot (talk) 02:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• 331dot, both of us have legitimate right to contend things that are said about us, that we dont like. Only one of us is assuming to talk for "everyone else" and only one of us is misquoting people and then making personal attacks. Do you not see how that could be construed as arrogant, and misplaced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• No, I don't, because it wasn't. I know what I did; you are not inside my mind. I also do not claim to speak for others. I still have yet to see evidence of the "personal attack" that I made against you. I have never called you a name, and if I did, I will gladly and sincerely apologize. 331dot (talk) 02:51, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• My opinion is that 77's contributions are in good faith, but mostly unproductive. Whenever someone tries to explain to him that X is not the way we do things, he insists his way is right and just throws up wall of text after wall of text until the other user moves on. His behavior is annoying most of the ITN regulars and doing himself absolutely no favors in getting what he wants. I suggest he voluntarily start listening the the abundance of advice he has received. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I have no personal issue with you thaddeus, but I do feel you are trying to force consensus sometimes and are using some of your less than savoury friends as a handle to do so. I took no great joy in seeing you and μηδείς passing little hate messages on your wall about me, after we had a good debate about the NCAA thing and were working together on something. The main issue here is that you cant have 4 or 5 people defining what wikipedia deems notable and functioning as a bloc of regulars to chase away any dissension from your POV. Thats not how this site is designed. I dont think its how this site is meant to function, and it speaks ill to hear that you have a mentality that will attack or disrupt others efforts on the grounds of personal distaste, rather than being able to work on objective dispassionate merits. This is not my social group or my friendship group. I am helping you guys out here, at no cost and no end of personal patience. I am not invading your territory. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Please show what "hate messages" are being posted about you. We want more people on ITN, but we want them to work in the right way, which you are not. 331dot (talk) 03:00, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I've been trying to help you. What you call me trying to enforce my view, I call trying to inform you of the existing consensus based norms. And yes, two people did post on my talk page to urge me to calm down and "stop feeding the trolls" to which I agreed. If you want to call that a hate note, OK, but let me remind you that it was you who repeatedly called me a bigot w/o knowing anything about me (before I went out of my way to show it is not true.) --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, since those notes I have tried very hard to be nice to you by writing an article at your request, and not commenting on your behavior other than to try to give you some pointers. I have not said one thing the least bit personal on ITN after that initial confrontation. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

This whole exchange is 4 or 5 disgruntled posters making personal attacks, and them complaining when I defend myself. Thats basically been their MO since I first decided to take some time out to contribute to wikipedia. I do not want you to try hard to be nice to me. I havent sought your friendship, or in any way harassed you to that end. I simply would ask to act like a professional, and an adult and not to team up in a little hive attacking people who disagree with you. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:18, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have been nothing but courteous and professional to you since the initial exchange where you repeatedly called me a bigot and I got upset. Offering you advice on how things work does not mean I am "teaming up in a little hive attacking people who disagree with me". --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It was you who started the personal talk in that initial exchange, and I responded poorly. However you have for the most part been fine. You do seem to think I should defer my own opinion to you somewhat, and I have no idea why.

Like I said before, I have no issue with you though and we have indeed worked together at times. I quite enjoyed working with you and found you to be conscientious and someone who had a good eye for detail. I understood why you were so into the NCAA thing when I read your bio out of curiosity, and I found it quite adorable really. Unfortunately, μηδείς is absolutely abhorrent in his or her actions and attitude, 331 dot is acting like a hive mind king of narnia, and the other two seem to be tagging along for the right. I have little to do with them, and it seems they are literally phone a friend guys.

Its not personal, but we all have opinions and the right to express them. I think its cute when people try to form little logic bloc and harass others for disagreeing with them, but unfortunately it logic simply doesnt work that way. Only mad people use the universal We when talking about themselves and a couple of friends, in allusion to the internet, or wikipedia.

I understand that you expect me to defer to your friendship group in debates on things and to falsely attest to a consensus on things that I do not share. But unfortunately I cant do that.

As to the format, Ive pretty much learned it. As to the rules, I would say that I already follow the basic wikipedia rules as it says on its advertising. I do not instigate personal abuse and comments and do my best to avoid them.

You simply can not ask me to agree with you, when I do not agree with you on things, and I can not apologise if that upsets you or hurts your feelings. Its not personal. I dont know any of you, and I honestly think you should probably find healthier pursuits than trying to own a website section on wikipedia. Like I said, im not here to feed into your friendship group, or to hatefully snipe on people I dont know.

My bad if Ive upset you by not agreeing with you at times, but the personal comments and personal abuse that created this complaint, has been categorically initiated by you guys.

Have a good one. 77.101.41.108 (talk) 03:43, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I don't expect you to defer to my opinion. I have given you advice on the community accepted norms of behavior at ITN, none of which are "my opinion". I don't understand why you are so bothered by me giving you advice. Again, I was trying to help you. Even in this very thread I said I think you are acting in good faith, need to learn our behavioral norms (i.e take the advice you've been given.) You are annoying people - not because of your opinions - but because of the need to debate every tiny point ad nausem. Like someone above said, roughly half the comments on ITN are yours. Writing so much does not help your cause(s) - for the most part it hurts your chances as people stop reading what you write. Make your point, maybe reply briefly to point out errors in other arguments a couple times, then let it go. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Blocked for 31 hours. The personal attacks here and elsewhere are enough, but the disruption at ITN is clearly getting in the way of getting work done. IP 77 is put on notice: when this block runs out, they need to be more reticent in their posts on ITN. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

As I suspected above, the user is not new, but a sock puppet, given the priority of this abusive proxy account. μηδείς (talk) 04:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Came here to start a discussion and found one well under way. As with others, I'm ready to believe that this editor is editing in good faith, just needs to learn some civility. Much of his contributions are constructive, so long as no-one disagrees or questions what he has done. As soon as anyone does, the discussion quickly turns to self-justification, obscenity, obstruction, nit-picking and rank abuse. I have tried to point this out gently, but got nowhere, eg [205] interaction; after an abusive, sarcastic taunting of another editor, I gently directed him to the civility policy; the response was self-justification, further abuse of the other editor, obscenity and a request that I "learn some manners." Other examples in ITN/C:

• "You need to work on your table manners and being able to adequately articulate a sentence, before talking s--- in my ear, about your petty little issues. ... Be polite next time, and type in proper English and then I might actually take you seriously, son." - responding to a fairly civil comment.
• "would appreciate if you followed the basic directives of assuming good faith and not being a rude POS" - again, in response to simple disagreement, not incivility.
• "I,feel,like im conversing with,a man city fan or...perhaps william shatner." - bordering on racism (if you count Mancunians)
• "Purveyor of snideness."
• "331dot - I pointed out from the b--- start how important this story was, and ran into a transatlantic firewall of ignorance, thank you very much. A f--- city burned down and BBC and Reuters were leading with it." - obscenity is obscenity, even when largely blanked out.
• "One can only guess at what the BBC and Reuters were doing, by calling this news...Set them straight "Jayron". Your comedy will be much appreciated at Canary wharf."
• "I linked a BBC and Reuters article that all mentioned sanctions and all call it news, and someone edits this out of the header, keeps the sources (as its BBC and Reuters)and white washes the story. What is this s---."
• Not to mention the wall of text on the NCAA nomination.

Sorry, the diffs are too many and to difficult to ferret out on such a busy page to link them all. The above quotes are on the current ITN/C page as I post this. To give some idea of the difficulty, this user has 120 edits just to ITN/C in the past 24 hours, even having been blocked for 9 of those hours. GoldenRing (talk) 11:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'd just like to add that I also believe this IP user started out in good faith in what they believe is an attempt to improve decision making and promote more variation in stories posted to ITN but the battleground mentality is just completely the wrong way to go about it and it is disruptive to me personally. My understanding of the process is that each editor should offer a support/oppose on the original nomination and provide their reasons. It's not a debate between participants, it's up to the closing administrator to decide on consensus based on the strength of the arguments. I often read what other editors have said before I make my own mind up but the constant walls of text and off-topic discussion recently posted by this user make it very difficult to follow. To IP 77.101.41.108 - just dial it back a bit, keep things simple and make a single post with your view about a nomination. Leave other user's opinions to themselves, it's not a debate. I congratulate you on getting at least 1 story onto the main page, that's the kind of user that will be much more accepted. CaptRik (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Watching the discussion over the past few days, I've been seeing ad hominem attacks on both sides. Experienced editors should remember that IP users and newbies are not second-class citizens, are entitled to their views; are welcome and encouraged to edit Wikipedia, and should not be made to feel unwelcome or bitten (especially since the biggest problem facing WP right now is editor recruitment and retention); 77.101.41.108 needs to realise they're acting defensively, take a chill pill and come back in a few days when the adrenaline has died down. Sometimes the easiest way to deal with unfair criticism is to ignore it. Just my $0.02. Balaenoptera musculus (talk) 12:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Eugen Simion 14 - longterm edit warring, hostility, refusal to discuss issues

I lurk the Google Street View (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article often to see what the latest updates are, and Eugen Simion 14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is one of the primary contributors to this article. He's a very diligent editor, but going by the page's edit history, there's been an ongoing problem for quite a long time where he seems to be completely unreceptive to discussion when something is the slightest bit controversial. He has demonstrated his ability to use talk pages, and has told people to start discussions during controversy, but does not seem to respond whenever others try to communicate with him.

Going back through the edit history of this article over the past year and a half, and its associated article Timeline of Google Street View (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Eugen has been in many edit wars ([206], [207], [208]), in some of which he has quietly violated 3RR in ([209], [210]). The main controversies, among others, have been a mention of partial coverage of the West Bank, which he repeatedly and vehemently reverted earlier in 2013 ([211]). It did eventually stay, but he again violated 3RR later on over keeping Template:Flag beside it on the list of countries which others (including myself) were adding for visual consistency. These have since stopped (possibly due to a discussion attempt), but edit wars over petty issues still appear to happen - most recently, a dispute over whether the announcement of a future inclusion to Google Street View was considered official or unofficial.

Eugen is uncivil towards other editors, too; he's often used personal attacks in his edit summaries ([212], [213], [214]), referred to valid edits as vandalism ([215], [216]), and has occasionally, out of the blue, threatened the contributors of good faith edits with blocks or references to their block history ([217], [218]) despite his own record which includes edit warring and sockpuppetry.

Although the more controversial incidents are rare, Eugen hasn't shown any indications of improving his behavior. Given his checkered history on Wikipedia, I would like an admin's comment on these issues. His contributions are generally good but his attitude, failure to collaborate properly, and WP:OWN vibes are not model examples of how one should be handling edits that they object to. ProtossPylon 01:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Administrator needed on Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo

There's a bit of a complicated situation happening over at Talk:Sluggish cognitive tempo. I'd like to ask for some admin attention because I'm not sure how to resolve these issues with respect to some WP:BLP concerns raised by RussellBarkley, who has identified himself as a expert and researcher on this topic. In brief:

• The New York Times published an article which questions the validity of the topic and also makes claims on the financial interests and relationship that Dr. Barkley has in relation to this phenomenon.
• Recently, much of this content has been incorporated in a new "Controversy" section (which probably needs to be shortened or incorporated elsewhere on the article given this is the only article so far that evaluates this controversy).
• The editor contests many of the claims made in the article, and has elaborated on why those claims are inaccurate here, here, and on his talk page. It's possible some of these claims, if false, may rise to the level of defamation, though there are no reliable sources that contradict these claims as of yet.
• The editor has also made substantial contributions to the article, and IMO, contains a mix of constructive and problematic content. This issue has already been raised here at WP:COIN. I have asked the editor to restrict their edits to the talk page.

Anyway, if an admin could look over these issues and lend a hand, I'd appreciate it. Thanks, I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 02:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

RussellBarkley also seem to be making legal threats "If such statements are not revised, I would not be surprised if Wikipedia will be hearing from the Legal Department of Eli Lilly".  Tigerboy1966  07:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Russell Barkley has now retracted the legal threats. Most of the "Controversy" of the article was unsourced, and the part of it which claimed to be sourced misrepresented the source in some significant respects, and made at least one statement which was clearly untrue. I have therefore removed the section, and posted to the talk page of the editor who created it, explaining the need for reliable sources for potentially controversial statements about a living person. It may well be, however, that part of the content of the section was valid. If so, then anyone willing to take the time and trouble can sort the wheat from the chaff and restore that part of the content with suitable reliable sources to support it. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Accusation of bad faith

User:Aprock has accused other editors and myself of acting in bad faith here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Category:Organizations_designated_as_hate_groups_by_the_SPLC stating: 'Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda'. This is a outrageous allegation. He has been unable to justify it. At the other forum here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_12#Category:Organizations_designated_as_hate_groups_by_the_SPLC he is also taking peoples comments out of context and being disruptive. This is occurring due to a discussion about the Category:Organisations designated as hate groups by the SPLC. The SPLC is widely recognised as a reliable academic source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-McVeigh-106 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-Chalmers-107 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-Barnett-108 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Poverty_Law_Center#cite_note-109 In addition, the SPLC works with the FBI: 'The FBI has partnered with the SPLC "to establish rapport, share information, address concerns, and cooperate in solving problems"' As long as the article of the 'hate group' contains a citation of the specific claim by the SPLC that the group is a hate group, I can't see how the category itself violates WP:NPOV because we are not endorsing the SPLC's view - we are simply reporting it. LordFixit (talk) 04:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Support this comment - Unfortunately, category (and template) abuse has become one of the holes in current process of curating content. When POV pushers cannot get their content into the main body of the article, they often turn to these less monitored alternatives to present their own agenda'. - this seems like the worst of the wiki en project - overly opinionated contributors using the wiki to promote their opinions supported by off wiki opinionated outlets - bias supported by bias - presented as if WP:NPOV, the very worst kind. Mosfetfaser (talk) 06:55, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Mosfetfaser is an editor who has been involved in the discussions. LordFixit (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

And? so? I made a single contribution to the discussion only after stumbling on this thread - see here for my additions - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mosfetfaser - Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• The issue appears to concern Category:Organizations designated as hate groups by the SPLC (a category recently created by the OP, now nominated for deletion). The discussion at NPOVN has a very moderate comment by aprock with the opinion that subjects should not be labeled as "hate groups" via a backdoor method such as an arbitrary category (it's arbitrary because whereas it's known that the Southern Poverty Law Center#SPLC study very disagreeable groups, there is no scholarly and neutral definition of "hate group" suitable for a defining property). Aprock then suggested that comments about NPOV issues should be at NPOVN, but LordFixit's response was to claim that no issues had been raised, and this ANI report was apparently their only substantive response. If no further evidence is forthcoming, a minor WP:BOOMERANG should be applied to the OP. @LordFixit: there is nothing in Aprock's comment that warrants attention here; this project requires reasonably robust discussion, and anyone wanting to apply a "hate group" category on various articles should be prepared to engage in detailed discussion on the issue. Johnuniq (talk) 07:19, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

To accuse someone of acting in bad faith and being biased in wrong, unless you have clear evidence. The SPLC is widely regarded as a reliable academic source. I am not endorsing the classification of any group as a hate group, nor does the category. It simply reports on the classification. The category does not breach WP:NPOV. It does not endorse the classification, it simply reports it like Category:United Kingdom Home Office designated terrorist groups or European Union designated terrorist organizations LordFixit (talk) 07:35, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

So stop accusing Aprock of acting in bad faith. Ow , and me, because I made a single comment Mosfetfaser (talk) 07:47, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Concerning the first comment in the thread: every AGF has some limits. The disputed comment was critical of some things, but most definitely not a formal personal assault. I for one am not assuming much good faith from users who try to smear UKIP as far-right [219] or even 'racist' ('[220]'). The guy is obviously out at filing some kind of spurious thread against anyone he disagrees with (e.g. he claims I have a conflict of interest concerning UKIP, though I'm not even a Brit).Lokalkosmopolit (talk) 11:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The country you live in does not determine whether you have a conflict of interest. Your actions and words do such as your support for the English Defence League and your attacks on Islam and Muslims. Reliable, academic sources define UKIP as far-right. How is that a 'smear'? If anyone wishes to see what he means, please look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Lokalkosmopolit_and_far-right.2C_racist_groups LordFixit (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

They do? I'd imagine "reliable academic sources" would see the British National Party as being more representative of the "far right" in UK Politics. But hey, we seem to have strayed onto content. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia user contacts press to discuss controversial move request.

After looking at the updated progress at WP:ANRFC (I mentioned a large backlog in a message above), I read through the contentious debate at Cannabis (drug). The user Msnicki is not satisfied with the outcome and she has begun a move review (is it any wonder that administrators are reluctant to close these requests?). After reading through the evidence, I placed my opinion on the page. I also noticed a link on Wikipedia to an online article, where Msnicki has contacted the press to give her opinions about the discussion. There is ominous language here, including threats to continue the discussion indefinitely. I have provided the link at WP:Move review/Log/2014 April and copied the relevant details. Since I am concerned about this matter, I thought it would be best to inform administrators here. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would just like to make it clear that I am not requesting any kinds of sanctions. I am just concerned about the approach taken and felt, for reasons of openness and clarity, that it should be reported in case any actions are necessary. I have no personal involvement in the discussion other than the judgement I posted on the move request page and I do not have any strong opinions, other than general concerns, about what should be done. 86.170.98.9 (talk) 17:08, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

3 words: absolutely; fricking; unacceptable. WP:NOTHERE has now raised its ugly head ES&L 16:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Hmm, it does look like somebody whose sense of priorities is a bit off, but I don't really think it's any kind of sanctionable misbehaviour. It's not like she publicly denigrated any of her opponents or attempted to create real-life problems for them, or even just to canvass outside voters, nor does it seem as if it had any significant effect on the course of the further debate, did it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

(ecx2) I appreciate your intention in bringing this here, but it's not that big of a deal. The worst fallout from that action would be for a number of anonymous editors or newly-created single-purpose accounts to try to sway the discussion. That hasn't happened, and even if it did, since such discussions aren't "votes" they would be unlikely to alter the course of the debate anyway. I don't see any direct canvassing going on and editors are free to do whatever they want outside of Wikipedia. I prefer to keep my on-wiki and off-wiki lives separate (and definitely don't like what I do here ending up in the press in any form) but other people aren't so inclined, and I don't fault people for it. -- Atama頭 16:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Msnicki agreed to the policies and processes of Wikipedia when she signed up. "Going to the press to bitch about it" is not one of those processes ES&L 16:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of a "don't go to the press" policy. Really, it's not uncommon for editors to discuss on-wiki issues with the press, sometimes with infamous results. It's not exactly canvassing either, I don't see anything in the article that encourages people to come to the discussion to intervene (nor did I see that the story even suggested that people could). Editors often discuss on-wiki things on their own blogs, is it any more harmful to do it through a journalist's blog? (That's what this was, this wasn't an actual newspaper story or anything, not that it would be much worse if it was.) I don't really see what is all that objectionable about it. Maybe it's a bit self-promotional, but so what? -- Atama頭 17:20, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I dont see a problem - would even be good if it had generated new interest in the topic and thus new editors (does not look like it has). Perhaps the results of the poll will help resolve any concerns Msnicki has about our process getting it wrong. -- Moxy (talk) 18:34, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I think "don't go to the press" is a given. Wikipedia is not the 'fairness encyclopedia'. Our policies are designed to attempt to gain neutrality and facts. Ironically, the modern mainstream media no longer works under the same principal and we rarely, if ever, receive fair coverage. They don't understand our policies and our goals and they arn't interested in understanding either. It's more important that we do what's fair or 'right'. Msnicki specifically choose a pot related column to express her angst at. According to WP:CANVASS, she choose her audience and that's called 'votestacking'. That's against guidelines.--v/r - TP 19:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I would agree it was not the best course of action, but I dont see how we can expect our editors not to vent freely. There are whole sites dedicated to this fact (wikipediocracy). We will have to expect that frustrated editors will look for validation in other places. In this case it may even provided a third party prospective from the "pot" community of Seattle. I see no behaviour that would warrant any sanctions by the community - at most there is just a loss of confidence in the editors ability to have an amicable resolution and respect the community processes. -- Moxy (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's only canvassing if you're asking people to intervene. Any canvassing would have been indirect, I see nothing from Msnicki asking people to participate in the discussion (even in a neutral tone). It's also difficult to figure out how much of what's in the blog post was her idea, and how much was the blog author's idea. In any event, if Msnicki was attempting to get support for the discussion it backfired. No new support showed up and the poll in the blog was overwhelmingly against her. In any case, I don't see how our canvassing policy was violated, you need to show that it was "done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion in a particular way" and that's probably impossible to prove here. -- Atama頭 19:59, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

• Just remember that even if the user mentions their real name in the press in order to promote their POV, to then mention on Wikipedia the name the user has freely given in the press, is "oouting" and will get you desysopped and possibly banned altogether. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
  • No, linking the user's real name to their Wikipedia name where they have not already done so in public would be outing. Doing it after they have already linked it in public and on Wikipedia is not outing. And everything in between is a grey area that we've never been able to develop a consensus on and Arbcom hasn't settled either so chill your silly threats. You continue to be one of the least policy-informed administrators I've ever met and I continue to laugh at you when you make black-and-white threats. We don't operate on a zero-tolerance policy on Wikipedia, we treat each case individually and based on it's own merits. And for what? No one here has linked to that article. What has your threat done at all here?--v/r - TP 23:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • It's definitely a grey area. Msnicki volunteered her real life identity, connected to her Wikipedia identity, as she freely admits: "I gave him my real name and contact information but did not identify which of the comments were mine. I heard nothing from him until 27 February, when he sent mail asking if he could interview me on the phone and if I would be willing to be identified." The reason why this is a grey area is because our harassment policy allows us to mention personal information volunteered on the project. But she has said on Wikipedia (as I just quoted) that she allowed herself to be identified there, so is that equivalent? I honestly don't know. Frankly, I wouldn't want to be the person to bravely step forward and test the theory, and I would advise against anyone else doing it; I think doing so could be controversial and would at the very least lead to some kind of drama-filled argument at the Village Pump or the Harassment Policy talk page or here at ANI or someplace. So I wouldn't be the person to do it. -- Atama頭 23:40, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
    • Also, I read Guy's comment here as a bit tongue-in-cheek, an allusion to people overreacting on ANI (which is unfortunately all too common). An instant de-sysop and site ban for a borderline outing situation is unlikely at the least and I'm sure he knows that. :) -- Atama頭 23:44, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Bundy standoff

Bundy standoff needs some supervision by experienced editors. It is attracting editors with strong political beliefs which are becoming evident in the article. — goethean 16:21, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest we consider including this article under the Tea Party movement Arbcom sanctions. However, at this time I don't see a strong enough connection. There was participation by the Tea Party movement but I think we'd need a source tying Clive Bundy to the tea party to wrap this under those sanctions. That or Arbcom finishes up on the Gun Control case.--v/r - TP 17:54, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the Tea Party has been involving itself in the case, whether Bundy's involved with them or not, so the sanctions would apply. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good point. This is clearly a Tea Party golden egg and is going to attract the proponents and opponents that were involved in the Tea Party case.--v/r - TP 18:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay...sorry for making a comment on your territory? — goethean 18:09, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Take it easy, goethean, please. Drmies (talk) 19:29, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not even sure who that's directed at. Goethean, are you responding to me or Sarek and what specifically are you responding to?--v/r - TP 19:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible system gaming

I was earlier alerted to a discussion at Template talk:Location map Israel by it being posted on WikiProject talk page. Having looked into it in a bit more depth, it would appear that it goes back to a dispute over File:Israel location map.svg. This, as far as I can see, did not end in any form of consensus. However, from what I understand/have been told, an editor on the pro-change side has created a new map, and redirected existing displays of the old map to the new one. This seems to me to be a classic gaming of the system, so I think much wider input is required at the discussion in question to look into this in more depth and to reach a conclusion which is not slanted in favour of whichever side of the Israel-Palestinian debate has the most editors. Cheers, Number 57 18:14, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

You should have informed me of this WP:AN/I and I was even not aware of the discussion at Template talk:Location map Israel. I have just seen a discussion on Yhockey's talk page.

I add that I am not pro-change. Change seems obvious to me. Golan and East-Jerusalem are not in Israel and the border was badly located.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Why should I have informed you? You are not anything to do with the current discussion. Number 57 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand. When you wrote "an editor on the pro-change side has created a new map", I thought that you was talking about me. I did exactly the same totally independantly on another map.

Pluto2012 (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

The dispute occured at commons, where consensus and npov have no effect on user uploads, not en.wiki.. Many editors have stated that the old map violated en.wikis NPOV and thus had to be removed. What concerns me is why Number57 came to ANI rather than to my talkpage where several editors are discussing creating npov maps. Sepsis II (talk) 18:25, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

I have brought the issue up here to seek input beyond the usual cohort of editors whose stances on issues can be predicted with almost as much certainty as the tides. I am not sure why having more people involved in the discussion is a bad thing. Number 57 18:32, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

What type of administrator actions are you asking for exactly? Sepsis II (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Involvement in the discussion mainly. A lot of non-admins watch this board too. Number 57 18:42, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

It's just people genuinely trying to make the encyclopedia better. It usually is. It's probably better to stay focused on the forest rather than be distracted by the trees. These maps need to be fixed at some point and anyone willing to try should be commended, even if they make mistakes along the way. The fact that the issues are being discussed again is a good thing, whatever caused that to happen. The maps have been a source of low level conflict for years, for obvious reasons. People should collaborate in good faith to achieve an outcome that complies with policy and stay focused on finding a solution. Sean.hoyland - talk 19:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Eyes needed at Christopher Ferrara AfD, puppetry & SPAs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Ferrara

I fear we're about to be set upon by outside interests intent on propping up the bio of one of their own, as several "new" accounts have shown up, an IP posting on behalf of an outside person, and so on. This is connected to the recently-recreated Neo-Catholicism article, and the push to keep that in article-space. Tarc (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2014 (UTC)